Can’t argue with that. The people have spoken.
If 1/3 of all Republicans lose their seats in the U.S. Congress, and Democrats retain all of theirs, then you’d be correct. But just how likely is that?
I’m sorry, but for weeks the rhetoric has been about reclaiming the Senate and stifling the Walker agenda. Neither of those happened. Republicans still control the Senate and they can still pursue whatever agenda they have. And to top it off, there’s a possibility-- however unlikely-- that there will be no net change in the Senate after next week’s election (it’s more than likely the GOP will pick up at least one seat). Add in the fact that Democrats outspent Republicans by nearly a 2:1 margin yet still fell short of their ultimate goal, and I don’t see how you can consider that to be anything but a loss.
First of all, 53-46 is a huge margin, by the standards of modern politics. But second of all, Obama does not say that because he won, there should be no compromise. His biggest failing as a President has been compromising too much, with an opposing party who doesn’t know the meaning of meeting halfway. The real problem here is the party who lost by seven points thinking they have a mandate to resist all compromise.
Yes.
Assuming that Democrats in all those races outspend their opponents 2:1, or by whatever ratio happened here, anyway.
Actually, assuming all things are equal. Democrats ought to hope for a bunch more sex scandals that don’t fall on their side of the aisle.
And actually, this can’t be extrapolated to the general election. Posters like BobLibDem would be silly to try to glean anything but the most basic of trending information from this election.
The most I can make from it, along with most others, is that Governor Walker has weathered the immediate backlash from unions and more partisan Democrats over his actions. This may not last, but it is the takeaway right now.
Special elections have issues with the makeup of the electorate - this is worsened for recall elections. Only the most partisan of voters or ones with a direct stake in the outcome generally care enough to show up. General elections include the more casual voter to a far greater degree, and while still not a perfect reflection of the public will are more representative of it.
[
](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/record-setting-money-flows-to-wisconsin-for-recall-elections-to-test-gop-agenda/2011/08/08/gIQADJ5L3I_story.html)Emphasis mine. I assume that finding out you’re wrong makes you reassess your position?
Quoth Mr. Moto:
Not yet, he hasn’t. He’s up for recall, too (I don’t know what determines the timing). And the outcome of these elections probably can be taken as indicative of how he’s likely to fare in his recall, since most of the variables are the same.
That’s putting it a bit strongly. They can’t even begin to collect signatures for a recall until he’s been in office for a year.
What position did I take that needs to be reassessed? Specifically?
No.
Since the spending on the campaigns was about equal.
(This doesn’t make much sense, I know, but it apparently will make Lobohan happy.)
The citizens took a run at Walker’s majority and won 2 out of six in historically republican districts. They got far closer than they had a right to expect on the others, and this is even with far right corporations matching them dollar for dollar.
Equal spending, Republican districts, 2 of 6 wins. I don’t see how that says the outrage isn’t there. They would have won zero of 6 if there was no outrage.
The trouble is these districts were those of Republicans who have been in power since before the last election, because you have to be seated for a year in order to be recalled in Wisconsin. So the Republican Wave that swept in last year (and took seats in more Democratic or mixed areas) couldn’t be targeted. Yet, at least, I’d like to think that Walker and the vulnerable pubbies will be voted out once they hit their anniversaries.
I might have been reading too much into your comment, because I picture you typing your while rakishly holding a tumbler of scotch, Don Draper style. 
All anyone wants is to be happy.
It’s true that they are in GOP districts which makes the results somewhat impressive, but also I’m wondering if the anti-GOP voter base was more motivated since this was a single purpose recall election rather than a general election. The results may have been different if more people came out to vote for national offices and also happened to vote in the recall election.
One-handed typing seems to be a longstanding tradition on this message board.
District 32, where they beat Kapanke, has become much more Democratic. When he was last re-elected, in 2008, Obama carried the district with 61%.
They were not close in the 4 they lost. The winning margins were 52, 54, 58, and 60 percent.
This was not a low turnout election.
Wisconsin Recall Vote Turnout Nearly 90 Percent of 2010 Levels
That was a historical election riding high on the disgust of Bush. Kapanke won that seat in 2008, so it’s not like there weren’t Republican votes there.
I said they got closer than they had a right to expect. Remember these are largely rural districts full of prime Republican stock. In the 2008 election (the last time these particular candidates ran) the results were:
Warning: Links to a PDF
[```
Dude 2008 2010
Crowles Unopposed 60%
Olsen Unopposed 52%
Hardsorf 56% 58%
Darling 50% 54%
Hopper 50% 49%
Kapanke 51% 45%
I think 40% and 48% in an area that Dems thought it wasn't worth running a candidate back in 2008 is better than one might expect. As for Hardsorf and Darling, I assume that Tea Party/Republican voters are as galvanized as the Pro-Worker side. If the demographics are such that there aren't enough to counter the number of Republicans, then that's what I'd expect.I plan on enjoying the failure in a Walker recall election next year.
Obama once said, “Elections have consequences.”
Apparently, the consequences when Dems lose is that they will bug out of the state hiding, and the they will hold recalls.
Pretty constructive stuff.
I have zero doubt that enjoying failure is something you do.
Walker didn’t run on destroying unions. He just did it against a strong popular opinion. Abraham Lincoln denied quorum by jumping out of a window. It’s a perfectly normal tactic when a power mad idiot like Walker decides to pull something the populace is against.
The people have spoken…Twice.
Republican Senate in Wisconsin!
Forget it Jake- it’s Chinatown.
Check out that guy’s username and posting history- he’s not here to participate in discussion. I suspect he’s on loan from a right-wing forum, probably Hannity. Consider him the 10% in our signal-to-noise ratio.