What does Wisconsin recall vote mean?

[Sulla the Dictator]

I admit to being pleasantly surprised by these results. From all the talk in activist circles, and seeing how energized the left was months ago, I thought that this vote was a done deal. I assumed that the Dems would win at least 3, probably 4, and then lose most of those seats again in 2012 (I didn't think they would be able to hold them in a normal election).

To me, the take away is either the Wisconsin/National union political apparatus has been severely weakened, or that the national/Wisconsin Tea Party movement is highly motivated. Either way, this seems to say that any attempt to recall Walker is a waste of time and money. The Dems would be better served just trying to win actual elections.

[sugarkang]

Explain yourself, man. I haven't been following this at all. I remember Walker, trying to end public unions, allegations that Koch Bros control everything in the universe, etc. Can I get a Sports Center recap?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Explain yourself, man. I haven't been following this at all. I remember Walker, trying to end public unions, allegations that Koch Bros control everything in the universe, etc. Can I get a Sports Center recap?

The Democrats launched a recall of 6 GOP state senators after that business with the Unions. They got the signatures, and the vote was tonight. MSNBC has been talking about it every night (Especially Ed Shultz, but Rachel Maddow has given it a lot of time too). They were predicting that they WOULD take over the Wisconsin Senate, and some dems were saying they would capture 5 of the 6 seats. Unions flooded the zone, MSNBC covered it today like it was a real election day, and the Dems only took 2 seats in a special election in the middle of August. Next week, 2 Democrats are up for special recall, and they might lose one of those. So upwards of $15 million dollars were spent on a half dozen state senate races by the Democrats and the unions. They're also planning to recall Governor Walker, but in light of this night, how would it be worth it?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

They're also planning to recall Governor Walker, but in light of this night, how would it be worth it?

I'm an idiot about politics. Why wouldn't it be worth it? $15 million doesn't seem like a lot when Obama spent like a billion dollars on his own campaign. Or do you mean not worth it terms other than dollars?

Also, are Democrats still running under the argument that government workers need protection against the government? That is, they use public unions to give politicians money. Politician gets elected and then writes the rules to give the public workers more money.

And all the money is tax money. Is any of this talked about or public workers think this makes total sense?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I'm an idiot about politics. Why wouldn't it be worth it? $15 million doesn't seem like a lot when Obama spent like a billion dollars on his own campaign. Or do you mean not worth it terms other than dollars?

He's also not telling you what was spent on the other side.

[rfrobison]

DZ: Don't know if you've seen this thread, but I wonder if you would share your thoughts on whether you think this recall vote was justified.

I admit I haven't been following this story closely. It's a bit hard to get excited about the political back-and-forth in the U.S. from over here, but from my point of view the whole exercise looks pretty suspect, in terms of good governance.

Obviously the recall law is on the books for a reason and I have no doubt the proper procedures were followed and all that, but my cursory glance says this is an abuse of the recall statute, which I assume is meant to address cases of gross mis- or malfeasance, and not simply a "do over" for people who are unhappy with an election result.

Of course, the same could be said about the California recall that put The Governator in power in California, so it's maybe a bipartisan vice, but it's disturbing to me nonetheless.

Any thoughts?

[badhatharry]

So they spent something like $500,000 to do this recall. This is money that could have been better used and was essentially thrown away. Very sad.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

He's also not telling you what was spent on the other side.

I don't know about the campaign dollars, but it cost the state of Wisconsin $500,000. That's where the shame lies in all of this.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't know about the campaign dollars, but it cost the state of Wisconsin $500,000. That's where the shame lies in all of this.

Applying this logic more broadly, the way to balance budgets is to have elections less frequently, or, if we are seious about the deficit, eliminate them altogether.

I don't remember conservatives being upset about the Gray Davis election (thanks, rfrobison), and that cost a much more bankrupt state a lot more money.

As to the actual thing itself, it's exactly what liberals (and I presume conservatives although THOSE memos weren't leaked) expected. The liberals who were working in the state said two was likely and three was possible, although it was an outside chance. That's exactly right, given that one of the elections that went to the GOP was very close.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Of course, the same could be said about the California recall that put The Governator in power in California, so it's maybe a bipartisan vice, but it's disturbing to me nonetheless.

Any thoughts?

Not Zeke, but I used to live in Chicago and we have kinda the same accent...

The dems didn't like Walker's budget decisions which have been through the courts and upheld. The dems have done everything they can to undo the Walker agenda. This is just the latest and hopefully last attempt. Maybe then the media will leave and Wisconsin can get back to being Wisconsin.

The recall process can certainly wreak havoc. But it's a state perogative so what are you going to do?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Not Zeke, but I used to live in Chicago and we have kinda the same accent...

Oh, cool. I got robbed in Chicago, South Side, 3 A.M.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Oh, cool. I got robbed in Chicago, South Side, 3 A.M.

I was elsewhere at the time.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Applying this logic more broadly, the way to balance budgets is to have elections less frequently, or, if we are seious about the deficit, eliminate them altogether.

I don't remember conservatives being upset about the Gray Davis election (thanks, rfrobison), and that cost a much more bankrupt state a lot more money.

As to the actual thing itself, it's exactly what liberals (and I presume conservatives although THOSE memos weren't leaked) expected. The liberals who were working in the state said two was likely and three was possible, although it was an outside chance. That's exactly right, given that one of the elections that went to the GOP was very close.

Wasting money is a shame in my book, particularly in these times. But let's keep elections, shall we?

I agree with your analysis about the California recall, especially because of the result.

I didn't follow the predictions. But Shultz seemed pretty hopeful last night until this:

Just before midnight locally, a spokesman for the WI Democratic Party chair Mike Tate was alleging vote tampering such as 'sitting on ballots', before the election was called.

Politcs, you gotta love it.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I didn't follow the predictions. But Shultz seemed pretty hopeful last night until this:

Ed Schultz is an idiot. If he's the best that liberals have to offer, everyone is in serious trouble.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Here is the vast amount of money spent on this ridiculous little race:

http://is.gd/aZd1W3

For a symbolic victory that didn't materialize. One wonders when Union members are going to start object to this waste.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Here is the vast amount of money spent on this ridiculous little race:

http://is.gd/aZd1W3

For a symbolic victory that didn't materialize. One wonders when Union members are going to start object to this waste.

Objecting to people for fighting for their interests? That's an interesting theory...

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Objecting to people for fighting for their interests? That's an interesting theory...

I was thinking more about tactics versus expense. The Unions do not have the power to deliver these elections on their own, the way they used to. Twenty or thirty years ago, I have no doubt in my mind that the unions could have delivered that Prosser election in their sleep. But spending money on that, and then this, seems like a waste in retrospect. Recalling Walker, based on this track record, seems ill advised.

Also, remember they launched a $10 million primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln? This stuff is wasteful. How can they spend this money, then fund Democrats in actual elections, while looking out for members ACTUAL interests (Read: non-political, day to day stuff the Union is supposed to do)?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I was thinking more about tactics versus expense. The Unions do not have the power to deliver these elections on their own, the way they used to. Twenty or thirty years ago, I have no doubt in my mind that the unions could have delivered that Prosser election in their sleep. But spending money on that, and then this, seems like a waste in retrospect. Recalling Walker, based on this track record, seems ill advised.

Also, remember they launched a $10 million primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln? This stuff is wasteful. How can they spend this money, then fund Democrats in actual elections, while looking out for members ACTUAL interests (Read: non-political, day to day stuff the Union is supposed to do)?

I'd say the members' political interests seem pretty real, given the political attacks they're currently subject to. If I was running the union I would have prioritized this fight, too. Recalling Walker is something they have to do tactically - obviously there's a risk to them in the fight, but otherwise they'd be running away. The last thing they need is to look morally weak in the face of fierce opposition.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I'd say the members' political interests seem pretty real, given the political attacks they're currently subject to. If I was running the union I would have prioritized this fight, too. Recalling Walker is something they have to do tactically - obviously there's a risk to them in the fight, but otherwise they'd be running away. The last thing they need is to look morally weak in the face of fierce opposition.

The problem with risking political capital is that if you play and fail, you look politically weak. Does this and the Prosser election not run the risk of dispiriting the left, and emboldening the very people they're trying to send a message to? And if Walker is recalled (Which I think might be a big if, now), doesn't he have a powerful campaign weapon in throwing out the total expense of these efforts, mostly from Union dues, as an example of why what he did was necessary?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The problem with risking political capital is that if you play and fail, you look politically weak. Does this and the Prosser election not run the risk of dispiriting the left, and emboldening the very people they're trying to send a message to? And if Walker is recalled (Which I think might be a big if, now), doesn't he have a powerful campaign weapon in throwing out the total expense of these efforts, mostly from Union dues, as an example of why what he did was necessary?

The other option was to stand passively and let the Governor and his party (facile metaphor alert!) walk all over them. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

The other option was to stand passively and let the Governor and his party (facile metaphor alert!) walk all over them. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

Well no. As Conservative activists learned in 2009, sometimes these special elections are honey traps. And when it comes to vast amounts of money, it's better to use it during the elections. I mean, the money spent on this recall election would probably be a MASSIVE amount of money for Dem challengers in the state legislature in the actual election. But I doubt that they'll match it, since the reason so many left wing sources ponied up so much money was to send a national message. They'll have bigger fish to fry in 2012.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

DZ: Don't know if you've seen this thread, but I wonder if you would share your thoughts on whether you think this recall vote was justified.

I admit I haven't been following this story closely. It's a bit hard to get excited about the political back-and-forth in the U.S. from over here, but from my point of view the whole exercise looks pretty suspect, in terms of good governance.

Obviously the recall law is on the books for a reason and I have no doubt the proper procedures were followed and all that, but my cursory glance says this is an abuse of the recall statute, which I assume is meant to address cases of gross mis- or malfeasance, and not simply a "do over" for people who are unhappy with an election result.

Of course, the same could be said about the California recall that put The Governator in power in California, so it's maybe a bipartisan vice, but it's disturbing to me nonetheless.

Any thoughts?

Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. I'm not terribly concerned with how recall elections were supposed to function, and even so using recall or impeachment for partisan purposes is hardly new. As you said, this is just as political a maneuver as the recall election that Scharzenegger won. I'd also say that it's only slightly more political than Clinton or Andrew Johnson's impeachment.

In general, I'd prefer to put people in office through regularly scheduled general elections than through special elections that tend to have lower turnout and disproportionate influence from outside groups and party activists, but I don't see this as a particularly critical concern. So I guess my bottom line is a big "meh." Wisconsin Democrats thought that they could do well enough in a special election to overturn the results of 2010's general. If they had pulled it off I would have been happy to see it, but they didn't quite have the votes. That's democracy.