OPEN THREAD: Wisconsin Recall Edition

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

All the majors are calling it at this point: Scott Walker has survived the recall.

What does this say about the last 18 months in Wisconsin? About the labor movement in general? Any significant impact on the national electorate?

Consider this a breaking news open thread.

Comments

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

What does it say? It says progressives and conservatives had rather declare war on each other at every turn - to score Brinksmanship points - than sit down and act like adults.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

+1

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Nearly kicked out of office for his terrible leadership but barely survived: MANDATE THE PEOPLE LOVE HIM

[major-dallas.livejournal.com]

Walker won the Governor's Office with 52%(1,128.941) of the Vote in 2010 and then survived the Recall with 54%(1,219,595), against the same opponent, looks like an uptick in approval actually... I should also note not all votes are in yet... so maybe it isn't a Mandate that you mocking him for not having, but at least the majority of Wisconsin voters would rather have Gov. Walker's austerity measures than not, and that does speak volumes...

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Imagine all the money wasted by the state on this.

Seems like a great idea while you're having money issues.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Walker's victory owes a great deal to the fact that he had a huge cash advantage over Barrett - he outspent him seven to one. Much of his money came from wealthy donors like the Koch brothers, many of whom were out-of-state.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

That seems to be the primary excuse.

What else ya got?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It says that the people who did this recall don't know how to organize a tea party, let alone an election.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I'd be curious to understand why you disagree with Nate Silver's account (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/governors-races-can-be-a-contrary-indicator-for-presidential-elections/).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where I said I agreed or disagreed with it. Having only read it now and having done no research on my own, I couldn't tell you a thing about it.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

So if you shout open thread you don't have to make a paragraph of your own thoughts?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's something we've been experimenting with on big news nights.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

So in the original election, Barret got 46% of the votes.

The recall petition had around a million signatures, roughly 46% of the number of total votes from the original election.

I don't see how anyone can look at that coincidence and not see this as a complete waste of time and money.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Seeing as the recall was on behalf of those opposed to Walker's austerity measures I would assume that the money was of no object.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

To me, this (http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/04/wisconsin-recall-battle-finally-goes-to-voters) is the more distressing point of the night.

"The majority of Walker's donations have come from people outside Wisconsin. Most of Barrett's $4.2 million came from inside the state."

The idea that a campaign for governor of a state can be majority-funded by people from outside of the state seems pretty fucked up. I'm not a fan of unlimited campaign financing as it is, but the idea that someone can just wake up and go "I think I'm going to dump millions of dollars into the campaign of a person who doesn't even govern my own state's policies" seems like the saddest example of democracy gone crazy as of late.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

This.

To address the OP: I think it means fuck-all for the labor movement or national electorate in general. What it is a shining stinking example of the US's on-going slide into plutocracy.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

So what exactly does this mean for cheese?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to see that someone realizes what is really important ;)

[dwer.livejournal.com]

sixty-three million dollars spent in a state as small as Wisconsin makes a lot of things foregone conclusions.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

So, the trick seems to be..... suck money out of them on election advertising faster than they can make it back on sweetheart deals and crippling labor. Maybe in the long game it can be made unsustainable.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

If you don't win....Spin!!!!

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

And if you can't win fairly on the issues, run tens of millions of dollars in attack ads financed by billionaires who don't even live in the state using a child who was beaten nearly to death to falsely tarnish your opponent.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Proof positive that democracy has been murdered by the Citizens United decision.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

+1

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I guess it just goes to show that if you outspend your opponent 10-1, and have an unlimited cash fountain at your disposal, you will probably more often than not win the election. Given that Rove/Koch and Co. are ready to reproduce this on the national level, to the tune of more than a billion dollars of soft money attack ads, the result tonight doesn't bode well for democracy in this country.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

I totally agree, that's the reason why Obama won in 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Overall, Obama has outspent McCain by nearly 3-to-1, but in the closing week it’s been closer to 5-to-1.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

i am kind of amused at the excuses coming from the left. "OMG it had to be the money!".

have they ever considered that maybe Walker was just a better candidate who inspired a lot of conservatives in the state? reminds me of the 2008 presidential election actually. sometimes you just lose on the merits.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Which would be well worth considering if the spending levels weren't literally ten to one, with 75% of that coming from outside the state, for Walker.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

I suppose it says that the majority of Wisconsin voters approve what Walker has done so far. And the democratic process worked? I don't consider it a waste. They tried it, exercised their rights and gave it a good shot. What they thought was a mistake has been proven as something the voters really wanted.

I was disappointed in a voter on the news who said that she voted for him because "we ought to let him finish his term," and provided no reason beyond that. It made me wonder if some voters thought it was "unfair" for him to be recalled.

I think Obama has and will work to minimize impact, and Romney will try to maximize it. I don't think it will have much impact, in the big picture.

It does make me wonder about the thought process between voting R or voting D. I wish I understood that better.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's like how Congress approval rating is always abysmal but when you ask people about their personal representatives they always approve of them. Walker was our guy to them.

It also doesn't help when you put up the dude against him as the one who lost to him in the first place. Running Barrett against him was the fatal mistake. Of course people who voted for Walker before are going to vote for him again, it's not like they suddenly want Barrett now when they didn't before.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Walker outspent Barrett by what, an 8:1 ratio?

This proves Bob Dylan is right, money doesn't talk, it swears.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Ten to one.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Would you call ignoring that people are actually saying most of his money came from outside the state omitted bias or just a plain old strawman on your part?

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

What does it mean?

To quote David Frum this morning, it means that "The public sector's wages and benefits to follow private sector's into decline."

The middle-class cheers its own murder.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

It really doesn't matter. He's going to be indicted anyway.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Think so?

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

Unless someone is literally buying votes with money, how can he be said to be buying an election with money? It seems to me that buying an election would correspond more closely with promising constituents taxpayer money if you get elected -- a sort of advance bribing of the electorate -- that's "buying an election". As I understand it, Walker "bought" this election only if you consider him to have bribed taxpayers with the promise that he'd steal and spend less of their money, while his opponent was trying to "buy the election" by promising the public sector leeches that he'd steal more from the taxpayers to give to them.

The problem with such sloppy use of language is that people actually start thinking sloppily. No one bought the election. People bought advertising and services, but not votes (that we know of).

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

True enough, but I'd argue that those advertisements (depending on their content) CAN have a pretty large effect on voter opinions. Not for everyone (lots of people already make up their mind based on party loyalty and such) but enough to have an effect. And those ads aren't free... so if one guy has a barrage of ads just throwing everything at the wall, and the other guy can't do more than a couple ads... I'd argue that it MUST have a measurable effect on the election. Like someone said above, not enough to move a 0% approval up to 50, but enough to move things from, say, 40 or 45 to 50. And that can make all the difference sometimes.

I don't know how much of an effect it actually has, but I think position that some folks are arguing above (that it has "none") is a bit naiive. Whether it's as big an influence as some other people are arguing is beyond my expertise though. But IF it's a non-zero amount, if there's some influence there that money can grant, does that make the question of out-of-state donations, and other money concerns worth discussing?

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

It means that the party that almost four years ago cried: "YOU PEOPLE ARE HORRIBLE STOP GLOATING ABOUT YOUR VICTORY" is right now crowing "HA HA WHY DON'T YOU CRY ABOUT IT LOSERS!" I look forward to this cycle repeating in November, regardless of who wins/loses.

Also, if I see one more person retweet ""If you hear thunder tonight, it's just Breitbart and Reagan high fiving!", I am going to scream.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

And seriously: Breitbart and Reagan? If there actually was an afterlife, and the god(s) who ruled it were just, and Breitbart and Reagan somehow happened to end up in the same place, Reagan would punch Breitbart in the face. Repeatedly. While screaming "L'enfer c'est mon POING!"

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

Funny to see this and, in other cases, when democracy "goes wrong" or "fails us." On the one hand, left-liberals love the vote, getting involved, etc. so that the average person (the "oppressed") can have a voice in "their" government. But then when the voters do the "wrong thing" (ban same-sex marriage, reject higher taxes), the same folks then tend to not care so much about democracy anymore and clamor for judicial or executive intervention to "make it right." So which is it? There is a conflict there between issues-activism and the general desire of the public. Morons. Democracy: The Devil That Triumphed.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I am fascinated that the guy just woke up to a reality that has existed in the US for generations. Money talks and freedom walks.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Honestly, anyone who thinks Walker's win was legitimate is just plain wrong. Anyone who thinks Walker deserves to be in office, also wrong.

This wasn't an election won or lost by people. This was an election won by the corporations that gave millions and millions of dollars to Scott Walker so that he can keep terrorizing the people of Wisconsin.

And that's really all I'm saying about it.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Why is Walker's win not legitimate? Because he had more money to spend, or do you think there was voter fraud?