Wisconsin's Governor Walker and the possibility of a recall

Ulairi wrote:

Also, a lot of reports are saying Walker out spent Barret 30 MM to 4 MM, they forget to include any of the liberal (read union) money. Very disingenuous.

I'll write up my thoughts on the election later today, but needed to respond to this. The $29 Million / $4 Million that's getting bandied around is just comparing the campaigns - so, although it would not include any PAC money for Barrett (from unions or other sources), it also excludes any PAC money for Walker.

PAC money for Barrett:
AFSCME - Wisconsin Special Account $743.88
Citizen Action of Wisconsin Inc. $30,000.00
DFA-Wisconsin $10,000.00
Grassroots North Shore $50.00
Planned Parent Advocates of WI, Inc. $68,284.08
Planned Parenthood Advocates of WI Political Fund $14,969.25
Restore Wisconsin's Image and Reputation $10,000.00
Save WI Deer Hunting $927.02
Superior Federation of Labor COPE $978.83
Voces de la Frontera Action Committee $25,562.96
We Are Wisconsin Political Fund $1,277,321.45
Wisconsin Education Association Council $28,302.51
Working America $6,369.73

Total: $1,311,993.69

PAC money against Barrett:
Friends of Mark Neumann Inc. $750.00
National Rifle Association of America $646,485.70
Right Direction Wisconsin PAC (RGA Wisconsin) $3,671,320.82

Total: $4,318,556.52

PAC money for Walker:
AMA IE (American Majority Action) $20,536.56
Citizens for Southwest Wisconsin $3,030.20
Coalition for American Values Committee $400,080.00
Conservative StrikeForce - Wisconsin Fund $32,125.00
Ending Spending Action Fund Wisconsin $245,000.00
FreedomWorks for America - Wisconsin $46,445.50
Friends of Mark Neumann Inc. $750.00
National Rifle Association of America $153,075.69
NRA Political Victory Fund $16,100.23
Republican State Leadership Committee Inc. $3,244.51
Right Direction Wisconsin PAC (RGA Wisconsin) $3,683,968.80
Volunteers for Agriculture $15,380.23
Wisconsin Right to Life PAC $1,322.25

Total: $4,621,058.97

PAC Money against Walker:
AFSCME - Wisconsin Special Account $743.88
Citizen Action of Wisconsin Inc. $30,000.00
Defending Wisconsin PAC $886.00
DFA-Wisconsin $10,000.00
DGA Action Wisconsin $35,928.94
DLCC Wisconsin PAC $145.42
Greater Wisconsin Political Independent Expenditure Fund $5,376,079.55
PCCC Recall Committee $73,986.67
PCCC Recall Fund IE $30,312.16
People for the American Way $59,575.32
Planned Parent Advocates of WI, Inc. $38,216.48
Planned Parenthood Action Fund $455.00
Planned Parenthood Advocates of WI Political Fund $39,938.50
Rebuild the Dream in Wisconsin $43,510.78
Save WI Deer Hunting $927.03
Superior Federation of Labor COPE $529.61
We Are Wisconsin Political Fund $1,791,875.58
Wisconsin Education Association Council $9,500.03
Wisconsin for Falk $2,244,636.67
Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters IE Committee $48,212.76
Wisconsin Recall Movement $395.00
Workers' Voice $137,093.89
Working America $3,917.46

Total: $9,976,870.73

Totals for candidate-affiliated PAC spending:
Barrett: $11,288,864.42
Walker: $8,939,615.49

So, even including all the PAC money, Governor Walker had a greater than two-to-one spending advantage.

[Edit: framed differently, the PAC money differential closed the overall gap by just over $2 million]

I think Ulairi's point is a fair one. Just because the anti Walker forces lost (badly) doesn't mean Palpatine just took over the stupid and frightfully gullible Senate. It means Palpatine is just very popular (sorry, Ulairi, let me get at least one dig in. :))

Now pro union groups can just hope this won't be the mortal wound for the tattered remnants of the creators of the middle class.

Money typically wins, but not always. See: Meg Whitman.

Seth wrote:

I think Ulairi's point is a fair one. Just because the anti Walker forces lost (badly) doesn't mean Palpatine just took over the stupid and frightfully gullible Senate. It means Palpatine is just very popular (sorry, Ulairi, let me get at least one dig in. :))

Now pro union groups can just hope this won't be the mortal wound for the tattered remnants of the creators of the middle class.

I don't. People are idiots, and political parties/campaigns are nothing but advertising. Advertising works, that's why so much money gets spent on it. Any system that doesn't have public financing or strict limitations on donations (on the order of $100-$1000 max/person, no corporate/union/lobbyist/PAC money) essentially legalizes bribery. But that belongs in another thread.

Here's my problem. Here's what everyone says:

"Advertising works."

Here's what people mean:

"Advertising works [except on smart people like me and people who vote like me.]"

It's one of the most universal constants I can think of. So given that, isn't it safe to assume that our anti-walker stance is just as much the product of advertising + confirmation bias as those who vote against us?

Again, this is not a "one side is as bad as the other" argument. It's an attempt to point out there may at least be some logic in the Walker camp, and people voting for him are not actually mindless zombies.

Seth wrote:

Here's my problem. Here's what everyone says:

"Advertising works."

Here's what people mean:

"Advertising works [except on smart people like me and people who vote like me.]"

It's one of the most universal constants I can think of. So given that, isn't it safe to assume that our anti-walker stance is just as much the product of advertising + confirmation bias as those who vote against us?

Again, this is not a "one side is as bad as the other" argument. It's an attempt to point out there may at least be some logic in the Walker camp, and people voting for him are not actually mindless zombies.

Advertising works on everyone. The degree changes, but it is based on psychological principles that are near-universal. I know that it has an effect on me, which is part of why I avoid it whenever possible.

My problems with Walker are directly related to the sh*t he's done (thank you, DS, for posting the myriad updates with what appeared to be neutral sources). I have seen 0 advertisements from the WI races (a benefit of living on the far side of the country). There are certainly people who do like him for what he has done, but those people are almost certainly in the minority. I say that because people who have any idea what their local/state/federal politicians are doing are typically in the minority. The rest have heard talk on the radio, seen the ads, seen the discussion on news shows, read astroturf posts online, and decided that some of that sounds pretty good. The fact-checking is skipped, and the narrative is established. That is how our political process works. That is the problem in the system. Narratives > facts, and narratives happen because of lazy/cowardly media and millions of advertising dollars.

Citizens United will be the downfall of our political system.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Citizens United will be the downfall of our political system.

Werd up. Thank you for posting exactly what I was going to post.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Citizens United will be the downfall of our political system.

Not quite. It's Citizens United combined with polarized media which has largely been used by conservatives to create--and continually reinforce--an alternative reality that millions of Americans sop up and swallow whole.

That's how you get middle class folks to turn against other middle class folks because they have jobs with good benefits while your benefits have been sharply curtailed and your job went away because of the recession. Rather than fight to make sure everyone can get a good job, it's just easier to tear them down to your level. And that's exactly the message that Walker used in Wisconsin (couple with the good old fashioned "government is evil" message conservatives have been fed for 30+ years).

Seth wrote:

Here's my problem. Here's what everyone says:

"Advertising works."

Here's what people mean:

"Advertising works [except on smart people like me and people who vote like me.]"

It's one of the most universal constants I can think of. So given that, isn't it safe to assume that our anti-walker stance is just as much the product of advertising + confirmation bias as those who vote against us?

Again, this is not a "one side is as bad as the other" argument. It's an attempt to point out there may at least be some logic in the Walker camp, and people voting for him are not actually mindless zombies.

Not all advertising works. Politically, there's very little return on a positive message. There is substantial return on a negative message though. Politicians know this better than anyone!!!

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Also, a lot of reports are saying Walker out spent Barret 30 MM to 4 MM, they forget to include any of the liberal (read union) money. Very disingenuous.

I'll write up my thoughts on the election later today, but needed to respond to this. The $29 Million / $4 Million that's getting bandied around is just comparing the campaigns - so, although it would not include any PAC money for Barrett (from unions or other sources), it also excludes any PAC money for Walker.

PAC money for Barrett:
AFSCME - Wisconsin Special Account $743.88
Citizen Action of Wisconsin Inc. $30,000.00
DFA-Wisconsin $10,000.00
Grassroots North Shore $50.00
Planned Parent Advocates of WI, Inc. $68,284.08
Planned Parenthood Advocates of WI Political Fund $14,969.25
Restore Wisconsin's Image and Reputation $10,000.00
Save WI Deer Hunting $927.02
Superior Federation of Labor COPE $978.83
Voces de la Frontera Action Committee $25,562.96
We Are Wisconsin Political Fund $1,277,321.45
Wisconsin Education Association Council $28,302.51
Working America $6,369.73

Total: $1,311,993.69

PAC money against Barrett:
Friends of Mark Neumann Inc. $750.00
National Rifle Association of America $646,485.70
Right Direction Wisconsin PAC (RGA Wisconsin) $3,671,320.82

Total: $4,318,556.52

PAC money for Walker:
AMA IE (American Majority Action) $20,536.56
Citizens for Southwest Wisconsin $3,030.20
Coalition for American Values Committee $400,080.00
Conservative StrikeForce - Wisconsin Fund $32,125.00
Ending Spending Action Fund Wisconsin $245,000.00
FreedomWorks for America - Wisconsin $46,445.50
Friends of Mark Neumann Inc. $750.00
National Rifle Association of America $153,075.69
NRA Political Victory Fund $16,100.23
Republican State Leadership Committee Inc. $3,244.51
Right Direction Wisconsin PAC (RGA Wisconsin) $3,683,968.80
Volunteers for Agriculture $15,380.23
Wisconsin Right to Life PAC $1,322.25

Total: $4,621,058.97

PAC Money against Walker:
AFSCME - Wisconsin Special Account $743.88
Citizen Action of Wisconsin Inc. $30,000.00
Defending Wisconsin PAC $886.00
DFA-Wisconsin $10,000.00
DGA Action Wisconsin $35,928.94
DLCC Wisconsin PAC $145.42
Greater Wisconsin Political Independent Expenditure Fund $5,376,079.55
PCCC Recall Committee $73,986.67
PCCC Recall Fund IE $30,312.16
People for the American Way $59,575.32
Planned Parent Advocates of WI, Inc. $38,216.48
Planned Parenthood Action Fund $455.00
Planned Parenthood Advocates of WI Political Fund $39,938.50
Rebuild the Dream in Wisconsin $43,510.78
Save WI Deer Hunting $927.03
Superior Federation of Labor COPE $529.61
We Are Wisconsin Political Fund $1,791,875.58
Wisconsin Education Association Council $9,500.03
Wisconsin for Falk $2,244,636.67
Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters IE Committee $48,212.76
Wisconsin Recall Movement $395.00
Workers' Voice $137,093.89
Working America $3,917.46

Total: $9,976,870.73

Totals for candidate-affiliated PAC spending:
Barrett: $11,288,864.42
Walker: $8,939,615.49

So, even including all the PAC money, Governor Walker had a greater than two-to-one spending advantage.

[Edit: framed differently, the PAC money differential closed the overall gap by just over $2 million]

And the big complaint about citizens united comes from PAC spending, correct? So, it seems that Walker out raised Barrett in hard money donations to his campaign? What is exactly wrong about this? I don't have a problem with Citizens United. I didn't think the campaign finance reforms were good. I believe that the problem isn't money the problem is disclosure. I don't care how much money someone wants to spend on a political campaign as long as I know who gave what and to whom. But, the people who bring this up (politicians) talk about bribery but everyone else is being bribed, but them.

Seth wrote:

Here's my problem. Here's what everyone says:

"Advertising works."

Here's what people mean:

"Advertising works [except on smart people like me and people who vote like me.]"

It's one of the most universal constants I can think of. So given that, isn't it safe to assume that our anti-walker stance is just as much the product of advertising + confirmation bias as those who vote against us?

Again, this is not a "one side is as bad as the other" argument. It's an attempt to point out there may at least be some logic in the Walker camp, and people voting for him are not actually mindless zombies.

You're exactly right. When President Obama won the Republicans said a lot of the same stuff the Democrats will say if Romney were to win. I don't agree with the belief that everyone is just some idiot. I think it is condecending and elitist. I don't like the smug "i know better than you do" that both parties do. Freedom means being free and that includes the freedom to make what (you or I) consider to be bad decisions.

Kraint wrote:
Seth wrote:

Here's my problem. Here's what everyone says:

"Advertising works."

Here's what people mean:

"Advertising works [except on smart people like me and people who vote like me.]"

It's one of the most universal constants I can think of. So given that, isn't it safe to assume that our anti-walker stance is just as much the product of advertising + confirmation bias as those who vote against us?

Again, this is not a "one side is as bad as the other" argument. It's an attempt to point out there may at least be some logic in the Walker camp, and people voting for him are not actually mindless zombies.

Advertising works on everyone. The degree changes, but it is based on psychological principles that are near-universal. I know that it has an effect on me, which is part of why I avoid it whenever possible.

My problems with Walker are directly related to the sh*t he's done (thank you, DS, for posting the myriad updates with what appeared to be neutral sources). I have seen 0 advertisements from the WI races (a benefit of living on the far side of the country). There are certainly people who do like him for what he has done, but those people are almost certainly in the minority. I say that because people who have any idea what their local/state/federal politicians are doing are typically in the minority. The rest have heard talk on the radio, seen the ads, seen the discussion on news shows, read astroturf posts online, and decided that some of that sounds pretty good. The fact-checking is skipped, and the narrative is established. That is how our political process works. That is the problem in the system. Narratives > facts, and narratives happen because of lazy/cowardly media and millions of advertising dollars.

I know exactly what he's done and I agree with his labour reforms. You got a lot of information from DS but the problem is that I can cite a lot of information that says the opposite. It comes down to where people are coming from and the trade offs they are willing to make in order to govern. I'll quote a post from another website:

Politics has become so uncivil (and uncomfortable to bring up) because we ascribe labels of right and wrong to different viewpoints. Issues which should be couched in terms of trade-offs and net benefits are instead painted in tones of moral imperative. Take education, for example. Money spent on public education cannot be spent somewhere else. Increasing education dollars means decreasing funding elsewhere or raising taxes. Instead of having an intelligent conversation about what trade-offs are appropriate to make, however, one group will decree that education is “right” and therefore anybody who doesn’t support more money for education is morally “wrong,” or stupid, or both. The other side may choose lower taxes as their moral mascot and similarly demonize the opposition.

Having a political conversation isn’t just about being educated on the issues, it also requires that we be willing to adapt our viewpoints in response to new information AND be willing to accept that others have different motivations and values and therefore may ultimately feel differently than us even with the same information.

Reading through the comments on this post I can’t help but feel that many people have missed a crucial point. Some comments commend Pat for being willing to discuss his political views in respectful and considered manner and I feel they are correct to do so. Others, however, congratulate Pat for holding a view that agrees with their own, a sentiment that only serves to shore up feelings of “rightness” and further cripple our ability to have a rational conversation.

Source: http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2012...

This sums up my feelings pretty well.

Ulairi wrote:

And the big complaint about citizens united comes from PAC spending, correct? So, it seems that Walker out raised Barrett in hard money donations to his campaign? What is exactly wrong about this?

Most of the complaints about the Citizens United ruling have to do with the effectively-unlimited amounts of money that can now be directed towards political campaigns, and the threat that poses to the democratic process (especially when coupled with loosened transparency requirements).

Wisconsin's election laws have a loophole (discussed repeatedly upthread) that allows incumbent officials facing a recall effort to be exempt from the normal fundraising limitations. Any challenger is not exempt from the normal fundraising limitations.

For perspective, Governor Walker's campaign, by itself, spent more money in this recall election than all candidates for governor (including primary races) in 2010 combined, and very nearly as much as all candidates combined with all PAC spending.

Ulairi wrote:

I know exactly what he's done and I agree with his labour reforms. You got a lot of information from DS but the problem is that I can cite a lot of information that says the opposite. It comes down to where people are coming from and the trade offs they are willing to make in order to govern. I'll quote a post from another website:

That, right there, is the core problem with the entire damned political discourse. There are not two sets of facts to be argued. I don't know if your sources or dimmer's are right, but the fact that we can't agree on reality is six different kinds of FUBAR. It isn't about what someone think government should be doing or how it is balanced, it is the arguments about OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL REALITY. When one side says that jobs have been lost and debt raised, meaning the government is bad, and the other claims it is good because debt was reduced and jobs added, there is literally no room for meaningful discussion. It just becomes dueling advertising and sound bites that add to the echo chamber.

Grr - browser ate my longer, in-depth post. Will try to make time to write that again later.

Ulairi wrote:
Kraint wrote:

My problems with Walker are directly related to the sh*t he's done (thank you, DS, for posting the myriad updates with what appeared to be neutral sources). I have seen 0 advertisements from the WI races (a benefit of living on the far side of the country). There are certainly people who do like him for what he has done, but those people are almost certainly in the minority. I say that because people who have any idea what their local/state/federal politicians are doing are typically in the minority. The rest have heard talk on the radio, seen the ads, seen the discussion on news shows, read astroturf posts online, and decided that some of that sounds pretty good. The fact-checking is skipped, and the narrative is established. That is how our political process works. That is the problem in the system. Narratives > facts, and narratives happen because of lazy/cowardly media and millions of advertising dollars.

I know exactly what he's done and I agree with his labour reforms. You got a lot of information from DS but the problem is that I can cite a lot of information that says the opposite.

I would love for you to post that information. In fact, I've actively lamented that nobody is carrying the GOP banner in these threads.

Ulairi wrote:

I'll quote a post from another website:

snip

Source: http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2012...

This sums up my feelings pretty well.

I think the general point is correct, but I'm always extremely leery of people who wave the "there is no right or wrong" flag. It's important to understand that your own perception or reflex opinion might be wrong, or that attempting to demonize the opposition (or canonize anyone who agrees with you) is harmful. But, in the end, a lot of issues do in fact boil down to right and wrong. A better way to put this is that people are less concerned with knowing why something is "right" and more concerned that someone else is wrong and should be put in their place.

Here is an unpopular thesis for you.

Walker's victory is the unintended consequence of the class warfare election theme espoused by Democrats.

Class warfare doesn't stop a the threshold of people who make $200,000. The 1%er thing is stupid. In these bad economic times, people are very jealous of anyone who they perceive is doing better than themselves. Middle class people say and write despicable things about other middle class people because they make a few bucks more an hour.

Governor Walker reigned in spending and successfully painted the state workers as getting more than their fair share. Apparently, a majority of the voters agreed that the state workers do not deserve to do better than the general populace.

Today, Obama upped the ante on the class warfare insisting that only 'wealthy' people pay more taxes and do so immediately.

Personally, I look forward to better economic times so we do not begrudge a school teacher her(his) pension.

Also, I think that Bush tax cuts should expire for EVERYONE which is an idea that is against my personal financial well being.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

I'll quote a post from another website:

snip

Source: http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2012...

This sums up my feelings pretty well.

I think the general point is correct, but I'm always extremely leery of people who wave the "there is no right or wrong" flag. It's important to understand that your own perception or reflex opinion might be wrong, or that attempting to demonize the opposition (or canonize anyone who agrees with you) is harmful. But, in the end, a lot of issues do in fact boil down to right and wrong. A better way to put this is that people are less concerned with knowing why something is "right" and more concerned that someone else is wrong and should be put in their place.

But, for a lot of this stuff what is right/wrong is entirely subjective. Is the Public Employees no longer being able to bargin for benefits a right/wrong thing? Depending on your point of view.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

I'll quote a post from another website:

snip

Source: http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2012...

This sums up my feelings pretty well.

I think the general point is correct, but I'm always extremely leery of people who wave the "there is no right or wrong" flag. It's important to understand that your own perception or reflex opinion might be wrong, or that attempting to demonize the opposition (or canonize anyone who agrees with you) is harmful. But, in the end, a lot of issues do in fact boil down to right and wrong. A better way to put this is that people are less concerned with knowing why something is "right" and more concerned that someone else is wrong and should be put in their place.

But, for a lot of this stuff what is right/wrong is entirely subjective. Is the Public Employees no longer being able to bargin for benefits a right/wrong thing? Depending on your point of view.

Kraint wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

I know exactly what he's done and I agree with his labour reforms. You got a lot of information from DS but the problem is that I can cite a lot of information that says the opposite. It comes down to where people are coming from and the trade offs they are willing to make in order to govern. I'll quote a post from another website:

That, right there, is the core problem with the entire damned political discourse. There are not two sets of facts to be argued. I don't know if your sources or dimmer's are right, but the fact that we can't agree on reality is six different kinds of FUBAR. It isn't about what someone think government should be doing or how it is balanced, it is the arguments about OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL REALITY. When one side says that jobs have been lost and debt raised, meaning the government is bad, and the other claims it is good because debt was reduced and jobs added, there is literally no room for meaningful discussion. It just becomes dueling advertising and sound bites that add to the echo chamber.

I agree with you.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXhBi...

A lot of time in these debates we lose perspective.

Ulairi wrote:

But, for a lot of this stuff what is right/wrong is entirely subjective. Is the Public Employees no longer being able to bargin for benefits a right/wrong thing? Depending on your point of view.

It's true! And then we can talk about how what is and isn't subjective is also subjective!

This is exciting!

Ulairi wrote:
Kraint wrote:

That, right there, is the core problem with the entire damned political discourse. There are not two sets of facts to be argued. I don't know if your sources or dimmer's are right, but the fact that we can't agree on reality is six different kinds of FUBAR. It isn't about what someone think government should be doing or how it is balanced, it is the arguments about OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL REALITY. When one side says that jobs have been lost and debt raised, meaning the government is bad, and the other claims it is good because debt was reduced and jobs added, there is literally no room for meaningful discussion. It just becomes dueling advertising and sound bites that add to the echo chamber.

I agree with you.

Watch this:

A lot of time in these debates we lose perspective.

Edited to embed the YouTube video for you, but I'm kind of confused about what a juvenile YouTube video put together by some random libertarian site is intending to communicate.

I'd like to reiterate my offer for you to post stories and links to elements of Wisconsin's gubernatorial recall you feel I've overlooked or unfairly represented.

(Greg, I see your post and want to respond, but am grabbing moments here and there between work tasks, and need more time to give you more than a slapdash post in response)

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Kraint wrote:

That, right there, is the core problem with the entire damned political discourse. There are not two sets of facts to be argued. I don't know if your sources or dimmer's are right, but the fact that we can't agree on reality is six different kinds of FUBAR. It isn't about what someone think government should be doing or how it is balanced, it is the arguments about OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL REALITY. When one side says that jobs have been lost and debt raised, meaning the government is bad, and the other claims it is good because debt was reduced and jobs added, there is literally no room for meaningful discussion. It just becomes dueling advertising and sound bites that add to the echo chamber.

I agree with you.

Watch this:

A lot of time in these debates we lose perspective.

Edited to embed the YouTube video for you, but I'm kind of confused about what a juvenile YouTube video put together by some random libertarian site is intending to communicate.

I'd like to reiterate my offer for you to post stories and links to elements of Wisconsin's gubernatorial recall you feel I've overlooked or unfairly represented.

(Greg, I see your post and want to respond, but am grabbing moments here and there between work tasks, and need more time to give you more than a slapdash post in response)

Reason Magazine isn't some "random libertarian" site. And, the purpose is to show what both sides are getting hot and bothered about. When you hear these numbers they don't mean anything because there is no context. This video contextualizes what we're actually talking about here. Three major reasons for the recall are covered in that video.

Ulairi wrote:

Reason Magazine isn't some "random libertarian" site. And, the purpose is to show what both sides are getting hot and bothered about. When you hear these numbers they don't mean anything because there is no context. This video contextualizes what we're actually talking about here. Three major reasons for the recall are covered in that video.

I'm not sure it contextualizes anything to link to an expletive-laden video produced by a libertarian site, putting forward recall arguments that nobody here is making.

If you're pointing to that video as representative of recall supporters, I strongly object to that categorization. It's no more representative of recall supporters as a group than Andrew Breitbart telling me to go to hell was representative of recall opponents.

[Edit to add: it's especially galling to have that video put out to "contextualize" reasons for the recall, when there's already a post (from this week, even) laying out a case for recall in non-inflammatory terms]

Ulairi wrote:

Reason Magazine isn't some "random libertarian" site. And, the purpose is to show what both sides are getting hot and bothered about. When you hear these numbers they don't mean anything because there is no context. This video contextualizes what we're actually talking about here. Three major reasons for the recall are covered in that video.

This video really highlights the problem. It comes off as quite biased as well, just in favor of Walker. Why is this more or less biased than Al Sharpton on MSNBC(see topic #3 in the video). I don't know what this really supposed to accomplish other than showing that there is information of questionable veracity being used as factual source by conservative voters. I'm we can find similarly terrible, biased reporting with an anti-Walker bent, but that doesn't really accomplish anything either.

This brings us back to my previous point: if the only information sources being used are contaminated with the misinformation/hand-waving/re-interpretation/re-definition that has gotten so popular in the echo chambers, how do we know if we agree with the actual policies being executed?

OG_slinger wrote:

Not quite. It's Citizens United combined with polarized media which has largely been used by conservatives to create--and continually reinforce--an alternative reality that millions of Americans sop up and swallow whole.

I grow tired of the Conservative Media Bias and the Conservative Media Elites.

Kurrelgyre wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Not quite. It's Citizens United combined with polarized media which has largely been used by conservatives to create--and continually reinforce--an alternative reality that millions of Americans sop up and swallow whole.

I grow tired of the Conservative Media Bias and the Conservative Media Elites.

Me too

Jonman wrote:
Kurrelgyre wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Not quite. It's Citizens United combined with polarized media which has largely been used by conservatives to create--and continually reinforce--an alternative reality that millions of Americans sop up and swallow whole.

I grow tired of people making blanket statements about Media Bias and the perceived Media Elites.

Me too :)

I want to play, too!

SallyNasty wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Kurrelgyre wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Not quite. It's Citizens United combined with polarized media which has largely been used by conservatives to create--and continually reinforce--an alternative reality that millions of Americans sop up and swallow whole.

I grow tired of people making blanket statements about Media Bias and the perceived Media Elites .

Me too :)

I want to play, too!

My turn!

Tanglebones wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Kurrelgyre wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Not quite. It's Citizens United combined with polarized media which has largely been used by conservatives to create--and continually reinforce--an alternative reality that millions of Americans sop up and swallow whole.

I grow tired of people making blanket statements about Media Bias and the perceived Media Elites .

Me too :)

I want to play, too!

My turn!

I'm glad I refreshed before posting the exact same thing.