The Republican Thread

[Y2HH]

Who's saying that the system is broken or that democracy has failed here?

 

eta: ACORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

No...just some random idiot that doesn't realize democracy worked exactly as it should...a candidate won because more people voted for him.

[Rex Kickass]

He won by ~150k votes. I doubt there's 150k college students in the state, let alone 150k students that would (1) vote and (2) vote for the democrat.

 

I also enjoy how every time a democrat loses the reaction is "the system is broken! democracy has failed!" Or, people don't think like you as much as you would like to believe, so you lost.

 

 

Actually, I love how you think me pointing out poor strategy equals me saying the system is broken. Especially one sentence after I say that I dislike recall elections and I feel that elections should have consequences. The recall advocates didn't play the game the best way possible. And yeah, that may very well have depressed under 25 voting by more than you may think. Would that have made the difference? Probably not. But it definitely was a handicap that the recall advocates never needed.

 

If you want to go with the system is broken meme, you can point to the fact that Scott Walker had a year to raise unlimited funds to this effort, and the recall candidates themselves had just a few weeks by state law, IIRC. But I also think that this is a bulls*** excuse too.

 

It's all a moot point anyway when Walker gets his indictment in the next year or so, following Illinois Governors straight into federal prison for the shady s*** he did in Milwaukee before he was governor.

[EvilMonkey]

Actually, I love how you think me pointing out poor strategy equals me saying the system is broken. Especially one sentence after I say that I dislike recall elections and I feel that elections should have consequences. The recall advocates didn't play the game the best way possible. And yeah, that may very well have depressed under 25 voting by more than you may think. Would that have made the difference? Probably not. But it definitely was a handicap that the recall advocates never needed.

 

If you want to go with the system is broken meme, you can point to the fact that Scott Walker had a year to raise unlimited funds to this effort, and the recall candidates themselves had just a few weeks by state law, IIRC. But I also think that this is a bulls*** excuse too.

 

It's all a moot point anyway when Walker gets his indictment in the next year or so, following Illinois Governors straight into federal prison for the shady s*** he did in Milwaukee before he was governor.

If a college kid is registered to vote in their home state, can they change their registration to vote in Wisconsin? And if so, how long until they can change it back? Or do they just vote in 2 different states, breaking the law in the process?

[Cknolls]

If a college kid is registered to vote in their home state, can they change their registration to vote in Wisconsin? And if so, how long until they can change it back? Or do they just vote in 2 different states, breaking the law in the process?

 

 

Eric Holder would be all over this like flies on dung.

[Rex Kickass]

If a college kid is registered to vote in their home state, can they change their registration to vote in Wisconsin? And if so, how long until they can change it back? Or do they just vote in 2 different states, breaking the law in the process?

Legally, if you register in one state, the other state is supposed to take you off the voter rolls. This is not always done with a lot of accuracy. As late as 2007, I was listed as a registered voter in Indiana, despite not having lived there since 2000.

[EvilMonkey]

Legally, if you register in one state, the other state is supposed to take you off the voter rolls. This is not always done with a lot of accuracy. As late as 2007, I was listed as a registered voter in Indiana, despite not having lived there since 2000.

I would bet that a high percentage of college kids vote in more than one place, most without realizing that they are not supposed to do it.

[Rex Kickass]

I would bet that a high percentage of college kids vote in more than one place, most without realizing that they are not supposed to do it.

I would bet that to be completely wrong.

[CanOfCorn]

More frustrating...$64 million dollars pumped into a recall election that could have gone to...well anything else but that.

[Rex Kickass]

More frustrating...$64 million dollars pumped into a recall election that could have gone to...well anything else but that.

Very true. It shouldn't be nearly as frustrating for Democrats as it is for Republicans. For every dollar spent by the Democrats in Wisconsin over the last couple months, Republicans spent 8.

[Balta1701]

Very true. It shouldn't be nearly as frustrating for Democrats as it is for Republicans. For every dollar spent by the Democrats in Wisconsin over the last couple months, Republicans spent 8.

That's assuming they don't have infinite funds. If buying out every election in the country costs $50 billion, and you can cut upper class taxes by $1 trillion over a 5 year period...well there you go.

[kapkomet]

Very true. It shouldn't be nearly as frustrating for Democrats as it is for Republicans. For every dollar spent by the Democrats in Wisconsin over the last couple months, Republicans spent 8.

 

 

I keep seeing that $# thrown around and it's just plain bulls***. It's now an Obama White House/DNC talking point that's just wrong.

[Balta1701]

I keep seeing that $# thrown around and it's just plain bulls***. It's now an Obama White House/DNC talking point that's just wrong.

In that case, please add a hyperlink with additional information establishing your point.

[StrangeSox]

In that case, please add a hyperlink with additional information establishing your point.

lol when has that ever happened?

[CanOfCorn]

I keep seeing that $# thrown around and it's just plain bulls***. It's now an Obama White House/DNC talking point that's just wrong.

 

The fact that the Romney campaign is giving the Obama campaign the business about fundraising in Hollywood is just f'in ridiculous. The amount of money spent on both of these campaigns should be enough for the American people to say, "Enough is enough."

[Rex Kickass]

I keep seeing that $# thrown around and it's just plain bulls***. It's now an Obama White House/DNC talking point that's just wrong.

Ok, fine. I was wrong. It was actually 10 to 1.

 

http://www.wisdc.org/pro12con.php

 

Scott Walker raised $30,505,082.66 in his recall campaign. He spent $29,250,959.08 in his recall campaign.

Tom Barret raised $3,938,574.59 in the same campaign. He spent $2,935,761.51 in the same campaign.

 

This does not count outside independent expenditures.

[Balta1701]

Ok, fine. I was wrong. It was actually 10 to 1.

 

http://www.wisdc.org/pro12con.php

 

Scott Walker raised $30,505,082.66 in his recall campaign. He spent $29,250,959.08 in his recall campaign.

Tom Barret raised $3,938,574.59 in the same campaign. He spent $2,935,761.51 in the same campaign.

 

This does not count outside independent expenditures.

That comes to 7.74 to 1. Not 10 to 1.

[Rex Kickass]

Last time I checked 2.935 million times 10 was 29.35 million.

 

You're right, its 9.96 times, not 10. My apologies for rounding.

[EvilMonkey]

Are you forgettng the $21 million the Unions spent in the state? Just because he didn't 'raise' it doesn't mean it wasn't to his favor. The unions spent like mad, and nobody seems to be reporting that.

[Rex Kickass]

Not ignoring that. Although that would be countered by the 15-20 million dollars in independent expenditures from the various super PACs that supported Walker. From the data I've seen there was roughly an equal amount of funds spent independent of the campaigns on either side of that divide, although if there is an edge, it would lean Republican.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

Not ignoring that. Although that would be countered by the 15-20 million dollars in independent expenditures from the various super PACs that supported Walker. From the data I've seen there was roughly an equal amount of funds spent independent of the campaigns on either side of that divide, although if there is an edge, it would lean Republican.

Well then that sounds a lot more like it was close to even than the 'he was outraised 10-1'. Doesn't matter who personally raised the money, spending seemed pretty close to even.

[StrangeSox]

Well then that sounds a lot more like it was close to even than the 'he was outraised 10-1'. Doesn't matter who personally raised the money, spending seemed pretty close to even.

 

Outside spending was close to even, actual-candidate spending was heavily in favor of Walker. It wasn't close to even overall.

 

All Walker Spending: $29m + $21m (outside)=$50m

All Barrett Spending: $3m + &21m (outside)=$24m

 

Though I'll toss this in:

Using Wisconsin to test the effects of campaign money

So there's your money effect, folks. Go from a 2:1 money advantage to a 7:1 money advantage, and it could increase your vote share by a full percentage point! Woo hoo!

[Jenksismyhero]

I wonder if that's normal for an incumbent gubernatorial election.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

I wonder if that's normal for an incumbent gubernatorial election.

In 2010, there was $37.4 million spent on that race. It included $10 million in outside group spending by who knows who since you don't ahve to tell. Outside, SuperPAC (mostly Republican) spending in the 2012 race was over $30 million, although again, hard to tell since there's no disclosure.

[Jenksismyhero]

I meant incumbent outspending a challenger given the built-in advantages.

[Balta1701]

I meant incumbent outspending a challenger given the built-in advantages.

Incumbents regularly outspend challengers because they can use the benefits of "have dinner with the Senator/the Senator will support your bill" to fundraise directly.

 

However, this election was unique. Scott Walker was allowed to raise unlimited funds directly from donors the moment the recall signatures began to be collected. Meanwhile, the challengers, from the moment they filed, had to abide by spending and contribution limits because they were actually running for a position, while Walker wasn't technically running for anything until he had an opponent. So he was able to raise unlimited funds from donors for >6 months, while the Democrats constantly had contribution limits from the moment they filed. Quirk of the law.

 

Of course, if the law hadn't been that way, those unlimited contributions could have just supplemented the $30+ million in SuperPAC spending that hit that race.