Wisconsin has its first recall election tomorrow (Tuesday July 19)

[fskimospy]

Irony. Coming from the biggest conservative blowhard on the forums.

He's not really a blowhard, he's just an idiot. All he does is run into threads, scream 'LIEburals suck!!!111@@!!' and leave. He long ago gave up trying to contribute anything, he probably got tired of being embarrassed.

 

[nick1985]

He's not really a blowhard, he's just an idiot. All he does is run into threads, scream 'LIEburals suck!!!111@@!!' and leave. He long ago gave up trying to contribute anything, he probably got tired of being embarrassed.

Ahhh eskimospy. Possibly my favorite liberal blowhard on the forums. The guy that just thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

I'll never forget that thread where your worthless stupid ass was trying to argue that our tax dollars going to North Korea is a good idea.

stupid twat

 

[fskimospy]

Ahhh eskimospy. Possibly my favorite liberal blowhard on the forums. The guy that just thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

I'll never forget that thread where your worthless stupid ass was trying to argue that our tax dollars going to North Korea is a good idea.

stupid twat

That's because it is a good idea, you just have a child's understanding of IR so it doesn't make sense to you.

I'm not smarter than everyone else, but I'm smarter than you. (that's not very difficult though, so in many ways I'm damning myself with faint praise)

 

[nick1985]

That's because it is a good idea, you just have a child's understanding of IR so it doesn't make sense to you.

There's that liberal elite douchebagginess that we have all come to love.

Go back to smoking pot in thailand, pissant.

 

[fskimospy]

There's that liberal elite douchebagginess that we have all come to love.

Go back to smoking pot in thailand, pissant.

I'd love to! Don't be jealous.

Oh, and while I did smoke weed in Thailand, in that particular picture it's a rolled cigarette. None of those things about me make you any less stupid though, just so you know.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

The vote percentage he got for the special election are almost identical to what he got when he was re-elected in 2008, which was a very good year for Democrats. His opponent in that year raised only 15% of the money that Hansen did as well. While that's not 1%, there was still a similar and massive fundraising disparity in that year.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dave_Hansen

So really, the Democrats performed as well in this election as they did in the most favorable election for them in a generation. Recall elections are notable for their low turnouts and so I personally wouldn't try and draw many larger conclusions from this, but to draw the conclusion that the result here bodes poorly for the Democrats would be the exact opposite of what the evidence shows.

These recall elections are about one thing: Dem efforts to take back the Senate in the wake of their strong dissatisfaction with Walker. Repubs decided to waste taxpayer money and play tit for tat, so they went after three Dem senators.

In 2008, a good year for Dems, Hansen won by a 65/35 margin. He outspent his opponent by a large margin, and his opponent then was not a wife beating sonofabitch.

In 2011, Hansen outspent his opponent by an even larger margin, was running against a scumbag, and had the anti-Walker inertia behind him, yet failed to improve his margin of victory. Two of the three variables definitively favor Hansen. The only thing that explains his failure to capture a larger margin of victory this time is that the anti-Walker inertia is not as great as the organizers of the recall efforts hoped.

 

[nick1985]

I'd love to! Don't be jealous.

Oh, and while I did smoke weed in Thailand, in that particular picture it's a rolled cigarette. None of those things about me make you any less stupid though, just so you know.

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back so hard, dumbshit.

 

[spidey07]

These recall elections are about one thing: Dem efforts to take back the Senate in the wake of their strong dissatisfaction with Walker. Repubs decided to waste taxpayer money and play tit for tat, so they went after three Dem senators.

In 2008, a good year for Dems, Hansen won by a 65/35 margin. He outspent his opponent by a large margin, and his opponent then was not a wife beating sonofabitch.

In 2011, Hansen outspent his opponent by an even larger margin, was running against a scumbag, and had the anti-Walker inertia behind him, yet failed to improve his margin of victory. Two of the three variables definitively favor Hansen. The only thing that explains his failure to capture a larger margin of victory this time is that the anti-Walker inertia is not as great as the organizers of the recall efforts hoped.

Yep.

The thing is liberal and democrats simply cannot fathom that the majority doesn't want their entitled utopia at the expense of one's own hard work and money. Remember how Walker kept saying how the overwhelming majority of e-mails to him from state residents were in support of his union busting? The left simply could not believe that to be so, remember, they know better than you. Then they forced e-mails to be released and surprise, surprise, the overwhelming majority were in support of Walker's plans. That story was quietly ignored by the left/media.

Keep it up Wisconsin, for what you are doing is the true future for America.

 

[fskimospy]

These recall elections are about one thing: Dem efforts to take back the Senate in the wake of their strong dissatisfaction with Walker. Repubs decided to waste taxpayer money and play tit for tat, so they went after three Dem senators.

In 2008, a good year for Dems, Hansen won by a 65/35 margin. He outspent his opponent by a large margin, and his opponent then was not a wife beating sonofabitch.

In 2011, Hansen outspent his opponent by an even larger margin, was running against a scumbag, and had the anti-Walker inertia behind him, yet failed to improve his margin of victory. Two of the three variables definitively favor Hansen. The only thing that explains his failure to capture a larger margin of victory this time is that the anti-Walker inertia is not as great as the organizers of the recall efforts hoped.

Poorly capitalized opponents usually just benefit from straight ticket voting due to their low name recognition, which is probably what happened in 2008. Usually electoral results with such unknowns show the upper boundary of what kind of support a candidate can ever really get as a certain fraction of people vote D or R no matter if Hitler himself is on the ballot. It would probably be very difficult to impossible for him to have improved his margin as Hansen seems to have hit that in both cases. Again though, special elections are weird.

There are tons of things that would explain this result differently than a lack of anti-Walker momentum, particularly considering the low turnout of these elections. That's why you shouldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever from it. All I'm trying to tell you is that Democrats performing as well as they did in 2008 is a good thing for them, not a bad one.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back so hard, dumbshit.

Definitely jealous.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep.

The thing is liberal and democrats simply cannot fathom that the majority doesn't want their entitled utopia at the expense of one's own hard work and money. Remember how Walker kept saying how the overwhelming majority of e-mails to him from state residents were in support of his union busting? The left simply could not believe that to be so, remember, they know better than you. Then they forced e-mails to be released and surprise, surprise, the overwhelming majority were in support of Walker's plans. That story was quietly ignored by the left/media.

Keep it up Wisconsin, for what you are doing is the true future for America.

I know! I'm so happy too Spidey. Aren't you glad THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE elected the Democrat back by a 2-1 margin? I know how you like THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and all.

 

[ProfJohn]

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

The vote percentage he got for the special election are almost identical to what he got when he was re-elected in 2008, which was a very good year for Democrats. His opponent in that year raised only 15% of the money that Hansen did as well. While that's not 1%, there was still a similar and massive fundraising disparity in that year.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dave_Hansen

So really, the Democrats performed as well in this election as they did in the most favorable election for them in a generation. Recall elections are notable for their low turnouts and so I personally wouldn't try and draw many larger conclusions from this, but to draw the conclusion that the result here bodes poorly for the Democrats would be the exact opposite of what the evidence shows.

So if a Democrat runs against a wife beater and out spends him 10 to 1 he can get the exact same results he got last election???

And that is a good thing?

 

[fskimospy]

So if a Democrat runs against a wife beater and out spends him 10 to 1 he can get the exact same results he got last election???

And that is a good thing?

The spending disparity was similar, and he got results that were similar to the most favorable electoral results for Democrats in our lifetimes. As I have said multiple times, it's sort of silly to draw conclusions from these things, but I imagine the Democrats are very pleased with these results.

I'm sure that you view this result as impending Republican victory however, as you view everything as a sign of impending Republican victory. Hell, you probably think in this special election the Republican got so many votes that the counter wrapped around like an odometer or something.

 

[ProfJohn]

Nah I wouldn't call this impending.

The Republicans face an uphill battle in Wisconsin due to the way it is all happening.

That is one reason why recalls like this are bad. A special interest group aiming at the weakest opponents and then pours in money from around the country.

It is a bad way to run a state. Recalls should only happen in very limited cases where someone is accused for a crime or unethical acts. Not because you don't like their politics.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

There are tons of things that would explain this result differently than a lack of anti-Walker momentum, particularly considering the low turnout of these elections.

Like what? Low turnout is a wash. The argument that one side or the other is more mobilized to vote in a recall election is going to be based on what evidence? Biased pollsters' findings?

That's why you shouldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever from it. All I'm trying to tell you is that Democrats performing as well as they did in 2008 is a good thing for them, not a bad one.

So I shouldn't draw any conclusions from this one election, but you'll try to tell me that this one election bodes well for the Dems...?

 

[JSt0rm]

Nah I wouldn't call this impending.

The Republicans face an uphill battle in Wisconsin due to the way it is all happening.

That is one reason why recalls like this are bad. A special interest group aiming at the weakest opponents and then pours in money from around the country.

It is a bad way to run a state. Recalls should only happen in very limited cases where someone is accused for a crime or unethical acts. Not because you don't like their politics.

You can jst post under Schadenfroh from now on. The gig is up. Us plebs arent allowed to have dual accounts either.

 

[trenchfoot]

The swing vote independents....let's not forget that little niche of the voting block.

 

[ProfJohn]

You can jst post under Schadenfroh from now on. The gig is up. Us plebs arent allowed to have dual accounts either.

You are an idiot.

When I first joined Harvey did everything he could to find out if I was a previously banned member so he could get rid of me.

If I was just a mod hiding under another account do you think he would have done that?

 

[JSt0rm]

You are an idiot.

When I first joined Harvey did everything he could to find out if I was a previously banned member so he could get rid of me.

If I was just a mod hiding under another account do you think he would have done that?

wellSchadenfroh respond to my question as to why you spend 16 hours a day on the forums.

 

[Thump553]

So if a Democrat runs against a wife beater and out spends him 10 to 1 he can get the exact same results he got last election???

And that is a good thing?

A more significant question is why is a broke wife beater the best candidate the GOP can come with? Or is this one of the races where the GOP squandered all its potential candidates running them as phony Democrats?

 

[fskimospy]

Like what? Low turnout is a wash. The argument that one side or the other is more mobilized to vote in a recall election is going to be based on what evidence? Biased pollsters' findings?

Are you claiming all pollsters are biased? What are you basing this on? Polls for statewide office can frequently be inaccurate due to sampling problems, but the idea that all pollsters are biased is silliness.

Low turnout is also most certainly NOT a wash, in fact low turnout is the exact opposite because it emphasizes the motivation of voters on each side, the ground game of each side, etc, etc. What neither you or I know is which side low turnout benefited the most, because we don't have good information on the district. Generally, low turnout favors Republicans, but the incumbent probably had a better ground operation.

So I shouldn't draw any conclusions from this one election, but you'll try to tell me that this one election bodes well for the Dems...?

I should have been clearer, but I was simply trying to reiterate what I had previously written. You probably shouldn't draw any conclusions from this, but if you are determined to do so the evidence points more favorably for the Democrats.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

A more significant question is why is a broke wife beater the best candidate the GOP can come with?

Ha, no shit! That was my first thought when I saw the results. Apparently they had someone else who looked like a decent candidate but he couldn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot.

 

[werepossum]

These recall elections are about one thing: Dem efforts to take back the Senate in the wake of their strong dissatisfaction with Walker. Repubs decided to waste taxpayer money and play tit for tat, so they went after three Dem senators.

In 2008, a good year for Dems, Hansen won by a 65/35 margin. He outspent his opponent by a large margin, and his opponent then was not a wife beating sonofabitch.

In 2011, Hansen outspent his opponent by an even larger margin, was running against a scumbag, and had the anti-Walker inertia behind him, yet failed to improve his margin of victory. Two of the three variables definitively favor Hansen. The only thing that explains his failure to capture a larger margin of victory this time is that the anti-Walker inertia is not as great as the organizers of the recall efforts hoped.

One other possibility: In our highly divided, high stakes political environment, it may well be that margins are relatively fixed no matter how much is spent nor how loathsome may be a particular candidate. If the recall elections end up returning all nine incumbents, we'll have pretty strong evidence that party has replaced personal characteristics.

This isn't necessarily all that bad, either. If we take as a given that the two parties are more alike than not, and we take as a given that where they differ, each party will tend to behave as its strongest element wills, then a loathsome but honest example of the side you least fear may be better than a sterling example of the side you most fear.

 

[ProfJohn]

A more significant question is why is a broke wife beater the best candidate the GOP can come with? Or is this one of the races where the GOP squandered all its potential candidates running them as phony Democrats?

He wasn't the best.

The best was disqualified due to issues with his petitions.


The phony Democrats was actually a brilliant move by the Republicans. Due to the nature of the election with nationwide unions pouring money into state races the Republicans facing recalls were in grave danger since they didn't have the time needed to raise money and set up campaigns and get out the vote efforts etc. So they ran these phony Democrats in these primaries as a way to slow down the process and give them a chance to set up their campaigns.

Keep in mind that none of this would have happened if it weren't for the national unions bankrolling the recall efforts. The unions are essentially trying to buy the government of Wisconsin and the Republicans are fighting back any way they can.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Are you claiming all pollsters are biased?

No, but as you said, these special elections are motivating to people who really, really, really care. People who care that much are biased, and any polls they produce will be biased.

Low turnout is also most certainly NOT a wash, in fact low turnout is the exact opposite because it emphasizes the motivation of voters on each side, the ground game of each side, etc, etc. What neither you or I know is which side low turnout benefited the most, because we don't have good information on the district. Generally, low turnout favors Republicans, but the incumbent probably had a better ground operation.

That's what I meant by low turnout being a wash. We simply don't know whose argument is favored by low turnout.

I should have been clearer, but I was simply trying to reiterate what I had previously written. You probably shouldn't draw any conclusions from this, but if you are determined to do so the evidence points more favorably for the Democrats.

I did some more research and after the 2008 elections, a very strong (D) year that also involved big national elections (esp. the President), Dems held the WI State Senate 18-15. In that light, you are correct to assert that Dems performing in this one election like they did in 2008 is good for Dems.

However, of the six Repubs up for recall, one has been there since 1987, one since 1992, one since 2000, two since 2004, and one since 2008. ...And the one who first got elected in 2008 replaced a nearly 20 year term Republican. One who was first elected in 2004 replaced another nearly 20 year term Republican, and the other who was first elected in 2004 ran unopposed in 2004 and 2008. Edit: I just looked up each of the six Repub's election results from 2008, and three of them won by narrow margins, while the other three won handily.

So, considering the bigger picture, if the Dems perform the same in the recall elections this year as they did in 2008, they will not retake the WI State Senate because they will not defeat three sitting Repub senators. This isn't even accounting for the fact that Dems need to hold the remaining two seats they have that are still up for grabs.