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]

By 69-28, voters support raising taxes on people with annual incomes of more than $250,000.
By 62-32 they support eliminating subsidies to oil and gas companies.
By 84-14 they oppose cuts in Medicare or Social Security.
By 50-46, they support cutting defense spending.
By 73-23 they oppose cutting Medicaid and entitlements.
By 65-27 percent, they think the debt deal treated the elderly unfairly.
By 63-29, they think it treated the poor unfairly.
By 61-30, they think it treated the middle class unfairly.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/08/119959/poll-americans-see-debt-deal-as.html

As long as Americans are willing to bend to their corporate masters instead of making their voices heard, we're going to continue along the same path of supply-side destruction. Progressive thought is actually shared by the majority, but our politicians only listen to the corporate entities that funded them, not their constituents.

The fact that people continue supporting these despots means there's deception and a misinformation campaign on a grand scale in this country.

Peace.

[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. ^

[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.

[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

[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.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

And what does your poll really show?

That more than 60% of the people surveyed have absolutely no fucking clue what was actually in the debt limit agreement since it did not contain any actual cuts directly it could not in and of itself have been fair or unfair to anyone.

Further it shows that more than 80% of the people are absolutely clueless about the numbers driving the national debt because cuts to Medicare and Social Security are unavoidable. It might somehow be magically possible to cut them in terms of cost without cutting benefit levels, most likely by restricting eligibility through means testing or some similar mechanism but cuts to those programs from a spending perspective are unavoidable and the sooner we actually make those cuts the less drastic they would be.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

most likely by restricting eligibility through means testing or some similar mechanism

If only. Someone who is making over 100k a year has absolutely no need to be collecting a $600/mo check from the government. Although I know that the cut-off level would represent a fairly small number (maybe 10-20% of the general population) but the savings could be a fairly significant number en masse.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Polls are not elections.