Customer Discussions > Politics forum

The Real Reason Walker Won


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 131 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 12:51:28 PM PDT
JKW Retired says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:12:27 PM PDT
<<Are you saying Wisconsin has different campaign finance laws for incumbents than for challengers?>>

Yep.

"Walker was bolstered by wealthy out-of-state donors who gave as much as $500,000 each to his campaign under special state rules allowing incumbents to ignore contribution limits in a recall election. He raised $30.5 million compared to just $3.9 million by his Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, according to data compiled by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-influence-industry-in-wisconsin-recall-the-side-with-most-money-won-big/2012/06/06/gJQAkiG9IV_story.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:20:10 PM PDT
Ze'ev says:
I hope this continues to compensate for the fraudulent money that Obama will collect.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:47:36 PM PDT
VRWC says:
Ignoring, of course, the $20 million spent by the unions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:50:04 PM PDT
JKW Retired says:
"Walker was bolstered by wealthy out-of-state donors who gave as much as $500,000 each to his campaign under special state rules allowing incumbents to ignore contribution limits in a recall election."

Dang! If that's true, then good on Wisconsin!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 2:54:19 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Del Darmstadt says: "Not so fast. The Washington Post (source for the 7-to-1 figure) was only reporting what the *candidates* themselves were able to raise."

Walker had to raise that money because the other side initiated and financed the recall movement.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 3:35:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 3:37:03 PM PDT
Yeah, because Walker was such a great administrator that he thoroughly pissed off half the population of his state as soon as he took office, so much so that they took to the streets in anger and pitted neighbor against neighbor for 16 long months.

Under Walker's smooth "leadership" Wisconsin has lost private-sector jobs at a steady pace and is now dead last in job creation. That doesn't look to change anytime soon, and the deep division of the population doesn't make it too attractive a place to want to start a new business.

"Come to Wisconsin, where your children can be educated by our minimum wage teachers, and our governor won't hesitate to scroo you out of your benefits on behalf of his bazillionaire owners!"

Yeah, think I'll pass.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 3:39:23 PM PDT
Paul Crow says:
Well, my thought is that if someone becomes governor or President, wouldn't you want someone who can spend a dollar more effectively, not just have nigh-unlimited funds to bury their opponents? A candidate who can win an election with a million dollars is much more likely to know the value of money than one who wins with ten million dollars, don't you think?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:13:23 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
prunella jones says: "Yeah, because Walker was such a great administrator that he thoroughly pissed off half the population of his state as soon as he took office, so much so that they took to the streets in anger and pitted neighbor against neighbor for 16 long months."

Apparently he pissed off only 46% of the population. The other 53% were happy. I understand why they were angry, but my point was that he only raised the money for his side after the other side raised money first and initiated the recall effort.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:21:54 PM PDT
And was allowed to raise unlimited amounts of $$$ from outside of Wisconsin. Which he had no trouble getting from his out-of-state, billionaire owners.

His opponent was not and didn't.

And when a governor is elected he is supposed to work on behalf of all people in his state, not just the ones who weren't scrooed over...well, not yet anyway. They will be soon enough.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:29:39 PM PDT
VicAriel says:
Bruce Fox -
>But Walker had already been defanged by not having sufficient votes in the legislature, and the public has limited sympathy for unions right now, especially public ones, so Walker survived.<

Many Democrats fail to realize that union members have "limited sympathy for unions right now". Exit polls indicate that 37 percent of them voted for Walker. In recent presidential elections the numbers were worse. Around 45 percent of them voted for Bush43 and McCain. It's a myth that union members are captive votes for the Democrats. Personally I have no problem with them voting against their economic self-interest and for conservative social values. There's plenty of upper- income Americans who vote against trickle down economics and for liberal social positions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:32:21 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
prunella jones says: "And was allowed to raise unlimited amounts of $$$ from outside of Wisconsin. Which he had no trouble getting from his out-of-state, billionaire owners."

Maybe they shouldn't have initiated the recall election. They knew the campaign regulations when they did so. Didn't they expect hm to fight back?

It doesn't matter how much you raise because the voters determined the outcome, not money. If money determined the outcome Christine Whitman would be governor of CA now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:33:39 PM PDT
SK says:
Diebold lives.

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 4:34:57 PM PDT
Dichterliebe says:
Meg Whitman. Christine Whitman is/was NJ.

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 4:35:13 PM PDT
Mickey Ryan says:
This thread seems like sour grapes to me. Accept your loss and move on.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:35:28 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
VicAriel says: "Personally I have no problem with them voting against their economic self-interest and for conservative social values."

They do not think they are voting against their own economic self-interest. Most make good money and don't like high taxes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:36:32 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Dichterliebe says: "Meg Whitman. Christine Whitman is/was NJ."

Thanks, I get those two mixed up.

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 4:38:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 4:40:01 PM PDT
Dichterliebe says:
Voting against their state's bankruptcy is certainly in voters' interests.

@M. Daniel: no problem -- they're both rich white Republican females who ran for governor of their respective states. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:38:53 PM PDT
Mickey Ryan says:
Pascrell and Rothman were going at it like two 8th grade girls at a Justin Bieber concert. NJ politics are the most corrupt in the nation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 4:59:17 PM PDT
Adios Amigos says:
Bruce Fox says: I think it would be a mistake to regard the results of the Walker recall as indicative of what will happen to Obama in the fall.
=====================
i think you make a good point, bruce

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 6:20:25 PM PDT
Rover says:
Oh dear! Your post is total gibberish, grammatically speaking.

Are all liberals this stupid?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 7:44:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 8:03:41 PM PDT
J. jones says:
Ragnar Danneskjold says:
Your attempt to smear the Governor...won't work. The Cheeseheads are smarter than you are, obviously.

J.jones says: My attempt to smear the Governor? What, so, I made up the story about his aides being charged with 15 felonies? I concocted the fib about one of his aides turning themselves in and another stealing over $60,000 in veteran's funds? It seems like he's smeared himself by association, Ragnar.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 7:52:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 8:06:08 PM PDT
J. jones says:
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 9:33:17 AM PDT
TOPICWAQ says:
Hey, T.Reid...how the heck are you!!
I don't fuss with Jjones anymore, as you can see:)

J.jones says: I guess even you can get embarrassed one too many times, huh TOP?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 8:01:00 PM PDT
J. jones says:
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 12:41:06 PM PDT
J. Wease says:
"One thing I don't understand about this whole situation is this:

Republicans say they want candidates who believe in fiscal responsibility, but they vote for the candidates who spend money like water. Walker spent at least 7 times more of his campaign money than his opponent. How can you expect he will show restraint when it comes managing government money? The same applies to Romney. He spent vastly more money than any of his (note: Republican) opponents and was rewarded for this with the nomination.

j.JONES says: That's the most insightful thing I have heard you say, J. Wease.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 8:02:53 PM PDT
J. jones says:
YOu conservatives are so smart, that all you can do is criticize my post. I noticed that none of you have given a real reply, though. That is very telling. You can't all be a "smart one" like TOPICWAQ. Her I understand. What are the rest of you afraid of?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  37
Total posts:  131
Initial post:  Jun 6, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 13, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions