Well, that’s Walker’s problem; he can’t run on his record. He can in the primary, but in the general he’ll have to pretend he never even heard of Wisconsin – that’s somewhere in Nebraska, right?
Khripes Almighty!:smack: Not this horseshit again. :rolleyes:
More people voted in the recall than the election in 2010. This idea that people who didn’t like Walker voted for him anyway because they didn’t like the idea of a recall is delusional. Give it up already, Bob!
Turnout was still significantly lower than in Presidential elections – total turnout (in Wisconsin) was about 2.4 million in the 2012 recall, while it was over 3 million the 2012 general election. Romney got ~100K more votes than Walker did, but Obama got nearly half a million more votes than the “yes to recall” vote.
It is good that most states elect their governors in non general election years.
I’m not so sure of that. There’ll be a lot more attention paid to what he’s done (or not) as governor than on his educational background. He could pretty easily turn it to his advantage as a “scrappy, School of Hard Knocks, self-made man” narrative.
Rand Paul lying about his degrees would bother me. Walker not having any? Not an issue.
You think the Democrats are going to nominate Mitt Romney?
Why? He’s long past the stage where such things matter. And surely he anyway holds a degree from URL - the University of Real Life?
Speaking of education, Slate thinks he’s baiting the universities and they’re falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
You’re missing the big bump at the end of the nose.
**
BobLibDem **has been posting this crap for a long time now that voters who don’t like Governor Scott Walker, and [probably] didn’t vote for him in 2010 and still didn’t like him, somehow voted to keep him in office in 2012 because they voted out of protest of the recall system. According to Bob after months of campaigning and tens of millions of dollars spent against him, this is the ONLY reason Walker survived the recall. It’s tinfoil hat delusional nonsense.
Maybe – I’m disputing the claim that Walker’s electoral success in midterm and recall elections translates to near-certain success in WI (and other states) in a presidential election.
It was a significant factor. From CBS
So 70% of Wisconsinites said that the recall election was inappropriate and you want me to believe that it wasn’t an extremely significant factor? I think it was THE significant factor.
And he’s trying to preempt the argument, too – Megyn Kelly and Scott Walker trash “Ivy Leaguers” like Obama and Hillary. A charge of “elitism” does play well with the GOP base.
And they stood over their shoulder and watched how they actually voted?
You really believe Walker only survived the recall because a large majority who don’t approve of his policies and performance voted for him anyway because they disapprove of the recall system more than they disapprove of him? And after months and tens of millions spent THAT is the only reason he won?
You can believe what you want. My only advice to anyone else with these views is buy name-brand tin foil for their hat and get some psychiatric help!
Of course not, that’s not how polling works. They asked people questions and they answered them.
It wasn’t the only reason but it was likely the most significant. There were those who like Walker- there’s no accounting for taste. There were those who dislike Walker but didn’t think the recall election was warranted without the charges of official misconduct. Finally, there were those who dislike Walker and thought the recall election was justified. There simply weren’t enough of that last group. Those in the first group came out in droves, like Republicans always do. Those in the second group either held their nose and voted for Walker or stayed home. Those in the third group were simply outnumbered. To read that vote as vindication of Walker and his slimy policies is misguided.
No, they either stayed home or voted against him. The very idea that someone who voted against Walker in '10 and '14 voted for him in '10 because it was a protest vote against the actual system is beyond ludicrous. Post all the cites you want, it just didn’t happen that way.
Then what was his 2014 reelection victory? People who don’t approve of his policies voted for him again just to confirm their protest vote in 2010?
Will they vote for him in 2016 as POTUS not because they approve of him but just to get him out of Wisconsin politics? C’mon, Bob. Your explanations are getting just as comical. Let it go.
I can see someone voting against Walker in 2010 and voting for him in the recall election on the grounds that the recall is unwarranted.
His win in 2014 was due to a weak opponent.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’m not in Wisconsin, and frankly I have no opinion of recall votes, but if I think it’s inappropriate to hold a recall, I’m not going to vote for recall just because it gets me the result I want. I sincerely doubt I am alone in this. Having a hammer does not actually turn everything into a nail.
I don’t agree to that
And you would go into a voting booth and vote for someone who you did not want to be Governor, someone you previously voted against, someone you voted against and for the same candidate running against them again, someone you will vote against in the next election, yet vote for them now because you don’t like the concept of recall?
That’s absurd. And it’s absurd to think a majority of people did just that.
In fact, the issue of recall itself wasn’t an issue during the actual recall campaign. Like it or not it’s a legal means of extracting an office holder. I don’t recall (pun intended) hearing or reading a single opinion piece, editorial, or conversation where someone said they didn’t like Walker but was voting for him in the recall because they didn’t like recall elections. The very idea is just nonsense!
I had a long reply then realized I was participating in a highjack. I may or may not start another thread, but it’s probably not important enough to me.