Given the alleged supression was turnout UP or DOWN on the last election?
It is my understanding that turnout was UP by nearly 25% on the previous election with nearly half a million extra votes cast.
Printable View
Given the alleged supression was turnout UP or DOWN on the last election?
It is my understanding that turnout was UP by nearly 25% on the previous election with nearly half a million extra votes cast.
And who won? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The elected governor, with a swing to him and even more votes than he'd got elected on the previous time. :)
It really is sad to see people acting like sore losers, especially on such a high turnout the decision was made fairly for the scond time.
So what you're saying is that attempts at voter suppression is okay? :bulb:
No I'm saying that I don't believe voter suppression happened and such claims of voter suppression are bullshit.
Aaaand we're back to you and your beliefs, even though the larger number of votes cast doesn't say anything at all in and of itself about whether or not attempts at voter suppression occurred. Re. the phony flyers/absentee ballots from 2011 ie. not this election, iirc AFP has admitted to sending out those flyers with the incorrect return dates and incorrect addresses. So back to the question: are attempts at voter suppression okay?
No they're not. Nor are they relevant here, there is no evidence that votes were suppressed here, quite the contrary. Voting was at a high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Why can't people just do the honourable thing and concede defeat?
I've come to realize that Democrats scream false accusations about voter suppression (and Republicans scream about ballot stuffing/miscounting) during every election that they lose. It scared me a lot when I voted for Kerry in 2004, but I've now seen this ugly pattern each time. It's just part of party lore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
This rumor is highly likely to be somewhere between somewhat-true-but-insignificant and total garbage. Voter turnout was quite substantial relative to the norm.
**************
The forces of progress notched another victory last night. Voters in the city of San Jose, California and San Diego, California voted ~70% to cut retirement benefits for unionized public sector workers. In case you haven't heard of California, it's sort of like the US version of Greece, except with people who actually work. San Jose and San Diego retirement benefits had been sucking-up astonishingly high portions of municipal budgets and voters had enough.
In three separate contests, US voters pushed back fairly hard against the corruption of public sector unionism. The Jihad for fiscal sanity fights on. :up:
Quote:
June 6, 2012
Voters in California Appear to Approve Pension Cuts
By IAN LOVETT
LOS ANGELES — As Wisconsin residents voted on Tuesday not to recall Gov. Scott Walker — who has become an enemy of labor unions nationwide — two California cities dealt blows of their own to organized labor.
In both San Diego and San Jose, voters appeared to overwhelmingly approve ballot initiatives designed to help balance ailing municipal budgets by cutting retirement benefits for city workers.
Around 70 percent of San Jose voters favored the pension reform measure, with almost 80 percent of precincts reporting. In San Diego, 67 percent had supported a similar pension reform measure, with more than 65 percent of precincts reporting.
“This is really important to our taxpayers,” Chuck Reed, the mayor of San Jose, said Tuesday night. “We’ll get control over these skyrocketing retirement costs and be able to provide the services they are paying for.”
Statewide, voters also remained very closely divided on a $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes, which would be the first increase in the cigarette tax here in 14 years. Proceeds from the tax would not go to state coffers, but would instead fund cancer research.
Just past midnight, opponents of the measure held a razor-thin lead, with about 65 percent of precincts reporting.
Antismoking advocates, who promoted the tax as the best way to reduce smoking rates, were outspent nearly four to one. Their opponents, financed largely by the tobacco industry, spent almost $47 million in advertisements to defeat the measure.
Public employee unions, meanwhile, had fought hard against the two pension reform initiatives.
The San Diego Municipal Employees Association brought an unsuccessful legal challenge in an effort to keep the measure off the ballot.
Speaking to KPBS, a local television station, Michael Zucchet, general manager of the San Diego Municipal Employees Association, said last month the ballot initiative would not save the city money.
“This initiative doesn’t save anything,” Mr. Zucchet said. “You are basically cutting off your nose to spite your face for pension reform.”
Mr. Zucchet did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday night.
But the mayors of both cities pushed the pension reforms hard, arguing that changes to city worker pensions were essential to keep municipal budgets in the black.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said he hoped the initiatives would provide models for other cities and for the state government, where pension reform efforts have stalled. “The appetite for pension reform in California is huge,” Mr. Coupal said.
Tuesday also offered the first widespread test of the state’s new primary system, in which the top two vote-getters move on to a runoff, irrespective of party affiliation.
One of the most heavily funded races will pit two sitting Democratic representatives against each other: Brad Sherman and Howard L. Berman, colleagues in the House for 15 years who were thrown together by redistricting.
Mr. Sherman had collected about 40 percent of the vote, while Mr. Berman had 33 percent, with about 18 percent of precincts reporting late Tuesday. They will face each other again in the November runoff.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/us...s-suggest.html
So basically what you are saying is indeed that attempts at voter suppression are/would be okay as long as you don't see any evidence of votes being suppressed in terms of absolute numbers :bulb: that's just the weirdest.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
There may or may not be evidence of votes actually being suppressed/results being skewed, although the total voter turnout in and of itself does not constitute such evidence. High voter turnout does not disprove attempted voter suppression, just as the outcome does not in and of itself prove that voter suppression was attempted.
There is some evidence that attempts at voter suppression were made and that those attempts seemed designed to benefit Walker. Absentee ballots with phony dates and addresses, numerous and independent reports of people being spammed with false information about voting or encouraged to block the phone services of the opponent's campaign. That evidence exists, in the form of scanned documents and in the form of hearsay as reports from citizens; the question is how much of that evidence is true. That question cannot be answered by your gut, believe it or not :bulb:
I'm a bit baffled by Dread's line of reasoning. The existence of voter suppression claims = proof that voter suppression isn't attempted? :bulb: what the what?
The existence of claims =! evidence of wide-scale suppression efforts. My point is these claims are recurring and happen all the time right after elections, but usually end up being nothing.
There are no real "independent reports" out there, it's mostly just rumors and predictable partisan rabble. This stuff is commonly farted out after each election to keep the "base" motivated. The Republicans did it after Obama won with accusations of ballot stuffing in black neighborhoods of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Anything is possible, but these specific things are claims Democrats start rumormongering after almost every high-profile election that they lose. The claims and rumors never really go very far. Ironically, the Democratic party and Obama vigorously opposes strengthening voter ID requirements to help give people more confidence in their votes (and their right to vote). Then, after each election, they claim that someone told a bunch of college students/hispanics some lie about their voter eligibility. When that eligibility would be much clearer if we had a simple, transparent ID check at the polls against state databases. But that's sort of a tangent.
Uhm, but the private sector is NOT providing real jobs to people. WI's private sector lost more jobs than it gained, despite Walker's policies that promised otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Because "union donations" were diminutive compared to "corporate donations" (including private monies that came from out-of-state, or from super PACs). With RNC party money, Walker received ~ $60 million, while his challenger received less than $4 million. Put that on a pie chart (or WI cheese wheel) and chew on it a while. :donkey:Quote:
Then why mention the corporate donations and not the union donations?
Would you like to see the Tea Party continue to dominate the Republican party, future state elections, and push for Austerity? The same type of Austerity the UK is trying, which led to a double-dip recession and double digit unemployment? That's a bit confusing and paradoxical.Quote:
Thankfully WI disagreed with you :)
Now you're just spouting nonsense because it fits into your narrative. Unions haven't been major campaign donors for at least a decade, if not longer. :rolleyes:Quote:
With unions being one of the biggest donors. Good to see that being tackled.
The point is that each state designs their own constitution and state laws. Including what it takes to impeach, censor, or punish an incumbent.... or hold a recall election. I'm not a fan of ballot initiatives for budgets, let alone limiting civil rights...but it's particularly egregious when legislators abuse protocol, or change rules during engagement. Quorum, majority or super-majority, in-session adjournments, and filibusters have all been abused at state and federal levels. That is NOT governing, that is politicking, with baggage. :sour:Quote:
No it doesn't. In an ideal world I'd like it to, but I'm glad it doesn't in reality - at least in this format. I do not see how it is appropriate to have an election, have one side lose, then the losers need less signatures in their petition than they lost with in the election and get to fight it again. At the very least it should require more than 50% of the last elections voters, not 25%
Quorom was never designed to provide the shocking antics of running out of state by the Democrats either, that was a total abuse of the rules.
Sore loser.
You've made your conclusion before any investigation has been concluded, and less than 24 hours after the election. You ran with the blurb that DoJ and FEC was called to investigate, but we're supposed to consider your opinion as objective? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You keep blaming the Kochs, their company employs 90,000 people. Without forcing money off others with the threat of jail if they don't give it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You think $4 million is diminuitive? And couldn't be better spent? Not that those figures are remotely matching those mentioned up-threadQuote:
Because "union donations" were diminutive compared to "corporate donations" (including private monies that came from out-of-state, or from super PACs). With RNC party money, Walker received ~ $60 million, while his challenger received less than $4 million. Put that on a pie chart (or WI cheese wheel) and chew on it a while. :donkey:
Didn't Obama out-spend McCain? I don't recall you solely criticising Obama's backers on that occasion. As I said, partisan.Quote:
Originally Posted by New Article earlier
Yes definitely! Is my philosophy a surprise to you? If I was an American I'd be an atheist Tea Partier. I've believed we're Taxed Enough Already since before the Tea Party came to the fore and have been pushing for what you call austerity since before it was happening. I've also said that not only do I support what the UK government is doing but if it was upto me they'd be cutting further and faster. Our austerity is so "severe" that spending is going up every single year. :rolleyes:Quote:
Would you like to see the Tea Party continue to dominate the Republican party, future state elections, and push for Austerity? The same type of Austerity the UK is trying, which led to a double-dip recession and double digit unemployment? That's a bit confusing and paradoxical.
Where did you get the notion we have double-digit unemployment from either? The UK unemployment rate is 8.2% and falling! In contrast the USA with its Obama-stimulus (which I opposed) following its Bush-stimulus (also opposed) has an unemployment rate of 8.1% - that's a rounding error difference.
Why is it confusing and paradoxical that I support the same for the US that I voted for and support for my own nation? Did you have me mistaken for a Labour voter who opposed austerity here?
Quote:
Now you're just spouting nonsense because it fits into your narrative. Unions haven't been major campaign donors for at least a decade, if not longer. :rolleyes:
What can I say here? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Again news article in this thread
Yet you've again criticised one side only. I don't recall you criticising the Democrat Senators for pathetically abandoning their jobs and fleeing out of state, did you?Quote:
The point is that each state designs their own constitution and state laws. Including what it takes to impeach, censor, or punish an incumbent.... or hold a recall election. I'm not a fan of ballot initiatives for budgets, let alone limiting civil rights...but it's particularly egregious when legislators abuse protocol, or change rules during engagement. Quorum, majority or super-majority, in-session adjournments, and filibusters have all been abused at state and federal levels. That is NOT governing, that is politicking, with baggage. :sour:
By the way anyone know how many of his aides have agreed to testify against the principals of the campaign in return for immunity? :o
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...nt-Culpability
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...e-is-the-charm
How long has that investigation been going on btw? Three years and counting? How about that legal defense fund btw? The drama
Thats just hard money, and you know that after complaining about it all the time. Dig up figures with soft money, then do a comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
$4 million is small compared to $40-60 million, yeah. So far, just in state primaries and elections, and "big media buys", more money has been spent than during McCain's entire presidential campaign. That's fucked up, no matter which party you like. (ps, I didn't like Obama tacking to private funding instead of public funding either)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Goody for you. Your atheist side probably wouldn't agree with Walker's speech, where he gave first thanks to God and prayer for his success. The Tea Party is dominated by fundamental Christians, and likes to hear that candidates "have been called by God" to serve in government. They wouldn't let you in their little club, as an atheist, see. They had a hard enough time with Romney (as a "non-Christian Mormon cult member). :rolleyes:Quote:
Yes definitely! Is my philosophy a surprise to you? If I was an American I'd be an atheist Tea Partier. I've believed we're Taxed Enough Already since before the Tea Party came to the fore and have been pushing for what you call austerity since before it was happening. I've also said that not only do I support what the UK government is doing but if it was upto me they'd be cutting further and faster. Our austerity is so "severe" that spending is going up every single year. :rolleyes:
The eurozone has an average of ~ 12% unemployment, including Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, etc. Youth unemployment is 20-25%, even among college graduates. It's rather hard to pin down unemployment when so many are leaving their home countries to find work, or just give up looking and withdraw to their parents' basements. :bored:Quote:
Where did you get the notion we have double-digit unemployment from either? The UK unemployment rate is 8.2% and falling! In contrast the USA with its Obama-stimulus (which I opposed) following its Bush-stimulus (also opposed) has an unemployment rate of 8.1% - that's a rounding error difference.
Because your country has put education and health as priority funding, even during austerity measures and budget cuts, amid political in-fighting, that's why. You used to support the NHS, at least in principle, and publicly funded education, too. Maybe you've had a change of heart that way, I don't know, but you did start a thread asking what it costs US citizens to buy their own health insurance.Quote:
Why is it confusing and paradoxical that I support the same for the US that I voted for and support for my own nation? Did you have me mistaken for a Labour voter who opposed austerity here?
I criticized the senate rules, abuse of those rules, and lamented that WI citizens suffered for what their elected officials couldn't accomplish. I've said this before in other threads, but I'll say it again as an update:Quote:
What can I say here? :rolleyes:
Yet you've again criticised one side only. I don't recall you criticising the Democrat Senators for pathetically abandoning their jobs and fleeing out of state, did you?
When elected legislators can't manage to do the work they were elected to do---their salaries should be held in escrow, they shouldn't be allowed to vote their own pay raises, they should be barred from taking "living expense" donations, and their publicly funded healthcare and retirement benefits should cancelled.
I think you are being overly dramatic about the meaning behind the WI result. I do not think it was a rejection of Walker's policies, but I also don't think it was a wholehearted endorsement. I find it more likely that the majority of (non-unionized) people in WI felt that the recall was unjustified. That's a significant difference from 'pushing back against corrupt unions'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I think that WI voters felt as I do that Walker should be given a genuine chance to see if his changes are worthwhile. The recall was not a good idea, and voters responded appropriately. That doesn't mean that his policies are necessarily popular or successful. We'll have to wait a few more years to see about that.
Well, to be honest wiggin, pundits on both sides of the aisle were overblowing the recall in this way. Dread is just one more caught up in the hooplah.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I do agree with you on the Recall in general. I don't like them (but WI has the ability to do so, it's their right)...but I think recalls are just another stumbling block for politicians to attempt to do anything meaningful (right or left). It's bad enough that they need to worry about re-election normally, add a recall to the mix and executives can get paralyzed with fear and tons of money wasted. (And GGT, the 30 million + that got wasted by those you don't like would not have been so if the was not a recall to begin with. And in 2 years, they will be doing it again for re-election)
I think recall elections should be reserved for politicians who should be recalled, not for politicians who are doing what they were elected to do. So unless his actions are far from his election promises, i see no need for a recall. I probably wouldn't vote for a recall, even if I didn't support his policies
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
It's not really a matter of whom I "like", but how much money is spent on politicians, campaigns, media buys, marketing, lobbying, electing or re-electing. $50 or $50,000 per plate dinner fund-raisers, they're equally gross. Obviously, those donors keep doing it because they get "something" for their money, but I find the entire concept anti-thetical to our representative democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
It's especially hypocritical when candidates promise they're fiscally savvy, and will manage tax payers' money wisely. After they blow through millions of dollars on simply getting elected, and start fund-raising as soon as they're in office, is it any wonder we have budget problems? :rolleyes:
Each side is estimated to spend ONE BILLION on just the presidential election, and each state is spending multiple MILLIONS on primaries and local elections. Add it all up and it's not chump change. It's money diverted to a fucked up political process, when that money could be spent in better ways that actually invests in our future. /rant
:mad:
The something is generally having someone like-minded elected to political office. Beyond that, the most you can expect is being given the opportunity to occasionally pitch ideas to the candidates. It certainly doesn't mean they'll accept your ideas.
Quoting dailykos? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
An investigation that goes on for three years while Walker is subsequently elected to governor (18 months ago) and then re-elected to governor (this week) suggests that the alleged bad behavior hasn't really touched Walker.
This is a very good point for GGT. It's also important to note the union "ground game", in which the unions brought "volunteers" from all over the country to knock on doors, hang posters, occupy the capitol, intimidate Republican legislators at home and register voters. All with a war chest filled with state-mandated involuntary union dues.Quote:
Originally Posted by coinich
I'm being deliberately over dramatic. I'm trying to create a mirror image of the freakouts I see my friends having on Facebook over this.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
But I do think this is fairly substantial. And, after 3-4 decades of state unions infiltrating states like Wisconsin, New York and California, in some respects its tantamount to the first signs of a revolution.
Look, the public sector union cartel pulled all the stops here. They occupied the state capitol for days, pulled in money and manpower from all over the country as well as enlisted all the media support they could (the Huffington Post assigned a full-time reporter to cover Wisconsin and dig up dirt on him).
They went all in, both here and with the California ballot initiatives proposing public pension curbs. Not only did the unions lose and the ballot initiatives passed, but 1/3 of "union households" even voted for Walker. The result was pretty clear -- when put to a ballot, people aren't willing to go nuclear to support public sector unions. In many respects, I think this issue just got a bit less ideological, as people are willing to see this issue in isolation to their views on other issues.
Don't forget that many union members don't actually want to be union members, and are instead required to either join a union or pay dues in order to keep their job. Not surprising that those people would vote for Walker. The way I see it, the policy of unions in this country is anti-freedom in every way imaginable. Forcing people to join a political organization against their will and then forcing them to pay dues to that organization is about as authoritarian as a non-communist country can get.
That should be against the First Amendment. The right to free assembly (and free exercise of religion) should also include the right to not join assemblies/religions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Tell that to the courts who ignore the Constitution when it suits them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
agreed there. I am not opposed to unions, I think they have a value, and have definitely done good things in the past. But the way unions are in the US is just ridiculous.Quote:
Don't forget that many union members don't
actually want to be union members, and are
instead required to either join a union or
pay dues in order to keep their job. Not
surprising that those people would vote for
Walker. The way I see it, the policy of unions
in this country is anti-freedom in every way
imaginable. Forcing people to join a political
organization against their will and then
forcing them to pay dues to that organization
is about as authoritarian as a non-
communist country can get.
Please GGT, this is a more than disingenuous tack to take. Wisconsin campaign laws placed a limitation on the amount of money that could be donated to a challenger, (I believe the cap was $10,000.00 per individual) while allowing unlimited donations to the incumbent at the announcement of the recall election. If you want to blame shoddy, freedom limiting campaign finance laws, be my guest, (although I'm not sure I could stomach the irony) but this is certainly not a case of diminutive union donations being bested by theQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
evil Koch brothersman.
That sounds weird, the incumbent can get unlimited donations and the challenger can't? :bulb: Who ever thought that was a good idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Incumbents. They make the rules...