So what was the net effect of the recall elections, overall?
Wanggaard decides not to file lawsuit challenging results, Democrats now control State Senate.
This is refreshingly civil. However:
“Despite pleas from around the state to challenge the election, it is not in the best interests of Racine, or Wisconsin, at this time,” Wanggaard said in a statement. “Now is the time to focus on gaining the state senate back in November, winning Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate seat and electing Gov. (Mitt) Romney as president.”
I guess it's partly because he's the loser so he's not in government, but it's a sign of the times that all his "focus" action items are based on the political horse race and not, you know, good public policy or governance. Nowadays the backers have all the policy ideas and the politicians just think about the politics.
+3 State Senate seats for the Democrats, giving them full control of the chamber. This means that they no longer rely on moderate Republican Dale Schultz to prevent any truly noxious legislation Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers choose to put forward. (The legislature is officially in recess right now, but if the Senate remained in Republican hands Governor Walker could declare a special session at any point, for any reason, and stand a good chance of forcing stuff through).
The Republicans will regain control after November and it's kind of too little too late, Walker passed his most controversial stuff. Democrats trying to hang their hat on the 3 senate seats is a real reach and the best way to rationalize the pounding they took. The only problem is now we have the US Senate race and I think we'll have a replay of the labour rules all over again.
Closely divided government branches at any level seem to always bring out that sort of thing in some folks. In those situations, it seems like you're pretty much as important as you decide you want to be. Honestly, given what I believe about the character of most politicians (spoiler: nothing good), I'm surprised there isn't a flurry of this every time an important house of government ends up nearly even.
Closely divided government branches at any level seem to always bring out that sort of thing in some folks. In those situations, it seems like you're pretty much as important as you decide you want to be. Honestly, given what I believe about the character of most politicians (spoiler: nothing good), I'm surprised there isn't a flurry of this every time an important house of government ends up nearly even.
I'd imagine that party leadership takes a very dim view of that type of behavior, and a politician can find running for re-election unpleasant when there is no party backing.
I'd imagine that party leadership takes a very dim view of that type of behavior, and a politician can find running for re-election unpleasant when there is no party backing.
That's probably true. For some reason I thought Arlen Specter made out fairly well on his possibly opportunistic switch, but as it turns out he was primaried out by his new home party very shortly after according to Wikipedia.
I would have figured the party a potential opportunist is switching to would be happy to help them out in thanks for giving them the sway, but maybe they just don't want the drama either.
Neither party likes moderates. Anyone who doesn't toe the party line 100% is a risk. And that's what's wrong with our current two party system, the parties have too much leverage and control over their members.
Neither party likes moderates. Anyone who doesn't toe the party line 100% is a risk. And that's what's wrong with our current two party system, the parties have too much leverage and control over their members.
With redistricting, cable news, and the internet moderates are dead. Any one who doesn't tow the party line 100% of the time is in serious danger of losing their job. We have no one to blame but our selves.
Pages