What Does Walker Victory Mean?

Quote: EvenBob

And I don't even read them this early in the year. I saw
a headline on Drudge about Romney in MI, but I didn't
click it cause I don't care.

It's been like 4 days since you told me that Rasmussen had Romney +1. Do you not remember quoting that daily tracking poll?

Oddly, Obama seems to have a little bit of noise/bounce since Tuesday. Back to even on Rasmussen's daily tracker, up on a couple multi-day national polls conducted at least partially on wednesday.

Quote: rdw4potus

It's been like 4 days since you told me that Rasmussen had Romney +1.

But I didn't look it up, I heard it on FOX news. I never
look at the polls this early, do you?

Quote: EvenBob

But I didn't look it up, I heard it on FOX news. I never
look at the polls this early, do you?

I bet on elections and early polls create some beatable lines, so yes I do look at polls pretty much every day. Not so much the presidential horserace, but the down-ballot races. But it's hard to not notice the horserace polls en route to the other polling info.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

I found it interesting that around 30% of Union households voted with Walker- supposedly "against" their own interests- and this gives me hope.

If my chosen profession forced my to join a union which then used my dues toward causes against my political beliefs, I wouldn't like it- and maybe part of that 30% is push-back.

I heard a segment talking about this on the radio driving to work this morning. The analyst they were talking to said that there was a decent piece of the skilled labor unions in favor of Walker. I haven't paid much attention to the issue, but he was saying that the carpenters, electricians, and other unions understood that Walker was going after the relatively unskilled civil servants unions, not them. I suppose that's a plausible explanation.

Quote: thecesspit

The evidence suggests that the wealth of the nation is actually generated via middle-class small businesses, not by the wealth of the rich.



There's nothing wrong with a Union, or any group asking to be paid X or have such conditions. There is something very wrong with membership of that group being a condition on employment for a job where that group dictates the terms of pay.

E.g. a Union is no problem. A Closed Shop Union is a racket.

Greetings, TheCessPit;

I agree with your assertion as it pertains to middle-class businesses, and would state that this is often the case because the business investments made by the middle-class often pertain to physical-type ventures such as restaurants, hotels, salons, general stores, gas stations, and those all tend to employ more people than a very wealthy person playing the stocks or commodities, or something of that nature.

However, when I said, "Tax the rich," I was also referring, in part, to the middle-class or upper-middle-class business owners who are, "Rich," in the eyes of those who would say that. It is also such business owners who would be most susceptible (in terms of employing people) to the pinch of a slightly higher tax rate.

I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with Unions, in general, but we're talking about State Unions and essential services to promote the public good (and their own good), here.

I would also be inclined to point out that, during the advent and early years of Unions, there were no safety nets for employees such as minimum wage, overtime laws, Social Security-Disability, Unemployment, or anything like that. If you were permanently injured on the job to the extent that you could no longer do physical labour ever again, then you were basically screwed for life. There were dangerous working conditions, people being forced to work ungodly hours for no additional pay or lose their jobs and what have you.

The Unions stepped in at that point and basically said, "If you're going to get rich off of the backs of these guys, then they are going to at least need to have some minimum safety requirements, paid-time off, etc..." That was perfectly fine.

The difference now is that there are Legislated safeguards to prevent the type of worker abuse that was often experienced at the time that Unions were first formed, so now Unions mainly exist to make sure that all of their people are grossly overpaid...regardless of whether or not it will force a company's doors to close. In fact, I read somewhere recently that over 50% of all Union employees work for some type of Government position.

I remember being a kid when the Steelworkers were on strike from Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel in the mid-nineties. They kind of took me in as a mascot, of sorts, on their picket line. I was maybe 12-14 years old during the pendency of all of this. They would all sit by the railroad tracks with their signs planted in the ground around this table where we would all play 5-Card Draw for Nickles and Dimes all day long. It was great fun, and that's where I first learned to play Poker properly.

I guess what I am getting at is that we did this for two years, and then the picket lines finally broke up, the Union must have got what they wanted. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000, and then they were bought out about six years later. I believe that the plant from which these guys were striking has probably been active for a grand total of maybe 24 months or less since the year 2000.

The point is that they will cut off their nose to spite their face if they don't get what they want, in many cases. I seriously doubt that these guys nickled and dimed their usual hourly pay from a 12-year-old kid who they were teaching to play poker...especially after I started beating them when I was about thirteen.

Quote: rxwine

The Republicans lost their state senate majority in this recall.

I imagine all the reaching across the asile Scott Walker did will have some benefits.

The last time he reached across the aisle, the democratic senators were nowhere to be found, having fled to Illinois to avoid doing the jobs for which the people elected them.

In any event, it doesn't matter. The state senate is out of session, and doesn't return until after the November elections. There is only committee work; the full senate won't meet until 2013, barring a special session.

Quote: Gabes22

I think it means they can't trust their exit polls. It seems to be a theme in big elections. By 5:00pm in 2004 most outlets were saying exit poll data was indicating a Kerry win. Rush Limbaugh illustrated it perfectly this afternoon however, illustrating the mood in Wolf Blitzer when it was supposedly tied but a mere hour later when he announced Walker had won he sounded almost comatose. Having lived in Wisconsin before and now living in an adjacent stated (IL), Wisconsin is a center left state, take out Milwaukee and Madison and it would be solidly right. I think there has been a slight shift in Wisconsin which might put the state up for grabs for the GOP this fall.

WI was very narrow for Dems in 2000/2004, but with Obama's margin in 2008 people forgot this. His margin could be based on being a next-door-state-baby and enough IL locals living in WI along with the Dem wave in 2008. This might just be a return to the trendline, regression to the mean, whatever.

Most polls I saw showed it was going to be Walker. The media seems to be believing what they print, bias and all. Journalism died in 2008, the media in the tank for Obama and the democrats like never before. If you report left long enough sooner or later you will think the "red" areas don't matter and you just poll in the "blue" areas.

The election showed math matters! Use the wrong sample and it is GIGO. It also shows the left's message is getting heard loud and clear.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

Agree 100%.

I found it interesting that around 30% of Union households voted with Walker- supposedly "against" their own interests- and this gives me hope.

If my chosen profession forced my to join a union which then used my dues toward causes against my political beliefs, I wouldn't like it- and maybe part of that 30% is push-back.

Why should people be forced to join unions- can't their value stand on its own?

And I agree with you 100%. My mom is a teacher and she is forced to pay 250 dollars per year as a union fee. She is one of about 20% of the district employees who opts not to be included in the union, but she is still required to pay the union fee. This union tried to force out her principal who she thought was excellent, and the Union President comes to the school board meetings and just argues to the point that the superintendant literally has to shut her up. It's pathetic.

Quote: winmonkeyspit3

And I agree with you 100%. My mom is a teacher and she is forced to pay 250 dollars per year as a union fee. She is one of about 20% of the district employees who opts not to be included in the union, but she is still required to pay the union fee. This union tried to force out her principal who she thought was excellent, and the Union President comes to the school board meetings and just argues to the point that the superintendant literally has to shut her up. It's pathetic.

I wish it had only been $250/year Union Fees I was charged while work in the public sector. Sorry shower also took a percentage of the bonus I made one year for delivering on time and under budget, but failed to respond to three letters of complaint about representation. Sorriest shower I ever met of "activists" couldn't even organize an election (it took three attempts to vote in a shop steward correctly).

Meanwhile, I paid less than 200/year for the Open Union in the UK, and support on several occasions for simple stuff (health insurance, expenses) and some valuable advice on pensions. Much more active in engaging and keeping it's members (cos they had too).

Quote: winmonkeyspit3

And I agree with you 100%. My mom is a teacher and she is forced to pay 250 dollars per year as a union fee. She is one of about 20% of the district employees who opts not to be included in the union, but she is still required to pay the union fee. This union tried to force out her principal who she thought was excellent, and the Union President comes to the school board meetings and just argues to the point that the superintendant literally has to shut her up. It's pathetic.

She is getting a bargin. I had to pay over $200 way back when I was making all of $4K a year in my first year of working as a teenager. Back then I bought into their nonsense. Much later I found my dues were probably being funneled to the Gambino Crime Family and allowing Paul Castellano to muscle Frank Purdue, among others.

What we need is a "paycheck protection" law where 6 months before a new labor contract, but not less than every 4 years, the rank-and-file gets to vote on if they keep the union or not. As it is it is very difficult to get a union out of a shop.