When the GOP took over Ohio’s state government one of their big agenda policies was to restrict the power of organized labor (since organized labor is generally hostile to the political interests of the GOP and the interests of the business groups the GOP allies with). After SB5 was passed there was a recall effort and the efforts to overturn SB5 in Ohio cost about $31 million on the part of opponents of the law. Supporters raised about $8 million, this is according to what I heard today on NPR. I have no idea if that $31 million includes the money spent getting signatures to put the issue on the ballot or not, or if that is even a big expense.
However both Strickland and Kasich (the former democratic and current GOP governor of Ohio) raised and spent about $17 million each when running for governor in 2010. So the cost of both candidates combined is roughly the cost that was spent to overturn SB5. Had Strickland won in 2010 then SB5 never would have been signed into law. It seems it would’ve been more cost effective to throw $5 million at Strickland than to have to spend $31 million overturning a law signed by Kasich.
There is a lot of disappointment with the democratic party because even if you give them majorities for one reason or another they basically govern like new england republicans. So when you ask people to work for and raise money for democratic candidates people tend to ask what for, they can’t get good legislation through (at least not on the federal level).
But maybe the goal isn’t to give majorities to the democratic party, maybe the biggest goal is just divided government so that liberal interest groups will not have to spend millions overturning GOP laws.
Should liberals and unions adjust their strategies? Instead of approaching politics with the goal of electing democratic politicians who they hope will pass center left policy but who (for one reason or another) will just pass center right policy, is it best to just push for divided government (ensure at least one house or the executive is under democratic control) to reduce the potential damage done by the opposition?
If so, then you are just playing defense with no hope of things improving for your agenda. But it seems to be more efficient than sitting by, then spending tens of millions of dollars trying to overturn the laws that were passed.