I guess more people in Wisconsin were in favor of how the Republicans were/are handling their state than some of us thought (including but not limited to the Teachers' Union fiasco).
Article HERE
Democrats Lose 4 of 6 Wisconsin Recall Elections
This topic is locked from further discussion.
There are 2 recall elections for Democrats coming up too. So either way, the democrats aren't going to take back majority control of Wisconsin.
It's funny. Last night the democratic party kept saying "walker's extreme attacks on middle class working families." Such an exagerration that people on the internet were wild about.
Basically now public employees need to pay a portion of their retirement. Not all of it, just an increase. Previously they didn't pay anything into it and were given quite a large 401k and retirement benifits packages all paid by the state taxpayers and cities. Now they have to pay and it was an "attack on middle class working families." School districts across the state are now able to post surpluses becasue they no longer have to pay as much into retirement. Most school districts are starting to hire teachers back. Also with collective bargining for public unions gone, they are starting pay insentive programs and are able to give more money to good teachers so that they stick around longer and continue to do a good job instead of ditching teaching to go to the private sector.
This also is the same for cities and counties who had to pay for some really large retirement packages. This takes the pressure off of the taxpayers. It is a slight pay decrease for public employees, there is no denying that. However it's a small tradeoff for the amount of jobs we are able to save in the public sector while being able to keep taxes lower in the private sector to hopefully keep private sector jobs from moving.
I have mixed feelings on recalls. I remember when Gray Davis got recalled in California - it seemed the process was a little too easy.
but the people are calling for it :| $40 million raised for 350,000 some votes which means each of those damn votes cost around $100K Worth it?I have mixed feelings on recalls. I remember when Gray Davis got recalled in California - it seemed the process was a little too easy.
sonicare
but the people are calling for it :| $40 million raised for 350,000 some votes which means each of those damn votes cost around $100K Worth it? Some people are calling for it. Certain states have recall systems that don't require as much votes as you would think. I just believe if you are going to recall a democratically elected official, you should require at least as many votes cast as when that person got into office.[QUOTE="sonicare"]
I have mixed feelings on recalls. I remember when Gray Davis got recalled in California - it seemed the process was a little too easy.
sandlot76
but the people are calling for it :| $40 million raised for 350,000 some votes which means each of those damn votes cost around $100K Worth it? Some people are calling for it. Certain states have recall systems that don't require as much votes as you would think. I just believe if you are going to recall a democratically elected official, you should require at least as many votes cast as when that person got into office.[QUOTE="sandlot76"]
[QUOTE="sonicare"]
I have mixed feelings on recalls. I remember when Gray Davis got recalled in California - it seemed the process was a little too easy.
sonicare
Yeah recalls can be called with less than a majority of the people calling for it. That's the problem.
Personally I'm against public unions having collective bargining rights or why public unions exist in the first place. I just can't condone voting for any republican, I've learned the hard way that agreeing with them on a single issue is not worth the entire conservative package.
This is really good news. Hopefully this will set an even bigger precedent for other governors to curtail union thuggery.
Man they are really out for walker's head. I guess the unions are not happy about losing power and are doing whatever they can to get a new govenor elected.
The democrats extremely agressive tone is not winning them any favors.
"So far more than $35 million has been spent on the recall races, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks political money. The spending on the nine races dwarfs the $19.3 million spent in last year's 115 legislative races, and approaches the $37.4 million spent in the race for governor.
The flow of money came as unions saw the recall elections as the best way to halt Walker's agenda and to send a message to other states considering changing their collective bargaining laws. Political observers are watching Wisconsin to see what the results say about the mood of the electorate leading up to next year's elections for president and Congress."
Wow, those unions are REALLY mad.
Stunning. In a blue state, the Democrats still couldn't get the state senate back. Mind you, there are still two Democrats up for recall soon.
You think that is an agressive tone........ check out Obama's strategy for the next election (considering he can't really run on his accomplishments).Man they are really out for walker's head. I guess the unions are not happy about losing power and are doing whatever they can to get a new govenor elected.
The democrats extremely agressive tone is not winning them any favors.
Wasdie
Politico Article HERE
I have mixed feelings on recalls. I remember when Gray Davis got recalled in California - it seemed the process was a little too easy.
sonicare
But that was a statewide election and the process isn't nearly as easy as you claim it is.
Well recall elections are interesting, I wonder what voter turnout was like.Stunning. In a blue state, the Democrats still couldn't get the state senate back.
QuistisTrepe_
Nothing ruins a state like political gridlock.
Good luck Wisconsin.
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.
Interesting take. Rather than lead with "Dems pick up two seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections" it's "Dems lose 4 of 6." A little context is in order.
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.nocoolnamejim
We'll see when the Democrats go through their own recall.
And I still hate quoting you.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Interesting take. Rather than lead with "Dems pick up two seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections" it's "Dems lose 4 of 6." A little context is in order.
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.airshocker
We'll see when the Democrats go through their own recall.
And I still hate quoting you.
Indeed. Democrats do still have two seats to defend. They defended their first one quite easily though and given that Republicans held on by the skin of their teeth last night, I'm feeling pretty good that the Democrats will hold onto the two seats they're defending relatively easily. We'll see shortly though.Indeed. Democrats do still have two seats to defend. They defended their first one quite easily though and given that Republicans held on by the skin of their teeth last night, I'm feeling pretty good that the Democrats will hold onto the two seats they're defending relatively easily. We'll see shortly though.nocoolnamejim
I don't know man, people were pretty outraged that they jumped over state-lines to avoid doing their job. I understand you have a position to defend, but you don't do it by holding up the legislative process. You make your case and vote.
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]Well recall elections are interesting, I wonder what voter turnout was like.Stunning. In a blue state, the Democrats still couldn't get the state senate back.
chessmaster1989
From the article linked in my district, district 10, there were more who showed up for this election than did for the governor's election.
That speaks pretty loudly on how the unions have really made a fuss about things after the election.
Interesting take. Rather than lead with "Dems pick up two seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections" it's "Dems lose 4 of 6." A little context is in order.Interesting take, considering not too long ago you seemed pretty convinced that there would be outrage against the GOP during the whole Teachers' Union thing, when you said, "Basically, the GOP overreached here with a nakedly partisan effort to attack groups that traditionally vote Democrat as their first act in office in this state. The voters realized that, and aren't pleased." I guessmore than enough are pleased?
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.nocoolnamejim
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Indeed. Democrats do still have two seats to defend. They defended their first one quite easily though and given that Republicans held on by the skin of their teeth last night, I'm feeling pretty good that the Democrats will hold onto the two seats they're defending relatively easily. We'll see shortly though.airshocker
I don't know man, people were pretty outraged that they jumped over state-lines to avoid doing their job. I understand you have a position to defend, but you don't do it by holding up the legislative process. You make your case and vote.
Yeah, that is pretty shady. Why can't they just filibuster. I think if a politician crosses state lines to refuse to vote then their vote should be taken off the table.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Indeed. Democrats do still have two seats to defend. They defended their first one quite easily though and given that Republicans held on by the skin of their teeth last night, I'm feeling pretty good that the Democrats will hold onto the two seats they're defending relatively easily. We'll see shortly though.airshocker
I don't know man, people were pretty outraged that they jumped over state-lines to avoid doing their job. I understand you have a position to defend, but you don't do it by holding up the legislative process. You make your case and vote.
Yeah that made a lot of people upset. Democrats constantly accuse the Republicans for childish behavior, but the Democrats just picked up and left when they were losing. To make it worse, the protests in Madison were comprised of teachers who didn't show up to their jobs so they could protest (which led to the shutting down of a good number of schools), comparisons of Walker to Hitler (something that only apparently the right wing tea-partiers do when comparing Obama to some communist), hundreds of people protesting about nothing (making peace signs, not even fully understanding what was going on just wanting to be apart of something bigger than it was), and the busloads of protesters brought in from out of state by the unions.
The unions also have been spending so much in campaigning this election saw nearly as much money as the entire governor's race earlier
This is not a good situation. The unions are doing whatever they can to get the power back instead of using that money to actually help the people they are supposed to be representing.
Interesting take. Rather than lead with "Dems pick up two seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections" it's "Dems lose 4 of 6." A little context is in order.
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.nocoolnamejim
Well I think the results are a little iffy for interpretation purposes. They're certainly not a full-on affirmation of the Republicans' policies, nor are they a rebuke of them. I think the media is just trying to make this into a bigger story by implying it's support for the (controversial) Republican policies in Wisconsin, which is a more interesting story than saying it's a wishy-washy result without huge interpretational significance. For example, imagine if Democrats had picked up one more seat (which itself is not actually that big for interpretational purposes but would have given the Democrats a majority). Then, the reports would be about how this was a complete rebuke of Republican policies, when taht would be overstating the results.
The only way I would have seen this having serious implications for how Wisconsin should be governed would have been with a 6-0 split either way, or perhaps with a 5-1 split for Democrats.
Interesting take. Rather than lead with "Dems pick up two seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections" it's "Dems lose 4 of 6." A little context is in order.
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.nocoolnamejim
If it was such a rebuke, then why did four out of six survive, given that at least two of the survivors are from districts that Obama carried in 2008? No one is weeping over the two scandal-ridden Republicans who lost. Scott Walker and his agenda had little to nothing to do with the two who lost.
350,000 votes were cast with Republicans totaling 53% of the vote. How is this a rebuke of Walker and a victory for the unions again? I'm confused here.
Interesting take, considering not too long ago you seemed pretty convinced that there would be outrage against the GOP during the whole Teachers' Union thing, when you said, "Basically, the GOP overreached here with a nakedly partisan effort to attack groups that traditionally vote Democrat as their first act in office in this state. The voters realized that, and aren't pleased." I guessmore than enough are pleased?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Interesting take. Rather than lead with "Dems pick up two seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections" it's "Dems lose 4 of 6." A little context is in order.
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.Planet_Pluto
Given that Republicans just LOST 33% of the seats they tried to defend, I think my comments are pretty justified. Again, context matters. Only 13 recalls in state elections have been successful in our country's entire history. Democrats just succeeded twice last night. That's a pretty stinging rebuke. 33% is a way better winning percentage than Republicans just had in the 2010 Congressional elections.
[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Interesting take, considering not too long ago you seemed pretty convinced that there would be outrage against the GOP during the whole Teachers' Union thing, when you said, "Basically, the GOP overreached here with a nakedly partisan effort to attack groups that traditionally vote Democrat as their first act in office in this state. The voters realized that, and aren't pleased." I guessmore than enough are pleased?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Interesting take. Rather than lead with "Dems pick up two seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections" it's "Dems lose 4 of 6." A little context is in order.
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.nocoolnamejim
Given that Republicans just LOST 33% of the seats they tried to defend, I think my comments are pretty justified. Again, context matters. Only 13 recalls in state elections have been successful in our country's entire history. Democrats just succeeded twice last night. That's a pretty stinging rebuke. 33% is a way better winning percentage than Republicans just had in the 2010 Congressional elections.The 66% victory for the GOP supports my final statement, that more than enough people are pleased.
Considering that the democrats were the driving force behind the recall, I'd say they fell short of their goals.
As you and someone else mentioned earlier, the full scope of their failure will be after the next set of recall elections.
[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Interesting take, considering not too long ago you seemed pretty convinced that there would be outrage against the GOP during the whole Teachers' Union thing, when you said, "Basically, the GOP overreached here with a nakedly partisan effort to attack groups that traditionally vote Democrat as their first act in office in this state. The voters realized that, and aren't pleased." I guessmore than enough are pleased?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Interesting take. Rather than lead with "Dems pick up two seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections" it's "Dems lose 4 of 6." A little context is in order.
1. In the entire history of our nation, recall elections have succeeded in kicking out an incumbent a whopping 13 times. Democrats just did it twice in one night. 2. Democrats just had a 33% win rate of Republican held seats. If they have a similar "loss" rate in the next Congressional elections say hello to Speaker Pelosi with huge majorities again 3. Republicans just went from a 19-14 majority to a 17-16 majority in an off-year election. I'd say that these results can be interpreted as a rebuke against the new policies in Wisconsin, not something Republicans should be happy about.nocoolnamejim
Given that Republicans just LOST 33% of the seats they tried to defend, I think my comments are pretty justified. Again, context matters. Only 13 recalls in state elections have been successful in our country's entire history. Democrats just succeeded twice last night. That's a pretty stinging rebuke. 33% is a way better winning percentage than Republicans just had in the 2010 Congressional elections.
As said before, the two that lost were already in some deep heat because they weren't that good of politicans. Lots of scandles and other bad new for them spelled their doom.
Also a winning percentage of 33% kind of throws off the whole thing that it was just 2/6, not several dozen like during the 2010 congressional elections.
Given that Republicans just LOST 33% of the seats they tried to defend, I think my comments are pretty justified. Again, context matters. Only 13 recalls in state elections have been successful in our country's entire history. Democrats just succeeded twice last night. That's a pretty stinging rebuke. 33% is a way better winning percentage than Republicans just had in the 2010 Congressional elections.The 66% victory for the GOP supports my final statement, that more than enough people are pleased.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Interesting take, considering not too long ago you seemed pretty convinced that there would be outrage against the GOP during the whole Teachers' Union thing, when you said, "Basically, the GOP overreached here with a nakedly partisan effort to attack groups that traditionally vote Democrat as their first act in office in this state. The voters realized that, and aren't pleased." I guessmore than enough are pleased?
Planet_Pluto
Considering that the democrats were the driving force behind the recall, I'd say they fell short of their goals.
As you and someone else mentioned earlier, the full scope of their failure will be after the next set of recall elections.
I see, so it only counts as a victory if they flip the Senate in one pass? Therefore the Republican pickups in the United States Senate were, in actuality, a loss because they didn't pick up ENOUGH to flip the United States Senate? It's simple numbers here. If the Democrats gain seats, then it's a win. Granted, it would have been a BIGGER win if they won enough to flip the Senate, but a net increase in seats IS A WIN. And the Democrats will pick up seats unless the Republicans win 100% of the Democratic seats up for grabs.[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]The 66% victory for the GOP supports my final statement, that more than enough people are pleased.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Given that Republicans just LOST 33% of the seats they tried to defend, I think my comments are pretty justified. Again, context matters. Only 13 recalls in state elections have been successful in our country's entire history. Democrats just succeeded twice last night. That's a pretty stinging rebuke. 33% is a way better winning percentage than Republicans just had in the 2010 Congressional elections.nocoolnamejim
Considering that the democrats were the driving force behind the recall, I'd say they fell short of their goals.
As you and someone else mentioned earlier, the full scope of their failure will be after the next set of recall elections.
I see, so it only counts as a victory if they flip the Senate in one pass? Therefore the Republican pickups in the United States Senate were, in actuality, a loss because they didn't pick up ENOUGH to flip the United States Senate? It's simple numbers here. If the Democrats gain seats, then it's a win. Granted, it would have been a BIGGER win if they won enough to flip the Senate, but a net increase in seats IS A WIN. And the Democrats will pick up seats unless the Republicans win 100% of the Democratic seats up for grabs.Yes, the republicans fell short of their goals in the Senate. Did picking up seats hurt? Of course not.The democrats efforts regarding the recall failed. Not really all that complex.
I see, so it only counts as a victory if they flip the Senate in one pass? Therefore the Republican pickups in the United States Senate were, in actuality, a loss because they didn't pick up ENOUGH to flip the United States Senate? It's simple numbers here. If the Democrats gain seats, then it's a win. Granted, it would have been a BIGGER win if they won enough to flip the Senate, but a net increase in seats IS A WIN. And the Democrats will pick up seats unless the Republicans win 100% of the Democratic seats up for grabs.Yes, the republicans fell short of their goals in the Senate. Did picking up seats hurt? Of course not.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]The 66% victory for the GOP supports my final statement, that more than enough people are pleased.
Considering that the democrats were the driving force behind the recall, I'd say they fell short of their goals.
As you and someone else mentioned earlier, the full scope of their failure will be after the next set of recall elections.
Planet_Pluto
The democrats efforts regarding the recall failed. Not really all that complex.
Republicans had a net win by picking up seats in the U.S. Senate in 2010. It would be disingenuous for Democrats to count that as a Republican LOSS because they didn't pick up enough seats to win control of the U.S. Senate. Similarly, describing a situation where Democrats picked up seats in the Wisconsin State Senate as a LOSS because they didn't pick up enough to flip control over the Wisconsin state senate as a loss for Democrats is also disingenuous.[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Yes, the republicans fell short of their goals in the Senate. Did picking up seats hurt? Of course not.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I see, so it only counts as a victory if they flip the Senate in one pass? Therefore the Republican pickups in the United States Senate were, in actuality, a loss because they didn't pick up ENOUGH to flip the United States Senate? It's simple numbers here. If the Democrats gain seats, then it's a win. Granted, it would have been a BIGGER win if they won enough to flip the Senate, but a net increase in seats IS A WIN. And the Democrats will pick up seats unless the Republicans win 100% of the Democratic seats up for grabs.nocoolnamejim
The democrats efforts regarding the recall failed. Not really all that complex.
Republicans had a net win by picking up seats in the U.S. Senate in 2010. It would be disingenuous for Democrats to count that as a Republican LOSS because they didn't pick up enough seats to win control of the U.S. Senate. Similarly, describing a situation where Democrats picked up seats in the Wisconsin State Senate as a LOSS because they didn't pick up enough to flip control over the Wisconsin state senate as a loss for Democrats is also disingenuous.As the poster above this one implies, there is a huge difference between a general election and a recall election. I agree that picking up seats is never a bad thing for a political party, but to try to paint this recall attempt as a success for the democrats.... now THAT is disingenuous.Republicans had a net win by picking up seats in the U.S. Senate in 2010. It would be disingenuous for Democrats to count that as a Republican LOSS because they didn't pick up enough seats to win control of the U.S. Senate. Similarly, describing a situation where Democrats picked up seats in the Wisconsin State Senate as a LOSS because they didn't pick up enough to flip control over the Wisconsin state senate as a loss for Democrats is also disingenuous.As the poster above this one implies, there is a huge difference between a general election and a recall election. I agree that picking up seats is never a bad thing for a political party, but to try to paint this recall attempt as a success for the democrats.... now THAT is disingenuous. I have to go to a work meeting now, so this will have to be my last post on this for the time being. 1. Is it disappointing that Democrats didn't take control of the Senate back again? Yes. 2. Is the recall effort a "failure" because they only picked up 2 seats instead of 3? NO. 3. Is winning 2 recall elections in a single night when only 13 have been won in the entire history of the U.S. a big accomplishment? Yes. Nate Silver has a good take on this. [quote="Nate Silver"] If you are going to read into the results, it is probably best to compare them to Mr. Walker's performance in 2010 rather than the margins that the state senators themselves achieved that year. Ordinarily, nobody pays much attention to state senate elections. If some Republican incumbent was re-elected with 70 percent of the vote in 2010, but survives the recall with 55 percent of the vote, it would be dubious to cite that as a sign of progress for Democrats since the elections were contested under substantially different circumstances. On the other hand, Mr. Walker carried the six districts on Tuesday's recall ballot by an average of 13 percentage points in 2010 - better than his statewide margin of 6 percentage points. If Democrats were to split the vote across these districts about evenly, that would be a reasonably troubling sign for Mr. Walker, however many of the seats Democrats actually win. Link To me, the headline should read: "Democrats take 2 Republican held seats".[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Yes, the republicans fell short of their goals in the Senate. Did picking up seats hurt? Of course not.
The democrats efforts regarding the recall failed. Not really all that complex.
Planet_Pluto
[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]As the poster above this one implies, there is a huge difference between a general election and a recall election. I agree that picking up seats is never a bad thing for a political party, but to try to paint this recall attempt as a success for the democrats.... now THAT is disingenuous. I have to go to a work meeting now, so this will have to be my last post on this for the time being. 1. Is it disappointing that Democrats didn't take control of the Senate back again? Yes. 2. Is the recall effort a "failure" because they only picked up 2 seats instead of 3? NO. 3. Is winning 2 recall elections in a single night when only 13 have been won in the entire history of the U.S. a big accomplishment? Yes. Nate Silver has a good take on this.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Republicans had a net win by picking up seats in the U.S. Senate in 2010. It would be disingenuous for Democrats to count that as a Republican LOSS because they didn't pick up enough seats to win control of the U.S. Senate. Similarly, describing a situation where Democrats picked up seats in the Wisconsin State Senate as a LOSS because they didn't pick up enough to flip control over the Wisconsin state senate as a loss for Democrats is also disingenuous.nocoolnamejim
If you are going to read into the results, it is probably best to compare them to Mr. Walker's performance in 2010 rather than the margins that the state senators themselves achieved that year. Ordinarily, nobody pays much attention to state senate elections. If some Republican incumbent was re-elected with 70 percent of the vote in 2010, but survives the recall with 55 percent of the vote, it would be dubious to cite that as a sign of progress for Democrats since the elections were contested under substantially different circumstances. On the other hand, Mr. Walker carried the six districts on Tuesday's recall ballot by an average of 13 percentage points in 2010 - better than his statewide margin of 6 percentage points. If Democrats were to split the vote across these districts about evenly, that would be a reasonably troubling sign for Mr. Walker, however many of the seats Democrats actually win. Nate SilverLink To me, the headline should read: "Democrats take 2 Republican held seats".Looks like ultimately, we're not going to agree on a headline. I'm fine with that. I would say that the answer to questions 2 & 3 should be 'No' as well.
In any event, good luck in the meeting. :)
[QUOTE="airshocker"]
Indeed. Democrats do still have two seats to defend. They defended their first one quite easily though and given that Republicans held on by the skin of their teeth last night, I'm feeling pretty good that the Democrats will hold onto the two seats they're defending relatively easily. We'll see shortly though.nocoolnamejim
I don't know man, people were pretty outraged that they jumped over state-lines to avoid doing their job. I understand you have a position to defend, but you don't do it by holding up the legislative process. You make your case and vote.
Yeah that made a lot of people upset. Democrats constantly accuse the Republicans for childish behavior, but the Democrats just picked up and left when they were losing. To make it worse, the protests in Madison were comprised of teachers who didn't show up to their jobs so they could protest (which led to the shutting down of a good number of schools), comparisons of Walker to Hitler (something that only apparently the right wing tea-partiers do when comparing Obama to some communist), hundreds of people protesting about nothing (making peace signs, not even fully understanding what was going on just wanting to be apart of something bigger than it was), and the busloads of protesters brought in from out of state by the unions.
The unions also have been spending so much in campaigning this election saw nearly as much money as the entire governor's race earlier
This is not a good situation. The unions are doing whatever they can to get the power back instead of using that money to actually help the people they are supposed to be representing.
Not really. I am not that surprised that there would be people who didnt fully understand what they were protesting to the fullest extent. But how much do you need to know to understand that Union rights are being taken away. Also, if teachers want to protest, then they have a right to strike if they think it will help, it isnt like they took months off from school or something. And according to the current system of government, you can go to another state to avoid something, given that might be an abusal of what was implemented in the first place.The spin doctoring in this thread is amazing. For what it's worth, Jessica King likely won't be around after 2012 due to redistricting.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="airshocker"]
I don't know man, people were pretty outraged that they jumped over state-lines to avoid doing their job. I understand you have a position to defend, but you don't do it by holding up the legislative process. You make your case and vote.
gaming25
Yeah that made a lot of people upset. Democrats constantly accuse the Republicans for childish behavior, but the Democrats just picked up and left when they were losing. To make it worse, the protests in Madison were comprised of teachers who didn't show up to their jobs so they could protest (which led to the shutting down of a good number of schools), comparisons of Walker to Hitler (something that only apparently the right wing tea-partiers do when comparing Obama to some communist), hundreds of people protesting about nothing (making peace signs, not even fully understanding what was going on just wanting to be apart of something bigger than it was), and the busloads of protesters brought in from out of state by the unions.
The unions also have been spending so much in campaigning this election saw nearly as much money as the entire governor's race earlier
This is not a good situation. The unions are doing whatever they can to get the power back instead of using that money to actually help the people they are supposed to be representing.
Not really. I am not that surprised that there would be people who didnt fully understand what they were protesting to the fullest extent. But how much do you need to know to understand that Union rights are being taken away. Also, if teachers want to protest, then they have a right to strike if they think it will help, it isnt like they took months off from school or something. And according to the current system of government, you can go to another state to avoid something, given that might be an abusal of what was implemented in the first place.Well the constant thought is this is an attack on middle class families as a whole. The unions spun it as this is nothing but big business taking over the state. All when both are totally false. There were tons of reports of college kids making peace signs and even protesting about stuff the federal government was doing. They had no idea what they were doing, but it looked good for the press. Also, as I mentioned, a lot of the protestors weren't even from Wisconsin, they were bused in by the unions from other states. Lots of people from Illinois were protesting.
Teachers striking doesn't really help their cause either. This isn't a private industry, this is a public sector with state taxpayer's money. It's a whole different ballgame.
[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Yes, the republicans fell short of their goals in the Senate. Did picking up seats hurt? Of course not.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I see, so it only counts as a victory if they flip the Senate in one pass? Therefore the Republican pickups in the United States Senate were, in actuality, a loss because they didn't pick up ENOUGH to flip the United States Senate? It's simple numbers here. If the Democrats gain seats, then it's a win. Granted, it would have been a BIGGER win if they won enough to flip the Senate, but a net increase in seats IS A WIN. And the Democrats will pick up seats unless the Republicans win 100% of the Democratic seats up for grabs.nocoolnamejim
The democrats efforts regarding the recall failed. Not really all that complex.
Republicans had a net win by picking up seats in the U.S. Senate in 2010. It would be disingenuous for Democrats to count that as a Republican LOSS because they didn't pick up enough seats to win control of the U.S. Senate. Similarly, describing a situation where Democrats picked up seats in the Wisconsin State Senate as a LOSS because they didn't pick up enough to flip control over the Wisconsin state senate as a loss for Democrats is also disingenuous. You can say what you want, but it's not disingenuous to call this a loss. Hell the MSNBC headline reads: "Democrats fall short in Wisconsin recall elections." They go on to say: "The outcome was a big setback for Democrats, organized labor, and progressive groups who'd sought retribution against six GOP allies of Gov. Scott Walker,"The point of this recall was to get back at Walker. He can't be recalled until next year so the unions thought they could spend big bucks and take back the senate to hurt him (even if it is just symbolic). They failed. That's it. Of course you are going to spin this as a win, but I can only begin to imagine what your posts would have been if the Democrats had won a 3rd seat. My lord.
Another quote from the Washington Post:
"But even the most loyal labor defenders acknowledged that the goal from the moment that Walker pushed a bill stripping public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights in March until yesterday's election was to take back the state Senate. And, close doesn't count in politics."
Republicans had a net win by picking up seats in the U.S. Senate in 2010. It would be disingenuous for Democrats to count that as a Republican LOSS because they didn't pick up enough seats to win control of the U.S. Senate. Similarly, describing a situation where Democrats picked up seats in the Wisconsin State Senate as a LOSS because they didn't pick up enough to flip control over the Wisconsin state senate as a loss for Democrats is also disingenuous. You can say what you want, but it's not disingenuous to call this a loss. Hell the MSNBC headline reads: "Democrats fall short in Wisconsin recall elections." They go on to say: "The outcome was a big setback for Democrats, organized labor, and progressive groups who'd sought retribution against six GOP allies of Gov. Scott Walker,"[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Yes, the republicans fell short of their goals in the Senate. Did picking up seats hurt? Of course not.
The democrats efforts regarding the recall failed. Not really all that complex.
limpbizkit818
The point of this recall was to get back at Walker. He can't be recalled until next year so the unions thought they could spend big bucks and take back the senate to hurt him (even if it is justsymbolic). They failed. That's it. Of course you are going to spin this as a win, but I can only begin to imagine what your posts would have been if the Democrats had won a 3rd seat. My lord.
Another quote from the Washington Post:
"But even the most loyal labor defenders acknowledged that the goal from the moment that Walker pushed a bill stripping public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights in March until yesterday's election was to take back the state Senate. And, close doesn't count in politics."
I'm still trying to figure out how an aggregate 47% of yesterday's vote is a "victory."
Stunning. In a blue state, the Democrats still couldn't get the state senate back. Mind you, there are still two Democrats up for recall soon.QuistisTrepe_I'm not surprised at this, because my home state of New York (a so-called "blue state") has had a Republican-controlled Senate for all but 2 of the last 17 years (it may be more... that's as far back as I can remember, and I'm too lazy to look up any further back than that).
In fact, just after the 2008 elections, they had a political map of New York that was much more "red" than "blue." I'll see if it's still floating around out there if I have time.
I'm not surprised at this, because my home state of New York (a so-called "blue state") has had a Republican-controlled Senate for all but 2 of the last 17 years (it may be more... that's as far back as I can remember, and I'm too lazy to look up any further back than that).[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]Stunning. In a blue state, the Democrats still couldn't get the state senate back. Mind you, there are still two Democrats up for recall soon.OrkHammer007
In fact, just after the 2008 elections, they had a political map of New York that was much more "red" than "blue." I'll see if it's still floating around out there if I have time.
I just wish we could get rid of Chucky Schumer already. Man I'm sick of seeing this guy talking about nonsense every single Sunday.I'm not surprised at this, because my home state of New York (a so-called "blue state") has had a Republican-controlled Senate for all but 2 of the last 17 years (it may be more... that's as far back as I can remember, and I'm too lazy to look up any further back than that).[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]Stunning. In a blue state, the Democrats still couldn't get the state senate back. Mind you, there are still two Democrats up for recall soon.Planet_Pluto
In fact, just after the 2008 elections, they had a political map of New York that was much more "red" than "blue." I'll see if it's still floating around out there if I have time.
I just wish we could get rid of Chucky Schumer already. Man I'm sick of seeing this guy talking about nonsense every single Sunday.I wish a real candidate would run against him. It's almost like he's unopposed in every freakin' election.I just wish we could get rid of Chucky Schumer already. Man I'm sick of seeing this guy talking about nonsense every single Sunday.I wish a real candidate would run against him. It's almost like he's unopposed in every freakin' election. New York sends liberals to Washington and conservatives to Albany.[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]
[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]I'm not surprised at this, because my home state of New York (a so-called "blue state") has had a Republican-controlled Senate for all but 2 of the last 17 years (it may be more... that's as far back as I can remember, and I'm too lazy to look up any further back than that).
In fact, just after the 2008 elections, they had a political map of New York that was much more "red" than "blue." I'll see if it's still floating around out there if I have time.
OrkHammer007
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]I wish a real candidate would run against him. It's almost like he's unopposed in every freakin' election.New York sends liberals to Washington and conservatives to Albany.As far as the Senate, yes. Most of the NY Assembly is Dems, so some of the liberals come here.OrkHammer007
Wisconsin government attacked teachers in the spring. In response to this the majority of people in the state said "....Yeah that's cool with us. They're just teachers after all."
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment