On Wisconsin
Next Tuesday, Wisconsin voters will decide whether to recall their governor or not. Depending on who you ask, this will either be momentous or not matter much at all. Some who are now saying one thing will switch to saying the other, depending on how the vote count comes out Tuesday night. Polling either shows a tied race, or Governor Scott Walker with a slight edge -- depending on which polls you believe. Democrats have staged a late effort to rally the troops around their candidate, but even Bill Clinton's help may not be enough. Perhaps if the national party had paid attention to the race a little earlier, it might have borne more fruit.
It's hard to predict the outcome of the race, and it's equally hard to say "what it all means" in the grand scheme of things. The winning side will, no doubt, claim the victory as some sort of national mandate to push their agenda, but the outcome may be of limited importance no matter who prevails.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Walker wins, and escapes being the third governor in U.S. history ever to be booted out of office by the voters. Republicans are going to take this as a validation of Walker's anti-Union agenda, and they're going to see a giant green light to push the issue even harder at the state level (legislatively) and the national level (mostly rhetorically).
Election-wise, Republicans will be emboldened as they read their victory as a harbinger for the fall. "The country is on our side!" they will doubtlessly say, as they gleefully move Wisconsin's ten electoral votes into the "tossup" category. Mitt Romney's campaign will start paying a lot more attention to the state, and start spending a serious amount of money in Wisconsin. They will also start eyeing Michigan's voters as well, since the geographical demographic is similar.
However, if Walker is recalled and if the Democrats not only grab the governor's office but also control of the state senate, an opposing scenario will play out instead. Democrats will trumpet the successful recall as validation of their agenda, and attempt to use it as a threat against other anti-Union Republicans (at the state level) as pushback against such legislation. The message will be simple: anti-Union laws can lose Republican politicians their jobs. This may serve to blunt the state-level push for such legislation, or so the Democrats will hope.
On the national level, Democrats will be the ones feeling the wind at their backs. "Obama will win Wisconsin, hands down!" they'll gleefully exclaim, as they dare the Romney camp to waste money on a state that they consider solid blue. Democrats will redouble their efforts to win Ohio, another state where anti-Union Republican legislation has become a big political issue.
While lots of excitement will wash over the winning side, I wonder whether Wisconsin's local politics will have much impact on the national level at all. Special elections, for the most part, are usually not all that good an indicator of national politics. In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, Democrats won several special elections for House districts -- and Republicans won none. While the Democrats were quite happy to say they had a "wind at their backs" at the time, when November rolled around, they experienced a "shellacking" by the Republicans. Picking up a few House seats in off months didn't do the Democrats any good at all, in other words. Granted, these were House districts, and not statewide elections, but even so it should be read as a cautionary note to anyone who over-reads next Tuesday's results.
There's only one sure bet in the Wisconsin elections, and that is to predict that whichever side wins will use the term "bellwether" repeatedly, both next week and beyond. No matter what happens, that's a pretty safe prediction to make.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It has been Democrats who have been saying that Wisconsin is a "Bellwether" for the presidential election.
Our own DWS said that exactly a couple weeks ago..
Of course, the following week, when indications are that Walker is going to win, THEN DWS said that it's not any big deal..
You have to wonder how ANY politician, Dem or GOP keeps their positions straight...
Wha??? Do they make notations in a little book, "If it's Tuesday, then Wisconsin is the end all be all... But if it's THURSDAY then Wisconsin doesn't mean a thing"...
Michale.....
Now howz THIS for irony!! :D
Last month, the Unemployment DROPPED, and the Jobs Added also dropped..
Of course, the GOP slammed Obama for the Jobs...
This month, Unemployment ROSE but so did the Jobs..
How much ya'all wanna bet that the GOP will slam Obama for the Unemployment this time?? :D
Of course, the converse is also true.. Last month, Democrats cheered the Unemployment figure and ignored the JOBS figure. This month, they'll cheer the JOBS figure, but ignore the Unemployment one.
Someone remind me, again, the difference between Democrats and Republicans?? :D I seem to have forgotten..
Michale.....
After Tuesday, we get to move on to the next big event: CrapCare and the USSC. Whooooohoooo!
After Tuesday, we get to move on to the next big event: CrapCare and the USSC. Whooooohoooo!
I am going to do my damndest to be a gracious winner.. :D
Michale.....
From Charlie Cook, the guy who sent out the 2010 tsunami warning: http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/the-cook-report-trouble-for-obama-20120531
I am going to do my damndest to be a gracious winner.. :D
LOL! Not me. I'm already gearing up to give Chris told-ya-so hell. I think it was a CrapCare discussion that originally brought us two Chrises together.
Yea, it likely won't be pretty around here for a week or so.. :D
Michale.....
I think CW mentioned he is going to throw out a OBAMA POLL WATCH update before heading out to NRN...
Should be interesting...
Michale.....
walker knows his math. for every 60k job with benefits that you eliminate, you can create 4 20k jobs with no benefits. that's a brilliant plan for job creation, but not so good for the people who have the jobs. of course, the 25-1 funding advantage makes sure most citizens won't realize this until it's too late to turn back.
So, on the one hand, you have ONE person with awesome pay and benefits and, on the other, you have FOUR people with jobs that helps them survive and take care of their families..
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..... Or the one"
-Spock
Michale.....
So, on the one hand, you have ONE person with awesome pay and benefits and, on the other, you have FOUR people with jobs that helps them survive and take care of their families...
yes, this allows the poverty to be spread more evenly as it increases. a convenient substitute for the middle class, as it ceases to exist.
“Another good thing about being poor is that when you are seventy your children will not have declared you legally insane in order to gain control of your estate”
~woody allen
yes, this allows the poverty to be spread more evenly as it increases. a convenient substitute for the middle class, as it ceases to exist.
Which is exactly what the Left wants.
Everyone dragged down to the lowest common denominator.. :D
Seriously, though..
Since "fair" seems to be the watchword of the day, what's more "fair"??
One person with an awesome job with great pay and benefits..
Or FOUR people with jobs that has decent pay and no benefits??
Again, Spock's words ring true...
Michale.....
Since "fair" seems to be the watchword of the day, what's more "fair"??
One person with an awesome job with great pay and benefits..
Or FOUR people with jobs that has decent pay and no benefits??
neither is particularly fair, since the four don't have decent pay. they barely make enough to feed their families, who also don't have benefits or health insurance, so the hidden losses are much greater.
of course, the reality of what happens is even more drastically unfair. one person loses the good job, both that person and his or her spouse, who used to be able to afford to stay at home and take care of the kids, get jobs that pay half as much combined, and the other half gets split between a multi-million dollar bonus for the head administrator and a tax break for a corporation, most of which they use to open a new factory in indonesia, and jack up prices on consumers anyway.
in addition, fewer taxes are paid on that half, being stashed in off-shore accounts and corporate tax shelters. therefore there's even less money available in the next budget, the couple's salaries are cut even more, and one of them is switched to part time. a kid gets sick, and with no health insurance they deplete their savings, go into debt and lose their house. it's a nightmare scenario that would seem far-fetched if it didn't keep happening.
and some more woody allen:
"Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons."
Which is exactly what the Left wants.
it's what the corporate side wants, who are just as likely to be neo-liberal as neo-con in their political ideology. as long as labor is devalued and profits keep growing, the left-right issues are, as scott walker bluntly put it, "divide and conquer."
~joshua
Barrett calls for WI state worker benefit cuts
http://watchdog.org/19424/barrett-calls-for-wi-state-worker-benefit-cuts/
Hmmmmmmmm
Isn't Walker being recalled for JUST this same thing???
I am cornfused...
Michale.....
Isn't Walker being recalled for JUST this same thing???
no, he's being recalled for eliminating the right to collective bargaining. yes, what walker claimed his legislation would do was basically similar to what barrett proposed. but there's a big difference between tough negotiations to save money and eliminating the right to negotiate at all.
nonetheless, your point is well taken. as i acknowledged above, most democrats are no friend to working people, they just seem so in comparison to republicans. only the left has to somewhat moderate its hostile stance toward labor, and that's only because the unions contribute significant (although still a minority) campaign funds. corporate money still basically has a stranglehold on both the left and the right.
here's some evidence that the change has been noticed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/politics/a-campaign-finance-ruling-turned-to-labors-advantage.html?pagewanted=all
no, he's being recalled for eliminating the right to collective bargaining. yes, what walker claimed his legislation would do was basically similar to what barrett proposed. but there's a big difference between tough negotiations to save money and eliminating the right to negotiate at all.
Apparently, Walker's plan is working...
3.6 Billion has been saved, over 20K jobs have been created and the state's unemployment is lower than the country's...
Nothing succeeds like success...
nonetheless, your point is well taken. as i acknowledged above, most democrats are no friend to working people, they just seem so in comparison to republicans. only the left has to somewhat moderate its hostile stance toward labor, and that's only because the unions contribute significant (although still a minority) campaign funds. corporate money still basically has a stranglehold on both the left and the right.
Can't argue with the logic.. Especially since it's pretty much what I have been saying since 2006... :D
Michale.....
Let's face it..
The biggest problem that the Unions have with Walker is not that he eliminated collective bargaining..
The Unions are simply INCENSED that Walker ended compulsory dues....
Michale.....
here's some evidence that the change has been noticed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/politics/a-campaign-finance-ruling-turned-to-labors-advantage.html?pagewanted=all
Once again...
Groups decried and castigated the Citizens United ruling, calling it Armageddon and the End Of Days..
Then it was, "Wait! We can make millions off of this too!!!" ....
So I guess Unions are as evil as Corporations, eh? :D
Michale.....
The biggest problem that the Unions have with Walker is not that he eliminated collective bargaining..
The Unions are simply INCENSED that Walker ended compulsory dues....
this may be the case with SOME of union "leadership," but not with union members themselves. remember that the term "union" describes not just the leaders but the working members. even if the changes in dues collection are a certain individual's main concern, that individual would never admit it or they'd have an internal riot on their hands.
So I guess Unions are as evil as Corporations, eh? :D
i think i've been pretty consistent on this issue. neither corporation nor union, nor any other group, independently of its component members, should be able to devote so much as one penny to an election campaign.
Yer right.. I should have specified Union leadership..
The ones that are earning 6 and 7 figure a year salaries from those dues.. :D
Michale....
to be clear, neither unions nor corporations are "bad," per se. they just have economic missions that should not be permitted to intersect with politics.
to be clear, neither unions nor corporations are "bad," per se. they just have economic missions that should not be permitted to intersect with politics.
Couldn't agree more....
I guess we're done here. :D
Michale.....