What Does Walker Victory Mean?
heat, the Lib networks like CNN and MSNBC were all excited
the this election was a preview of what the election in Nov
was going to be like.
After the results were in and Walker wholloped the Dem,
it was no longer a preview, it was a mistake. They were
confused and sad that once again the exit polling was a
sham. So the the election only meant something if the
Dem won, Walker winning is meaningless. I get it...
(FWIW, if I am ever polled over the phone or otherwise, I answer everything as if I'm Maxine Waters.)
Quote: Gabes22I think there has been a slight shift in Wisconsin which might put the state up for grabs for the GOP this fall.
3 1/2 years of spending us into bankruptcy will change any state.
What gets me is, Bush was the anti Christ for the prison in Cuba
and the Patriot act. Obummer campaigned hard on getting rid
of those two Bush atrocities. He had the congress and senate
for two full years, and oops, they're both still there! And the Left
never says a word. Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.
Walker.....I love the guy!!
Ken
in 2004 "Let me be the first to call you Mr
President", all based on people lying in the
exit polls. I thought Wolf Blitzer was going
to bust out bawling at 10pm when he had
to announce Walker won, he was had so much
faith in the polling data again.
Quote: EvenBobDidn't one of the news guys say to John Kerry
in 2004 "Let me be the first to call you Mr
President", all based on people lying in the
exit polls. I thought Wolf Blitzer was going
to bust out bawling at 10pm when he had
to announce Walker won, he was had so much
faith in the polling data again.
Are you a Rush Limbaugh fan Bob? Rush was discussing this on his show...
Quote: bigfoot66Are you a Rush Limbaugh fan Bob? Rush was discussing this on his show...
I didn't read his site yet, but I remember how
upset the Left was that polling data was so
far off in 2004. From 5pm-8pm the press
had Kerry in office.
Quote:What Does Walker Victory Mean?
Like Reid/Angle, it's a distortion of local politics influenced by lots of outside money.
Quote: EvenBobI didn't read his site yet, but I remember how
upset the Left was that polling data was so
far off in 2004. From 5pm-8pm the press
had Kerry in office.
I know, I made a chunk of cash of that.
Early polling data appears to left biased, in Canada, US and the UK. I suspect this is because early exit polls tend to be in cities, and there maybe some element of self-selection on who will give information up. One would assume this would be compensated for.
Quote: thecesspitI suspect this is because early exit polls tend to be in cities, and there maybe some element of self-selection on who will give information up. One would assume this would be compensated for.
It's methodically compensated for in telephone polls and surveys. it's much harder to do with exit polls, because the re-weightings depend in large part on who's been polled initially and there's not enough time to compile that info before releasing the data (pretty much in real-time). It's not uncommon to apply either no weighting or the same weighting as the last telephone poll that a firm used. Both methods have issues, but no weighting is usually preferred. Of course, then, there's no protection against some ingrained tendencies - women are more likely to respond to exit polls, upper class citizens are less likely to respond to exit polls.
In many private companies, everyone has to bear their own brunt of an economic downturn. Salaried managers may not see a raise for a year, or more, everyone experiences a greater susceptibility to layoff or other forms of termination, hourly employees have their hours cut...people that may have had access to overtime, virtually at will, for any number of years find that they are practically ushered out the door when they hit 40.0000000001 hours.
What should make the State employees any different? If the Unions want to reverse these changes when the State is running a budget surplus, I imagine it is quite possible that the State of Wisconsin would have an open ear to such requests. They should anyway, it should work both ways, in my opinion. If the State (or an employer) suffers hard times, then the employees should do what they can to mitigate such, and if the employer enjoys a great financial surplus, then that wealth should be spread around...at the discretion of the employer, of course.
Quote: Mission146I think that it means that the good citizenry of Wisconsin is perfectly fine with it being all fun and games with State employees until the State has a significant budget deficit that needs to be resolved. It is then that they see that such employees (and the Union bosses for same) are not civil servants at all, but would rather bleed the State's coffers dry to save their own pocketbooks, then proclaim, "Tax the rich, not me!" when taxes need to be increased despite the fact that the wealth of the rich is what is typically used to create much preferable private enterprise and private jobs.
In many private companies, everyone has to bear their own brunt of an economic downturn. Salaried managers may not see a raise for a year, or more, everyone experiences a greater susceptibility to layoff or other forms of termination, hourly employees have their hours cut...people that may have had access to overtime, virtually at will, for any number of years find that they are practically ushered out the door when they hit 40.0000000001 hours.
What should make the State employees any different? If the Unions want to reverse these changes when the State is running a budget surplus, I imagine it is quite possible that the State of Wisconsin would have an open ear to such requests. They should anyway, it should work both ways, in my opinion. If the State (or an employer) suffers hard times, then the employees should do what they can to mitigate such, and if the employer enjoys a great financial surplus, then that wealth should be spread around...at the discretion of the employer, of course.
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?
Quote: rxwineLike Reid/Angle, it's a distortion of local politics influenced by lots of outside money.
ALL elections are Money times Slogans equals victory for something.
Walker is retained in office and will continue his attacks on entrenched interests having a stranglehold on the budget
Quote: Gabes22and there is actually the threat of being fired so that they might have incentive to do their job well.
It will happen eventually but not before they bankrupt
the system. Ever see a bad intersection that needs a 4 way
stop really bad? Its not till somebody gets killed there that
they finally do anything about it.
Theres a small town in Alabama that was warned in 2005
that unless they cut back on current pensions, all the former
city employee's would lose all their benefits by 2009. Of
course nobody did anything because everybody knows
money grows on trees. Sure enough, in 2009 the city
went belly up, everybody lost everything, including
current workers and 3 years later they still have nothing.
Boy are they mad, nobody told them the warning was
serious. They could have all voted to take 75% of
their regular benefits, but nope, that wouldn't be 'fair'.
Now that the city is broke, they don't even have anybody
to sue. Wait till the EU goes broke, it will really hit the
fan then. Poor babies..
Quote: Gabes22What infuriates me about the way our local and national governments run, is they clearly do not respect money. I believe that if you brought in a team of CPAs to clean up wasteful spending in government, they could slash budgets by 40%
instantaneously.
I think your estimate might be too low !
Quote: Gabes22I 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.
This is because the early exit polls on election day had Kerry winning Ohio. Most people point to this and say, "Diebold" (and, in fact, Senator Boxer challenged the Ohio vote when the electoral votes were officially counted), but I have another theory that, coincidentally, involves Boxer; she was running for re-election that year, and there were zero, count them, zero ads for her Republican opponent - in fact, when San Francisco's local PBS station offered all Senate candidates two minutes of free air time (and one candidate whose platform was, "Replace Federal Reserve Notes with U.S. Bank Notes as currency, and get rid of the 'illegal' Income Tax"), the Republican candidate didn't bother - which suggests to me that the money they would have used for the campaign was used to campaign for Bush at the last minute in Ohio.
Apparently, last-minute money just might be more of a game-changer than first thought, and the concept of "buying an election" may be as legitimate as some people fear. Of course, if the Democrats realize this, then they can use it to their advantage.
Quote: bigfoot66Are you a Rush Limbaugh fan Bob? Rush was discussing this on his show...
Bob more or less transcribed rush's shows daily as his question.
Of course they could... they are not elected officials and all the people they fire won't be able to do anything in retaliation.Quote: Gabes22if you brought in a team of CPAs to clean up wasteful spending in government, they could slash budgets by 40% instantaneously.
Quote: Gabes22It probably is! Let's just say slashing the budget by 40% will be the no-brainer kind of stuff, like eliminating departments that are no longer useful, like having employees pay a fair share of their retirement and a normal share of their health care etc.
People often assume it's easy to cut government spending. Betcha it really isn't that easy.
Its more complex than that. Its the fact that any attempt to restrain the spending is met with cuts in favored areas to punish the voters for restricting the politicians ability to spend. Cuts are therefore felt in libraries, schools, etc. but never in laid off employees.Quote: NareedThe problem is that everyone's in favor of both reducing spending and of receiving "free" benefits in the form of entitlements. So until a mayority understands that it's one or the other, things won't change.
Quote: Mission146I think that it means that the good citizenry of Wisconsin is perfectly fine with it being all fun and games with State employees until the State has a significant budget deficit that needs to be resolved. It is then that they see that such employees (and the Union bosses for same) are not civil servants at all, but would rather bleed the State's coffers dry to save their own pocketbooks, then proclaim, "Tax the rich, not me!" when taxes need to be increased despite the fact that the wealth of the rich is what is typically used to create much preferable private enterprise and private jobs.
The evidence suggests that the wealth of the nation is actually generated via middle-class small businesses, not by the wealth of the rich.
Quote:What should make the State employees any different? If the Unions want to reverse these changes when the State is running a budget surplus, I imagine it is quite possible that the State of Wisconsin would have an open ear to such requests. They should anyway, it should work both ways, in my opinion. If the State (or an employer) suffers hard times, then the employees should do what they can to mitigate such, and if the employer enjoys a great financial surplus, then that wealth should be spread around...at the discretion of the employer, of course.
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.
Quote: FleaStiffIts more complex than that. Its the fact that any attempt to restrain the spending is met with cuts in favored areas to punish the voters for restricting the politicians ability to spend. Cuts are therefore felt in libraries, schools, etc. but never in laid off employees.
Very true! Instead of threatening to lay off police officers or teachers, why can't they lay off that guy at the DMV who seems to be on permanent coffee break?
Quote: Gabes22Very true! Instead of threatening to lay off police officers or teachers, why can't they lay off that guy at the DMV who seems to be on permanent coffee break?
Let me tell you a story.
In the late 80s, the phone company that provided phone service to all of Mexico, TelMex, was still owned by the governemnt. One day the union demanded something, I forget what, and failing to get it went on strike. TelMex had to make do with a workforce about 20% as big as usual. The phone service.... was entirely unaffected. Calls went through at the usual rate, repairs proceeded normally (slow as a glacier, but that was normal), long distanc eworked, etc.
The company was privatized a few years later.
Quote:"What Does Walker Victory Mean?
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.
Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mark Miller said,
“Tonight, Wisconsinites across the 21st Senate District elected a new State Senator," Miller said in a statement. "By electing a Democratic Senate, the people of Wisconsin have opened the door to responsible dialogue and if needed provide a bulwark against continued political extremism, and restored checks and balances to the Wisconsin Legislature. I look forward to working again with Senator-elect Lehman in the State Senate in the coming months.”
right wing doners that Obummer can lose in Nov and they
are starting to give money to Romney. When a Republican
can go into a Dem state, take money away from union
workers and then survive a recall, thats nothing short
of a miracle. It shows that even the Left realizes that four
more years of Obummer doing nothing but spend us
into oblivian isn't going to fly.
Quote: EvenBobOne thing the Walker victory is doing is convincing fat cat
right wing doners that Obummer can lose in Nov and they
are starting to give money to Romney. When a Republican
can go into a Dem state, take money away from union
workers and then survive a recall, thats nothing short
of a miracle. It shows that even the Left realizes that four
more years of Obummer doing nothing but spend us
into oblivian isn't going to fly.
Sure, let's pretend that the Governorship of Wisconsin has historically been held by Democrats. Sounds like a fun game of make-believe to me!
Quote: rdw4potusSure, let's pretend that the Governorship of Wisconsin has historically been held by Democrats. Sounds like a fun game of make-believe to me!
Wisconsin has voted Democrat in EVERY presidential election since 1988.
Quote: Gabes22Wisconsin has voted Democrat in EVERY presidential election since 1988.
And they'll do it again in 2012. My point is that they've also only had a Democrat governor for 8 years since 1987. and 36 years since 1895... So Walker winning along with Obama winning isn't exactly rare...
Quote: rdw4potusSo Walker winning along with Obama winning isn't exactly rare...
Whats rare is that Walker cut union benefits in a Dem state and
still won the recall. He's the first govenor anywhere to ever win a
recall, let alone under such adverse conditions. Its right up there
with the Dem's losing the senate seat Teddy Kennedy held
for decades.
Quote: EvenBob...in a Dem state...
More Republican representatives than Democrat Representatives (5 to 3). Republican State House of Representatives, virtually even State Senate (just flipped Dem on Tuesday - by 1 seat). Republican Governor for 70% of the last 25 years. WI has voted for a Democrat for President in 6 of the last 6 elections, 8 of the last 12 elections, 10 of the last 18, and 12 of the last 24 presidential elections.
I guess we just have different ideas about what a "Dem State" looks like. You seem to be quite hung up on the one metric that fits your narrative.
Quote: rdw4potus
I guess we just have different ideas about what a "Dem State" looks like.
Here's what it looks like, solid blue. No confusion about it at all.
Just like MI, where I live. MI just polled Romney in the lead, BTW.
Must be an error.
Quote: EvenBobHere's what it looks like, solid blue. No confusion about it at all.
Just like MI, where I live. MI just polled Romney in the lead, BTW.
Must be an error.
Michigan...That's that state with 9 republican US Reps and 6 democrat US reps, with republican majorities in both houses of the state legislature, right? Yep. Definitely "blue"...
Quote: EvenBobMI just polled Romney in the lead, BTW.
Must be an error.
Was that a Rasmussen poll or a Gallup poll? I know those are the only pollsters that you trust.....
Here's alternative view. The intensity shows solidly the state voted in the last election fro red or blue. The Purple states are swing states.
Bob's map shows the way each state voted across the last four elections. Blue means it went DEM all four times. This is only for Presidential Elections. One imagines the presidential colour, senate colour, congress colour, governor colour and state legislature colour would be various different shades.
These maps come from :
Wikipedia
for those curious... wish generally shows that WI (and others) are just "Red" or "Blue", but some sort of hue that veers in one direction (there's several states though where it is very solidly one way).
Quote: rdw4potusWas that a Rasmussen poll or a Gallup poll? I know those are the only pollsters that you trust.....
http://www.freep.com/article/20120607/NEWS06/120607030/Poll-Barack-Obama-dead-heat-Mitt-Romney-Michigan-popularity-slips - possibly, from an EPIC poll.
Quote: rdw4potus
Michigan...That's that state with 9 republican US Reps and 6 democrat US reps, with republican majorities in both houses of the state legislature, right? Yep. Definitely "blue"...
We're talking about the presidental election, when
did we switch to state politics? Were talking about what
effect does the the Walker election have on Obummer/Romney.
Quote: EvenBobWe're talking about the presidental election, when
did we switch to state politics? Were talking about what
effect does the the Walker election have on Obummer/Romney.
From elsewhere...
Quote: EvenBobTalking about elections in May is as ridiculous
as talking about next winters snowfall in July.
People typically don't pay attention to elections
before Labor Day, and this year will be no
different. So ta ta , I'm not getting involved till
then either.
I guess Labor day came early?
Quote: thecesspitFrom elsewhere...
I guess Labor day came early?
I'm sorry, have let you down yet again? Your heroes,
how they do tumble..
Quote: EvenBobWe're talking about the presidental election, when
did we switch to state politics? Were talking about what
effect does the the Walker election have on Obummer/Romney.
Yes, that's what we were talking about. And then I pointed out that it's very common in Wisconsin for a GOPer to win the governorship while the Dems still win the presidential vote. Then you brought up Michigan for some reason that I'm not exactly sure that I followed. If all you care about is presidential voting, then you need to stop talking about Walker. If you're willing to talk about other elected officials (like Governor Walker), then you need to accept that both of the "blue" states that you mentioned have significantly more "red" officials than "blue" officials.
Quote: thecesspithttp://www.freep.com/article/20120607/NEWS06/120607030/Poll-Barack-Obama-dead-heat-Mitt-Romney-Michigan-popularity-slips - possibly, from an EPIC poll.
I know, I know...But Bob only trusts Rasmussen and Gallup. So I'm sure he must have another poll that he's talking about. EPIC-MRA fails to meet Bob's high standards;-)
Quote: EvenBobI'm sorry, have let you down yet again? Your heroes,
how they do tumble..
Hey, your the one being ridiculous, by your own statements. I'm happy to talk about the race any time.
Hero? Oh don't build yourself up Bob...
Quote: rdw4potusI know, I know...But Bob only trusts Rasmussen and Gallup.
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.
