Bipartisan recall efforts in Wisconsin

[silverscreenselect]

Walker won his recall election, but the State Senate appears to have flipped. --Bob

Another stirring testimonial to the courage of our valiant President who made sure to stay as far away from this election as possible once it appeared it wasn't going well for the Democrats. The same courage he showed in allowing himself to finally be pried away from the golf course to let Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta twist his arm into authorizing the strike against Bin Laden.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Well, the Unions and Liberals have wasted millions of Wisconsin taxpayer dollars, but at least they have made an important point.

I have no idea what that point is, but it must have been important.

The anti-recall groups spent over $30 million, mostly from out-of-state donors; the pro-recall group spent just over $2 million.

They certainly stimulated the Wisconsin economy!

The $2 million number seems to be spin.

The amount of money being spent on the recall elections was over $30 million, with $25 million of that coming from outside groups on both sides and $5 million being spent by the candidates.[58] The flow of money came as unions saw the recall elections as the best way to halt Walker's agenda and to send a message to other states considering changing their collective bargaining laws. Unions played a significant role for Democrats by spending money on advertising, and supplying manpower in all the Senate districts. Conservative groups responded with their own spending for the elections.[8]

Pro-Democratic unions have fundraised roughly $9.7 million for use in the Wisconsin recall elections.[59] Spending by Republican organizations, such as Americans for Prosperity, is harder to quantify, as many of them do not report their spendings or receipts publicly. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, roughly $12-$13 million had been spent on the recall elections by outside groups, as of early August, with conservative groups outspending liberals.[60]
See also

[Bob Juch]

Well, the Unions and Liberals have wasted millions of Wisconsin taxpayer dollars, but at least they have made an important point.

I have no idea what that point is, but it must have been important.

The anti-recall groups spent over $30 million, mostly from out-of-state donors; the pro-recall group spent just over $2 million.

They certainly stimulated the Wisconsin economy!

The $2 million number seems to be spin.

The amount of money being spent on the recall elections was over $30 million, with $25 million of that coming from outside groups on both sides and $5 million being spent by the candidates.[58] The flow of money came as unions saw the recall elections as the best way to halt Walker's agenda and to send a message to other states considering changing their collective bargaining laws. Unions played a significant role for Democrats by spending money on advertising, and supplying manpower in all the Senate districts. Conservative groups responded with their own spending for the elections.[8]

Pro-Democratic unions have fundraised roughly $9.7 million for use in the Wisconsin recall elections.[59] Spending by Republican organizations, such as Americans for Prosperity, is harder to quantify, as many of them do not report their spendings or receipts publicly. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, roughly $12-$13 million had been spent on the recall elections by outside groups, as of early August, with conservative groups outspending liberals.[60]
See also

Cite your source please.

[BackInTex]

And in other news...

Dow, S&P 500 post biggest gains of 2012

Coincidence? I think not.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The anti-recall groups spent over $30 million, mostly from out-of-state donors; the pro-recall group spent just over $2 million.

They certainly stimulated the Wisconsin economy!

The $2 million number seems to be spin.

The amount of money being spent on the recall elections was over $30 million, with $25 million of that coming from outside groups on both sides and $5 million being spent by the candidates.[58] The flow of money came as unions saw the recall elections as the best way to halt Walker's agenda and to send a message to other states considering changing their collective bargaining laws. Unions played a significant role for Democrats by spending money on advertising, and supplying manpower in all the Senate districts. Conservative groups responded with their own spending for the elections.[8]

Pro-Democratic unions have fundraised roughly $9.7 million for use in the Wisconsin recall elections.[59] Spending by Republican organizations, such as Americans for Prosperity, is harder to quantify, as many of them do not report their spendings or receipts publicly. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, roughly $12-$13 million had been spent on the recall elections by outside groups, as of early August, with conservative groups outspending liberals.[60]
See also

Cite your source please.

The lamest source of all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_ ... ions,_2011

now your source

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/30 ... ian-tuttle

Democrats have much to lament in the aftermath of yesterday’s Wisconsin recall elections. The spending numbers offer no comfort.

While Republicans outspent Democrats more than twofold in a series of races that, combined, cost more than $114 million, their electoral victories were worth the expenditures. For Democrats, 18 months of campaigning and more than $31 million later, Wisconsin is a bust.

The governor’s race, which cost upward of $60 million, saw Democratic challenger Tom Barrett spend $4 million, on top of more than $5 million spent by independent pro-Barrett groups. Democrats spent an additional $2 million on Kathleen Falk in the run-up to the May 8 primary.

Last year’s state-senate recall elections, in 2011, due to which Republicans lost two seats (four Republicans and three Democrats retained their positions), cost $44 million total. Democratic candidates spent $4 million, and Democratic outsiders outspent Republican counterparts $18.6 million to $15.9 million. The 2012 state-senate recall elections, by contrast, cost a total of $4.4 million, and Democratic candidates spent just under $600,000. Independent left-wing supporters spent $1.1 million on the four races.

The 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court recall election was fueled almost exclusively by outside money; both candidates received $400,000 in public funding and agreed to forgo raising their own private campaign donations. Liberal groups attacked incumbent justice David Prosser with $1.5 million worth of ads.

The least expensive race was that of Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, the first lieutenant governor in American history to face a recall election. Kleefisch’s opponent, Mahlon Mitchell, president of the Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin, spent $200,000, and outside Democratic groups spent $480,000.

In full, Democratic candidates and their backers spent more than $31 million to unseat Walker and his Republican colleagues.

That’s a lot of money wasted.

[flockofseagulls104]

The anti-recall groups spent over $30 million, mostly from out-of-state donors; the pro-recall group spent just over $2 million.

They certainly stimulated the Wisconsin economy!

If you're complaining about the anti recall groups spending so much money, I would point out that they wouldn't have spent anything but for the unions and the democrats who caused these elections to be held.

I'm talking about the millions of taxpayer dollars that the state had to spend on running these stupid elections.

I'm not complaining about the money the anti-recall groups spent. They took a lot of money from wealthy donors from all over and spent it in Wisconsin.

Thank you, wealthy donors! You could have just stood by and let the unions, with the money they take from their members, take over the state, but you stepped up and saved the day.

[Bob Juch]

And in other news...

Dow, S&P 500 post biggest gains of 2012

Coincidence? I think not.

From that article:

"There's a lot of optimism from rumors that there will be some type of stimulus coming really soon," said Ryan Detrick, senior technical strategist at Schaeffer's Investment Research. "This might light the fuse and spark [the markets] higher."

So where might that stimulus be coming from?

[Bob Juch]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/30 ... ian-tuttle

Democrats have much to lament in the aftermath of yesterday’s Wisconsin recall elections. The spending numbers offer no comfort.

While Republicans outspent Democrats more than twofold in a series of races that, combined, cost more than $114 million, their electoral victories were worth the expenditures. For Democrats, 18 months of campaigning and more than $31 million later, Wisconsin is a bust.

The governor’s race, which cost upward of $60 million, saw Democratic challenger Tom Barrett spend $4 million, on top of more than $5 million spent by independent pro-Barrett groups. Democrats spent an additional $2 million on Kathleen Falk in the run-up to the May 8 primary.

Last year’s state-senate recall elections, in 2011, due to which Republicans lost two seats (four Republicans and three Democrats retained their positions), cost $44 million total. Democratic candidates spent $4 million, and Democratic outsiders outspent Republican counterparts $18.6 million to $15.9 million. The 2012 state-senate recall elections, by contrast, cost a total of $4.4 million, and Democratic candidates spent just under $600,000. Independent left-wing supporters spent $1.1 million on the four races.

The 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court recall election was fueled almost exclusively by outside money; both candidates received $400,000 in public funding and agreed to forgo raising their own private campaign donations. Liberal groups attacked incumbent justice David Prosser with $1.5 million worth of ads.

The least expensive race was that of Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, the first lieutenant governor in American history to face a recall election. Kleefisch’s opponent, Mahlon Mitchell, president of the Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin, spent $200,000, and outside Democratic groups spent $480,000.

In full, Democratic candidates and their backers spent more than $31 million to unseat Walker and his Republican colleagues.

That’s a lot of money wasted.

So why don't they list the anti-recall spending?

Looks like it may take a while to add things up:

But even after the groups allied against Walker spent $18 million, it was insufficient to match the sitting governor, whose campaign and supporters spent $47 million, according to figures from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan group that tracks political spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

[silverscreenselect]

And in other news...

Dow, S&P 500 post biggest gains of 2012

Coincidence? I think not.

Actually, the rise was driven by: (1) reports out of Europe that the governments were working out a solution to the Spanish problems, and (2) productivity reports that indicated employment might rise in the near future. Since most of last week's drop was caused by bad European news and a bad jobs report, this bump makes sense.

Don't feel bad, though. Our President has no real idea what makes the economy work either. I'd say Romney didn't have a clue either based on his stump speeches, but I'm pretty sure he just says what he needs to in order to keep the right wing in line.

[BackInTex]

And in other news...

Dow, S&P 500 post biggest gains of 2012

Coincidence? I think not.

Actually, the rise was driven by: (1) reports out of Europe that the governments were working out a solution to the Spanish problems, and (2) productivity reports that indicated employment might rise in the near future. Since most of last week's drop was caused by bad European news and a bad jobs report, this bump makes sense.

Don't feel bad, though. Our President has no real idea what makes the economy work either. I'd say Romney didn't have a clue either based on his stump speeches, but I'm pretty sure he just says what he needs to in order to keep the right wing in line.

I know what the media says. But how often are they right about these things? Yep, they've got no clue either.

[Flybrick]

So outside, or inside, money is a bad thing because it got a huge voter turn-out?

In the 2008 election, seems a huge fundraising campaign was "telling and an expression of the public's will" was all good.

Funny how that works for only one side.

Same humor that a "seven point" win is a "narrow" one for Scott Walker but was "decisive" in the last presidential one.

[elwoodblues]

99% of people believe there should be less campaign spending by the side they disagree with.

[Weyoun]

I don't understand why liberals are so unhappy with Wisconsin. If the government spends less on pensions and workers retire later, we have more money to spend and government workers who are more experienced. I mean, I know unions have become a way to spit in the eye at capitalists, but I didn't think the government was really this capitalist monster, so that logic doesn't hold.

So, less government spending on pensions, more on welfare, everyone wins.

[minimetoo26]

99% of people believe there should be less campaign spending by the side they disagree with.

I just feel sorry for the poor folks of Wisconsin who had to endure an extra election. It's safe to turn the TV on for a few months, then it's back to the barrage of garbage ads...

[Bob78164]

In the 2008 election, seems a huge fundraising campaign was "telling and an expression of the public's will" was all good.

Most of President Obama's money in 2008 came from small donors, which means he had a lot of donors. I'm pretty sure that contributions to Walker were, shall we say, more concentrated.

In other words, 100,000 people donating $10 each is an expression of the public's will. One person donating $1 million -- not so much. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

In the 2008 election, seems a huge fundraising campaign was "telling and an expression of the public's will" was all good.

Most of President Obama's money in 2008 came from small donors, which means he had a lot of donors. I'm pretty sure that contributions to Walker were, shall we say, more concentrated.

In other words, 100,000 people donating $10 each is an expression of the public's will. One person donating $1 million -- not so much. --Bob

Especially when it comes from the Koch brothers.

[Bob78164]

In the 2008 election, seems a huge fundraising campaign was "telling and an expression of the public's will" was all good.

Most of President Obama's money in 2008 came from small donors, which means he had a lot of donors. I'm pretty sure that contributions to Walker were, shall we say, more concentrated.

In other words, 100,000 people donating $10 each is an expression of the public's will. One person donating $1 million -- not so much. --Bob

Especially when it comes from the Koch brothers.

For my point, it doesn't matter from whom it comes. Broad-based donations are a better sign of public support than a few rich backers. --Bob

[Flybrick]

In other words, 100,000 people donating $10 each is an expression of the public's will. One person donating $1 million -- not so much. --Bob

One wonders then, at the votes that Walker received. Why did he get them? Because those voters made a choice between one side or the other?

A large turn-out and one side won fairly handily.

Danged ol' voters...

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

In the 2008 election, seems a huge fundraising campaign was "telling and an expression of the public's will" was all good.

Most of President Obama's money in 2008 came from small donors, which means he had a lot of donors. I'm pretty sure that contributions to Walker were, shall we say, more concentrated.

In other words, 100,000 people donating $10 each is an expression of the public's will. One person donating $1 million -- not so much. --Bob

Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama's amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.

Except, it turns out, that's not really true.

In fact, Obama's base of small donors was almost exactly the same percent as George W. Bush's in 2004 -- Obama had 26% and the great Republican satan 25%. Obviously, this is unacceptable to current popular thinking.

But the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute just issued a detailed study of Obama's donor base and its giving. And that's what the Institute found, to its own surprise.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... money.html

President Obama went to Hollywood again Wednesday, marking his 150th fundraiser since taking office during a West Coast swing that ignited Republican claims that the president is far more intensely focused on campaigning rather than governing.

A two-day cash grab in San Francisco and Los Angeles, headlined by a gay rights event at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel with television star Ellen DeGeneres and a $25,000-per-head dinner with “Glee” creator Ryan Murphy, was derided by the Republican National Committee as Obama hobnobbing with his “greatest allies, the Hollywood glitterati.”

http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/06/07/ ... undraiser/

[Bob78164]

In other words, 100,000 people donating $10 each is an expression of the public's will. One person donating $1 million -- not so much. --Bob

One wonders then, at the votes that Walker received. Why did he get them? Because those voters made a choice between one side or the other?

A large turn-out and one side won fairly handily.

Danged ol' voters...

I'm wondering how much support Walker got from people that simply thought a recall was the wrong remedy for what he's done but plan to vote against him in 2014. I saw at least one poll that had about 60% of Wisconsin voters saying either that a recall should never be used or it should only be used for cases of official misconduct.

And remember, after the 2010 election, the Wisconsin Senate was divided 20-13 in favor of Republicans. Now it's controlled by Democrats. That really doesn't read to me like a ringing endorsement of Walker's policies. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

In other words, 100,000 people donating $10 each is an expression of the public's will. One person donating $1 million -- not so much. --Bob

One wonders then, at the votes that Walker received. Why did he get them? Because those voters made a choice between one side or the other?

A large turn-out and one side won fairly handily.

Danged ol' voters...

I'm wondering how much support Walker got from people that simply thought a recall was the wrong remedy for what he's done but plan to vote against him in 2014. I saw at least one poll that had about 60% of Wisconsin voters saying either that a recall should never be used or it should only be used for cases of official misconduct.

And remember, after the 2010 election, the Wisconsin Senate was divided 20-13 in favor of Republicans. Now it's controlled by Democrats. That really doesn't read to me like a ringing endorsement of Walker's policies. --Bob

In American Politics 7% rings the bell

[Weyoun]

It sounds like the Republicans are in position to retake the Wisconsin Senate this fall, so I guess the people of Wisconsin agree with Walker after all.

[Bob78164]

It sounds like the Republicans are in position to retake the Wisconsin Senate this fall, so I guess the people of Wisconsin agree with Walker after all.

Hasn't happened yet. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

In other words, 100,000 people donating $10 each is an expression of the public's will. One person donating $1 million -- not so much. --Bob

One wonders then, at the votes that Walker received. Why did he get them? Because those voters made a choice between one side or the other?

A large turn-out and one side won fairly handily.

Danged ol' voters...

When one side can wildly outspend the other they usually win.