Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
yurmutha412
236 Followers
Standing My Ground
4846 Followers
barackalypseJan 26, 2012
"The poll showed 51 percent of 701 registered voters asked approve of Walker's performance, while 46 percent disapprove."
In other words, the supposedly reviled Walker is polling better than Obama who has a 43% approval rating and a 49% disapproval rating.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx
eraptorJan 27, 2012
Have you LOOKED at President Obama's SOTU poll numbers? The approval numbers EXCEED 80%, let me say it again...80%+. That means Democrat's, Independents AND Republicans APPROVE and SUPPORT the economic path OBAMA has laid out for the country, NOT Republicans, like Scott Walker.
The national train is pulling away from the station and Conservative politicians along with their campaign supporters are in the process of being left behind by the NATION.
Wake up and smell the coffee, because REAL CHANGE is bearing down on your ilk like a freight train.
Walker's nothing but a sordid blemish in Wisconsin's political history. The same goes for Rick Scott (R-FL), John Kasich (R-OH), Snyder (R-MI) and Mitch Daniels (R-IN).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseJan 27, 2012
This is President Obama, it doesn't matter what he SAYS, it matters what he does. You only need to look at the numbers from LAST year's State of the Union, which showed 83% approval and then compare that to his approval rating right now, which stands at 43%. Between the speech and reality Obama always comes up short.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029581-503544.html
eraptorJan 27, 2012
While I agree that actions carry more weight than words, SO DOES INTENT. Republican obstructionism and REFUSAL to represent the American people in Congress is NOT lost on the country.
Since Republicans are determined to undermine the will of the American people and show NO signs of supporting economic reform, they only have themselves to blame when we kick their sorry asses out of office and rebuke every Conservative running.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseJan 27, 2012
What about the will of the people during the health care debate? And again this summer with the debt ceiling? And with the TARP bailouts? Face it, the will of the people only matters when it matches what Washington wants to do, because it makes for good marketing. Whenever it disagrees, they'll ignore it and do what they want anyway.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
What about it?
The hissy fits we witnessed during healthcare reform negotiations were NOT reflecting the "will of the people". They reflected overblown, misguided reactions from astroturf organizing, misleading conservative propaganda and bused in "protesters". I have YET to find anyone who opposes healthcare reform AFTER they've learned what it REALLY does. Did it go far enough? NO, but it beats the status quo by a LONG shot. Absent healthcare reform, the healthcare industry WOULD collapse under the weight of it's unaffordable cost structure. Do you know a single American who supports THAT prospect? I don't!
As for the debt ceiling debate, where were the people clamoring for spending cuts when Dubya made the WORST of them and sent our economy into a tailspin (later requiring MORE stimulus infusions)? More often than not, FULLY supporting the man for election AND re-election.
Wahington's tone-deafness isn't lost on me, but the solution rests in concentrating our efforts on rooting out corruption and the weasels who perpetuate it, NOT in destroying the only institution which is MEANT to represent/protect ALL of our interests.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
Have you LOOKED at President Obama's SOTU poll numbers? The approval numbers EXCEED 80%, let me say it again...80%+. That means Democrat's, Independents AND Republicans APPROVE and SUPPORT the economic path OBAMA has laid out for the country, NOT Republicans, like Scott Walker.
The national train is pulling away from the station and Conservative politicians along with their campaign supporters are in the process of being left behind by the NATION.
Wake up and smell the coffee, because REAL CHANGE is bearing down on your ilk like a freight train.
Walker's nothing but a sordid blemish in Wisconsin's political history. The same goes for Rick Scott (R-FL), John Kasich (R-OH), Snyder (R-MI) and Mitch Daniels (R-IN).
yurmutha412Jan 25, 2012
I would love to see Walker win after the Dems and unions have shot their wad trying to get him out of office.
heathermgilbertJan 25, 2012
ME TOO!
eraptorJan 26, 2012
I'm sure you would. But, given the sheer volume of Wisconsin recall signatures collected, the odds are not in your or his favor ;)
hagiasoJan 26, 2012
Yeah... the sheer volume... except that "Slightly more Wisconsin voters approve than disapprove of the job Republican Gov. Scott Walker is doing as he prepares for an expected recall election". So, I guess they need a bit more "sheer volume".
spazattack5000Jan 26, 2012
That wasn't his point. What he meant was that those who disapprove will likely turn out to vote in higher numbers.
stackoleeJan 26, 2012
"The poll showed 51 percent of 701 registered voters asked approve of Walker's performance"
You have to admit 701 is not a decisive sample set. That aside, I get the impression that Wisconsin is really a 50/50 state between Democrats and Republicans. How it will shake out is anyone's guess.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
@hagiaso,
Did you LOOK at that poll sample? 701 PEOPLE!!!! That's quite a load of crap you're selling.
358 (i.e., 51% of 701 people) vs 1,000,000+ people. I knew Conservative mathematicians/statisticians left a LOT to be desired, but there's NO way Walker could EVER win his recall election with THAT amount of skimpy support.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hagiasoJan 27, 2012
Okay master statistician, please tell me what sample size would be appropriate with a 95% confidence level and oh, lets say a margin of error of +/- 3.5
eraptorJan 27, 2012
Oh, BOY, (clap clap)...statistical games!
Consider the statistical significance of over a MILLION signatures in relation to the ENTIRE state's population AND previous Wisconsin election turnouts. Would THAT be statistically relevant to the issue at hand? Ding, ding, ding...YEAH!!!!
That "sample" size/response DWARFS Walker's previous vote/support tally. Remember, those petition signatures reflect only a SAMPLE of the people who are likely to vote AGAINST Walker. It was NOT the entire Wiosconsin electorate.
Do you know any statistician who would take a 701 headcount poll over a 1,000,000+ headcount poll? Heavy workload aside, I don't. As sample size increases, so does statistical validity.
hagiasoJan 28, 2012
A statistician would probably know how statistics work, so they would probably be okay with the sample size.
yurmutha412Jan 26, 2012
Time will tell. The conservative candidate for the supreme court won after the government union change and a majority of the candidates up for recall stayed Republican. High voter turnouts generally favor Republican candidates. They might not be as vocal, but they are present.
goddess1019Jan 26, 2012
Isnt that the election that was won after some lady found just enough extra votes on her HOME computer? (same lady who was already under investigation for similar issues in previous elections?)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yurmutha412Jan 26, 2012
There was a recount and it was right. Wisconsin uses a tape system that prints out so the voters can view it when they vote and it's stored physically for recounts. It agreed with the numbers she gave.
goddess1019Jan 26, 2012
It still doesnt explain what they were doing on a home computer in the first place. Of course the recount was the same if they included those votes, no on disputed the votes were counted, the question I have is where did they come from why were they on her personal computer not the state voting computers? Sounds a bit like chicago political corruption has leaked above the cheddar curtainComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
If voting records were that transparent, she wouldn't have been in so much hot water OR investigated on NUMEROUS occasions. Facts aren't matching your "claims".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yurmutha412Jan 26, 2012
"Sounds a bit like chicago political corruption has leaked above the cheddar curtain"
Chicago was found actually tampering with votes, if you are referring to the Kennedy/Nixon election. This is more like home office type work. If you don't live in Wisconsin you wouldn't understand it. Where I live we have a volunteer fire department. My township treasurer's office is at her farmhouse, in her kitchen. I vote at the town hall where there are two outhouses outside for needs. We still have the tape system, though, and I feel confident in my vote.
goddess1019Jan 26, 2012
This still does not excuse the fact that this same precinct has had problems more than once.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
As the old saying goes..."where there's smoke, there's fire".
eraptorJan 27, 2012
"High voter turnouts generally favor Republican candidates"?
Is THAT why Scott Walker rushed a voter suppression bill though the Wisconsin State Legislature? Silly me, I thought Republicans pursued voting rights abuses and voter suppression to LOWER voter turnouts.
You must not have gotten the memo...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
omgscienceJan 26, 2012
@eraptor
I saw the sigs! I was never knew Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny were registered voters in Wisconsin, amazing!
/s
eraptorJan 27, 2012
Blind faith is tragic but, by all means, cling to it.
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
Yes. Do.
drmangrumJan 26, 2012
Not a single signature has yet to be vetted.
-There has already been a report of at least 1 man signing in excess of 20 times.
-We can see signatures of fictional characters.
-Given democrats long history of voter fraud, i wouldn't doubt many of those signatures being duplicates or even the people gathering signatures signing names at random from the phone book.
-We know many signatures were gained after SIEU bussed in Rent-A-Mobs to protest the union bill.
I highly doubt that even half of those signatures are legitimate.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
Not like projecting your political disgrace onto others, huh?
Why don't you remind us about Karl Rove and his band of Conservative weasels disqualified U.S. voters who were serving the country in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What about the raft of voter suppression bills that have beeen rushed through Republican-led legislaturesby CONSERVATIVES in anticipation of state recall votes (i.e., Wisconsin) AND the 2012 Presidential election?
Your BS isn't selling, weasel. That crap might work on Fox News but not out in the real world, where the intelligent ones live and roam.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
You think that soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan would vote majority Democrat? For President? For John Kerry?
Really?
eraptorJan 28, 2012
I find it fascinating how you would bring up John Kerry.
Since you chose to go there, LET'S...
John Kerry served with distinction in Viet Nam as a Swift Boat captain while his political opponent, Dubya, did NOT. Instead of serving in combat, Dubya used his Daddy's political connections to avoid Viet Nam duty by "serving" in the National Guard (which, at that time, was PROHIBITED from engaging in overseas combat). That's what MOST wealthy and well-connected children did. What's particularly revolting is that DUbya didn't even have the guts to serve out THAT duty and was "excused" from it so he could get involved with politics.
He wasn't alone. Dick Cheney used SEVERAL deferments and Mitt Romney used his Mormon "missionary" duties in France to avoid THEIR service/draft obligations. As the old saying goes, "the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree". Mitt's got several military-age sons who are eligible to fight for this country. Do you have any idea how many of them have done so or even considered it? Answer: NONE!!!!
Since you think I'm biased, Barack Obama never served in Viet Nam because he was too young and the draft ended shortly after that war.
As for the military men and women serving overseas at the moment, they would have to be abject fools to vote for ANY Republican/Conservative since their economic interests (i.e., job opportunities) have been GUTTED by the Conservative movement at HOME while they were risking their lives for it.
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
You didn't answer my question because you know the answer too well.
You think that soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan would vote majority Democrat? For President? For John Kerry?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
truthroxJan 28, 2012
As someone who knows more than a few people serving in those wars, the answer is yes. They would gladly vote for Obama since Republican mismanagement of both wars caused them to lose so many of their close friends senselessly. Remember, Obama had the guts to go into Pakistan after bin Laden while the Bush Administration let him that weasel off the hook in Afghanistan for political purposes.
John Kerry isn't running for President, but we get your disgraceful attempt at political mudslinging by trying to tie "swiftboating" disgrace against Kerry to Obama.
drich255Jan 26, 2012
It could prove to be millions spent on an unnecessary recall. They should have just waited until his term was up and then challenge him in a regular election.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
I'm sure you would. But, given the sheer volume of Wisconsin recall signatures collected, the odds are not in your or his favor ;)
atomheartmotherJan 25, 2012
Progressives and their public union bedfellows have done absolutely everything they can to try and destroy and demonize Walker, and yet he still leads all of the candidates which might oppose him. That is NOT good news for the recall fanatics, nor is it a sign of a positive outcome for the Dems in November.
This election will have huge national consequences. Democrats and public unions have chosen Wisconsin as their hill to die on, and it's starting to look like the undertaker's going to be busy.
novenatorJan 25, 2012
"yet he still leads all of the candidates which might oppose him"
So does Obama, so I guess the hill Republicans and their corporate masters have chosen to "die on" is America by your standards!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
We haven't chosen an opponent yet.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
As if THAT'S going to make a difference. We've already seen your political clowns and the clown-car you're using to parade them. I don't care what color you paint that car, they'll STILL be clowns unfit for the Presidency.
We're NOT impressed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
Believe me, we are not counting on impressing you.
eraptorJan 28, 2012
Congratulations! You succeded in THAT goal.
The nation is NOT impressed by the Republican party or any of its legislators and political candidates.
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
Not impressing YOU. Which is hardly the same as "the nation."
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
Ole, did you miss the part where I wrote that you statists "have done absolutely everything they can to try and destroy and demonize" Walker? The GOP hasn't even really begun to campaign against Obama yet.
I realize critical thinking (or any other variation of it for that matter) isn't your strong point, but I thought that distinction was pretty obvious.
drmangrumJan 26, 2012
Novie reads what we wants to read, not what's actually present.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
You got the gist of Novie.
Loki520Jan 27, 2012
seems to me that the republicans have been trying to campaign against him for the last 4 years...critical thinking from knuckledragging "conservatives" haha...thats a good one.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
With that wonderful insight, I think you're in need of salve and gauze for your upper appendages.
Loki520Jan 27, 2012
you never miss a chance to run up your post count with another worthless comment...do you? thousands and thousands of wasted comments...your a special kind of angry. tell the old man to finish you off every once in a while and it will relax some of your anxiety.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Haha...and you never miss a chance to prove you've got intellect befitting a small, seagoing animal.
Get back to me when you figure out the distinction between "your" and "you're", you moron.
Loki520Jan 27, 2012
all that time spent going over my posts looking for something bad to say and that's all you could come up with? another grammar cop with no substantial thoughts of your own? you knuckleheads make this way to easy. that fool that tried to bash me for leaving out an apostrophe couldn't even spell diploma (deploma). hahah...later this year when you do your annual mating ritual, try to sit back and enjoy it. i promise, it will help with your anxiety and anger.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Jesus, you're even more ignorant than I originally thought. I hardly perused your comment history--it wasn't necessary. Your grammatical butchery is right here in this thread, on your previous post.
Seriously dude, don't procreate.
Loki520Jan 28, 2012
another worthless post spellcheck...how many is that now? closing in on 10,000 and very hard to find one where your not telling someone how ignorant they are and how superior you are...get a grip. you come off as desperate when all you got is grammar cop as your last defense.
eraptorJan 26, 2012
By all means, keep the blind faith.
I hope you and your "boys" enjoy the taste of crow because there's a huge platter of it headed your way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
goddess1019Jan 26, 2012
Obama still leads all the republicans that are running against him (when looked at individually) yet I still see all you same people just as adamant that Obama will lose. Your logic has to go both ways.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
By all means, keep the blind faith. Your DP (Digg "Patriot" aka Douchebag Patrol) bury brigade makes me laugh.
libertylogJan 26, 2012
Like it or not, the changes Walker implemented in Wisconsin were smart and necessary. Even FDR had little good to say about public sector unions. We are out of money and a combination of entitlement reform and spending cuts are needed, but labor is a big part of the expenditures of any business. Public sector workers pay far less in health benefits and have very generous retirement system then the rest of us. Not only should they not be getting off better than the regular workers like you and I who fund their salaries, but we simply can no longer afford the gravy train.
goddess1019Jan 26, 2012
booo hooo hooo, unions have it better than me....whine whine whine..... Then get off your fat behind and start a union in your company!!! The same conservatives who say things like "class war fare blah blah blah, stop hating the rich because you dont have the same, just work harder and you could have it too" are the same ones who are blasting Union workers for having better than they. They have those benefits because they WORKED TOGETHER to fight for them. You and your co-workers could do the same if you wanted to. No one is stopping you. (oh wait, Walker and the republicans with their right to work for less laws my mistake)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drmangrumJan 26, 2012
Mature.
ddissentJan 26, 2012
This is one of the most uneducated posts I have ever read.
omgscienceJan 26, 2012
@ goddess1019
Congrats you are my idiot of the day!
@ Libertylog
I'll never forget what I saw on the news about 3 years ago, when I saw a teacher protest of proposed pay cuts and layoffs in Orange County CA, in the San Juan Capistrano area. The teachers where showing up at the protest location and pulling out picket signs out of the trunks of their Cadillacs, BMWs and Mercedes. I remember thinking how retarded it was for a public employee to show up in a $70k+ luxury car to protest pay cuts...
eraptorJan 27, 2012
A couple of thoughts spring to mind which you SHOULD have considered BEFORE reaching your baseless conclusion:
1) What makes you think those people are teachers?
2) Even if they were teachers, who said they used their teacher's salaries ALONE to buy them?
3) Did you consider their marital status, complete financial background AND all financial options at their disposal?
4) Have you factored in the cost of living in that part of the country?
5) Have you examined their housing costs IN California and it's impact on their credit options?
6) What's their marital status?
7) Single- or dual-income earner?
8) What's the likelihood that the protesters you saw were OUTRAGED parents, NOT teachers? Answer: VERY HIGH!!!! I'm outraged because misguided Conservative attacks against our education system undermine my child's education TOO. It affects EVERYONE'S child and grandchild.
As you can see, FAR more facts/possibilities explain that "visual" than you considered. At best, you jumped to a half-baked conclusion which conforms to your ideological baggage. At worst, you attacked hard working teachers who make a GENUINE difference in this country and who deserve our FULL support, kindness and consideration, NOT the rantings/attacks of misguided ideologues who are "armed" with nothing but Conservative media propaganda and LIES.
Finally, $70,000 sounds like a lot, but it doesn't amount to much in high cost states like California and New York.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
If Walker's initiatives were smart and necessary, they wouldn't have creatd so much unemployment in the state. That's a sign of failure, NOT success.
I thought Walker promised to create jobs, NOT destroy them when he ran for office? It's a shame his record fails to match your overblown confidence in the man.
Don't be envious of the benefits public workers enjoy. Instead, demand your employer provide the same. You deserve as much in benefits as they do.
novenatorJan 25, 2012
Amazing what $5 million in outstate money (mostly by shady corporate front groups) can do to restore an image of a tyrant!
WWZJan 25, 2012
Blah, blah, regurgitation, blah, repetitive talking point, blah...
anomaly100Jan 25, 2012
He's right. We need money out of politics.
isuzu14bJan 26, 2012
LOL! Buried? really? who the f**k thinks corporations should be buying elections?
Oh, the fascists... right.
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Well, i dugg you.
anomaly100Jan 26, 2012
Well you're not a fascist or a propagandist;-)
drich255Jan 26, 2012
This will never happen. Nor should it. I don't care if I am out of state. If I want to donate $50 to Scott Walker's campaign, why shouldn't I be allowed to? It is a free country last time I looked.
Trying to limit the money in politics has resulted in only the super-rich (such as Romneys) as being able to afford a campaign. We have more wealthy people in congress than ever before. With campaign contribution limits, it is hard to near impossible for a middle-class person to raise enough money to compete against a wealthier candidate that can self-finance a good portion of their own campaign.
isuzu14bJan 26, 2012
Would you agree to letting Iranians, or Saudi Arabians, or the Chinese donate money to political campaigns as well?
drich255Jan 26, 2012
No, I would not agree to that. I believe our laws already prohibit donations from non US citizens to any of our elections.
I am, though, a big proponent of transparency. Let both sides show from where and from whom the money is coming from.
novenatorJan 26, 2012
drich, it is my understanding that we have absolutely no way of telling where campaign money is coming from thanks to Citizens United. The Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would at least tell us *who* is donating to try to make the system more transparent, but this has consistently been obstructed by the Republicans (and a few conservative Democrats).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kc9eciJan 26, 2012
Because as someone who is living in Wisconsin, I don't want you providing money to influence who represents me at the State or local level. I'd like my elected officials to be responsible to me, not people with deep pockets who don't live here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Jan 26, 2012
@kc9eci
I understand your concern. But think your fear is unfounded.
1. Your elected officials would still be held accountable to the voters. In then end, it is the voter's deciding who gets elected.
2. Money does not guarantee victory. People like supporting the underdog.
3. As an outside donor, I am supporting my Party. I don't see anything wrong with that.
4. In Scott Walker's case it is his actions that influence my donations, not my donation that influences his actions. I like what he stands for and I want to support him. It isn't me donating hoping to change what he stands for.
5. If politicians don't have the will power to do what they feel is right for the state/country as opposed to what their donors want -- then we will always be in trouble.
drich255Jan 26, 2012
@kc9eci
So for Prop 8 in California -- no outside money should have gone to either side?
drich255Jan 26, 2012
@novenator
The first 2 years of President Obama's administration was the time to get the DISCLOSE Act passed. They were able to get his controversial Health Care passed, I think they could have also done a DISCLOSE act. Even after Scott Brown was elected, they would just need one moderate republican to sign on to it (assuming they had 57 Democratic Senators and the two Independents). It should be a lot less controversial than the Health Care bill.
I don't mind having it in law, but in the mean time I don't see why it can't just be voluntary good faith from the candidates. If one candidate discloses all their donors, then the other candidate will feel pressured to do so too.
isuzu14bJan 26, 2012
The healthcare plan proposed by Obama was not passed into law.
What was passed instead was complete garbage, and had little resemblance to the original.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Jan 26, 2012
Well, if the health care passed into law is complete garbage, the Democrats shouldn't have voted for it and President Obama shouldn't have signed it.
kc9eciJan 26, 2012
This might shock you, but I don't care what they do in CA. Their State government is none of my concern.
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
"The healthcare plan proposed by Obama was not passed into law."
I'd like to read the president's original HC plan, but unfortunately it doesn't exist.
goddess1019Jan 26, 2012
Because it does not effect you and your state. No one but the people in WI should have any say in donating money to an election that will effect them and them only.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Jan 26, 2012
Doesn't matter. It is my civil liberty to donate to any legal campaign or cause I want. I am donating money, not voting. Our founders included the freedom of speech to specifically protect political speech.
And besides, I don't think progressives on Digg have much ground to stand on when trying to use your argument. It is inconsistent with their other beliefs. The importance of States Rights and State Identity was poo-pooed by most of the progressives who have defended President Obama's wide reaching Health Care Bill which forces it on all 50 states. And yes, 60 Senators supported the bill, so technically you could say 30 states forced it on the other 20. Progressives had no problem of forcing it on to everybody, even though 40 Senators didn't want it.
fertilebastardJan 27, 2012
How about union thugs from out of state being bussed in to protest and work for the recall effort?? AKA "In kind contributions"
No hypocrisy here..
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
Because it makes LIBERALS lose even though they spend a bunch ... right ... right... sure.....
Guess what? Some of these people pay union money, then walk in the booth and vote Republican...
Unions ... representing people....
isuzu14bJan 26, 2012
considering the types of comments that have more diggs or more buries, i am going to take a guess you have been dugg by the repub flag wavers.
I find this enormously amusing... certainly ironic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
I've personally always though that the "money buys votes" thing is bs.
drich255Jan 26, 2012
Campaign contributions also favors incumbents. They already have the name recognition. The challengers will need to raise more money in order to mount a proper challenge.
ultimisJan 26, 2012
As long as dumb people are allowed to vote in elections, money will still be viable. The moment you remove dumb people from the equation, no matter how much money you pour into a election will not have a effect. But even dumb people get information on candidates from more than one medium so even if you spam advertisements and get name recognition, Jon Stewart or Jay Leno could influence enough people to make your efforts worthless.
In 2008 McCain had agreed to take public financing only if Obama did to try to limit their campaign expenditures (something Obama stated he would do while campaigning in the primaries). Obama refused.
yurmutha412Jan 25, 2012
I think more has come in from the unions. It's too bad that money can't serve a better purpose. These special elections weren't meant for ordinary partisan differences and the Dems should have waited till next election. It's cost millions of taxpayer money to do these and so far they haven't changed anything. I really hope they don't win, not just because I'm pro Walker, but so they stop wasting taxpayer money. If they want to waste it during a normal election, that's what it's meant for. The Dems have been syphoning from union dues paid for by the taxpayers of Wisconsin and THAT should be illegal.
goddess1019Jan 26, 2012
This goes to show how little you know about unions. Dues DO NOT go towards any political action. In fact, I bet if you looked at the bylaws of these unions you will find clauses that specifically say that dues can not be used for anything other than union business. There are separate PACs for political campaigns which are VOLUNTARY contributions!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
That claim rates right up there with "Your check is in the mail," "I'll still respect you in the morning," and "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Most union support for political candidates and causes comes from union dues, not from their political action committees, but the PAC's are about the only type of political spending that is fully disclosed.
Go to http://www.politicalmoneyline.com
Click, "PACs/Party Profiles" in the left hand column. Then you can search for a specific union or click on "Organized Labor".
fertilebastardJan 27, 2012
Holy crap Goddess!! Unions don't contribute to political campaigns??? You forgot the "/s"
One of the primary functions of unions is to influence policy.
bluto36Jan 27, 2012
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
oh wait hold on say that again dues dont go to politics?
sure and Indian gambling money does not go there either
goddess1019Jan 27, 2012
fertilebastard, better read again. I never said unions do not contribute to campaigns. Individual member dues does not. Political action is funded by PAC funds which are voluntary to donate to.
goddess1019Jan 27, 2012
Just curious, are any of you actually in a union? Or do you just get your info from other anti-labor people?
skywiseJan 26, 2012
And how much money did the unions spend in outstate money bringing people in? Caring for the Wisconsin Democrat senators who left the state and stayed in posh hotels so as to not do the work they were elected to do? Busing in union workers from around the US to "protest" and feed them and make their signs... etc;etc
And in the end you lost... So then you had to spend more money to drum up 1 millyun signatures that are all true... but the polls still say most Wisconsinites approve of Walker...
Your hypocrisy is slipping again...
twinklyjesusJan 26, 2012
By "shady corporate front groups" you mean Unions that are backing this phony recall?
grannysrightJan 27, 2012
Good for Gov. Walker. He's done a great job and these union thugs need to go back to Chicago and whereever else they came from and find a new way to deal with life. Their time is up and unions need to go.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
"WI State Senate Recall Petition Rife With Invalid Signatures, Duplicates, and Errors"
Duplicate pages, phony names, unreadable names.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/feeditem/wi-state-senate-recall-petition-rife-invalid-signatures-duplicates-and-errorsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
notachickenhawkJan 26, 2012
They just need a recognizable celebrity who is utterly unqualified to be governor to swoop in and volunteer to have his/her name placed on the ballot should the current governor be recalled. Heck, it worked in California....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusJan 26, 2012
No, in CA it required the predecessor to be an ultra-left, corrupt democrat moron to be in office to be recalled before a totally inept RINO movie star would even be moderately appealing to the nut-ball, burned out democrat hippies running CA.
Graf_OrlockJan 26, 2012
Personally I voted for Gary Coleman. Poor little fella.
dustbunny52Jan 27, 2012
How many people actually have land-line phones anymore? Wouldn't they tend to be older Republican-leaning people? This poled population certainly would not be a true slice of the people likely to vote. Some new method must be found to get reliable poling.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 26, 2012
When you have bad ratings for something you've done then done, then do what Walker had done. Peruse ideas that will divide people along social lines. GOP loves to do thatComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockJan 26, 2012
"Peruse ideas that will divide people along social lines. GOP loves to do that"
And all that 99% stuff is telling it as it is, right? Given it's aligned with your camp? The Demos would never stoop so low, correct?