2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy is Walker's Win So Damaging?
I feel so stupid asking this, but can someone lay it out for me why it was so important to recall him? I've heard that it hurts Obama's reelection, but I'm not sure how. I've also heard that it hurts a Dem takeover of Congress.
Why was this recall so damn important? I get that it's really bad that big money was able to basically buy an election, but what are the political implications for the 2012 election?
TIA.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...is going to be the governor of Wisconsin tomorrow.
He's likely to be indicted though.
What power does the Gov. hold in a state when it comes to Presidential elections? Is it that they have a prime platform to give their Party's candidate?
BamaFanLee
(64 posts)We should not rest until Walker is led away from his office in handcuffs.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)State-level elections and the issues that decide them have very little effect on federal politics, which means congressional and presidential. This is bad for Wisconsin, but has very little effect outside of their other than that the Republicans will be crowing like roosters for a few days. But the things that decided this race aren't going to be even a whisper of wind come November.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)aggressive governors who will now feel empowered. imho
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)CTyankee
(63,932 posts)I have a mental picture now...
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Well only if you completely ignore the reality that there is a coalition, a confederacy of corporate interests that are buying state legislatures and imposing an interstate system of corporate written and corporate sponsored laws that server corporations.
If every in your state thinks like you, your state is screwed.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Americans like to vote for winners -- this evening, Democrats, progressives, unions, liberals and Pres. Obama are seen as big losers.
The agenda of the reactionary Repuglicans has had an impressive victory -- that is how all of the Washington/New York media and most political pundits will spin this. Furthermore, it gives Karl Rove and the reactionary super PACs all the evidence they need that big, big money will triumph in the end.
The results will clearly embolden all those other reactionary governors and state legislatures out there -- prepare for more union busting and more voter suppression laws.
This will not be a 'one day wonder' kind of outcome, the Repuglicans will see to that.
Indeed, the greatest danger to Pres. Obama's reelection is the attitude that this results is meaningless and unimportant ... keep that notion and you'll be looking at Pres. Rmoney in January 2013.
Of course, perhaps this can all be reversed with a presidential Tweet ... who knows?
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Nobody can realistically tag Obama, the national party, etcetera for losing a race that wasn't their responsibility, and wasn't likely to be won.
pstokely
(10,541 posts)nt
zanana1
(6,140 posts)Don't let the bastards get you down.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)for walker. in Oklahoma I know why they would do it, its an ass backwards place.
Hawaii Hiker
(3,166 posts)and will almost certainly win there in 5 months....
It's tough to beat an incumbent, and recent polls did show Walker leading in the recall, and President Obama leading in the general election...Even todays exit polls showed Obama with a 51-45 advantage over etch-a-sketch..
ilikeitthatway
(143 posts)I keep hearing union bashing. I honestly don't understand people. Do they not realize how much they owe to organized labor?
CTyankee
(63,932 posts)We act like Cassandras, for good reason. Then they get their rights infringed upon and they're all mad. Well, guess what? We told you so...
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)unions among other things....which I find devastating.
His win will bolster Governor Daniels, et. al. to proceed
with taking from the 99% to line the pockets and up
the profit line for his corporate friends. imho
Welcome to DU!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And that is why it is such bad news.
It means that all candidates, whether Republican or Democratic will be picked by, supported by and ultimately elected by corporate money.
The Wisconsin Democrats were as active as any people's movement could be. They worked harder than just about any movement ever has.
But they were outspent 34 million to 4 million.
All their enthusiasm and work, even the press attention they got, could not overcome the financial investment that big business made in this election.
One of the volunteers for Barrett said Democracy died tonight.
Actually, Democracy went into its death throes when the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United. Tonight its dying agony ended. It breathed its last breath.
We will continue to have two parties. The Democrats will be slightly to the left of the Republicans. But no one will really represent the economic or other interests of ordinary people. And there will never be enough money for groups outside the establishment to compete for office in any meaningful way.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Could you sketch out the connection between the CU decision and this state election?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)much faster than they did before. Many states have no laws restricting campaign spending by corporations.
Los Angeles had a regulation, but I am not sure what effect Citizens United has on it because if regulating the speech of the corporations at the federal level is unconstitutional, it may be unconstitutional for states to do it also. I am unaware that has been tested, but if I recall correctly, a state can protect and enlarge rights guaranteed under the US Constitution but not narrow them.
Any experts have anything to say about this. This is an aspect of First Amendment rights that I don't know about.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)at a certain moment in the contest -- while Democrats were fighting amongst themselves for the nomination.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)joshcryer
(62,287 posts)...had on hand. It's insanity.
flamingdem
(39,342 posts)And that's what we need to note, at least we can do something about that.
Walker targeted the rural areas, he scared them over guns, what else?
I'm sure they'll be much talk of it -- maybe we can learn something
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Walker attacked them shortly after getting into office. Their ranks have decreased at this point to almost half of what they were before Walker took office.
If they waited until 2014, they may not be in existence, so the recall effort was their best shot. They did collect a million signatures, 500,000 more than they needed to get the recall, so it looked like momentum was on their side.
But Walker took advantage of a loophole in WI law that allowed him to accept donations to his campaign until the recall signatures were officially verified. He had about a month or so to do that and the Koch Brothers et al helped him out a lot. Meanwhile, the Democrats had a primary to choose their candidate for the recall election and then Barrett only had a month til the recall general election.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This year, Obama is unopposed for re-nomination in the Democratic Party. I'm not really happy with what he has done, but it is probably a wise use of the limited money and resources we have to simply nominate him since he would win the nomination anyway. Sometimes you have to think strategically in that sense.
Apparently the Democrats in Wisconsin weren't able to organize themselves to use the limited resources they had to best advantage. Some strong guidance -- not compulsion but discussion -- from the national party might have been able to change that.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)joshcryer
(62,287 posts)...was a really tough choice. They didn't want the momentum to deflate from now until November, but by the same token, they risked, strongly, a low turnout for the Democrats (and while it was higher than 2010 it was much lower than 2008; the Walker people actually turned out in numbers higher than 2008).
dkf
(37,305 posts)Unions are the biggest source of organizational funding for the Democratic party. If you decimate their ranks you decimate their dues and their political contributions.
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)So that we don't have to be beholden to unions and other unpopular fringe groups for money and support.
Don't worry- Centrist DEMS can get money w/o Unions, and they are the only ones who win anymore any how.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)to maintain the status quo. $30 Million they can't spend in another election.
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)the whole point of centrism is to get the party out from under the thumb of fringe groups and unions- so that we can appeal to mainstream voters AKA the "Reagan Democrats"
It's not the worse thing in the world if Obama can blame the shellacking on liberals, unions etc- It means he can run on the more popular centrist positions and win again.
THEN maybe he can do some liberal stuff, but he has to win first.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)isn't celebrating this win big time. the few minutes that I watch them they were trying to figure out the Obama/walker voter. maybe its really true that people thought the recall was wrong.
Zambero
(8,982 posts)In Ohio, the recent election dealt with issues and not candidates. Progressives won when voters had a chance to consider rejecting specific policies implemented by a hard right anti-union governor. One problem with recalls is that a percentage of voters do not agree with them in principle, even if they don't support the policies of the officeholder being recalled. Perhaps the better tactic is to follow the Ohio example and go after unpopular policies and laws enacted by these people. Then work to remove them from office once their terms expire, when a recall election is not a distracting issue unto itself.
CTyankee
(63,932 posts)it is a fair point. It wouldn't hurt to look at it that way for the future.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Let's assume that all of McCain's votes went to Walker and that the 6% extra voters who voted were really just tired of the recall stuff (McCain's vote divided by Walker's vote 1262393 / 1331076).
Walker got 1,331,076 in the recall election. 1,331,076 + 6% = 1,410,940 votes. Respectable.
Except that Obama got 1,677,211 votes in 2008. Had Barret got 1,677,211 - 6% of votes he would've had 1,576,578 votes.
Barrett: 1,576,578
Walker: 1,410,940
Barrett by 165,638 votes! Had the turnout been similar to 2008 Barret would've won by 165,638 votes!
Even assuming 6% of voters were just pissed off and annoyed about the recall.
Frustrating, eh?
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)A good day to call in, stay in bed, read a book, call room service .eh?
GeorgeGist
(25,327 posts)gkhouston
(21,642 posts)We'll be told it's a mandate for Republicans, austerity, anti-union, you name it. We're not going to hear much about all the money that went into voter suppression and deceitful advertising. Not sure we'll even hear that much on the media about the disparity between the campaigns as to how much money was spent, and where it came from.