Recall Elections

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

More white noise, surprising.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The people voting against their interests are either ignorant or deceived. There is no third option.

And honestly, kicking them and replacing them with Democrats who do the exact same thing isn't helping either. Local elections are so safe in some districts that it literally does not matter what the representatives do after they're elected, they'll STILL get re-elected.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Either that or it's not really against their interests (or, even if it is, they sincerely believe it's not).

If they believe it's not despite the facts, they're misinformed.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

If politicians ARE saying reasonable things, they're just lying and doing whatever they want no matter what the reasons they used for election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/politics/20freshmen.html

But, hey man... if you want to do away with vast amounts of governmental control because the system itself propagates corruption and malfeasance, then I'm with you.

No, I don't want to do do away with 'vast amounts of government control'. I want to end the 2-party system so we can get some real, non-corporate owned politicians into office. Public finance, alternative vote system, and real progressive candidates that have a shot to get elected. This country still has a shot of keeping its status as a superpower, but sooner or later income inequality will be so high that we will become a third world nation.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

We're discussing whatever it is I want to discuss. If I say that people are retarded and being exploited, then tough luck. They are. Voting to cut your own services is a symptom of buying into a rhetoric of fear and ignorance.

Your only argument is applying logical fallacies to me which only work when you invent my position every single fucking time.

Go ahead and reply. But this is the last time I entertain your stupid charade. You're beyond hopeless, delusional and part of the problem.

Good day.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Hilarious comment, thanks. Now I can go to lunch suitably entertained.

DQ!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

If I say that people are retarded and being exploited, then tough luck. They are.

^ Somebody please preserve this for posterity. ^

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Your only argument is applying logical fallacies to me which only work when you invent my position every single fucking time.'

Well to be fair, you argue against your own interests. That is it's in your best interest to entertain logic and make proper decisions.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Just let's calm down a bit, shall we?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And you/forbes are supremely qualified to determine what is or is not in the voters' interest?

I call bullshit (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/495398.html).

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That's a pretty good topic, because most your comments completely disagree with you.

"If you want to sell National Health-Care to an Economic-Conservative drop the sob-story about "how billy needs this operation but the greedy HMO turned him down." and start talking about how you're going to pay for it."

Yeah, I have tried that. The response is generally, "Oh, yeah, sure." ...dude, it says this is how it works HERE. "Yeah, it says that but that's not how it's going to work." Ok, so how does it work? "IT DOESN'T!" OH. Right. I forgot. It's all lies. This Congressional report on exactly how it impacts our district, this forecast that it cuts the deficit, these figures over here that show the amount of waste that will be eliminated. LIES. ALL LIES.

Actually, last time I argued it with a super-conservative (who, mind you, is only thus because she's a Christian and was told you have to be both) I was told that she hated liberals. When I said that was a rather un-Christian thing to say and I was disappointed, I was then attacked for being an atheist with no respect for religion. Then it went into how everything I was posting was wrong, "And I don't care what you say," was the final post I received before being ignored. - lux_angelis

meus_ovatio's reply is the best: Eh? We pay for it with taxes. Taxes are bad. Taxes are theft even. End of discussion.

sputtersputtersputter

In short, some people can't be reasoned with. And the question you posit of how you are going to pay for it proves it, because the answer is clearly taxation, yet the same people you claim are rational will assert that taxation is theft, and there's no arguing with them. That's what they will think for the rest of time. That the Founding Fathers cackled and rubbed their hands together when they put in the right to tax in the Constitution.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...And the question you posit of how you are going to pay for it proves it, because the answer is clearly taxation.

So let us follow the bouncing ball...

Let us assume for the moment that Universal healthcare is good and that taxes are bad.

The question thus becomes "does the good likely to be achived outwheigh the corisponding proportion of bad?"

In regards to you specific assertaion that people vote against thier interests I will re-iterate my position that you are in no position to make that distinction.

For example; I like collecting collecting VA benefits but if the choice is between VA benefits and balancing the budget I'll balance the budget because I care more about long term stability than I do short-term gain.

Another Example; If you're a Boeing employee any policy that helps Boeing means job security and a hefty pension for you. Who's to say that the "Corporate interests" are not your own.

Final example; the Democratic party has stated its intention to fuck-over the rural lower/middle classes. So a vote against them (even if it favors those evil corporatists) is a vote in support of "The People".

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. When your job involves driving a truck or tractor $4.00+ a gallon hits you a lot harder than it does urban commuters. 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 "who give's a fuck about those ignorant slope-heads in the flyover states?"

Telling the left "Go fuck your selves!" is an entirely predictable (and logical) reply.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The people voting against their interests are either ignorant or deceived. There is no third option.

Define what their interests are.

Voting against my own interest

[russj.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that it is in my best interest to receive free government food & housing,

in exchange for forced government servitude on Uncle Sam's Plantation.

Re: Voting against my own interest

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Yes, food stamps = labor camps.

Re: Voting against my own interest

[russj.livejournal.com]

Bra-VO!

Another straw man vanquished with dispatch!

Re: Voting against my own interest

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Free food + housing in exchange for forced labor camps.

Therefore, supporting food stamps is the same as supporting forced labor camps?

Help me wade through this nonsense.

Re: Voting against my own interest

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

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).

Re: Voting against my own interest

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's not hyperbole, you compared the public sector to the kind of institution that was the 19th Century Tea Party, complete with willful blindness with reality up to the very day before black United States soldiers entered the burned-out shell of Richmond.

Re: Voting against my own interest

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

*Ahem* The planters were 19th Century libertarians unwilling even to back the government they themselves created. They were so high on their own ideology that they directly sabotaged the Confederacy while multiplying every victory Grant won tenfold by so doing. Bad analogies lead to the people who make them looking like they know nothing of what they speak.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with Kylinrouge on the ignorance part. Most (and I will gladly stand by that statement) people are completely ignorant of the broader picture, and inconsequential things like "facts." Thus, the people that a person votes for is more often a result of:

Party Affiliation
Media Endorsements
Advertising!
Single Issue Voting
etc

I think it's obvious that the people in TP (and other political comms) tend to be the outliers, we actively research political issues rather than regurgitate sound bites.

The reason that voting changes in scope each year (in general) is not that people are less ignorant, but that the people voting are coming out in larger numbers for (XYZ) candidate. The silent masses can often disagree with the vote results, but couldn't be bothered to show up at the polls.

(The aforementioned was directed at ALL parties, not simply one or the other. IMO the reason that 2008 was such a slaughterhouse for example wasn't that the tide of American opinion had necessarily changed drastically - the 2010 elections proved that - but that the Republican base was so beaten down that they stayed home.)

[existentme.livejournal.com]

You left "good hair" off your list - unless maybe that comes under single issue voting.