• Scott Walker survives recall vote, wins by wide margin.
    96 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mon;36223771]wow you guys really are a bunch of sore losers[/QUOTE] sore losers is pretty much the definition of politics. [editline]6th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36223759]Can you please show one single fact to support this claim? Just one. Because, he has, like, 95% correlation. It might be a proof, but, you know, it's something.[/QUOTE] Actually, proof isn't needed to support my claim. Anyone with an unbiased point of view should be able to easily see that Walker didn't win because of all his campaign donations. Also, it's interesting the way you completely ignore my point about where Barrett's campaign donations came from.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;36223714]No, it's opinion. I hate to crush your dreams of being the top dog around the idealist forum, but the fact of the matter is, no amount of annoying phonecalls, commercials and newspaper articles are going to help sway public opinion to any noticeable degree. Walker won. Deal with it.[/QUOTE] Yes because a candidate with no money to advertise himself is on equal footing with someone with millions in personal and corporate contributions. Money brings in victory.
[QUOTE=Bentham;36223834]Yes because a candidate with no money to advertise himself is on equal footing with someone with millions in personal and corporate contributions. Money brings in victory.[/QUOTE] Money does not bring in victory in the way you seem to think. Most people here seem to have the idea that Walker won because of large campaign donations. 1. I saw at least as many barrett commercials as I did walker. Probably more, so there goes your point right off the bat. 2. Money does not get votes in any way but convincing via political ads, which most people already ignore, being set in their views.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;36223929]Money does not bring in victory in the way you seem to think. Most people here seem to have the idea that Walker won because of large campaign donations. 1. I saw at least as many barrett commercials as I did walker. Probably more, so there goes your point right off the bat. 2. Money does not get votes in any way but convincing via political ads, which most people already ignore, being set in their views.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about this particular situation, so there's goes your counter-point 'right off the bat'. And what do you mean 'most people'? Do you have anything to back that up? You're assuming that no one pays attention to political ads, but if that were true, I imagine they'd have stopped. Political ads, expensive campaigns, and immense personal advertising gives people a view of the candidate. Guess what, all that costs money. You can't run a campaign for free from your basement and expect to have any remote chance against someone who gets their name out using different forms of media, which cost money.
[QUOTE=Bentham;36223986]I'm not talking about this particular situation, so there's goes your counter-point 'right off the bat'. And what do you mean 'most people'? Do you have anything to back that up? You're assuming that no one pays attention to political ads, but if that were true, I imagine they'd have stopped. Political ads, expensive campaigns, and immense personal advertising gives people a view of the candidate. Guess what, all that costs money. You can't run a campaign for free from your basement and expect to have any remote chance against someone who gets their name out using different forms of media, which cost money.[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea how narrow-minded you sound? "IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LOAD OF FACTS TO BACK IT UP, THEN IT AINT TRUE!"/"I DON'T LIKE IT, SO IT AINT TRUE!" And your point about the other side being the underdog is complete bullshit, because Tom Barrett was getting some pretty generous corporate campaign donations too, buddy.
[QUOTE=Noble;36222464]I'm sorry, but that's pretty much the epitome of being a sore loser[/QUOTE] Just FYI I am born and living in Czech Republic, some ten thousand kilometers from this guy and this election, and don't plan to move to USA anytime. Here in my country the party I support is likely to win the next election. I have made my own opinion on the situation from studying both sides, and it's not really about rooting, it's sorta about seeing one side as not really something I would support, and the other being utterly catastrophic. Not to mention the fact this was a recall fucking election, which obviously means there's something wrong.
[QUOTE=elfbarf;36221997]Why are people rating "Winner"? This douchebag took away collective bargaining rights for state workers in Wisconsin. edit: and the main reason he survived was probably because he spent considerably more than Tom Barrett.[/QUOTE] You do realize there is no money to pay for the entitlements that all these Unions workers want, entitlements private sector workers don't get, and they are paid less. Heck my uncle is an engineer in the public sector in CA, the Union bosses here are corrupt as fuck and don't give a shit about the common people, and some Union workers are getting payed [B]more in retirement than in pre-retirement[/B] There [B]is no fucking money to pay for these entitlements private sector workers don't even have in the first place[/B] Not to mention Walker brought Wisconsin from a deficit when he came in office to a surplus now, why would the majority of people in WI not want him if the only people wanting to recall him are Union workers who are being paid more than private sector works and more benefits?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36224167]Not to mention the fact this was a recall fucking election, which obviously means there's something wrong.[/QUOTE] A recall vote doesn't necessarily mean the majority disliked him. Just means that those who did were very loud about it. Also if the above post is correct, I can see why he'd win.
[QUOTE=elfbarf;36221997]Why are people rating "Winner"? This douchebag took away collective bargaining rights for state workers in Wisconsin. edit: and the main reason he survived was probably because he spent considerably more than Tom Barrett.[/QUOTE] like $30m to $5m
I blame politicians or Union workers who promised money the state didn't have to a group of people the majority of WI people are not in At the end of the day the money is not there to pay for lifetime benefits that only go to public sector jobs that pay more than their private sector counterparts who don't even have nearly as many benefits Now if there was a tax increase on all people (even higher increase on the wealthy) than yeah I can see these benefits being kept, but right now [B]no state[/B] in the US can pay for this shit For example, here in CA, it is inevitable that all people aged 40 or so will [B]not[/B] get shit at retirement or all the entitlements they were promised, because there is simply to money to pay for it (CA is the most in debt state in the US, far more than double that of NY which is 2nd most in debt)
wah wah he won the popular vote twice in a row that isn't how democracy is supposed to work
[QUOTE=cccritical;36224528]wah wah he won the popular vote twice in a row that isn't how democracy is supposed to work[/QUOTE] But isn't [b]democr[/b]acy when only [B]democr[/B]ats win? :v:
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36224167]Just FYI I am born and living in Czech Republic, some ten thousand kilometers from this guy and this election, and don't plan to move to USA anytime. Here in my country the party I support is likely to win the next election. I have made my own opinion on the situation from studying both sides, and it's not really about rooting, it's sorta about seeing one side as not really something I would support, and the other being utterly catastrophic. Not to mention the fact this was a recall fucking election, which obviously means there's something wrong.[/QUOTE] Hows Walker's side "utterly catastrophic"? It's catastrophic because the state doesn't have the money to pay for these fantastic union demands? They don't have a "right" to get whatever they want at the expense of everyone else. They have a right to free speech and freedom of association. Those are their rights. Clearly the other candidates just weren't good enough to win the election, or Walker just wasn't bad enough for most people to decide to vote him out. According to the election, most people want Walker to stay, this is pretty clear, I don't see where the problem is. As far as the money, it's funny how no one here ever accuses Barack Obama of "buying" the 2008 election, even though he spent [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election"]402 million dollars more than McCain and close to 200 times more money than Nader, etc.[/url]
[QUOTE=Noble;36223022]He said "that particular part doesn't save any" in reference to the provision about having annual votes for the workers to decide if they want to be represented by a union. That doesn't mean the entire proposal doesn't save any money.[/QUOTE]Also watch the first video; it's a recording of the exact moment where the bill has its fiscal portion removed in order to be passed without the absent members. It is more-or-less [i]officially[/i] a bill which has nothing to do with money by the end of the meeting.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;36224136]Do you have any idea how narrow-minded you sound? "IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LOAD OF FACTS TO BACK IT UP, THEN IT AINT TRUE!"/"I DON'T LIKE IT, SO IT AINT TRUE!" And your point about the other side being the underdog is complete bullshit, because Tom Barrett was getting some pretty generous corporate campaign donations too, buddy.[/QUOTE] I reiterate once again, I'm not talking about this situation between Walker and Barrett, Jesus. Also where did I state that me not liking something makes it untrue? I don't care who won the recall, I was focused more on your point that money doesn't drive election results. Feel free to continue calling me narrow-minded because for whatever reason though.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;36223714]No, it's opinion. I hate to crush your dreams of being the top dog around the idealist forum, but the fact of the matter is, no amount of annoying phonecalls, commercials and newspaper articles are going to help sway public opinion to any noticeable degree. Walker won. Deal with it.[/QUOTE] a few decades of campaign finance legislation would like to have a word with you. so would half of the political science academia published in the US and around the world. BCRA (mccain - feingold), FECA, DISCLOSURE, the effects of Citizens United. Palda 1973, Gerber 98, Jacobson 90, a whole bunch of other shit I'm too lazy to dig up from my copies of APSR ASA & AJPS. Guess what: campaign spending by political challengers is directly related to how well they do. It's solid fact in political science, it's one of the (few) most backed theories in how to actually get elected. Increased campaign spending results in higher rates of campaign fundraising and media coverage, both of which are imperative to winning elections. It's true that incumbent spending is less effective than challenger spending, yes, but in most circumstances if you're able to outspend your opponent to an absurd degree, you've got a significantly better chance at winning :) now I don't know if that's what happened here, and I don't care. but I'm not about to let you run off with some amorphous idea of what constructs political opinion (as if political opinion is even reflected in election polls anyway, lol) as being completely independent from money. it's not. don't be dumb. anyone who watches the fucking primaries can tell that money is literally the most important thing in politics. [editline]6th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Strongbad;36223929]Money does not bring in victory in the way you seem to think. Most people here seem to have the idea that Walker won because of large campaign donations. 1. I saw at least as many barrett commercials as I did walker. Probably more, so there goes your point right off the bat. 2. Money does not get votes in any way but convincing via political ads, which most people already ignore, being set in their views.[/QUOTE] wait have you even been [B]watching[/B] the news because they've been talking about the resounding success of attack ads versus issue advocacy ads and pro-candidate ads for fucking months now. people don't "ignore them" at all. I also thouroghly enjoy how you say "MONEY DOESNT MATTER EXCEPT FOR POLITICAL ADS" which is exactly what the money is fucking for lmao, and then say "well not really actually the ads don't do anything" which is completely incorrect. what you just said is like me saying "my microwave doesn't do anything except for heat up my food" seriously are you just pulling this shit out of your ass?
Let's hear it for the tyranny of the majority!
[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;36225087]Let's hear it for the tyranny of the majority![/QUOTE] Hey, better than tyranny of the minority man. Also, I bet if the Democrat bloke won this election I would really doubt that you would say it's "tyranning of the majority", but just say something like democracy works or some shit.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;36222740]How many times do I have to say this? It doesn't matter how much funding Walker gets for his campaign, because [I]the people[/I] are voting, not the dollars. Also, where do you think Barrett got the money for his campaign from? [editline]6th June 2012[/editline] Honestly, people. Just because your side didn't get enough votes to win doesn't mean that IT'S ALL TEH EVUL CORPRSAHSUNS FAULTS!!11!1 [/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/R5Orf.png[/img] Actually, it does. It's a fact that those with more money and resources in an election in America will win the vast majority of the time. That's why incumbents in congressional, state, and govern elections almost always win. "...the percentage of incumbents who win reelection after seeking it in the U.S. House of Representatives has been over 80% for over 50 years, and is often over 90%." And it has to do with two things: name recognition and money. In elections where there is no incumbent, the one with the most money almost always wins because of the ability to give name recognition through campaign spending on commercials, billboards, signs, press conferences, etc, that a challenger may not have access to. This immediately gives a large advantage to a Republican candidate with business ties. I'm not saying that it's an unfair advantage, but an advantage nonetheless. My point is that, the people vote largely based on who gets shoved in their face the most. In the case of an incumbent, especially one with business ties, they're guaranteed to win because they have the money to get name recognition. So, basically, in American politics, it is the dollars voting because they people only see what the dollars show them. He who controls the dollars, controls the election.
[QUOTE=Noble;36224694]Hows Walker's side "utterly catastrophic"? It's catastrophic because the state doesn't have the money to pay for these fantastic union demands?[/QUOTE] So how much did we save specifically on the anti-union work? I'd be curious to see if any of you actually know. [QUOTE=Noble;36224694]Clearly the other candidates just weren't good enough to win the election, or Walker just wasn't bad enough for most people to decide to vote him out. According to the election, most people want Walker to stay, this is pretty clear, I don't see where the problem is.[/QUOTE] That might have been the [B]eight phone calls and commercials a day telling people to vote for Walker.[/B] [QUOTE=Noble;36224694]As far as the money, it's funny how no one here ever accuses Barack Obama of "buying" the 2008 election, even though he spent [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election"]402 million dollars more than McCain and close to 200 times more money than Nader, etc.[/url][/QUOTE] Oh hey, check it out, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque"]a logical fallacy.[/URL] [editline]6th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Baconator;36224232]Not to mention Walker brought Wisconsin from a deficit when he came in office to a surplus now, why would the majority of people in WI not want him if the only people wanting to recall him are Union workers who are being paid more than private sector works and more benefits?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/does-wisconsin-have-a-budget-deficit-4o3s9ro-137863973.html"]We don't have a surplus. We have a deficit. $3 billion was the expectation when it was disclosed.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36225948]So how much did we save specifically on the anti-union work? I'd be curious to see if any of you actually know.[/quote] Several million dollars in savings by not paying out [url="http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/examples-of-collective-bargaining-abuse.html"]outrageous benefits and collective bargaining abuses[/url] [quote]A Cedarburg school teacher was reinstated by an arbitrator after being fired for viewing pornography on a school computer. The school district ultimately succeeded in terminating the teacher only after taking the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayers. Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/23/08 [/quote] [url]http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/charliesykes/117579793.html[/url] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36225948]That might have been the [B]eight phone calls and commercials a day telling people to vote for Walker.[/B][/quote] Is there a source on this? [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36225948]Oh hey, check it out, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque"]a logical fallacy.[/URL][/quote] I wasn't using it as an actual argument, it was just a small digression
Is it illegal for your campaigners to call and ask people to vote for you?
[QUOTE=smurfy;36222720]It's not all bad! They recalled some state senators too and it looks like the Democrats have managed to gain a 1-seat majority so they will have to approve anything Walker wants to do[/QUOTE] It is one and it will probably go to a recount which the state will probably have to pay
[QUOTE=Noble;36224694]As far as the money, it's funny how no one here ever accuses Barack Obama of "buying" the 2008 election, even though he spent [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election"]402 million dollars more than McCain and close to 200 times more money than Nader, etc.[/url][/QUOTE] ps you're missing the part where only like 12% of barack obama's campaign funding was raised by organizations everything else was - guess what - individual contributions. Individual contributions can only be up to 2500. aka no millionaires made that huge difference, that was average americans. obama only raised like 80~ mil through PACs back in 2008. So that 402 million dollars? more than 3/4 of it was from average americans.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;36228648]ps you're missing the part where only like 12% of barack obama's campaign funding was raised by organizations everything else was - guess what - individual contributions. Individual contributions can only be up to 2500. aka no millionaires made that huge difference, that was average americans. obama only raised like 80~ mil through PACs back in 2008. So that 402 million dollars? more than 3/4 of it was from average americans.[/QUOTE] He's not criticizing where the money come, only that he spent more and won.
pps i'm still mad @ strongbad for being dumb [editline]6th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36228677]He's not criticizing where the money come, only that he spent more and won.[/QUOTE] yes but the other side of the argument is that we're criticizing where the money comes from. i don't care if someone raises billions of dollars (well, yes I do it's generally too much money to spend on elections) through individual contributions of 2500 and less - hell, usually it's way more than that in the 3-400 dollar range. I care if one fucker says "hi im gonna donate 10 million lmao". there's a critical difference between the "buying" of an election that we're talking about and what he's talking about. [editline]6th June 2012[/editline] so by trying to argue that you're trying to change what the core issue is. it's silly to try to change the subject like that :)
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;36228648]ps you're missing the part where only like 12% of barack obama's campaign funding was raised by organizations everything else was - guess what - individual contributions. Individual contributions can only be up to 2500. aka no millionaires made that huge difference, that was average americans. obama only raised like 80~ mil through PACs back in 2008. So that 402 million dollars? more than 3/4 of it was from average americans.[/QUOTE] Can you cite where only 12% was from organizations? I'm honestly quite surprised. And does that 12% contain contributions from celebrities. Celebrities are notorious for making large contributions, usually to democrat candidates.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;36229026]Can you cite where only 12% was from organizations? I'm honestly quite surprised. And does that 12% contain contributions from celebrities. Celebrities are notorious for making large contributions, usually to democrat candidates.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00009638]My source is opensecrets, an organization that organizes the reports put out by the FEC into data for anyone to view.[/url] And on "celebrities": you as an individual can only contribute 2500 dollars to any presidential campaign. That is an individual contribution. If you work with an organization, then it'd be placed either in a traditional PAC (which can donate 5k) or a SuperPac (which, thanks to fuckin citizens united, is unlimited - but faces some regulation and must operate independently of the campaign). The 12% is broken down [url=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638]here[/url].
[QUOTE=Noble;36226573]Several million dollars in savings by not paying out [url="http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/examples-of-collective-bargaining-abuse.html"]outrageous benefits and collective bargaining abuses[/url][/QUOTE] That's not a specific figure, that's a man with a stick up his ass citing sensational cases. I want a specific figure you can identify in our budget which was negated by Walker. [QUOTE=Noble;36226573]Is there a source on this?[/QUOTE] My living in Wisconsin and getting eight phone calls a day.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36230040]That's not a specific figure, that's a man with a stick up his ass citing sensational cases. I want a specific figure you can identify in our budget which was negated by Walker. My living in Wisconsin and getting eight phone calls a day.[/QUOTE] Is it illegal for campaigners to make phone calls to get people to vote?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.