Guys. Really. Getting 2 incumbents recalled is pretty godamn good when only 13 politicians have ever been recalled in the history of the entire United States stop being self-defeating Democrats.
Also, you got rid of the two biggest assholes of the bunch.
Wisconsin deserves better though.
And I'm thinking every 250 years or so this nation needs a king, someone who rules with absolute authority to remind people why this country was founded. Thankfully I think we are on that tract to essentially have a constitutional monarchy with republicans controlling every branch of government.
Gotta put things in perspective. In one singular night, you got 15% of all recalls ever performed in history. Even though you didn't collect them all, the Republicans will no longer be able to run the state like they did just yesterday.
A bit off topic but seems applicable to this as I can see WI being the forerunner:
How likely is a violent riot like we see in London actually applicable in WI let alone the rest of the US?
'
This question keeps coming up, and the answer keeps being the same.
It's not likely, at all. Wisconsinites don't do violent riots.
Besides, the Republicans would love for riots to start, so they could start (legitimately) crowing to the media about how violent the liberal union thugs are. Hell, they tried to spin a bunch of stupid people fighting outside the state fair as "500 black youths assaulting white people."
People should stop hoping for, or asking about, violent revolution against Walker. If that happens, we lose. Period.
Gotta put things in perspective. In one singular night, you got 15% of all recalls ever performed in history. Even though you didn't collect them all, the Republicans will no longer be able to run the state like they did just yesterday.
Yeah, they will. Walker will learn nothing. The Republicans will learn nothing. They still have the majority, have set it up so that the majority can do whatever it wants, and will continue to govern as such.
We needed three to make them stop. We got two. Two may be a lot, two may tie the all-time record. But two was not enough.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Gotta put things in perspective. In one singular night, you got 15% of all recalls ever performed in history. Even though you didn't collect them all, the Republicans will no longer be able to run the state like they did just yesterday.
Yeah, they will. Walker will learn nothing. The Republicans will learn nothing. They still have the majority, have set it up so that the majority can do whatever it wants, and will continue to govern as such.
We needed three to make them stop. We got two. Two may be a lot, two may tie the all-time record. But two was not enough.
Gotta put things in perspective. In one singular night, you got 15% of all recalls ever performed in history. Even though you didn't collect them all, the Republicans will no longer be able to run the state like they did just yesterday.
Yeah, they will. Walker will learn nothing. The Republicans will learn nothing. They still have the majority, have set it up so that the majority can do whatever it wants, and will continue to govern as such.
We needed three to make them stop. We got two. Two may be a lot, two may tie the all-time record. But two was not enough.
It is enough if Schultz flips. His district went like 61% for Obama, and he's voted against the previous Republican dickery.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited August 2011
The House (we call it the Assembly) was not at stake. The Senate was. The Senate has an odd number of people. The Republicans now lead 17-16.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Gotta put things in perspective. In one singular night, you got 15% of all recalls ever performed in history. Even though you didn't collect them all, the Republicans will no longer be able to run the state like they did just yesterday.
Yeah, they will. Walker will learn nothing. The Republicans will learn nothing. They still have the majority, have set it up so that the majority can do whatever it wants, and will continue to govern as such.
We needed three to make them stop. We got two. Two may be a lot, two may tie the all-time record. But two was not enough.
Except now you only need 1 Republican to cross aisles instead of 3. And you've already got that one: Dale Schultz.
The Teabadgers already hate the guy and will try to primary him in 2014 regardless of what he does now. His best carreer move is to either flip to the Democratic caucus (whether or not he actually switches parties) or to wrangle a massive bribe out of the Koch brothers so he never has to work again.
Which isn't to say he's a Democrat or even that he'd caucus with Dems, just that he couldn't agree with Walker's brand of dickery in that case. But if he just votes his conscience every time, I'd say that we're in better shape than we were if we hadn't done any recalls.
Which isn't to say he's a Democrat or even that he'd caucus with Dems, just that he couldn't agree with Walker's brand of dickery in that case. But if he just votes his conscience every time, I'd say that we're in better shape than we were if we hadn't done any recalls.
Exactly. Wisconsin is in a lot better shape now. This isn't the sky is falling Chicken Little bullshit Dems love to pull on everything.
Which isn't to say he's a Democrat or even that he'd caucus with Dems, just that he couldn't agree with Walker's brand of dickery in that case. But if he just votes his conscience every time, I'd say that we're in better shape than we were if we hadn't done any recalls.
Exactly. Wisconsin is in a lot better shape now. This isn't the sky is falling Chicken Little bullshit Dems love to pull on everything.
What people seem to be forgetting is that, as far as the recalls are concerned, Democrats are currently 3 for 7, not 2 for 6, and next week it could be 5 for 9 if we get out the vote again, or 3 for 9 (making the state senate 17-14 again) if we don't.
Getting discouraged is insanely counter-productive at this point.
Seems to be plenty to be discouraged about, though. Those were four decisive wins, especially in districts that were supposedly tight. Two solid Democrat turnovers, but definitely not enough to expect the Republicans to change course.
Has it been worth the investment in political capital? This set of recalls were the Democrat's to lose - wind at their backs, supposed groundswell of public outrage, millions of dollars, tons of union support paid for in part by their own political adversaries. With all that in their column, it does seem to be a sharp rebuke any way you slice it.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Seems to be plenty to be discouraged about, though. Those were four decisive wins, especially in districts that were supposedly tight. Two solid Democrat turnovers, but definitely not enough to expect the Republicans to change course.
Has it been worth the investment in political capital? This set of recalls were the Democrat's to lose - wind at their backs, supposed groundswell of public outrage, millions of dollars, tons of union support paid for in part by their own political adversaries. With all that in their column, it does seem to be a sharp rebuke any way you slice it.
I would say more like two decisive wins... the other two were +/- 4% or less.
And remember that all six of the senators being recalled won in 2008, against Obama and the blue tide. Plus, as I said a page or three ago, outside money flowed in from Republicans, especially in the last few weeks, and ended up being more than Democrats spent. So really, spool, your assessment of the situation is entirely incorrect.
If I'm not mistaken, some of those millions of dollars flooding into the Wisconsin Republicans came from sources out of state, did they not? Any place they're forced to throw political and financial capital at things strains their ability to keep doing so elsewhere. Maybe not much, maybe barely at all, but well funded and connected as they might be, there are limits to how much can be done.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
If I'm not mistaken, some of those millions of dollars flooding into the Wisconsin Republicans came from sources out of state, did they not? Any place they're forced to throw political and financial capital at things strains their ability to keep doing so elsewhere. Maybe not much, maybe barely at all, but well funded and connected as they might be, there are limits to how much can be done.
It's a strategy. If special interests can make Collective bargaining disappear in Wisconsin, and then those same special interests setup a lot of businesses and create large numbers of jobs, they can make it appear that collective bargaining prevents full employment. If they can make collective bargaining as a whole appear to be a bad thing they can make a case in other states for gettingt rid of it.
This whole thing is about ideology. Ayn Rand, proponents of social darwinism, and corporatist types are ideologically opposed to the notion of collective bargaining. They view it as a serious hindrance to society. It allows the "weak" to thrive while the "strong" are never given a chance cause the system is rigged against people like them.
Has it been worth the investment in political capital?
Yes.
Especially considering that virtually no actual political capital was spent on this, at least on the Dem side. People power is not the same as political capital.
Has it been worth the investment in political capital?
Yes.
Especially considering that virtually no actual political capital was spent on this, at least on the Dem side. People power is not the same as political capital.
Exactly. Whose, exactly, political capital was spent? The challenger candidates? Sure, maybe, but they aren't exactly big players. The voting public? Nah, they get stronger the more they flex their muscles. Maybe it's Obama's political capital that got flushed. Even when he's staying the hell away from a state issue, everything will get blamed on him anyway.
Has it been worth the investment in political capital?
Yes.
Especially considering that virtually no actual political capital was spent on this, at least on the Dem side. People power is not the same as political capital.
Exactly. Whose, exactly, political capital was spent? The challenger candidates? Sure, maybe, but they aren't exactly big players. The voting public? Nah, they get stronger the more they flex their muscles. Maybe it's Obama's political capital that got flushed. Even when he's staying the hell away from a state issue, everything will get blamed on him anyway.
It's more that it makes the progressive wing appear impotent. The protests were a powerful symbol of loud, Democratic opposition. All the noise and rhetoric didn't amount to a win, though, and it emboldens conservatives who might otherwise be disheartened and feel like they're the political outliers.
That's certainly how it's playing down here in Texas. It appears a solid loss despite a huge Democratic effort to win, and the "emperor has no clothes" effect may carry over into 2012 organizing.
Has it been worth the investment in political capital?
Yes.
Especially considering that virtually no actual political capital was spent on this, at least on the Dem side. People power is not the same as political capital.
Exactly. Whose, exactly, political capital was spent? The challenger candidates? Sure, maybe, but they aren't exactly big players. The voting public? Nah, they get stronger the more they flex their muscles. Maybe it's Obama's political capital that got flushed. Even when he's staying the hell away from a state issue, everything will get blamed on him anyway.
It's more that it makes the progressive wing appear impotent. The protests were a powerful symbol of loud, Democratic opposition. All the noise and rhetoric didn't amount to a win, though, and it emboldens conservatives who might otherwise be disheartened and feel like they're the political outliers.
That's certainly how it's playing down here in Texas. It appears a solid loss despite a huge Democratic effort to win, and the "emperor has no clothes" effect may carry over into 2012 organizing.
Um, they took out two Senators who survived the Obama wave when the state was merrily voting Democratic by 14 points. That's pretty impotent all right!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It's more that it makes the progressive wing appear impotent. The protests were a powerful symbol of loud, Democratic opposition. All the noise and rhetoric didn't amount to a win, though, and it emboldens conservatives who might otherwise be disheartened and feel like they're the political outliers.
That's certainly how it's playing down here in Texas. It appears a solid loss despite a huge Democratic effort to win, and the "emperor has no clothes" effect may carry over into 2012 organizing.
Um, they took out two Senators who survived the Obama wave when the state was merrily voting Democratic by 14 points. That's pretty impotent all right!
I guarantee you spool's perspective is the one that gains national acceptance.
To call this a "win" for Democrats requires a nuanced understanding of what happened in Wisconsin... and "nuance" is a bad word in American politics.
It's more that it makes the progressive wing appear impotent. The protests were a powerful symbol of loud, Democratic opposition. All the noise and rhetoric didn't amount to a win, though, and it emboldens conservatives who might otherwise be disheartened and feel like they're the political outliers.
That's certainly how it's playing down here in Texas. It appears a solid loss despite a huge Democratic effort to win, and the "emperor has no clothes" effect may carry over into 2012 organizing.
Um, they took out two Senators who survived the Obama wave when the state was merrily voting Democratic by 14 points. That's pretty impotent all right!
I guarantee you spool's perspective is the one that gains national acceptance.
To call this a "win" for Democrats requires a nuanced understanding of what happened in Wisconsin... and "nuance" is a bad word in American politics.
I don't really give a shit about perception. Reality is what matters.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
All the noise and rhetoric didn't amount to a win, though
Huh? It amounted to TWO wins and a path to stopping Walker's agenda.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Any emboldening of conservatives that takes place is only edue to the fact that conservatives always seem to learn the wrong lessons. Face it, conservatives are plenty bold even when they're taking a shellacking.
I'll take tangible, incremental victory over willful ignorance any day.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It's more that it makes the progressive wing appear impotent. The protests were a powerful symbol of loud, Democratic opposition. All the noise and rhetoric didn't amount to a win, though, and it emboldens conservatives who might otherwise be disheartened and feel like they're the political outliers.
That's certainly how it's playing down here in Texas. It appears a solid loss despite a huge Democratic effort to win, and the "emperor has no clothes" effect may carry over into 2012 organizing.
Um, they took out two Senators who survived the Obama wave when the state was merrily voting Democratic by 14 points. That's pretty impotent all right!
I guarantee you spool's perspective is the one that gains national acceptance.
To call this a "win" for Democrats requires a nuanced understanding of what happened in Wisconsin... and "nuance" is a bad word in American politics.
I don't really give a shit about perception. Reality is what matters.
No. In politics, perception is everything.
Reality doesn't mean dick.
It reality mattered, we wouldn't have a Tea Party in the first place.
It's more that it makes the progressive wing appear impotent. The protests were a powerful symbol of loud, Democratic opposition. All the noise and rhetoric didn't amount to a win, though, and it emboldens conservatives who might otherwise be disheartened and feel like they're the political outliers.
That's certainly how it's playing down here in Texas. It appears a solid loss despite a huge Democratic effort to win, and the "emperor has no clothes" effect may carry over into 2012 organizing.
Um, they took out two Senators who survived the Obama wave when the state was merrily voting Democratic by 14 points. That's pretty impotent all right!
I guarantee you spool's perspective is the one that gains national acceptance.
To call this a "win" for Democrats requires a nuanced understanding of what happened in Wisconsin... and "nuance" is a bad word in American politics.
I don't really give a shit about perception. Reality is what matters.
No. In politics, perception is everything.
Reality doesn't mean dick.
It reality mattered, we wouldn't have a Tea Party in the first place.
And that's especially true when trying to project the results of local politics to the national stage. Locally, this could probably still be considered a win, but nationally it's a loss.
I think that's a pretty black and white position to take. Clearly, both matter to some extent. I'm thinking reality is more comforting to those on the left than those on the right, though. Generally speaking, of course.
You guys are really hanging all of your hopes on a Republican who didn't go all the way one time when his vote didn't matter? Do you realize the pressure he's going to be under when he's the deciding voter?
Beating two incumbents when you needed three isn't exactly a great victory, but again, considering that most of the area voting was red, and these guys all survived the Obama wave in 2008, Democrats were fighting an uphill battle, and winning two out of six is fairly impressive.
Also note that everyone else can be recalled in January, not that it will necessarily happen.
Posts
How likely is a violent riot like we see in London actually applicable in WI let alone the rest of the US?
Gotta put things in perspective. In one singular night, you got 15% of all recalls ever performed in history. Even though you didn't collect them all, the Republicans will no longer be able to run the state like they did just yesterday.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
This question keeps coming up, and the answer keeps being the same.
It's not likely, at all. Wisconsinites don't do violent riots.
Besides, the Republicans would love for riots to start, so they could start (legitimately) crowing to the media about how violent the liberal union thugs are. Hell, they tried to spin a bunch of stupid people fighting outside the state fair as "500 black youths assaulting white people."
People should stop hoping for, or asking about, violent revolution against Walker. If that happens, we lose. Period.
The only thing that could make Wisconsin riot is if Walker tried to sell the Packers to Iowa.
I'd riot and I don't even live in Wisconsin.
That's the point. If you lived in Wisconsin, you wouldn't riot.
Yeah, they will. Walker will learn nothing. The Republicans will learn nothing. They still have the majority, have set it up so that the majority can do whatever it wants, and will continue to govern as such.
We needed three to make them stop. We got two. Two may be a lot, two may tie the all-time record. But two was not enough.
Doesn't it make the state house 50/50?
It is enough if Schultz flips. His district went like 61% for Obama, and he's voted against the previous Republican dickery.
Except now you only need 1 Republican to cross aisles instead of 3. And you've already got that one: Dale Schultz.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
A situation like this is usually when it happens.
When the flipper is the determining vote and not just some schmuck who'll get buried by his outraged party.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/27/950789/-Breaking!Dale-Schultz-will-not-vote-for-Walkers-Union-Busting-Bill
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
As far as I've heard yet, it's just a "She's done it before, so she's probably doing it now" situation.
Which isn't to say he's a Democrat or even that he'd caucus with Dems, just that he couldn't agree with Walker's brand of dickery in that case. But if he just votes his conscience every time, I'd say that we're in better shape than we were if we hadn't done any recalls.
Exactly. Wisconsin is in a lot better shape now. This isn't the sky is falling Chicken Little bullshit Dems love to pull on everything.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
What people seem to be forgetting is that, as far as the recalls are concerned, Democrats are currently 3 for 7, not 2 for 6, and next week it could be 5 for 9 if we get out the vote again, or 3 for 9 (making the state senate 17-14 again) if we don't.
Getting discouraged is insanely counter-productive at this point.
Has it been worth the investment in political capital? This set of recalls were the Democrat's to lose - wind at their backs, supposed groundswell of public outrage, millions of dollars, tons of union support paid for in part by their own political adversaries. With all that in their column, it does seem to be a sharp rebuke any way you slice it.
I would say more like two decisive wins... the other two were +/- 4% or less.
It's a strategy. If special interests can make Collective bargaining disappear in Wisconsin, and then those same special interests setup a lot of businesses and create large numbers of jobs, they can make it appear that collective bargaining prevents full employment. If they can make collective bargaining as a whole appear to be a bad thing they can make a case in other states for gettingt rid of it.
This whole thing is about ideology. Ayn Rand, proponents of social darwinism, and corporatist types are ideologically opposed to the notion of collective bargaining. They view it as a serious hindrance to society. It allows the "weak" to thrive while the "strong" are never given a chance cause the system is rigged against people like them.
Yes.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Exactly. Whose, exactly, political capital was spent? The challenger candidates? Sure, maybe, but they aren't exactly big players. The voting public? Nah, they get stronger the more they flex their muscles. Maybe it's Obama's political capital that got flushed. Even when he's staying the hell away from a state issue, everything will get blamed on him anyway.
It's more that it makes the progressive wing appear impotent. The protests were a powerful symbol of loud, Democratic opposition. All the noise and rhetoric didn't amount to a win, though, and it emboldens conservatives who might otherwise be disheartened and feel like they're the political outliers.
That's certainly how it's playing down here in Texas. It appears a solid loss despite a huge Democratic effort to win, and the "emperor has no clothes" effect may carry over into 2012 organizing.
Um, they took out two Senators who survived the Obama wave when the state was merrily voting Democratic by 14 points. That's pretty impotent all right!
I guarantee you spool's perspective is the one that gains national acceptance.
To call this a "win" for Democrats requires a nuanced understanding of what happened in Wisconsin... and "nuance" is a bad word in American politics.
I don't really give a shit about perception. Reality is what matters.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Any emboldening of conservatives that takes place is only edue to the fact that conservatives always seem to learn the wrong lessons. Face it, conservatives are plenty bold even when they're taking a shellacking.
I'll take tangible, incremental victory over willful ignorance any day.
No. In politics, perception is everything.
Reality doesn't mean dick.
It reality mattered, we wouldn't have a Tea Party in the first place.
And that's especially true when trying to project the results of local politics to the national stage. Locally, this could probably still be considered a win, but nationally it's a loss.
You guys are really hanging all of your hopes on a Republican who didn't go all the way one time when his vote didn't matter? Do you realize the pressure he's going to be under when he's the deciding voter?
Also note that everyone else can be recalled in January, not that it will necessarily happen.