Newly elect Gov. Scott Walker (WI)

[Hungary Jack]

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.

[UK]

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.

[pioneer98]

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!

[Freed Roger]

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.

[Hungary Jack]

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.

[UK]

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.

[Hungary Jack]

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.

[cards2468]

The next 2 presidential candidates look more like Bud Select 55 and Miller 64.

[greenback44]

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?

[pioneer98]

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!