Recall Republican Wisconsin Governor Walker status update thread

[PokerGuy]

Obama is a fundraising powerhouse.

I agree with this completely, but it sure is funny to watch the hypocrites whining about money in politics when a candidate from the other party raises money, then turn around and applaud it when their guy raises even more money.

Elections cost money, a lot of it. Both parties know it, and both will raise a lot of money. Any whining about money is just hypocritical BS.

 

[Sonikku]

Democrats need to shut the hell up and deal with it. The Supreme Court themselves said campaign donations in any shape or size constitutes free speech. Today free speech just pierced through their Liberal lies and crushed them. Who the hell cares if some people lost their voice and bargaining rights? The taxes didn't go up on the job creaters and now they can continue on reigning prosperity on us all without a bunch of Liberal kooks getting in the way.

 

[fskimospy]

Coming up with new rules that are clearly designed to choke off funding for the other side while maintaining your own advantages is not to be considered an attempt at campaign finance reform.

In the end obummer is going to have much more money than Romney, plus the immeasurable benefit of 90% of the media being firmly in his hip pocket. I don't think the libs have any room to whine about money in politics.

Your entirely fact free and ignorant idea of campaign reform aside, Obama will not necessarily have any more money than Romney. He may very well have less after you count superPAC money, and there is no reason not to count it. Furthermore, the idea that Obama has the media in his pocket continues to be part of the right wing culture of victimhood. You need to believe you are constantly victimized by the media.

Pew Journalism has been studying media coverage of the candidates and guess what? Obama has had consistently more negative coverage from the media than positive. In fact over the last year or so there isn't one month in which he has had more positive coverage than negative. Romney on the other hand has enjoyed a good number of such months.

http://features.journalism.org/campaign-2012-in-the-media/tone-of-news-coverage/

Not that I expect this to dent the religious fervor with which Republicans cling to their myths of victimhood, but it's yet another example of just how divorced from reality you guys are. I eagerly await all of your attempts to explain this away. My prediction is "IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN WORSE HUSSEIN OBUMMER".

 

[Ausm]

And that very attitude is why some will rub your infamous predictions in your face.

In the whole thread you were claiming that you way was the proper way to go and the Wisconsin would eliminate the trouble and go back to the good old days.

You could have stated in once; not 100's of times. Poll after poll; Article after article written by union people.

Never understanding that the people elected Walker to do a job - change the system. Not to be a lapdog.

So basically you don't agree with my Political stance on anything so color me surprised with your response....

 

[Ausm]

I also I agree that you come off as a very arrogant person Ausm.

umm sorry to disappoint you forum lurker!

 

[Ausm]

Democrats need to shut the hell up and deal with it. The Supreme Court themselves said campaign donations in any shape or size constitutes free speech. Today free speech just pierced through their Liberal lies and crushed them. Who the hell cares if some people lost their voice and bargaining rights? The taxes didn't go up on the job creaters and now they can continue on reigning prosperity on us all without a bunch of Liberal kooks getting in the way.

I can't wait for the day when the Supreme Court fucks the Right over so I can listen to them whine. That's why it is imperative that President Obama gets a second term.

 

[PokerGuy]

the idea that Obama has the media in his pocket continues to be part of the right wing culture of victimhood.

Calling the right wing the culture of victimhood is hilarious. We all know where the real culture of victimhood resides, and it's not on the right.

We know for a fact that the vast majority of those in journalism self identify as democrats and liberals. We also know for a fact that it is virtually impossible to always keep one's own biases out of every aspect of your work. No matter how impartial you try to be, your ideology will influence your perspectives. Combine those two, and only a complete idiot would think that the result would be anything other than a media that is generally hostile to conservatism, and that's exactly what we have.

Obama has had consistently more negative coverage from the media than positive.

Well duh. Of course he has, but it hasn't been even remotely as bad as the coverage GWB got during most of his term. I say most because after 911 there was a little bit of a reprieve for a little while. Saying obummer has gotten more negative coverage in the abstract doesn't mean anything. There is a consistent undercurrent of disdain for conservatism in most of the main stream media.

 

[blankslate]

I can't wait for the day when the Supreme Court fucks the Right over so I can listen to them whine. That's why it is imperative that President Obama gets a second term.

The supreme court is made up of politicians in robes and it has been that way for quite a while. they won't screw the republicans over when the majority of them lean a particular way.

 

[werepossum]

Your entirely fact free and ignorant idea of campaign reform aside, Obama will not necessarily have any more money than Romney. He may very well have less after you count superPAC money, and there is no reason not to count it. Furthermore, the idea that Obama has the media in his pocket continues to be part of the right wing culture of victimhood. You need to believe you are constantly victimized by the media.

Pew Journalism has been studying media coverage of the candidates and guess what? Obama has had consistently more negative coverage from the media than positive. In fact over the last year or so there isn't one month in which he has had more positive coverage than negative. Romney on the other hand has enjoyed a good number of such months.

http://features.journalism.org/campaign-2012-in-the-media/tone-of-news-coverage/

Not that I expect this to dent the religious fervor with which Republicans cling to their myths of victimhood, but it's yet another example of just how divorced from reality you guys are. I eagerly await all of your attempts to explain this away. My prediction is "IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN WORSE HUSSEIN OBUMMER".

Glad you've come around to our side. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=26713876&postcount=61

Quote:
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Quote:
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Maybe, just maybe it's because media reflects what most people want?

You really believe that??

Explain 2004 then.
Media:
50% Democrat
22% Republican

Actual result 51% Republican 48% Democrat.

The only reason I can imagine you think this matters is that you think people are so unprofessional that they are unable to do their jobs because of political affiliation. This may reflect upon how YOU view the world, but that's pretty much it.

As far as media bias in this campaign, are you people insane? Maybe there are more negative stories out there about McCain because he has run a horrendous campaign, picked one of the worst running mates in US presidential history, has been wildly lurching around pulling cheap political stunt after cheap political stunt, and has run a negative campaign so ridiculous and full of lies that even Karl Rove called him out on it in an electoral atmosphere where anything Republican is pretty much DOA against an incredibly charismatic figure who also happens to be the first black presidential candidate in history.

If the media were reporting this race as if both parties were equal, they would be guilty of journalistic malpractice. That would be the true crime, for the media to bow to the never ending cries of the rabid right, the party of personal responsibility that has found yet another scapegoat to excuse their complete and utter failure. "It's not our fault everyone hates us, it's the librul media!"

You people are pathetic. Grow up and take responsibility. You're losing because the party you stand behind has royally fucked up this country. Take your electoral lumps like a man and stop desperately searching for why it isn't your fault McCain is losing so badly.

Unless of course you believe that Obama's favorable press coverage then was due to Obama's excellence whereas Obama's unfavorable press coverage is due to media bias. But nah, what's the chance of that being what you believe?

Let us watch the election cycle. McCain was so beloved by the media that the description "Senator McCain (R - Media)" was oft applied in jest, yet once he ran against an actual Democrat with a chance to beat him, his good will evaporated.

President Obama is being compared to the ideal progressive President, an image to which he cannot possibly favorably compare (in the eyes of the leftist media) due to constraints on his power. Candidate Obama will once again be compared to his non-progressive Republican opponent, a comparison which he cannot possibly fail to win handily in the eyes of the leftist media. I strongly suspect that once again the Republican candidate will run a horrible campaign and the Democrat candidate will run a campaign seeming handed down from G-d - if proggies actually believed such an unprofitable concept. Only if Obama is clearly and unavoidably going to lose will his press coverage be less positive than is Romney's. I also strongly suspect that in your eyes, Romney too will run a horrendous campaign, pick one of the worst running mates in US presidential history, go wildly lurching around pulling cheap political stunt after cheap political stunt, and run a negative campaign so ridiculous and full of lies that the national press will have no choice but to overcome their conservative bias and give the advantage to Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

Glad you've come around to our side. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=26713876&postcount=61


Unless of course you believe that Obama's favorable press coverage then was due to Obama's excellence whereas Obama's unfavorable press coverage is due to media bias. But nah, what's the chance of that being what you believe?

The chances of that? Basically zero. There is no such thing as systemic liberal media bias.

Let us watch the election cycle. McCain was so beloved by the media that the description "Senator McCain (R - Media)" was oft applied in jest, yet once he ran against an actual Democrat with a chance to beat him, his good will evaporated.

You think that McCain lost his goodwill because he went against a Democrat. I think he got bad press because his party was in the middle of a catastrophic self inflicted meltdown, saddled by the most enduringly unpopular president in history, two wars, and an economy moving into the next coming of the Great Depression.

But nah, I'm sure it's just because the media is so mean.

President Obama is being compared to the ideal progressive President, an image to which he cannot possibly favorably compare (in the eyes of the leftist media) due to constraints on his power. Candidate Obama will once again be compared to his non-progressive Republican opponent, a comparison which he cannot possibly fail to win handily in the eyes of the leftist media. I strongly suspect that once again the Republican candidate will run a horrible campaign and the Democrat candidate will run a campaign seeming handed down from G-d - if proggies actually believed such an unprofitable concept. Only if Obama is clearly and unavoidably going to lose will his press coverage be less positive than is Romney's. I also strongly suspect that in your eyes, Romney too will run a horrendous campaign, pick one of the worst running mates in US presidential history, go wildly lurching around pulling cheap political stunt after cheap political stunt, and run a negative campaign so ridiculous and full of lies that the national press will have no choice but to overcome their conservative bias and give the advantage to Obama.

This is where you've just descended into delusional fantasy. The media is attacking Obama for not being liberal enough? lol. Fantasy. Then of course in your mind Obama will get great coverage (meaning that he will win) unless he's going to lose in which case he will get bad coverage. This is basically saying that you take media bias as an article of faith.

You will be able to concoct an endless series of excuses for each situation that somehow end up getting to the conclusion you already wanted to have. I, on the other hand, think that sometimes candidates get good coverage when good things are happening to them (like they are winning the election) and sometimes get bad coverage when bad things are happening for them (like a crappy economy). But then we wouldn't have a vast nationwide conspiracy, and what fun is that?

 

[fskimospy]

Calling the right wing the culture of victimhood is hilarious. We all know where the real culture of victimhood resides, and it's not on the right.

You guys are the ones who are constantly complaining how you are victims of liberal media, victims of liberal scientists, victims of liberal professors, victims of liberal researchers, etc, etc. It's pathetic how much you whine about how mean the world is to you.

We know for a fact that the vast majority of those in journalism self identify as democrats and liberals. We also know for a fact that it is virtually impossible to always keep one's own biases out of every aspect of your work. No matter how impartial you try to be, your ideology will influence your perspectives. Combine those two, and only a complete idiot would think that the result would be anything other than a media that is generally hostile to conservatism, and that's exactly what we have.

Wow, that's a right airtight argument you just made when you totally make things up. (hint, it's not proven that people must be biased in their reporting by their political perspective, and you're thinking about journalists, not all the other parts of the media) It's just part of your victimhood fantasy.

Well duh. Of course he has, but it hasn't been even remotely as bad as the coverage GWB got during most of his term. I say most because after 911 there was a little bit of a reprieve for a little while. Saying obummer has gotten more negative coverage in the abstract doesn't mean anything. There is a consistent undercurrent of disdain for conservatism in most of the main stream media.

lol. This is what I mean about your religious faith in media bias. No facts can sway you, it's always conclusion first, justification second. Pathetic.

 

[Incorruptible]

I can't wait for the day when the Supreme Court fucks the Right over so I can listen to them whine. That's why it is imperative that President Obama gets a second term.

The notion that obama is a good president is very ignorant, he has only helped to destroy the US

 

[werepossum]

The chances of that? Basically zero. There is no such thing as systemic liberal media bias.



You think that McCain lost his goodwill because he went against a Democrat. I think he got bad press because his party was in the middle of a catastrophic self inflicted meltdown, saddled by the most enduringly unpopular president in history, two wars, and an economy moving into the next coming of the Great Depression.

But nah, I'm sure it's just because the media is so mean.



This is where you've just descended into delusional fantasy. The media is attacking Obama for not being liberal enough? lol. Fantasy. Then of course in your mind Obama will get great coverage (meaning that he will win) unless he's going to lose in which case he will get bad coverage. This is basically saying that you take media bias as an article of faith.

You will be able to concoct an endless series of excuses for each situation that somehow end up getting to the conclusion you already wanted to have. I, on the other hand, think that sometimes candidates get good coverage when good things are happening to them (like they are winning the election) and sometimes get bad coverage when bad things are happening for them (like a crappy economy). But then we wouldn't have a vast nationwide conspiracy, and what fun is that?

How can it be a "vast nationwide conspiracy" when it's right out in the open? That's like saying it's a vast nationwide conspiracy that the Catholic Church's bishops are Catholic. Of course, using your arguments they could just as easily be Baptist, since one's underlying life philosophy has no effect on job performance at comparing that philosophy to a competitor.

Besides, "vast nationwide conspiracy" is far to close to Her Royal Clinton's ""vast rightwing conspiracy" for us to use it.

 

[OCGuy]

LOL @ op.



No insults or personal attacks in P&N.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[fskimospy]

How can it be a "vast nationwide conspiracy" when it's right out in the open? That's like saying it's a vast nationwide conspiracy that the Catholic Church's bishops are Catholic. Of course, using your arguments they could just as easily be Baptist, since one's underlying life philosophy has no effect on job performance at comparing that philosophy to a competitor.

Besides, "vast nationwide conspiracy" is far to close to Her Royal Clinton's ""vast rightwing conspiracy" for us to use it.

Not only is your religious argument retarded, but like I said before it's quite clear to me that there is no amount of evidence that can convince you otherwise. It's simply an article of religious faith.

If you want to hold as part of your religion that you are subject to a massive, nationwide effort for the media to victimize those of your chosen ideology that's fine, but you should at least recognize your belief for what it is.

 

[CPA]

You guys are the ones who are constantly complaining how you are victims of liberal media, victims of liberal scientists, victims of liberal professors, victims of liberal researchers, etc, etc. It's pathetic how much you whine about how mean the world is to you.

oh, please. And libs are victims of rich white men, wall street, corporations, the Koch brothers, Fox News, conservative talk radio, the Tea Party, George Bush tax cuts, taxpayers who want to hold on to more of their money, and anyone who wants to touch any entitlement, no matter to what extent.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Interesting results.

Voters voted against the recall itself, yet changed the majority in the Senate from Rep to Dem.

Based on exit polls many people reflect what I feel, which is that recall elections should be for things like criminal activity, and would not vote for a recall even if they think the guy being recalled is an ideological winbag.

 

[boomerang]

Wow.

 

[michal1980]

Interesting results.

Voters voted against the recall itself, yet changed the majority in the Senate from Rep to Dem.

Based on exit polls many people reflect what I feel, which is that recall elections should be for things like criminal activity, and would not vote for a recall even if they think the guy being recalled is an ideological winbag.

the senate race was only in one district. and was won by ~700 votes. in 4 months 1/2 the senate is up for reelection with all new dsitricts. odds are control will switch back

 

[fskimospy]

Wow.

Why is that a wow? You realize almost every election map looks like that, right? It's because large amounts of low population counties tend to vote Republican, while the high population areas where people actually live vote for Democrats, right?

For example lets look at the 2008 map where Obama crushed McCain:

Remember, that was a total Democratic ass kicking across the board.

 

[fskimospy]

the senate race was only in one district. and was won by ~700 votes. in 4 months 1/2 the senate is up for reelection with all new dsitricts. odds are control will switch back

Odds aren't actually that at all. It's a presidential election year where Obama will probably win the state. That gives a pretty major electoral advantage to the Democrats, one they exploited in 2008 to expand their control of the chamber. While I'm sure no one has handicapped the Wisconsin senate races at this point, the advantage is clearly for the Democrats. Sure Republican gerrymandering of districts might help some, but I doubt there's any basis for what you said.

 

[michal1980]

Odds aren't actually that at all. It's a presidential election year where Obama will probably win the state. That gives a pretty major electoral advantage to the Democrats, one they exploited in 2008 to expand their control of the chamber. While I'm sure no one has handicapped the Wisconsin senate races at this point, the advantage is clearly for the Democrats. Sure Republican gerrymandering of districts might help some, but I doubt there's any basis for what you said.

And walker according to the left was supposed to lose.

 

[fskimospy]

And walker according to the left was supposed to lose.

What's your point? You made a prediction, let us know what it was based on. If you want to say 'absolutely nothing', that's fine.

 

[wirednuts]

Wow.

the rednecks have spoken. its like the blue indicates civilized cities

 

[Carmen813]

Glad you've come around to our side. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=26713876&postcount=61


Unless of course you believe that Obama's favorable press coverage then was due to Obama's excellence whereas Obama's unfavorable press coverage is due to media bias. But nah, what's the chance of that being what you believe?

Let us watch the election cycle. McCain was so beloved by the media that the description "Senator McCain (R - Media)" was oft applied in jest, yet once he ran against an actual Democrat with a chance to beat him, his good will evaporated.

President Obama is being compared to the ideal progressive President, an image to which he cannot possibly favorably compare (in the eyes of the leftist media) due to constraints on his power. Candidate Obama will once again be compared to his non-progressive Republican opponent, a comparison which he cannot possibly fail to win handily in the eyes of the leftist media. I strongly suspect that once again the Republican candidate will run a horrible campaign and the Democrat candidate will run a campaign seeming handed down from G-d - if proggies actually believed such an unprofitable concept. Only if Obama is clearly and unavoidably going to lose will his press coverage be less positive than is Romney's. I also strongly suspect that in your eyes, Romney too will run a horrendous campaign, pick one of the worst running mates in US presidential history, go wildly lurching around pulling cheap political stunt after cheap political stunt, and run a negative campaign so ridiculous and full of lies that the national press will have no choice but to overcome their conservative bias and give the advantage to Obama.

McCain's goodwill from the media ended when he became a hypocritical shell of a man and altered nearly every single position he ever held to appease the zealots on the far right. His selection of a grossly unqualified individual as his running mate was small potatoes in comparison to the fact that he demonstrated a complete lack of ability to stand up for his principles. He sold himself as a person of integrity, a "maverick" who bucked party trends to get the job done. He ran away from that to satisfy partisan hacks on the far right and I think it's totally laughable that people think he should have gotten away with that unscathed.

I used to be a tremendous fan of John McCain and had hopes for him winning in 2000. In 2008 I was looking forward to having a difficult decision to make between Obama and McCain. Instead I'm left hanging my head at what could have been. Truthfully, I'm disgusted by what he became.