Well, since I have to explain basic politics to you, let me get comfortable.
Okay, generally, corporations support Republicans. This is because Republicans, at least currently, want to repeal many regulations and slash taxes.
Got it? Good.
Generally unions support Democrats. Because generally Democratic Party policy helps working people.
Got it? Good.
Of the top ten political donors in the last presidential election cycle, the unions supported the Dems and the corporations supported Republicans.
Got it? Good!
If Scott Walker destroys unions, as you want, then Dems are at a huge fundraising disadvantage. This means that corporations will be able to buy elections for even less money.
Now Scott Walker had 8 times the money of his challenger. He also had 62% of that money come from outside Pacs. So large corporations want to support Walker because if he survives, it emboldens other governors to do the same.
Well it does say the poll said that only 3% of voters were undecided a week out.
That doesn’t cover the last minute same-day registration voters and the people who made up their minds up to the week before based on the advertising up until then.
Remember folks, this only happened because the average voter saw just 50 ads for Barrett and 100 ads for Walker. If only they had seen exactly 75 ads for each candidate, the true will of the voters would have been revealed in all its collective liberal glory.
As it is, those dastardly extra ads forced 10% of the Wisconsin voting population to vote for Walker against their will. And turn out in record numbers, besides.
It’s closer to 50 ads for Barrett and 400 ads for Walker.
Again, you are free to believe that advertising doesn’t work. You should start selling a widget. You’d have a huge advantage since you don’t have to advertise.
Of course, I don’t want anyone to destroy unions – even public sector unions, the specific variety at issue here.
What I wanted him to do, and he has done, is defang the public sector unions. For example, Act 10 gave workers the right to choose whether or not to be in the union. We went from mandatory union dues, deducted from paychecks by the state government and turned over to the union, to a free choice to belong or not.
While we all don’t agree on tonight’s result, the fact that Walker has won twice says something.
In fact, to be non partisan, I want to remind everyone of a quote from President Obama.
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
The SEIU and teachers union’s “get out the vote” effort really energized the conservatives. hehehe.
It’s a good thing Obama didn’t decide to make an appearance in Wisconsin on behalf of Barrett. Considering Obama’s track record for backing losers, Barrett might be losing by 32%.
The numbers I have seen indicate that Walker outspent Barrett 2:1. He out raised Barrett by 8:1 or whatever, but did not spend all that he raised. Why is that? Perhaps because more money would not have made a difference.
Mandatory membership makes the union stronger. Since fewer members lowers the bargaining power of the union. The worker has the choice of working there or not. By making it not mandatory the union fragments because all the members realize that it no longer has power to bargain for them.
Also, the wages won by unions help non-union workers by increasing wages across the board as non union businesses have to compete.
The recall campaign was a terrible idea. It set a shitty precedent – we shouldn’t be trying to recall every asshole who gets elected who does the kind of shit we expect of them. It has set the Democratic Party waaay back in WI, and is going to embolden conservatives across the country.
You are arguing in circles–you support your contention that strong public unions are a good thing by pointing to the “fact” that strong public unions are a good thing.
Argument like that may work in your echo chamber, but you’re going to have to do better than that around here, buddy.
A union that is strong has a benefit. A union that is weakened loses that benefit. Re read and get back to me when you can.
The only echoing I hear around here is the litany of facts that have to be repeated time after time to soak through the conservative misinformation field that protects you.
I’m generally opposed to recalls and that’s a totally non-partisan stance (I don’t support them in cases of Democrats being recalled, either.) I think part of the point of having representative democracy is you have some degree of insulation from public opinion. That’s why we have set terms, you pick a guy and you pretty much have to put up with his policies until the end of his term. Make the terms reasonably short (and I think four years is fine for the executive of a State) so the voter can weigh in pretty quickly and I think it keeps the politicians as honest as can be hoped for.
It obviously isn’t the only system, but if you look at Greece where they can never come to a political decision with any short-term finality even, because every new issue results in a collapse of the government and new elections you see some problems with the alternative. (Look to your U.S. Senate for an example of some of the more glaring problems with our system, of course.)
Finally, in cases of malfeasance I don’t want to have to recall a politician. I think instead you have an impeachment process–for true malfeasance I think it tends to be far more effective and swift (see: Blagojevich.)
I think part of the really negative thing about this campaign is that a lot of out of State interests are the reason this recall election even happened, but the taxpayers of Wisconsin are the ones who get to pay the millions of dollars it costs to run an out-of-cycle election that ultimately proved to be meaningless.
Another reason I’m pleased: from the beginning of the Walker controversy, the opposition to him has rested in some measure on inaccurate claims, and those inaccurate claims were repeated credulously here. I’m thinking of the claim that the budget bill business violated the Wisconsin Open Meetings law. Despite the fact that I posted the plain text of the law, which plainly and clearly contains an exception for the legislature itself, people continued to repeat the inaccurate claim.
Ultimately, of course,that issue was disposed of by the courts, precisely along the lines I had explained.
This was so very clear-cut that I still do not understand how anyone could have reached a different conclusion. It seemed to me that the Democrats making this charge knew, must have known, that what they we saying was not an accurate statement of the law. But rather than read the plain law for themselves, people here simply repeated the claims, vigorously and vehemently.
Did anyone seriously believe that open meetings law accusation? If you did, why did you?
Yeah, so what? You can make unions stronger at the expense of sacrificing personal freedom, by forcing everyone to join the union (whether legally or illegally). I believe you. The argument is whether society should make that trade.
A continuing theme throughout your positions is the idea that citizens cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, whether that decision relates to joining a union, or voting for a candidate. Do you not understand why some people don’t believe that building policies around that assumption will preserve a free and just society?
