PDA

View Full Version : Elections Wisconsin recall election today


qabbaan
06-05-2012, 04:46 PM
Wisconsin / Scott Walker recall election is today. Can he hold on to the governorship? Can the union bosses tilt the election and prove they still have weight?




By Rachel Rose Hartman
June 5, 2012

If Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker loses the election to recall him from
office Tuesday, the political press will declare the arrival of Big
Labor's comeback. If Walker wins, it will be seen as yet another sign
of labor's demise.

The election to recall the Republican governor, sparked by Walker's
successful 2011 effort to end collective bargaining for public
employees, has drawn participation from many different groups,
including the tea party. But unions, which have long been fighting
stories of their demise, have much of what's left of their reputation
as powerful political organizers riding on the race.

Union membership in 2011 fell to a record low for the second straight
year, according to the Department of Labor, but that's not the only
avenue in which unions have been struggling.

Bill Schneider, a a senior fellow and resident scholar at centrist
think tank Third Way, told Yahoo News that labor has lately
experienced "tougher times winning" electoral races in which they've
inserted themselves. This includes labor's unsuccessful attempt to
take down Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the 2010 Arkansas Democratic
primary.

Labor activists deny any suggestion that a downward trend is forming.

"This is one election," Chris Fleming, the media director for the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told
Yahoo News of the recall, adding that the left was heavily outspent in
this race. "We cannot compete with the Koch brothers and all of
Walker's millionaire and billionaire megalomaniac friends who want to
take control of the government."

Walker personally raised about $21 million, significantly more than
the $3 million raised by Democratic challenger Tom Barrett, the mayor
of Milwaukee. And Walker additionally benefited from major spending by
outside tea party groups and super PACs.

Fleming said regardless of Tuesday's outcome, the effort to recall
Walker has "energized" union supporters "like never before" and turned
their message about protecting working class families into a "Main
Street movement."

"Anyone who says the enthusiasm is low needs to come to the state just
for a day," Fleming said, adding that labor supporters knocked on half
a million doors in 48 hours ahead of the recall, and have set up 31
field offices and 60 staging locations, more than he's seen for a
presidential campaign.

But polls show labor losing the enthusiasm battle in the face of tea
party energy and mobilization on the right.

"The reason [Democratic challenger Tom Barrett] continues to trail
overall is that Republicans are more excited about voting in Tuesday's
election than Democrats are," the Democratic-leaning firm Public
Policy Polling wrote in its analysis of a new poll on the race
released Monday.

Democrats downplayed the fact that President Obama chose not to make a
campaign appearance for Barrett, but Schneider notes that many party
officials have long been reluctant to attach themselves to this race.

"They had doubts at the beginning ... what exactly was behind that, I
don't know," Schneider said. "I think Democrats were hesitant."

Schneider said the Wisconsin recall is connected to the 2012
presidential race because it is "a test run for a strategy that Obama
may be tempted to follow."

Schneider notes that if Republicans are successful in Wisconsin in
November in the presidential election as well as in downballot races,
labor may have itself to blame.

"Conservative are riled up and that's because liberals riled up their
base," he said. "And now, [Republicans] are likely to stay angry right
through November."

Additionally, Schneider said the recall has significantly "toned up"
the Republican ground game in the state.

Observers say Republicans across the country are likely to try to
piggyback off of Walker's success if he wins and take a stronger stand
against unions.

Trivers
06-05-2012, 06:24 PM
Long voting line today.

Repubs are pissed. Dems are pissed.

Walker should win.

Direckshun
06-05-2012, 06:28 PM
"Big Labor" was outspent 3 to 1. So let's not pretend they are unstoppable demigods determining our democracy.

healthpellets
06-05-2012, 06:46 PM
i hope "big corporate" was able to get all their contributions in on time. nothings says "an electing good time!" like massive corporate donations.

AustinChief
06-05-2012, 06:48 PM
I don't understand how you can allow a RECALL election that is this close. I understand if you required something like a 2/3 majority to throw him out but the guy already WON an election. With the obviously tight race that it has turned out to be, it just seems like such a complete whiny bitch move to me.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 06:56 PM
i hope "big corporate" was able to get all their contributions in on time. nothings says "an electing good time!" like massive corporate donations.

I haven't posted a thread being a busy body about Wisconsin on a nit-picky very local concern that has ZERO effect on you. I have an opinion about all the outside money being involved in the state though. So everyone's already involved there setting a a trend for the country. I don't see that happening with Florida yet. I have an opinion about public labor unions, which are everywhere and also about the Koch brothers getting no bid contracts on energy because I don't like mercantilism and those guys are not just in that state. This election is a bellweather for certain issues. Sorry, lots of outside money involved in Wisconsin.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 06:59 PM
i hope "big corporate" was able to get all their contributions in on time. nothings says "an electing good time!" like massive corporate donations.

What about all that money from national groups for labor 'huh? What's good for one side is good for the other. This election is a national concern because of the trends it could set. So you're damn right, I have a valid interest in seeing how this goes as a Republican since it's a recall on a Republican gov over collective bargaining rights for public workers.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 07:00 PM
I don't understand how you can allow a RECALL election that is this close. I understand if you required something like a 2/3 majority to throw him out but the guy already WON an election. With the obviously tight race that it has turned out to be, it just seems like such a complete whiny bitch move to me.

Interesting Exit Polls reported on cbs:
Early Wisconsin recall exit polls: 60 percent say recalls are only for official misconduct

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57447919-503544/early-wisconsin-recall-exit-polls-60-percent-say-recalls-are-only-for-official-misconduct/

jjjayb
06-05-2012, 07:03 PM
So once this election is over, can they just recall the winner again? Rinse repeat?

Munson
06-05-2012, 07:07 PM
I hope Walker wins his election....again.

Regardless of the result, its a giant waste of Wisconsin taxpayer's time and money.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 07:07 PM
Wisconsin / Scott Walker recall election is today. Can he hold on to the governorship? Can the union bosses tilt the election and prove they still have weight?

I think you misunderstand something. You're entitled to an opinion on anything you want. It's just the issue you chose for Florida and how it came across seemed more than that.

SNR
06-05-2012, 07:10 PM
I got no fewer than 10 people who stopped me on my walk home from work today asking me if I voted for Tom Barrett yet.

I hate Madison some days. :grr:

FD
06-05-2012, 07:14 PM
My hope would be for a win by Walker that empowers other governors to take on the public sector unions, but I fear the unions have done enough damage already. Just by making this such a fight they have intimidated most states considering serious reform. Of course, Wisconsin is farther left than most.

healthpellets
06-05-2012, 07:38 PM
What about all that money from national groups for labor 'huh? What's good for one side is good for the other. This election is a national concern because of the trends it could set. So you're damn right, I have a valid interest in seeing how this goes as a Republican since it's a recall on a Republican gov over collective bargaining rights for public workers.

it would be nice if in-state money influenced in-state politics. i don't care which side benefits from that. that's the way it should be.

Munson
06-05-2012, 07:41 PM
According to the front page of Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com)....

with 12% reporting:

Walker 60% (163,501)
Barrett 39% (104,784)

Its updating constantly.

dirk digler
06-05-2012, 07:53 PM
NBC is projecting Walker won. right now it is not even close 60-39

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 07:53 PM
Watch Obama Central go into super spin mode.....

The White House is bracing for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to hang on in Tuesday’s recall election— denying that the contest portends anything for President Obama’s chances in November.

“A race where one side is outspending the other by a ratio of at least 8 to 1 probably won’t tell us much about a future race,” press secretary Jay Carney said. “I know the president is aware of the election. I think he’s got some other responsibilities,” Carney said. “I know that he’s not following it minute by minute … You know that he tweeted about it earlier. He stands with the Democratic candidate, Mayor Barrett, in this race.”

Still, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina listed Wisconsin as a toss-up in a video message to supporters this week — even as the campaign has limited Obama’s involvement in the polarized recall election that seeks to oust Walker over his anti-labor legislative push last year.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/white-house-wisconsin-results-mean-nothing-for-november-125335.html

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 07:55 PM
Can someone explain this?

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Screen-shot-2012-06-05-at-8.19.41-PM-550x211.png

CaliforniaChief
06-05-2012, 07:56 PM
CNN started by talking about how this was 50-50, how their exit polls showed Obama would kill Romney in Wisconsin in Nov., and then sheepishly came on and said 52-48...and ran off to Piers Morgan and the queen.

InChiefsHell
06-05-2012, 07:57 PM
Can someone explain this?

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Screen-shot-2012-06-05-at-8.19.41-PM-550x211.png

Well it's all the extra union voters shipped in...duh!:p

dirk digler
06-05-2012, 07:58 PM
Can someone explain this?

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Screen-shot-2012-06-05-at-8.19.41-PM-550x211.png

Maybe because of college kids?

Munson
06-05-2012, 07:58 PM
Well it's all the extra union voters shipped in...duh!:p

Plus all of the dead people rising from the grave to vote.LMAO

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 07:59 PM
Maybe because of college kids?

Huh?

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 08:00 PM
This is the local explaination.


Turnout in excess of 100% is possible because Wisconsin allows same-day voter registration. The numbers suggest that many people are registering at the polls. Heavy turnout in Madison, a liberal stronghold, would likely benefit Democrat Tom Barrett.

dirk digler
06-05-2012, 08:01 PM
CNN started by talking about how this was 50-50, how their exit polls showed Obama would kill Romney in Wisconsin in Nov., and then sheepishly came on and said 52-48...and ran off to Piers Morgan and the queen.

I saw the exit poll from CNN it was 54-42 Obama and is listed on their website.

healthpellets
06-05-2012, 08:02 PM
This is the local explaination.


Turnout in excess of 100% is possible because Wisconsin allows same-day voter registration. The numbers suggest that many people are registering at the polls. Heavy turnout in Madison, a liberal stronghold, would likely benefit Democrat Tom Barrett.

beat me to the explanation.

WI is one of the few states that have it right with same day voter registration.

dirk digler
06-05-2012, 08:03 PM
Huh?

I guess since college is on summer break that wouldn't matter. i was just taking a guess I don't know...

mlyonsd
06-05-2012, 08:10 PM
It's over.

Common sense prevails in a state where government workers on average make more in salary and benefits than the private sector, which is something that can't or shouldn't be sustained.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 08:11 PM
Guess I'm glad that the public employee unions in the state I live in are relatively under control and don't have outrageously generous tax-sucking pensions and health care.

I also love the common argument from the left on this: "why are you punishing the unions, rather than be jealous, what we should be doing is figure out how to improve everyone else's pay and benefits!"

With what, a friggin' magic wand and pixie dust? We're in the biggest damned recession since the depression. A lot of people wish they could give modest concessions to keep their jobs. Private companies cant increase taxes to meet demands from workers, they have to balance their budget or go under.

Munson
06-05-2012, 08:12 PM
35% reporting:

Walker 59% (460,839)
Barrett 40% (315,987)

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 08:14 PM
Maybe fiscal responsibility has traction?

RedNeckRaider
06-05-2012, 08:16 PM
35% reporting:

Walker 59% (460,839)
Barrett 40% (315,987)

LMAO a real nail biter~

CaliforniaChief
06-05-2012, 08:17 PM
I saw the exit poll from CNN it was 54-42 Obama and is listed on their website.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

CNN stated that Walker/Barrett was 50-50, then 52-48.

And even though it appears that those exit polls are seriously wrong, they're sticking by the 54-42 Obama/Romney numbers affiliated with it.

They're basically saying that the exit poll was wrong, but continuing to run with numbers from within the flawed poll.

Not saying Obama doesn't have the advantage, just saying.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 08:18 PM
Maybe fiscal responsibility has traction?

Honestly, I don't see why liberals should be supporting huge, powerful government employee unions with unaffordable pensions. Well, other than being bribed by them, but I'm talking philosophically.

Government employees are not poor, far from it, and their jobs are more secure than almost everyone else. Whatever money we shovel into boosting their pay and benefits, is less money available for the social and entitlement programs that the left claims to care about.

This blind support of unions makes it more difficult for them to strengthen or maintain the "safety net"

alnorth
06-05-2012, 08:21 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear.

CNN stated that Walker/Barrett was 50-50, then 52-48.

And even though it appears that those exit polls are seriously wrong, they're sticking by the 54-42 Obama/Romney numbers affiliated with it.

They're basically saying that the exit poll was wrong, but continuing to run with numbers from within the flawed poll.

Not saying Obama doesn't have the advantage, just saying.

Those exits were screwed up, but Romney is not winning WI.

The pollster I most trust (PPP) called the race for Walker yesterday, and said it wasn't going to be as close as some people expected, but they also show a big Obama/Romney gap similar to what he had over McCain. There are a lot of people who say they will vote for Obama, who voted for Walker.

notorious
06-05-2012, 08:22 PM
There are a lot of people who say they will vote for Obama, who voted for Walker.

Wow, that makes very little sense.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 08:32 PM
Wow, that makes very little sense.

Think "spin".

Trivers
06-05-2012, 08:36 PM
Watching the Green Bay TV news.......showing JESSE JACKSON at Tom Barrett's campaign ballroom...why in the world is he there???? Does he ever pass on a photo opp?

He and Donald Trump have amazing large egos.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 08:36 PM
Wow, that makes very little sense.

independent voters do exist.

Its not some blue army vs red army war with no one in the middle of the battlefield. Plus, budget deficits aren't a partisan issue and opposing union overreach can bleed into the other party. Not every Democrat lives in a union household.

Democrat politicians support the unions because of donations, Dem politicians who don't, get no support. Its not necessarily because rank-and-file Dem voters are in lockstep with the unions.

Saul Good
06-05-2012, 08:41 PM
What was the margin of Walker's original election victory?

Saul Good
06-05-2012, 08:43 PM
What was the margin of Walker's original election victory?

Answering my own question: 52-47

This is a huge embarrassment for the Dems.

Munson
06-05-2012, 08:44 PM
60% reporting

Walker 57% (763,405)
Barrett 42% (558,151)

chiefzilla1501
06-05-2012, 08:45 PM
Answering my own question: 52-47

This is a huge embarrassment for the Dems.

To be honest with you, I think it's a huge embarrassment on the country that it was ever that close.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 08:46 PM
hahaha, Barrett isn't even winning his own damned city

Saul Good
06-05-2012, 08:46 PM
60% reporting

Walker 57% (763,405)
Barrett 42% (558,151)

Walker got 1,128,941 votes in his original election. This is more than a victory. This is a mandate. Good for Wisconsin.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 08:47 PM
Answering my own question: 52-47

This is a huge embarrassment for the Dems.

Yepper

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 08:49 PM
Watching the Green Bay TV news.......showing JESSE JACKSON at Tom Barrett's campaign ballroom...why in the world is he there???? Does he ever pass on a photo opp?

He and Donald Trump have amazing large egos.

Northern Wisconsin is a major hotbed of racial political activity

jjjayb
06-05-2012, 09:13 PM
There are a lot of people who say they will vote for Obama, who voted for Walker.


Wow, that makes very little sense.

I imagine there are people who will vote for Walker because they think the recall was bullshit.

jjjayb
06-05-2012, 09:19 PM
101329

Typical CNN "non-biased" reporting.

"Walker survives recall"

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will win a bitter recall effort, CNN projects. Walker angered unions with his 2011 austerity measures but drew millions in support from outside the state.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 09:23 PM
Looks like Barret will carry 9 counties by a landslide

Chief Henry
06-05-2012, 09:31 PM
On Wisconsin...again ! Gov. Walker is now speaking.

SLAG
06-05-2012, 09:42 PM
This is the end of Democracy!!!eleventy111!1

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=c5aGV5NDoA6ce1rjC1bw0mS3Rsg--pIY&width=580&video_pcode=Q2cHA61kNSkkZTQQ6grpeuAc28Oq&deepLinkEmbedCode=c5aGV5NDoA6ce1rjC1bw0mS3Rsg--pIY&height=326"></script>

alnorth
06-05-2012, 09:45 PM
The Obama campaign's statement to Politico is, "No one can dispute the strong message sent to Governor Walker".

Hmmm, interesting. Is the strong message, "We want you to be Governor of Wisconsin"?

SNR
06-05-2012, 09:50 PM
What's this bullshit about spending?

If you're a Wisconsin citizen and Barrett was the logical, righteous, choice in this election, why did so many liberal newspaper rags like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Janesville Gazette endorse Walker in this election?

Underdogs win these elections all the time because they resonate with the voters more. It's that simple. If Wisconsin really was pissed off by the union busting, they wouldn't have voted as aggressively in favor of Walker as they did.

More money for spending or less money for spending by the Republicans wasn't going to make the difference. Campaign ads rarely dictate state elections.

TrebMaxx
06-05-2012, 09:51 PM
This is the end of Democracy!!!eleventy111!1

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=c5aGV5NDoA6ce1rjC1bw0mS3Rsg--pIY&width=580&video_pcode=Q2cHA61kNSkkZTQQ6grpeuAc28Oq&deepLinkEmbedCode=c5aGV5NDoA6ce1rjC1bw0mS3Rsg--pIY&height=326"></script>

LMAOLMAOLMAO

Saul Good
06-05-2012, 09:52 PM
The Obama campaign's statement to Politico is, "No one can dispute the strong message sent to Governor Walker".

Hmmm, interesting. Is the strong message, "We want you to be Governor of Wisconsin"?

...even more now than we did in 2010."

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 09:53 PM
Its done!

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 09:57 PM
Plus all of the dead people rising from the grave to vote.LMAO

ROFL:clap:

dirk digler
06-05-2012, 09:59 PM
What's this bullshit about spending?

If you're a Wisconsin citizen and Barrett was the logical, righteous, choice in this election, why did so many liberal newspaper rags like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Janesville Gazette endorse Walker in this election?

Underdogs win these elections all the time because they resonate with the voters more. It's that simple. If Wisconsin really was pissed off by the union busting, they wouldn't have voted as aggressively in favor of Walker as they did.

More money for spending or less money for spending by the Republicans wasn't going to make the difference. Campaign ads rarely dictate state elections.

If that was true then why did they outspend Dems 7-1. Seems like an awful lot of money to waste for little or no impact.

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 10:00 PM
This definitely sends a helluva a strong message from "We The People" to OMarxist for sure; "your ass is next out the door":thumb:

RaiderH8r
06-05-2012, 10:01 PM
Northern Wisconsin is a major hotbed of racial political activity
The fish belly white oppress the shit out of the freckled up there. Sorry, people of intermittent color.

Munson
06-05-2012, 10:02 PM
92% reporting:

Walker 54% (1,186,247)
Barrett 45% (1,000,746)

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 10:04 PM
If that was true then why did they outspend Dems 7-1. Seems like an awful lot of money to waste for little or no impact.

You need to pay attention dirkster! Obama's big $$ machine pulled out several weeks ago which was admitting they knew they were going to lose.

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 10:06 PM
92% reporting:

Walker 54% (1,186,247)
Barrett 45% (1,000,746)

Whatta bet these numbers will be the same in Nov with Romney winning? These are landslide numbers.

Munson
06-05-2012, 10:12 PM
Whatta bet these numbers will be the same in Nov with Romney winning? These are landslide numbers.

I'm hoping it will be an even bigger landslide than that. I want to see Obama get embarrassed by the voters.

SNR
06-05-2012, 10:12 PM
If that was true then why did they outspend Dems 7-1. Seems like an awful lot of money to waste for little or no impact.In a state the size of Wisconsin, do fairer campaign spending policies buy Barrett the nearly 100,000 votes necessary to win the bitch?

I'm going to go ahead and say, "No." The out-of-state campaign donors thing sucks, but it is what it is. Barrett could have won this if he wasn't such a colossal failure of a leader. It would also help if he weren't 1/10th the douchebag that he is. Wisconsinites were turned off by the recall garbage going on for the past 15 months, yes, but I think they were even more turned off by the idea of a Barrett governorship.

Reverse the spending so it's 7-to-1 Democrat and I'm still not sure he would have won.

fan4ever
06-05-2012, 10:12 PM
Jeez, I hope Romney gets more than 1,186,247 votes...that would suck.

qabbaan
06-05-2012, 10:12 PM
Honestly, I don't see why liberals should be supporting huge, powerful government employee unions with unaffordable pensions. Well, other than being bribed by them, but I'm talking philosophically.

Government employees are not poor, far from it, and their jobs are more secure than almost everyone else. Whatever money we shovel into boosting their pay and benefits, is less money available for the social and entitlement programs that the left claims to care about.

This blind support of unions makes it more difficult for them to strengthen or maintain the "safety net"

I think Democrats bend a lot of ideological rules for the union voters because many of these people don't have a lot in common with Dems otherwise.

Think about if they weren't union. These are blue collar Midwestern people. They are generally going to hope for lower taxes ( I mean, even social liberals want their property taxes to go down. ) Many of them are religious though and might lean socially conservative. Many of them are against gay marriage. Many are outdoorsmen and strongly favor second amendment rights. Many probably favor small government in ways it doesn't affect them, such as if they aren't in a government employees union. I think catering to unions gives access to demographics that Democrats may not appeal to as strongly otherwise. Plus, these are people who turn out very highly and are sterling on election day.


No matter how you feel about government workers' employee unions, this would have set a terrible precedent nationally. We should not be having recalls over budgetary matters like this... It really should be for corruption or criminal activity.

It already is bad that the playbook for election day now always includes lawsuits and screaming of 'voter suppression' regardless of the facts on the ground. It would have been terrible precedent nationally for elected officials to face recall efforts routinely in the middle of each term just as an effort to battle against policies. Same should have been said when it was Gray Davis on the chopping block, but CA is kind of a circus all it's own... I don't pretend to understand that place.

I think a lot of people probably felt that he was a duly elected governor. The margins were not much different than when this same race was held before, Walker won by about five points against the same guy when he took office. Sorry, but you don't get to call for a revote because you lost last time. better luck next election.

Good thing all around.

fan4ever
06-05-2012, 10:13 PM
I'm hoping it will be an even bigger landslide than that. I want to see Obama get embarrassed by the voters.

Same here; wonder if Direckshun is worried about his November posting status...:p

qabbaan
06-05-2012, 10:18 PM
This is the end of Democracy!!!eleventy111!1

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=c5aGV5NDoA6ce1rjC1bw0mS3Rsg--pIY&width=580&video_pcode=Q2cHA61kNSkkZTQQ6grpeuAc28Oq&deepLinkEmbedCode=c5aGV5NDoA6ce1rjC1bw0mS3Rsg--pIY&height=326"></script>

"America died tonight!" :rolleyes:

alnorth
06-05-2012, 10:20 PM
There are 4 WI recall elections for republican state senators. 3 of the 4 have been called for the GOP, and in the 4th, the Republican is up by 24%

dirk digler
06-05-2012, 10:20 PM
In a state the size of Wisconsin, do fairer campaign spending policies buy Barrett the nearly 100,000 votes necessary to win the bitch?

I'm going to go ahead and say, "No." The out-of-state campaign donors thing sucks, but it is what it is. Barrett could have won this if he wasn't such a colossal failure of a leader. It would also help if he weren't 1/10th the douchebag that he is. Wisconsinites were turned off by the recall garbage going on for the past 15 months, yes, but I think they were even more turned off by the idea of a Barrett governorship.

Reverse the spending so it's 7-to-1 Democrat and I'm still not sure he would have won.

That's a fair point. I am not familiar with Barrett so he must have been a huge douchebag compared to Walker.

Bwana
06-05-2012, 10:25 PM
92% reporting:

Walker 54% (1,186,247)
Barrett 45% (1,000,746)

Outstanding! LMAO

qabbaan
06-05-2012, 10:26 PM
In a state the size of Wisconsin, do fairer campaign spending policies buy Barrett the nearly 100,000 votes necessary to win the bitch?

I'm going to go ahead and say, "No." The out-of-state campaign donors thing sucks, but it is what it is. Barrett could have won this if he wasn't such a colossal failure of a leader. It would also help if he weren't 1/10th the douchebag that he is. Wisconsinites were turned off by the recall garbage going on for the past 15 months, yes, but I think they were even more turned off by the idea of a Barrett governorship.

Reverse the spending so it's 7-to-1 Democrat and I'm still not sure he would have won.

You know, if the spending was so lopsided... Where were all the big money liberals? Obama doesn't have trouble raising a few million in a night. They couldn't raise more money over the last 18 months? Ten or twenty million is not a huge sum in politics. Is all the money going to try to hold the white house? It doesn't make any sense why they'd be outspent in or out of state. Even the President stayed well away from this mess.

SNR
06-05-2012, 10:29 PM
That's a fair point. I am not familiar with Barrett so he must have been a huge douchebag compared to Walker.In the debates he was ultra aggressive towards Walker, but didn't muster up any kind of positive support for himself. And he didn't do a very good job of defending his record as mayor in those debates either.

That's really what did him in in the end, i think. That, and the fact that Wisconsin already told him "no" once in 2010. They would undoubtedly tell him "no" twice.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 10:32 PM
By tomorrow, the spending will be reported as 20 to 1, Koch will own Lake Michigan, and the packers will change the team colors

The Rick
06-05-2012, 10:33 PM
Really proud of my state tonight! Now it's time to, as Gov. Walker would say, "move forward". Enough with the bitching, whining, and these asinine "re-dos" when you don't get your way.

I think the people of Wisconsin spoke tonight in a big way. When the margin of victory is bigger this time than it was the last time Walker and Barrett faced off a year and a half ago, that should tell you everything you need to know.

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 10:34 PM
Same here; wonder if Direckshun is worried about his November posting status...:p

Hell no he is not worried because he could give a shit less about DC. His real passion is the 'draft forum' in which he is too much of a pussy to put his real passion on the line like I did which is DC for me:thumb:

My mistake was not thinking this through thoroughly enough otherwise we would not have a bet because he would have pussed out then:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 10:38 PM
Really proud of my state tonight! Now it's time to, as Gov. Walker would say, "move forward". Enough with the bitching, whining, and these asinine "re-dos" when you don't get your way.

I think the people of Wisconsin spoke tonight in a big way. When the margin of victory is bigger this time than it was the last time Walker and Barrett faced off a year and a half ago, that should tell you everything you need to know.

Amen brother !! It tells us Obama's ASS is out in Nov!!:thumb: Anybody who thinks otherwise is well just "Mis-directed":p

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 10:42 PM
I'm hoping it will be an even bigger landslide than that. I want to see Obama get embarrassed by the voters.

I recently said that Obama loses in a landslide by 6-10 pts and 'pellets' has it on his signature. I'm wondering now if it will be more like 10-13 pts?

La literatura
06-05-2012, 10:55 PM
I recently said that Obama loses in a landslide by 6-10 pts and 'pellets' has it on his signature. I'm wondering now if it will be more like 10-13 pts?

Tonight was not that relevant to the Obama/Romney election. Obama has been slightly ahead in a majority of surveys. That won't change because of tonight. I don't see at all how this recall was a referendum on Obama.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 10:57 PM
I recently said that Obama loses in a landslide by 6-10 pts and 'pellets' has it on his signature. I'm wondering now if it will be more like 10-13 pts?

You may want to ease up on the bold predictions there. Obama is very likely going to win not just WI (easily, this is not a toss-up state at all), but the election as well.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 10:59 PM
Tonight was not that relevant to the Obama/Romney election. Obama has been slightly ahead in a majority of surveys. That won't change because of tonight. I don't see at all how this recall was a referendum on Obama.

The electoral college math is also bad for Romney. Obama could win the election while losing the popular vote.

That would actually be an interesting outcome because it could spur a lot of red states to sign onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 11:10 PM
Tonight was not that relevant to the Obama/Romney election. Obama has been slightly ahead in a majority of surveys. That won't change because of tonight. I don't see at all how this recall was a referendum on Obama.

You may want to ease up on the bold predictions there. Obama is very likely going to win not just WI (easily, this is not a toss-up state at all), but the election as well.

You realize that "rose colored denial" is only safe until Nov. don't you?

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:11 PM
You realize that "rose colored denial" is only safe until Nov. don't you?

You are aware that the vast, lurching horde of "I only vote when Obama is on the ballot" mindless zombies don't vote in June, right?

That lefty horde aside, a lot of people who voted for Walker are going to vote for Obama.

Predicting a WI win is completely, utterly, looney-tunes crazy. Hell, Republican governors held CA for most of the 90's AND 2000's. Local issues are not particularly relevant for a presidential election.

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:13 PM
You may want to ease up on the bold predictions there. Obama is very likely going to win not just WI (easily, this is not a toss-up state at all), but the election as well.

Wisconsin, yes, America, no way. LMAO

He's gonna lose by 10 points. 54-44 with Ron Paul coming out on top with 2%.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:17 PM
Wisconsin, yes, America, no way. LMAO

He's gonna lose by 10 points. 54-44 with Ron Paul coming out on top with 2%.

There is not a chance in Heaven, Earth, or Hades that Obama loses by 10.

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:20 PM
There is not a chance in Heaven, Earth, or Hades that Obama loses by 10.

Sure there is. Why the fuck would someone vote for him again?

1. Hasn't paid attention to the last 4 years
2. Can't get past his skin color
3. Would never vote for anything but a D
4. Hoping to get a movie role

None of those people are going to be excited to vote. The people who view him as destroying America, folks like Bill Clinton, are going to be very, very excited to vote his ass out.

I wonder if people thought there was no way Jimmy Carter wouldn't win re-election? Or if they thought it'd be close? Because this is his second term...

Fairplay
06-05-2012, 11:22 PM
If i was a democrat and specifically a union member, i would be pissed that Obama didn't go up there and campaign for Barret. He should have went up to support the unions.

I think it shows Obama's record is a dismal failure. Expect the November elections to follow the same course.

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:22 PM
<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/113634" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:24 PM
The Dems were so freaked out that Carter was going down, that he had a serious, viable primary challenge.

If you seriously think Obama's going to get blown out, you are completely out of touch.

By the way, I didn't vote for the man and I'm not excited to see him get re-elected, I'm just calling it how I see it, especially given the formidable electoral college math challenges Romney faces.

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:24 PM
If i was a democrat and specifically a union member, i would be pissed that Obama didn't go up there and campaign for Barret. He should have went up to support the unions.

I think it shows Obama's record is a dismal failure. Expect the November elections to follow the same course.

War on women and Osama Bin Laden!!!!! :evil:

Fairplay
06-05-2012, 11:25 PM
This is the end of Democracy!!!eleventy111!1

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=c5aGV5NDoA6ce1rjC1bw0mS3Rsg--pIY&width=580&video_pcode=Q2cHA61kNSkkZTQQ6grpeuAc28Oq&deepLinkEmbedCode=c5aGV5NDoA6ce1rjC1bw0mS3Rsg--pIY&height=326"></script>



:crybaby:

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:26 PM
The Dems were so freaked out that Carter was going down, that he had a serious, viable primary challenge.

If you seriously think Obama's going to get blown out, you are completely out of touch.

By the way, I didn't vote for the man and I'm not excited to see him get re-elected, I'm just calling it how I see it, especially given the formidable electoral college math challenges Romney faces.

Romney is going to win some states that nobody thinks they'll ever see an R win again. Which those are I don't know, but there will be some states turn red that will surprise some folks.

Seriously, why would someone vote to get more of what we've got the last 3+ years? Nobody believes Bush is still pulling the strings....

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:27 PM
The Dems were so freaked out that Carter was going down, that he had a serious, viable primary challenge.

If you seriously think Obama's going to get blown out, you are completely out of touch.

By the way, I didn't vote for the man and I'm not excited to see him get re-elected, I'm just calling it how I see it, especially given the formidable electoral college math challenges Romney faces.

I'll add too that there were a lot of people calling on Hillary to run this year. Probably a good sign for Obama for sure.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:27 PM
If i was a democrat and specifically a union member, i would be pissed that Obama didn't go up there and campaign for Barret. He should have went up to support the unions.

I think it shows Obama's record is a dismal failure. Expect the November elections to follow the same course.

It would have been a dumb move to campaign in WI. He already got burned by Coakley in MA, Barret went down so badly that nothing would have helped.

Simply put, Walker closed the deficit, the unemployment rate fell a point, the people of WI know they have a serious budget issue, and even some who didn't vote for him were turned off by the political hackery of the recall that was launched just for purely political purposes.

Obama doesn't need the stink of failing to help a doomed candidate.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:29 PM
I'll add too that there were a lot of people calling on Hillary to run this year. Probably a good sign for Obama for sure.

By "a lot of people" you mean "a few nutwings who Drudge linked"

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:29 PM
Obama doesn't need the stink of failing to help a doomed candidate.

Speaking of doomed candidates:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_E4nB9I9HSIw/S7QFbQbUCZI/AAAAAAAABL0/_OVkbr_3SN0/s1600/obama-messiah.jpg

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:31 PM
By "a lot of people" you mean "a few nutwings who Drudge linked"

Sure. It's not like Hillary wasn't asked about it numerous times by the media. And we all know the media is all about Romney.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:33 PM
Seriously, why would someone vote to get more of what we've got the last 3+ years? Nobody believes Bush is still pulling the strings....

No one outside the far right is blaming Obama for the recession, and yes, Bush deserves a lot of the blame for it.

To the extent Obama should be held accountable for the recession, it is for not getting out of it quicker, and when the recession ended, for not figuring out a way to improve on the weak growth rate. For whatever reason a lot of independent voters are just flat-out giving Obama a pass on the economy.

Obama wont win the same number of electoral votes as last time, but he's the favorite right now.

Chocolate Hog
06-05-2012, 11:34 PM
Fuck liberalism.


http://pix5.bangme.net/userphotos/album/3364283.jpg

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:34 PM
No one outside the far right is blaming Obama for the recession, and yes, Bush deserves a lot of the blame for it.

To the extent he should be held accountable for the recession, it is for not getting out of it quicker, and when the recession ended, for not figuring out a way to improve on the weak growth rate. For whatever reason a lot of independent voters are just flat-out giving Obama a pass on the economy.

Obama wont win the same number of electoral votes as last time, but he's the favorite right now.

Do you believe this?

Fairplay
06-05-2012, 11:36 PM
Obama wont win the same number of electoral votes as last time, but he's the favorite right now.



The audacity of hope.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:37 PM
Do you believe this?

We went into recession while Bush was in office. That is a fact which is not in dispute.

That Obama is being given a pass by a lot of people is reflected by him winning most of the polls (aside from Rasmussen, which is not reliable at all) despite the great recession, which is kind of incredible in itself.

Really, it wasn't a wacky statement.

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:38 PM
We went into recession while Bush was in office. That is a fact which is not in dispute.

That Obama is being given a pass by a lot of people is reflected by him winning most of the polls (aside from Rasmussen, which is not reliable at all) despite the great recession, which is kind of incredible in itself.

Really, it wasn't a wacky statement.

Do you honestly believe that people give Obama a pass on the economy? Honestly?

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:38 PM
The audacity of hope.

We have an unemployment rate north of 8%, right after the great recession, his signature accomplishment is unpopular, and yet he STILL leads the polls.

At some point you've gotta wonder what he's got to do to trail Romney, outside of a felony.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:40 PM
Do you honestly believe that people give Obama a pass on the economy? Honestly?

How do you explain Obama leading Romney?

Actually, I just thought of one possibility: maybe he's getting residual credit for Bin Laden (by the way, movie coming out in October), and ending the Iraq wars? I dunno, I thought the people were past that by now, but maybe not?

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 11:42 PM
Obama doesn't need the stink of failing to help a doomed candidate.

Hey Big Dog ! You have it backwards. I assure he was told to stay away because any Dem politician he has tried to help in the past has lost. No Dem right now up for re-election once this cancerous loser to come campaign for him.:thumb:

jjjayb
06-05-2012, 11:44 PM
No one in the media is blaming Obama for the recession,



FYP

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:45 PM
Hey Big Dog ! You have it backwards. I assure he was told to stay away because any Dem politician he has tried to help in the past has lost. No Dem right now up for re-election once this cancerous loser to come campaign for him.:thumb:

What are you going to do if Romney loses? (I assume you weren't nuts enough to think McCain was going to win)

If I remember right, Dems usually disappeared for a while when Bush won, but this election could be interesting to see the reverse reaction.

jjjayb
06-05-2012, 11:45 PM
We went into recession while Bush was in office. That is a fact which is not in dispute.

That Obama is being given a pass by a lot of people is reflected by him winning most of the polls (aside from Rasmussen, which is not reliable at all) despite the great recession, which is kind of incredible in itself.

Really, it wasn't a wacky statement.

He's had 4 years. 4 frigging years. Eventually he's got to own up.

Chiefshrink
06-05-2012, 11:45 PM
Actually, I just thought of one possibility: maybe he's getting residual credit for Bin Laden (by the way, movie coming out in October), and ending the Iraq wars? I dunno, I thought the people were past that by now, but maybe not?

What timing ! And something tells me they will leave out the part where Panetta yanks his ass off the golf course to tell him what they have done and now he is needed for a manufactured puff piece showing this was all OMarxist's doing:rolleyes:

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:46 PM
FYP

No sane informed person is blaming Obama for the beginning of the recession. It started when Bush was in office. Anyone who thinks otherwise is factually, provably, wrong.

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:47 PM
How do you explain Obama leading Romney?

Actually, I just thought of one possibility: maybe he's getting residual credit for Bin Laden (by the way, movie coming out in October), and ending the Iraq wars? I dunno, I thought the people were past that by now, but maybe not?

Polling is bullshit until the last one before the election, and that's always skewed as well.

Why is Obama fundraising like crazy (something current Presidents never do)? Why is his message flopping all over the place? Why is the media telling him to shut the fuck up?

Obama didn't start any of this financial mess, but he sure as hell made it worse. And that is why he won't be in office come January.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:48 PM
He's had 4 years. 4 frigging years. Eventually he's got to own up.

If you go back a few posts, I mention that.

Yet, for whatever reason he isn't trailing in the polls.

Some of you guys need to recognize that this is extremely unusual. Obama has an unemployment rate north of 8%, after the great recession, and his biggest accomplishment is unpopular.

He should be losing, and losing badly! Why isn't he? If not now, then when? Is Romney that bad?

Fairplay
06-05-2012, 11:48 PM
Its hilarious Clinton is out there punking Obama in his slick willie kind of way.

La literatura
06-05-2012, 11:49 PM
There is not a chance in Heaven, Earth, or Hades that Obama loses by 10.

Sure there is. Why the **** would someone vote for him again?

1. Hasn't paid attention to the last 4 years
2. Can't get past his skin color
3. Would never vote for anything but a D
4. Hoping to get a movie role

None of those people are going to be excited to vote. The people who view him as destroying America, folks like Bill Clinton, are going to be very, very excited to vote his ass out.

I wonder if people thought there was no way Jimmy Carter wouldn't win re-election? Or if they thought it'd be close? Because this is his second term...

Not even Jimmy Carter lost by 10%. We would have to go back to 1932, when FDR won by over 17% in the Great Depression, for Obama to lose by over 10%.

Not going to happen, unless he publicly declares himself an atheist and a Kenyan.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:50 PM
Polling is bullshit until the last one before the election, and that's always skewed as well.

uhhh.... OK, conversation over. Thanks, it was interesting.

I'll chalk you down as "polls are voodoo garbage! I believe in my own wishful thinking! If Romney loses, then the election was stoled!"

La literatura
06-05-2012, 11:50 PM
What are you going to do if Romney loses?

He's going to stop posting his foolishness here.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 11:51 PM
What timing ! And something tells me they will leave out the part where Panetta yanks his ass off the golf course to tell him what they have done and now he is needed for a manufactured puff piece showing this was all OMarxist's doing:rolleyes:

oh hey, I agree its sleazy.

Bewbies
06-05-2012, 11:53 PM
uhhh.... OK, conversation over. Thanks, it was interesting.

I'll chalk you down as "polls are voodoo garbage! I believe in my own wishful thinking! If Romney loses, then the election was stoled!"

I didn't say any of that. I said they're bullshit. If there was an election today I can guarantee you the #'s at the poll wouldn't match the polling data we are presented with.

The only poll that matters is the one on election day. Speaking of, was the polling in WI accurate now that the vote has been counted? How about the exit polls? Accurate?

alnorth
06-06-2012, 12:04 AM
I didn't say any of that. I said they're bullshit. If there was an election today I can guarantee you the #'s at the poll wouldn't match the polling data we are presented with.

The only poll that matters is the one on election day. Speaking of, was the polling in WI accurate now that the vote has been counted? How about the exit polls? Accurate?

There wasn't a single poll I know of that had Walker losing yesterday. The poll I usually follow (PPP) Had it 50-47. Give Walker the 3 undecided, and we're 1 point off the result.

It simply is not reasonable to say "all polls are garbage until election day". Some polls ARE garbage, but they are garbage for the entire election cycle, the trick is to know which poll, and why. Some polls have a problem with their expected election day partisan numbers, some are lazy and rely on "adults", and some polls (like Rasmussen) are just simply dumb with a systematic partisan bias because, for example, they don't poll cell phones. (That worked fine for the Mad House of Ras in 2008, but people have rapidly been abandoning their land lines and they are more and more skewed by old people. In 2010 Rasmussen was one of the worst, most inaccurate polls on election day)

Chiefshrink
06-06-2012, 12:06 AM
What are you going to do if Romney loses? (I assume you weren't nuts enough to think McCain was going to win)

If I remember right, Dems usually disappeared for a while when Bush won, but this election could be interesting to see the reverse reaction.

Listen, I have made this same comment for about almost 2yrs now and I won't back off from it. We are living in very unique dangerous political and economic times right now to the point where our country is treading in disastrous waters never seen before to the potential of 'no return' to America as we know it. So much so that "We The People" a la "The Tea Party" as defined by Conservative Repubs, Conservative Libertarians, Conservative Dems and Conservative Independents hence 'The Silent Majority which is silent no more have all come together to stop this insanity and why our country still leans right. Because of these very unique dangerous times any GOP candidate no matter who it is will win because "We The People" are that angry and even moreso that afraid of losing our country.

Fairplay
06-06-2012, 12:06 AM
Forgive me for borrowing this from the Huffy Post site. Yes i feel dirty.


This is funny, check it out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/woman-slaps-tom-barrett_n_1572814.html

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 12:10 AM
Forgive me for borrowing this from the Huffy Post site. Yes i feel dirty.


This is funny, check it out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/woman-slaps-tom-barrett_n_1572814.html

Who slaps a politician after a loss? That lady isn't right in her head...

La literatura
06-06-2012, 12:12 AM
Because of these very unique dangerous times any GOP candidate no matter who it is will win because "We The People" are that angry and even moreso that afraid of losing our country.[/U][/I][/B]

What if the GOP Candidate was Sarah Palin. Would she win?

alnorth
06-06-2012, 12:12 AM
Listen, I have made this same comment for about almost 2yrs now and I won't back off from it. We are living in very unique dangerous political and economic times right now to the point where our country is treading in disastrous waters never seen before to the potential of 'no return' to America as we know it. So much so that "We The People" a la "The Tea Party" as defined by Conservative Repubs, Conservative Libertarians, Conservative Dems and Conservative Independents hence 'The Silent Majority which is silent no more have all come together to stop this insanity and why our country still leans right. Because of these very unique dangerous times any GOP candidate no matter who it is will win because "We The People" are that angry and even moreso that afraid of losing our country.

I suspect that election days are going to be painful for you 15-20 years from now.

The tea party conservatives (not republicans, they can shift, I mean today's tea party conservatives) are doomed by demographics. We are getting closer and closer to a "majority-minority" country, and less and less white every day.

If today's demographics existed in 1980 (in other words, each group back then voted the same way they did, except less whites, more other races), Carter would have barely won re-election. We haven't had republican blowouts since GHWB. GWB had to eke out both wins, but we did have some big Dem wins. That shift is not going to stop.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 12:15 AM
I suspect that election days are going to be painful for you 15-20 years from now.

The tea party conservatives (not republicans, they can shift, I mean today's tea party conservatives) are doomed by demographics. We are getting closer and closer to a "majority-minority" country, and less and less white every day.

If today's demographics existed in 1980 (in other words, each group back then voted the same way they did, except less whites, more other races), Carter would have barely won re-election. We haven't had republican blowouts since GHWB. GWB had to eke out both wins, but we did have some big Dem wins. That shift is not going to stop.

There's a whole lot of young "democrats" that will see the error of their ways and become the future of the tea party. Lots of that now actually...

Hell, the R's are running a former lefty in this election.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 12:15 AM
What if the GOP Candidate was Sarah Palin. Would she win?

This election won't be about the R. So yes, she would win. So would you.

La literatura
06-06-2012, 12:16 AM
So much so that "We The People" a la "The Tea Party" as defined by Conservative Repubs, Conservative Libertarians, Conservative Dems and Conservative Independents hence 'The Silent Majority which is silent no more have all come together to stop this insanity and why our country still leans right.

Could you clarify, here? Is The Tea Party, the Silent Majority? If so, why do polls show that the Tea Party's approval numbers hover around 33%?

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 05:58 AM
How do you explain Obama leading Romney?

Actually, I just thought of one possibility: maybe he's getting residual credit for Bin Laden (by the way, movie coming out in October), and ending the Iraq wars? I dunno, I thought the people were past that by now, but maybe not?

He's winning because republicans refuse to rally around Romney. And nfortunately, I think that carries into the election. I think Romney could most certainly beat Obama big. The biggest threat is Gary Johnson. not because he will win but because he will steal votes from Romney.

InChiefsHell
06-06-2012, 06:41 AM
There wasn't a single poll I know of that had Walker losing yesterday. The poll I usually follow (PPP) Had it 50-47. Give Walker the 3 undecided, and we're 1 point off the result.

It simply is not reasonable to say "all polls are garbage until election day". Some polls ARE garbage, but they are garbage for the entire election cycle, the trick is to know which poll, and why. Some polls have a problem with their expected election day partisan numbers, some are lazy and rely on "adults", and some polls (like Rasmussen) are just simply dumb with a systematic partisan bias because, for example, they don't poll cell phones. (That worked fine for the Mad House of Ras in 2008, but people have rapidly been abandoning their land lines and they are more and more skewed by old people. In 2010 Rasmussen was one of the worst, most inaccurate polls on election day)

Gallup has 46-45 Obama. That's not a blowout for the Messaiah in any way. Or is Gallup a right wing poll as well?

Chief Henry
06-06-2012, 07:42 AM
We have an unemployment rate north of 8%, right after the great recession, his signature accomplishment is unpopular, and yet he STILL leads the polls.

At some point you've gotta wonder what he's got to do to trail Romney, outside of a felony.

Jimmy Carter was ahead at this point in the election process too. Last nights election results are opening the eyes of many people across the country. Independent voters are watching closely imo and most indys are fiscal conseravatives.

Chiefshrink
06-06-2012, 07:43 AM
Could you clarify, here? Is The Tea Party, the Silent Majority? If so, why do polls show that the Tea Party's approval numbers hover around 33%?

Yes they are the silent majority. Because as "Bewbies" said the majority of polls even some on Fox are BS at this point. Especially when the majority of polls are conducted by the Mainstream Progressive Stenography Media. It's obvious you don't see that there is a total onslaught re-election campaign for OMarxist by the MPS media with an "all hands on deck" sense of urgency to get this guy re-elected and polls are part of this manufactured BS attempt. Because quite frankly, if I'm a betting man, I would bet Obama's real numbers just like the real unemployment/economic numbers are far worse if the truth were actually reported:rolleyes:

He's winning because republicans refuse to rally around Romney. And nfortunately, I think that carries into the election. I think Romney could most certainly beat Obama big. The biggest threat is Gary Johnson. not because he will win but because he will steal votes from Romney.

And you have bought the MPS media narrative that all of the GOP will not support Romney which is simply not true. True we don't like Romney but the majority of us aren't stupid either and realize we don't have a choice. So therefore you will not see a whole lot of excitement and the MPS media will highlight those GOPers who are not excited, BUT it doesn't mean they won't vote for him because as I said in an earlier post "We The People" are that angry and afraid of losing our country and no way will we pull the standard GOP move of staying home if we don't like our candidate. Those days are gone for sure at least for now. Gary Johnson ????????ROFL Just another attempt by the MPS media to drum up BS for Romney:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 07:49 AM
He's winning because republicans refuse to rally around Romney. And nfortunately, I think that carries into the election. I think Romney could most certainly beat Obama big. The biggest threat is Gary Johnson. not because he will win but because he will steal votes from Romney.

I think you're right on this one. There's a civil war going in the R party and a lot of it is not being reported particularly by Fox. When Paul won the delegates in Nevada, the GOP set up a new shadow GOP and are giving the funds to that. The guy running the LA delegate convention was actually physically assaulted to get him off the floor when he was following the rules to the letter. Anything to unseat these delegates to make it look like the party is unified when it is NOT.

Now the GOP in Florida is blocking the Paul Festival well enough outside of Tampa. This is NeoConservativism at work within the party. They're basically fascists.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 07:51 AM
Y


And you have bought the MPS media narrative that all of the GOP will not support Romney which is simply not true.

I'm not following this media narrative. There will be some who will cave but not all of them will. Enough to possibly hurt Mittens.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 07:57 AM
How do you explain Obama leading Romney?

Romney is Bush. Is openly for more war. Has the same advisors Bush had who do want to strike Iran, get involved militarily in Syria and Romney is talking about an even bigger military build-up when polls show most people don't want this. They'd rather see cuts there, and not so much on the major entitlement programs such like SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Rs have talked about some reductions there instead of military.

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 08:00 AM
The race is neck and neck because neither candidate is giving us a clear cut way out of the mess we're in.

Unless something earth shattering pops up, or one of them utters something disastrous on the campaign trail, the debates will settle it. Poll numbers right now are meaningless.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:15 AM
The race is neck and neck because neither candidate is giving us a clear cut way out of the mess we're in.


I can see this.

I also think voters are catching on to divided govt being least objectionable ...a check and balance on each party. The Wisc senate is now in control of the Democrats.

This could be a factor in a Romney loss should that occur. That's not a bad result, in fact, it's the lesser of two evils since our national system is based on legislative power more. We had this under Clinton, yet, he gets all the credit.

Garcia Bronco
06-06-2012, 08:29 AM
So Walker won. Good fo him. He did the right thing.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 09:13 AM
So Walker won. Good fo him. He did the right thing.

Don't like Walker or what he did, but recalls should be used for misconduct, not because we don't like some guys policy.

So, good for him, and I hope he gets beat next time around.

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 09:19 AM
Don't like Walker or what he did, but recalls should be used for misconduct, not because we don't like some guys policy.

So, good for him, and I hope he gets beat next time around.

In Wisconsin public employees are compensated on average on at a higher rate then their private sector counterparts. That's just crazy.

What Walker did (unless I'm missing something) was take a step to correct a situation that isn't sustainable.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 09:22 AM
In Wisconsin public employees are compensated on average on at a higher rate then their private sector counterparts. That's just crazy.

What Walker did (unless I'm missing something) was take a step to correct a situation that isn't sustainable.

...and he asked them to give up very little as to the size of it.

petegz28
06-06-2012, 09:42 AM
Weeping Anti-Walker Protester: 'Democracy Died Tonight'

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/05/Bleeding-Heart-Liberal-Tells-CNN-This-is-the-End-of-Democracy

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 10:22 AM
Weeping Anti-Walker Protester: 'Democracy Died Tonight'

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/05/Bleeding-Heart-Liberal-Tells-CNN-This-is-the-End-of-Democracy

Gawd! How delusional they are. :spock:

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 11:22 AM
In Wisconsin public employees are compensated on average on at a higher rate then their private sector counterparts. That's just crazy.

What Walker did (unless I'm missing something) was take a step to correct a situation that isn't sustainable.

Just a question -- should certified teachers with college degrees be paid more than private uncertified teachers who may or may not have a degree?

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 12:15 PM
Just a question -- should certified teachers with college degrees be paid more than private uncertified teachers who may or may not have a degree?

Both should be paid the market rate for their skill set and experience.

Chiefspants
06-06-2012, 12:19 PM
Both should be paid the market rate for their skill set and experience.

And how should a teacher's skill set be measured and verified within the classroom? (And please say test scores, it would make this argument a lot easier.)

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Both should be paid the market rate for their skill set and experience.

Then, by definition, the public sector employee will be paid more due the fact that they must have a degree (skill set). Many private educators do not.

To get to the point, in this instance, I see why that public school educators make more money than their private counterparts.

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 12:25 PM
And how should a teacher's skill set be measured and verified within the classroom? (And please say test scores, it would make this argument a lot easier.)

I would say some leading factors in salary discussion for any job should be an inventory of what specific roles that person is qualified for, how much experience they have in related roles, and the scarcity of the skills needed to be qualified.

Chiefspants
06-06-2012, 12:26 PM
I would say some leading factors in salary discussion for any job should be an inventory of what specific roles that person is qualified for, how much experience they have in related roles, and the scarcity of the skills needed to be qualified.

And what roles would an uncertified teacher in the private sector qualify to?

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 12:29 PM
Then, by definition, the public sector employee will be paid more due the fact that they must have a degree (skill set).

I reject the premise that the only people with the "skill set" needed to be successful as a teacher are people who currently hold degrees.

Chiefspants
06-06-2012, 12:31 PM
I reject the premise that the only people with the "skill set" needed to be successful as a teacher are people who currently hold degrees.

And, how in the world would non-graduated individuals measure their qualifications?

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 12:31 PM
And what roles would an uncertified teacher in the private sector qualify to?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking what roles, outside teaching at a public school, a public school teacher might be qualified for?

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 12:31 PM
Just a question -- should certified teachers with college degrees be paid more than private uncertified teachers who may or may not have a degree?It depends on how good of a teacher they are.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 12:33 PM
I reject the premise that the only people with the "skill set" needed to be successful as a teacher are people who currently hold degrees.

How many people do you know, not holding a science degree, are capable of teaching cellular biology? or how many non-English degree holders are capable of teaching Wlm. Shakespeare? How many Algebra teachers do you know that don't hold math degrees?

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 12:37 PM
It depends on how good of a teacher they are.

At teaching what mlyon? And who decides if a teacher is competent. The degree at least gives me a baseline. I know some private institutions where few if any teachers have degrees. They may be great people and might teach something...but my guess is that most folks want their kids to actually know HOW to do geometry once they take the class.

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 12:40 PM
How many people do you know, not holding a science degree, are capable of teaching cellular biology? or how many non-English degree holders are capable of teaching Wlm. Shakespeare?

I think it's possible for someone with real-world experience in a subject to be as qualified as someone teaching a subject in a high school, even if that person does not have a degree.

You cherry pick cellular biology, which is a technical subject matter. But one today could not work in that field without a degree, so it's a meaningless question. Perhaps in the past you could have, so there might be retirees from that line of work who are qualified and never went to college.

In business and economics, as well as other fields, many of us might consider someone working in the industry to be as qualified or more qualified than someone with equivalent book-knowledge.

It's not one-size fits all. But the collective bargaining mindset would be that one size does fit all, of course, either you have the same degree and certification that we have or you can't possibly be qualified.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 12:45 PM
I think it's possible for someone with real-world experience in a subject to be as qualified as someone teaching a subject in a high school, even if that person does not have a degree.

You cherry pick cellular biology, which is a technical subject matter. But one today could not work in that field without a degree, so it's a meaningless question. Perhaps in the past you could have, so there might be retirees from that line of work who are qualified and never went to college.

In business and economics, as well as other fields, many of us might consider someone working in the industry to be as qualified or more qualified than someone with equivalent book-knowledge.

It's not one-size fits all. But the collective bargaining mindset would be that one size does fit all, of course, either you have the same degree and certification that we have or you can't possibly be qualified.

Again, how many folks do you know that can teach algebra or shakespeare without a degree. Seriously.

Other than social studies, which high school football coaches tend to teach, anyway, most of what is taught in high school cannot be taught competently by non degreed individuals.

Sure you might find someone once in a while, but they would be rare.

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 12:49 PM
Again, how many folks do you know that can teach algebra or shakespeare without a degree. Seriously.

Other than social studies, which high school football coaches tend to teach, anyway, most of what is taught in high school cannot be taught competently by non degreed individuals.

Sure you might find someone once in a while, but they would be rare.

Again, how much real world experience with Algebra are they bringing to the table? They could be very well qualified through their work experience.

You could have someone who acted in Shakespeare for years, who knows his work frontward and back, and who has intimately studied the subject matter outside of an academic setting who could be a perfectly fine teacher of it.

You could pull people from the professional world in many areas. Business, economics, accounting, finance, computer sciences, marketing. There are plenty of subjects where Id feel great about my child learning from someone who was not a career teacher.

Garcia Bronco
06-06-2012, 12:50 PM
Again, how many folks do you know that can teach algebra or shakespeare without a degree. Seriously.


I could/did. I taught Algebra in the 7th grade as a student and I can certainly teach history, which is story telling....which would include Shakespeare

Garcia Bronco
06-06-2012, 12:52 PM
You could pull people from the professional world in many areas. Business, economics, accounting, finance, computer sciences, marketing. There are plenty of subjects where Id feel great about my child learning from someone who was not a career teacher.

I volunteer for Junior Achievement and I find it fun to get in a room full of youngsters and help them with financial literacy.

RaiderH8r
06-06-2012, 12:54 PM
"America died tonight!" :rolleyes:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IcE2TrvMrB0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

RaiderH8r
06-06-2012, 12:55 PM
Weeping Anti-Walker Protester: 'Democracy Died Tonight'

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/05/Bleeding-Heart-Liberal-Tells-CNN-This-is-the-End-of-Democracy

Democracy may be dead but hyperbole lives forever!

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 12:55 PM
At teaching what mlyon? And who decides if a teacher is competent. The degree at least gives me a baseline. I know some private institutions where few if any teachers have degrees. They may be great people and might teach something...but my guess is that most folks want their kids to actually know HOW to do geometry once they take the class.The better question would be should a public teacher with the same qualifications as his private counterpart be compensated more?

Should a computer programmer in the public market make more than one working for a private company?

Does it make sense to have overall on average, public sector employees compensated more than their private counterparts?

I say no to all of those.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 12:55 PM
Again, how much real world experience with Algebra are they bringing to the table? They could be very well qualified through their work experience.

You could have someone who acted in Shakespeare for years, who knows his work frontward and back, and who has intimately studied the subject matter outside of an academic setting who could be a perfectly fine teacher of it.

You could pull people from the professional world in many areas. Business, economics, accounting, finance, computer sciences, marketing. There are plenty of subjects where Id feel great about my child learning from someone who was not a career teacher.

I'm sorry, but for the most part those people don't exist. And why would a Shakespearean actor or Engineer leave a 6 figure job to teach at 30k.

They just don't.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 12:57 PM
The better question would be should a public teacher with the same qualifications as his private counterpart be compensated more?

Should a computer programmer in the public market make more than one working for a private company?

Does it make sense to have overall on average to have public sector employees compensated more than their private counterparts?

I say no to all of those.

Yea - We find common ground! But I suspect you will quickly find that the market for degreed folks in education anyway is about the same for private and public.

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 01:00 PM
I volunteer for Junior Achievement and I find it fun to get in a room full of youngsters and help them with financial literacy.

I have worked in my field for only about ten years now, and I have no doubt I could teach the pants off the university professors from my undergrad days.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 01:03 PM
I have worked in my field for only about ten years now, and I have no doubt I could teach the pants off the university professors from my undergrad days.

As well as publish and research enough to get tenure???

By my 7th year at the University I had published 17 articles and co-written 2 books. As well as teaching a full load.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 01:05 PM
Apology to mlyonsd...

I was wrong...BA's in the private educational world make about 10K less than BA's in the public educational world...

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_075.asp

Doesn't however, change my mind that you should own a degree before entering the teaching world.

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 01:36 PM
As well as publish and research enough to get tenure???

By my 7th year at the University I had published 17 articles and co-written 2 books. As well as teaching a full load.

I'm not engaged in research functions now, but I think so.

I thought we were talking about high school and other private sort of institutions though. I think I could teach business or any of the professional-type studies in a high school setting effectively.

I think we are getting a little confused. Is the issue, with regard to private high school teachers, that many don't have teaching degrees, or that they don't have degrees in the are of expertise? I see problems with both, but just to clarify.

I have not spoken to this person in a few years but I knew a man at work who was a programmer - since the olden days, the punchcard days. He really knew his stuff. He never had a degree, but he knew it all. If he were to retire and teach a few classes at a private high school, community college, or maybe instruct in a university setting, I think the students would be getting a great value.

The point is, people like him would be great assets. Others would not. It's not one size fits all. But when you place a roadblock that says "everyone has to earn our approval/certification first." you are saying it is one size fits all. It shouldn't be.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 01:41 PM
I'm not engaged in research functions now, but I think so.

I thought we were talking about high school and other private sort of institutions though. I think I could teach business or any of the professional-type studies in a high school setting effectively.

I think we are getting a little confused. Is the issue, with regard to private high school teachers, that many don't have teaching degrees, or that they don't have degrees in the are of expertise? I see problems with both, but just to clarify.

I have not spoken to this person in a few years but I knew a man at work who was a programmer - since the olden days, the punchcard days. He really knew his stuff. He never had a degree, but he knew it all. If he were to retire and teach a few classes at a private high school, community college, or maybe instruct in a university setting, I think the students would be getting a great value.

The point is, people like him would be great assets. Others would not. It's not one size fits all. But when you place a roadblock that says "everyone has to earn our approval/certification first." you are saying it is one size fits all. It shouldn't be.

I just don't know how you set a baseline without a degree. I will agree that there are people out there that can teach business et al w/o a degree, but I don't know how I would go about hiring a calculus teacher for my high school unless he/she had a degree? I don't even know if such a person would exist.

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 01:45 PM
Apology to mlyonsd...

I was wrong...BA's in the private educational world make about 10K less than BA's in the public educational world...

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_075.asp

Doesn't however, change my mind that you should own a degree before entering the teaching world.That amount surprises me.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 01:47 PM
That amount surprises me.

Which tells me that there are too many teachers. Perhaps if we went to an 11 month school year, that might change. Just a thought.

This really surprised me as well. Perhaps I should have found this little nugget before I went all ballistic on Mr. Walker in another thread.

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 01:48 PM
Apology to mlyonsd...

I was wrong...BA's in the private educational world make about 10K less than BA's in the public educational world...

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_075.asp

Doesn't however, change my mind that you should own a degree before entering the teaching world.And if you want to really know what ticks me off as a taxpayer....I personally know of at least one person working for the university who retired from there, collects a pension now, and was hired back to do the same job.

It's idiotic. No offense and not intended towards you but I've heard horror stories to make me believe some of the dumbest people in SD have college degrees and work for the state.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 01:52 PM
And if you want to really know what ticks me off as a taxpayer....I personally know of at least one person working for the university who retired from there, collects a pension now, and was hired back to do the same job.

It's idiotic. No offense and not intended towards you but I've heard horror stories to make me believe some of the dumbest people in SD have college degrees and work for the state.

Yep.

However, they did change that law last year. Thank goodness. Didn't apply to those who were already double dipping though. Some of the administrators who were making the highest salaries (200K plus) were pulling this crap.

Saul Good
06-06-2012, 01:53 PM
How many people do you know, not holding a science degree, are capable of teaching cellular biology? or how many non-English degree holders are capable of teaching Wlm. Shakespeare? How many Algebra teachers do you know that don't hold math degrees?

I have neither an English nor math degree, but I could teach Shakespeare or algebra with little difficulty.

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 01:53 PM
Yep.

However, they did change that law last year. Thank goodness. Didn't apply to those who were already double dipping though. Some of the administrators who were making the highest salaries (200K plus) were pulling this crap.Well I'm glad to find out at least they changed it for the future. Pretty gutless not to make it retroactive.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 01:55 PM
I have neither an English nor math degree, but I could teach Shakespeare or algebra with little difficulty.

You probably could. But as a hiring mgr how would I know this.

Further, I suspect you did graduate from college with a degree in something.

Saul Good
06-06-2012, 02:01 PM
You probably could. But as a hiring mgr how would I know this.

Further, I suspect you did graduate from college with a degree in something.

I did graduate with a finance degree, but I could have taught algebra just fine when I left high school. How would they know that? I could walk up to a white board and demonstrate that I have mastered the subject matter in a few minutes. That proves more than some piece of paper from a diploma mill.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 02:05 PM
I did graduate with a finance degree, but I could have taught algebra just fine when I left high school. How would they know that? I could walk up to a white board and demonstrate that I have mastered the subject matter in a few minutes. That proves more than some piece of paper from a diploma mill.

Do you believe this to be true of most people who didn't attend college? I teach research methods and stats to underclassmen all the time. Most of them are math illiterate when they come to my class as sophomore's and juniors. I can guarantee you it is worse in the general population.

Saul Good
06-06-2012, 02:09 PM
Do you believe this to be true of most people who didn't attend college? I teach research methods and stats to underclassmen all the time. Most of them are math illiterate when they come to my class as sophomore's and juniors. I can guarantee you it is worse in the general population.

Of course not. Most people aren't qualified to do most jobs. Not sure what that proves, though.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 02:11 PM
Of course not. Most people aren't qualified to do most jobs. Not sure what that proves, though.

Just that it is more likely that a person with a degree in a given field is going to be more qualified than a person that does not.

AndChiefs
06-06-2012, 02:15 PM
Which tells me that there are too many teachers. Perhaps if we went to an 11 month school year, that might change. Just a thought.

This really surprised me as well. Perhaps I should have found this little nugget before I went all ballistic on Mr. Walker in another thread.

Doesn't really surprise me. My mother has taught in both. The private school said their lower salaries were made up for by giving free tuition to the teacher's children. As soon as I graduated she went to public.

Also, in this case, the private school provided a better education then the public school. You do have to be careful with private schools and check accreditation, teacher's education/knowledge/etc. because some of them offer no true education at all.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 02:16 PM
Just that it is more likely that a person with a degree in a given field is going to be more qualified than a person that does not.

In medicine or law sure. In the business world drive, creativity and passion will whip a degrees ass 100% of the time.

Radar Chief
06-06-2012, 02:17 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8Vx1BTBhg4c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 02:40 PM
Just that it is more likely that a person with a degree in a given field is going to be more qualified than a person that does not.Your own Registrar's office blows that theory. Trust me, I know. ;)

Chocolate Hog
06-06-2012, 06:06 PM
uhhh.... OK, conversation over. Thanks, it was interesting.

I'll chalk you down as "polls are voodoo garbage! I believe in my own wishful thinking! If Romney loses, then the election was stoled!"

The 2004 exit polls, 2008 New Hampshire Democratic primary, and yesterdays Wisconsin recall polls say hello.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 06:11 PM
I'm sorry, but for the most part those people don't exist. And why would a Shakespearean actor or Engineer leave a 6 figure job to teach at 30k.

They just don't.

They don't? I know of a former prosecutor who teaches at Northeastern.
I, myself, teach as a working professional—many art schools do. They get more real world training.
Mine were working professionals where I attended college when I got to my professional training.

Also, when I tutored for No Child Left Behind I met old teachers in their 70's. These guys did not teach having 4 year degrees ( they worked on it while teaching but you could still teach back then without it per her) or even a Masters degree and they didn't have the amount of poor results we see today. One told me they didn't even have method's courses. Yet, this guy had routinely moved failing or C students into A's in his classes.

Oh yeah, wait you said "degree" which I didn't see earlier. I have a degree as did the prosecutor and the others. Still, working world experience trumps those higher degrees.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 06:17 PM
I could/did. I taught Algebra in the 7th grade as a student and I can certainly teach history, which is story telling....which would include Shakespeare

:LOL:

SNR
06-07-2012, 02:33 PM
:LOL:

I thought that was funny too.

I was a math major... and science is just data, which is just a bunch of numbers, really. And if I can do natural science... why not political science, or social studies?

Trivers
06-07-2012, 08:54 PM
I loved that commercial. Many MBAs are just like that. Or if they went to Harvard....within 15 minutes...they would tell you. :)

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2012, 10:33 AM
I thought that was funny too.

I was a math major... and science is just data, which is just a bunch of numbers, really. And if I can do natural science... why not political science, or social studies?

Actually you would want to be literate in "Research Methods" to talk about how you "collected those number". But that's not a science. There are 3 sciences: Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. Which if you have a major in Mathematics (I have a minor in it) you would be more than able to pick any of them up. Now I am not saying you could teach a class on Organic Chemistry, but I think you could convey the principles of stoichiometry. Which is bascially a conversion. Like converting inches to centimeters. Moles to Mass. If you can't do that with a Math Major, then I think you are pulling our legs.

You could probably teach politcal science as well, but who couldn't? It's not exactly a high brow subject. We talk about on this forum everyday. Same goes with History, Civics, or "Social Studies".

Don't sell yourselves short. You are human beings without (fingers crossed) learning disabilities. You can accomplish most things if you care.

Comrade Crapski
06-08-2012, 11:39 AM
I didn't say any of that. I said they're bullshit. If there was an election today I can guarantee you the #'s at the poll wouldn't match the polling data we are presented with.

The only poll that matters is the one on election day. Speaking of, was the polling in WI accurate now that the vote has been counted? How about the exit polls? Accurate?

29% of union employees voted for Walker.

How many of them you think actually told the exit poll people they didn't vote for Barrett?

La literatura
06-08-2012, 10:34 PM
You could probably teach politcal science as well, but who couldn't? It's not exactly a high brow subject. We talk about on this forum everyday. Same goes with History, Civics, or "Social Studies".

LMAO

I'm sorry, but this is so ignorant. "I can bullshit about it, so therefore, I can teach other people about it." What an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

Chiefshrink
06-09-2012, 04:52 PM
I'm not following this media narrative. There will be some who will cave but not all of them will. Enough to possibly hurt Mittens.

The MPS media and the WH are in panic mode because 'We The People" are on to them and refuse to buy into their manufactured BS election issues whether it be 'war on women', or purposeful national security leaks in order for Obama to look like a bad ass, tough on terrorism, etc..etc......hence as O's poll numbers get steadily worse month after month.

The MPS media and the WH have to do everything to divert and manufacture away from Obama's abysmal record, INCLUDING trumped up narratives that the GOP is in major disaray and no way will the majority of conservatives come out and support Romney because he is not conservative enough. This is waaaaaaay over played by the MPS media IMO so as to be just another distraction and a way to throw darts at the GOP taking attention off of the real economy and hopefully discourage conservatives to stay home and not vote.

True, that the majority of conservatives are not ideally happy about Romney but I believe the majority of us including you and I will cave and vote for Romney. As I have stated before these are unique dangerous political and economic times and "We The People"(a la Tea Party/Silent Majority) cannot afford to sit home and "politically pout" because Romney is not conservative enough. The majority of conservatives will cave because "We The People" are that pissed and even more afraid of losing our country.

scho63
06-10-2012, 04:15 AM
When Upton Sinclair wrote "The Jungle" in 1904 to expose the horrors in the meatpacking industry, unions were needed to protect our workers in a variety of industrialized blue collar jobs. Over the last 110 years, our country has moved from many of those blue collar jobs, technology and laws have greatly approved safety, and the value of unions and their purpose have become nearly obsolete.

So where have the unions gone to reel in new members? White collar workers like teachers and government workers where they have created a powerful cartel whose workers can't be fired, have healthcare for life they don't pay a dime for, mandatory raises, and pay and benefit packages that dwarf the private sector, all with very early retirement.

This is now coming to a head and the massive debt and costs are causing all voters to decide they want these unions disbanded or at minimum, the structure of their deals completely fixed to insure they can survive the debt.

JonesCrusher
06-10-2012, 09:50 AM
DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN “The President deployed his entire grassroots machinery on the ground in Wisconsin,” Wasserman Schultz argued, calling it “an unprecedented effort of grassroots in this recall,” though “we came up short of the ultimate goal.”

If only they could have gotten more of their professional grassrooters on the ground in Wisconsin.

RedNeckRaider
06-10-2012, 12:07 PM
DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN “The President deployed his entire grassroots machinery on the ground in Wisconsin,” Wasserman Schultz argued, calling it “an unprecedented effort of grassroots in this recall,” though “we came up short of the ultimate goal.”

If only they could have gotten more of their professional grassrooters on the ground in Wisconsin.

She is absolutely worthless. She is Barry's Bagdad Bob~

scho63
06-10-2012, 07:14 PM
She is absolutely worthless. She is Barry's Bagdad Bob~

I'm not sure who makes me sicker, Pelosi or Schultz. They both cause me to want to make a fist and punch them in the face right through the TV :mad: