GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently May 20 13, 2:49 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 296 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: June 13 12, 10:48 am 
Offline
Mother Earth
User avatar

Joined: July 24 06, 6:03 am
Posts: 19523
Location: In Cognito
pioneer98 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why was this Wisconsin STATE election hyped so much as a national event, when this special election for CONGRESS was not?

Barber holds Gabrielle Giffords' Seat

The Wisconsin one was a heckuva lot noisier and it was a recall...I get that...but this Arizona special election has more direct implication for everyone, not just the residents of that one state. And it's not like Arizona's politics have been exactly sleepy lately, either.

I didn't search too hard, but I don't see any articles saying "What this election means for Obama and Romney" There were dozens like that for the Wisconsin election. For this Arizona one, there's not even a "What this election means for immigration reform" article. Oh, right, it's because those story lines are complete, fabricated, B.S.


In addition to funding poured in by national conservative groups, unions spent $21M in Wisconsin. It was a national event in the eyes of these interest groups.

The election result does not change things for Romeny or Obama. Maybe WI is in play, but exit polls suggest that it is still strongly for Obama. But for public employee unions, it suggests that their message has limited traction among the electorate.

_________________
Silence is golden.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 11:19 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: December 10 06, 6:41 pm
Posts: 3741
Location: Buying the most expensive electronics at Radio Shack.
I support unions, always have and always will. Never been part of one and being self-employed never will. I think they have their priorities wrong but overall are more positive than negative.

I find it ironic and sad I likely support unions more than most retired union workers. Most people are in it for themselves and don't give a [expletive] about future generations which is why we're in this mess.

_________________
Please run for Governor, Mr. Feingold!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 11:40 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 3339
Location: Quad Cities
Hungary Jack wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why was this Wisconsin STATE election hyped so much as a national event, when this special election for CONGRESS was not?

Barber holds Gabrielle Giffords' Seat

The Wisconsin one was a heckuva lot noisier and it was a recall...I get that...but this Arizona special election has more direct implication for everyone, not just the residents of that one state. And it's not like Arizona's politics have been exactly sleepy lately, either.

I didn't search too hard, but I don't see any articles saying "What this election means for Obama and Romney" There were dozens like that for the Wisconsin election. For this Arizona one, there's not even a "What this election means for immigration reform" article. Oh, right, it's because those story lines are complete, fabricated, B.S.


In addition to funding poured in by national conservative groups, unions spent $21M in Wisconsin. It was a national event in the eyes of these interest groups.

The election result does not change things for Romeny or Obama. Maybe WI is in play, but exit polls suggest that it is still strongly for Obama. But for public employee unions, it suggests that their message has limited traction among the electorate.


That's one take. What do these numbers say?

Walker: 1,334,450 (30.8%)
Barrett: 1,162,785 (26.9%)
Apathy: ~1,830,000 (42.3%) did not bother to vote at all.

And this was with record turnout for a WI governor election, at 57.7%.

Looks to me like neither party's message had much traction!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 12:08 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 9587
Location: St. Louis
Hungary Jack wrote:

In addition to funding poured in by national conservative groups, unions spent $21M in Wisconsin. It was a national event in the eyes of these interest groups.

The election result does not change things for Romeny or Obama. Maybe WI is in play, but exit polls suggest that it is still strongly for Obama. But for public employee unions, it suggests that their message has limited traction among the electorate.


It suggests that overmatched minority groups such as teacher unions can gain little traction in the electorate, while the billionaire minority group still can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 1:01 pm 
Offline
Mother Earth
User avatar

Joined: July 24 06, 6:03 am
Posts: 19523
Location: In Cognito
pioneer98 wrote:
Hungary Jack wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why was this Wisconsin STATE election hyped so much as a national event, when this special election for CONGRESS was not?

Barber holds Gabrielle Giffords' Seat

The Wisconsin one was a heckuva lot noisier and it was a recall...I get that...but this Arizona special election has more direct implication for everyone, not just the residents of that one state. And it's not like Arizona's politics have been exactly sleepy lately, either.

I didn't search too hard, but I don't see any articles saying "What this election means for Obama and Romney" There were dozens like that for the Wisconsin election. For this Arizona one, there's not even a "What this election means for immigration reform" article. Oh, right, it's because those story lines are complete, fabricated, B.S.


In addition to funding poured in by national conservative groups, unions spent $21M in Wisconsin. It was a national event in the eyes of these interest groups.

The election result does not change things for Romeny or Obama. Maybe WI is in play, but exit polls suggest that it is still strongly for Obama. But for public employee unions, it suggests that their message has limited traction among the electorate.


That's one take. What do these numbers say?

Walker: 1,334,450 (30.8%)
Barrett: 1,162,785 (26.9%)
Apathy: ~1,830,000 (42.3%) did not bother to vote at all.

And this was with record turnout for a WI governor election, at 57.7%.

Looks to me like neither party's message had much traction!


The high turnout suggests that the issue was a big concern to voters.

_________________
Silence is golden.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 1:33 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: December 10 06, 6:41 pm
Posts: 3741
Location: Buying the most expensive electronics at Radio Shack.
Higher voter turnout had much more to do with the demise of the political system, where democrats and republicans are more like competing sports teams trying to defeat the other at the expense of making America better.

_________________
Please run for Governor, Mr. Feingold!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 2:58 pm 
Offline
Mother Earth
User avatar

Joined: July 24 06, 6:03 am
Posts: 19523
Location: In Cognito
UK wrote:
Higher voter turnout had much more to do with the demise of the political system, where democrats and republicans are more like competing sports teams trying to defeat the other at the expense of making America better.


OK, but how do you arrive at this interpretation? Are voters suddenly turning out because they are being bought by outside interests and simply following commands? The act of going to the polls and voting is conscious act, and assumedly done under one's free will. I just cannot accept the notion that Americans are so far gone that voting for a governor or president is the cognitive equivalent of choosing between Bud Light and Coors Light.

_________________
Silence is golden.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 3:04 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 28 06, 11:10 pm
Posts: 14730
Location: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
The next 2 presidential candidates look more like Bud Select 55 and Miller 64.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 3:30 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: June 26 06, 8:54 pm
Posts: 9213
Location: In The Village
Hungary Jack wrote:
UK wrote:
Higher voter turnout had much more to do with the demise of the political system, where democrats and republicans are more like competing sports teams trying to defeat the other at the expense of making America better.


OK, but how do you arrive at this interpretation? Are voters suddenly turning out because they are being bought by outside interests and simply following commands? The act of going to the polls and voting is conscious act, and assumedly done under one's free will. I just cannot accept the notion that Americans are so far gone that voting for a governor or president is the cognitive equivalent of choosing between Bud Light and Coors Light.

The standard market-based response is that the parties, PACs, and SuperPACs wouldn't throw millions upon millions of dollars into ad campaigns unless they thought these campaigns generated returns. After watching millionaires toss around their money during the Republican primary and reading about the inner workings of the infamous Ricketts proposal, I'm beginning to question that logic, and to agree with your basic premise. What if all the money in politics is a result of strategists conning overly ideological billionaires into thinking they can make a difference by flushing a few million down the toilet?

_________________
We want information. Information.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 13 12, 7:16 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 3339
Location: Quad Cities
Voters aren't suddenly turning out. Over 42% of voters don't vote and this is "record high" turnout??? That says a lot. Check out the table on the right hand side of this page, regarding voting trends in "Lower House" elections. Just to pick one, Germany has 86% turnout in those type of elections, or 28% higher than this "high turn out" Wisconsin election.

The millions of dollars are spent on negative ads to keep those 40%-45% of voters uninterested in politics. That's where the return on investment is. Both sides do it because they fear that if they don't, the other side might actually be able to motivate them to vote. It would seem that Republicans get a higher return on negative ads, which is why they invest more in them. Heck, Republicans do things to try to suppress these voters directly (attacking ACORN, voter ID laws, etc).

I mean, look at what happened in 2008. Obama was able to cut through some of that negativity with a positive campaign, and managed to get 2.5% more voters to turn out than in 2004. He must be the Messiah if he was able to motivate an extra 25 in 1,000 Americans to vote!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 296 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group