talkpolitics | Recall Elections

The Republicans retained the State Senate in Wisconsin yesterday:

Democrats won two state Senate seats in Tuesday's historic recall elections, but failed to capture a third seat that would have given them control of the chamber.

By keeping a majority in the Senate, Republicans retained their monopoly on state government because they also hold the Assembly and governor's office. Tuesday's elections narrowed their majority - at least for now - from 19-14 to a razor-thin 17-16.

Consider me very surprised, as I assumed we'd see at least 3-4 switch over. Of the losses, one was from a Republican in Democratic territory, and the other was immersed in a number of scandals.

What does this say about Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin? About the local impact of the changes in how the public sector deals with unions? Heck, about the popularity of the arguments put forth about the unions at all?

There are two recall elections for next week for Democratic incumbents, as well. I haven't seen polling for them yet.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I was going to ask you to still answer the question (What are you thinking is the difference between our system and "an actual representative democracy"?), but you seem to have sorta done that over here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1120455.html?thread=89477319#t89477319), so it obviously wasn't as hard to do as you wanted to make it seem.

And how exatcly is that supposed to reduce corporate influence or adress the issue of the people being "not fit to govern themselves"?

I just explained how I am not in favor of certain taxes, to counter your accusation that I thought they were all good. It's a case by case basis.

Good point, but now lets return to the initial argument, specifically that of people voting (as you put it) against thier own interests.

Your assumption as I understand it is that the majority of "un-rich" right-wing voters have been duped into voting Republican by evil corporate interests, correct?

The First Law of Thermodynamics clearly states, that there is no such thing as a free lunch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy).

Yep. I would say greedy corporate interests, not evil, but to each his own.

Take the money out of politics and politicians are beholden to their constituents instead of their funding sources?

wat

When stripped to it's bare mathematical bones the first law is that "you can't get something from nothing".

In other words, nothing is "free".

And the alternate vote will do this?

Ok, now let us parse some examples.

1: Let us suppose for a moment I worked on an oil rig, and that profits for Texaco means a fat paycheck and generous pension for me.

If my votes favor "Big Oil" am I not looking out for my own interests?

Likewise why should I vote for someone who's executive order put me out of a job? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/obama_administration_will_ban.html)

2: Apply the above argument to any other major industry.

3: Let us suppose for a moment for a moment that oversized national debts lead to civil instability. (A cursory review of recent European and South American history provides plenty of evidence to back this claim)

Would not a vote to "cut costs" not be a vote in favor of stability?

4: Progressives don't give a shit about the rural poor, as long as you get your "Cap & Trade" the people who grow your food and transport your goods are expendable (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1119289.html?thread=89457721#t89457721).

Befor you ask "When did that happen?" consider Cap and Trade when viewed from a rural american point of view.

Caps on energy production result in fewer jobs and higher prices.$4.00+ a gallon hits the guy driving a truck or tractor a lot harder than it does an urban commuter who rides the bus. Because modern industrial farming is an energy intensive activity food prices will climb accordingly. The push for more public transportation does little to benefit those effected because it's limited to major population centers. The rich will continue to get rich and the poor will get even poorer all in the name of saving the planet.

The message many on the left have embraced seems to be "fuck about those ignorant slope-heads in the flyover states?"

Those "Ignorant slope-heads" telling the left "Go fuck your selves!" is an entirely predictable reply.

Public finance will do that.

If my votes favor "Big Oil" am I not looking out for my own interests?

This example is not the type of person I'm talking about. Rich people voting to stay rich is a given. Poor people voting to stay poor is odd.

Would not a vote to "cut costs" not be a vote in favor of stability?

What the hell? Are you implying that I just want to raise costs? If I wanted to do that, I'd vote for tax cuts.

4: Progressives don't give a shit about the rural poor, as long as you get your "Cap & Trade" the people who grow your food and transport your goods are expendable.

I never said I supported cap & trade.

Your examples rely on too many naked assumptions about me.

It depends on what your point was.
If it was the voters of Minnesota habitually seem to vote in strange people than yes I was reinforcing with more examples.
OTOH if your point was Bachmann being elected proves people can't be trusted to vote, then my additional examples may help prove the point that people in Minnesota can't be trusted to vote.

My point is that what the voters choose isn't always the "best" option, for any definition of best.

This example is not the type of person I'm talking about. Rich people voting to stay rich is a given. Poor people voting to stay poor is odd.

Who said anything about being rich? I'm talking about the Roughknecks, Crane Operators, and Cooks.

What the hell? Are you implying that I just want to raise costs?

Based on a broad range of positions held by many progressives it would not be an illogical conclusion.

I never said I supported cap & trade.

But many Democrats do, which is a good reason for the rural poor to vote Republican.

Page 5 of 5

Recall Elections

no subject

Re: DQ!

no subject

Re: Voting against my own interest

no subject

Re: DQ!

Re: Voting against my own interest

Re: Voting against my own interest

Re: DQ!

no subject

Re: DQ!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject