Probably about the same way somebody should take "I did read your posts, all of them. And now I have this song stuck in my head: You spin me right 'round baby right 'round..."
MattDaddy wrote:Dimmerswitch wrote:I'm not sure you read my post.
I did read your posts, all of them. And now I have this song stuck in my head: You spin me right 'round baby right 'round...........
Fair enough. When you want to have serious conversations again, I'll be here. :)
You are reaching pretty far. The Democrats won a Democratic distirict and beat a cheating weak candidate, barely in a Republican district. They didn't beat Darling which is who would have shown any real movement towards the Democrats.
At best they won two seats and most likely they're going to lose a seat next week which means all of that money was spent to win one seat that will be taken back in a year. That is a horrible RoI and the unions aren't going to be around to blow money in 2012 on Scott Walker. They will be too busy trying to get President Obama reelected.
The Democrats on MSNBC were quite funny when I was watching it and once Darling won they just shut up. I'm surprised that so many people are so willing to attack a county clerk in a small midwestern county and treat her as if she's some evil politicial operative instead of a semi-competent county official in a VERY conservative county. People were suprised that Menomonee Falls was going to be a huge push for Darling? From the Supreme Court election they found no wrongdoing just the clerk not being the best of officials.
MattDaddy's post seemed to miss the point of my comparison by a large enough margin that I honestly wasn't sure it had been read. The fact that Seth misunderstood my post as being spin makes me think that I just didn't communicate well there.
I didn't miss your point, I disagreed with it. You chose 2 items to back your claim while failing to acknowledge any other evidence. That's why I see it as spin.
From an analysis I read this morning, if 1100 votes had gone differently, the Democrats would have won. I don't see any sign of an overwhelming statement of the people's will in this; it's a razor thin win in a highly contentious season, and I think it says nothing about what's to come. Except of course that the Republicans still hold control in the state.
1100 votes where and for whom? The only race that close was the one in which Jessica King (D) beat Randy Hopper (R) by 1,250. A small swing in votes would have given the GOP another win.
Unless you are saying that if 1,100 people who voted for Olsen (R) would have instead voted for Clark (D). If that's the case, then it's more spin. I could even more easily say that "if" 626 people would have voted for Hopper instead of King, the GOP would have won 5-1.
I don't see how anyone can view this anything other than a decisive victory for the GOP. The Democrats (with great help from Organizing for America and the unions) threw everything they had into this (including throwing illegal BBQ parties http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/126558543.html) and failed in their stated objective, which was to retake control of the Senate.
I don't see how anyone can view this anything other than a decisive victory for the GOP.
I don't see how anyone could view this as anything other than a loss for the Democrats and a big loss for the Republicans.
The Democrats said that the people really hated what the Republicans were doing and that they would overthrow the Republicans and grab a majority of the Senate. That was wrong, and I totally understand how that's a loss.
The Republicans said that they had a mandate from the people to make the changes they were making, and that the people of the state were behind them with those decisions. With that stance the a "decisive victory" has to be at least a loss of zero seats. Aka they were right that all the people that voted them in before were still happy with them.
As it is the Democrats wanted three seats, and they got two. You can't label losing two seats as a "decisive victory" when losing three seats would, by all accounts, be a "crushing defeat". When you make labels like that you just look out of touch. Right now if I'd have to guess what election results would lead to what buzzwords from you I'd go with something like this:
Lose 5 seats: Tie
Lose 4 seats: Minor Victory
Lose 3 seats: Victory
Lose 2 seats: Decisive Victory
Lose 1 seat: Enormous Victory
No change: Earth Shattering Victory
Gain 1 seat: Songs will be song of this Victory for thousands of years
Gain 2 seats: Divine Mandate
I think a more accurate breakdown would be something like the following:
Lose 5 seats: Scathing and Incredible Denouncement of the party platform.
Lose 4 seats: Enormous Defeat
Lose 3 seats: Decisive Defeat
Lose 2 seats: Slight Defeat
Lose 1 seat: Tie
No change: Victory
Gain 1 seat: Decisive Victory
Gain 2 seats: Enormous Victory
Getting repetitive ...
Edir: nm, Not worth it.
Don't really want to start a new thread for this, so I'll include it here:
WEAC Leads In Lobbying Spending
The statewide teachers union led in spending on lobbying state lawmakers even before this year's fight over collective bargaining.
All told, WEAC spent 12,364 hours lobbying, which averages to 17 hours a day every day for two years.
Why did you list out what you view as liberal-friendly, and how did you evaluate each organization in order to reach that conclusion?
No need to list to top 50, I read the link. I'm curious why you listed what you call liberal friendly? DO you consider the rest to be conservative friendly?
I'd give serious consideration to Forest County Potawatomi Community as liberal friendly based on their cozy history with former Governor Jim Doyle.
The Associated Press and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have called both races for the Democratic incumbents.
District 12
Holperin (D) - 54%
Simac (R) - 46%
District 22
Wirch (D) - 58%
Steitz (R) - 42%
So earth-shattering victory then?
So earth-shattering victory then?
For the Republicans. Stay tuned to learn why.
So earth-shattering victory then?For the Republicans. Stay tuned to learn why.
They're still in control, so I call divine mandate.
Robear wrote:So earth-shattering victory then?For the Republicans. Stay tuned to learn why.
They're still in control, so I call divine mandate.
Where does this go from here? I assume at this point the bill upon which the other Wisconsin thread was about is here to stay?
Act 10? Yeah, that stays in place. All of the really controversial stuff has already been passed. Until the next round of elections, the agenda will be on things that should have a level of bi-partisan support. That was going to be the case even before the recall elections.
One person's damage is another's progress
Pages