Will Democrats lose for a decade or go far-right?

Post Reply New Topic

Problem is one side's "generous spending" was seven times greater than the other.

The problem is who they donate to when they get big.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary ... D000000136

Walker outspent his opponent by some much because his supporters thought he was going to win. Tom Barrett by the time he was the democratic nominee never once lead in a poll and Walker was 50% or better in all of them as well. National Democrats abandoned ship, that's why the money didn't come in and that's why Obama almost comically avoided commenting on the election, visiting pretty much every state around Wisconsin the weekend before but not finding the time to visit a state that such a critical election was taking place in. Obama would end up endorsing Tom Barrett in the middle of the night the day before the election via twitter.

The fact of the matter is that the collective bargaining issue wasn't compelling enough to the voters to recall a sitting governor for. Barrett barely mentioned the collective bargaining issue and he crushed the union's choice Kathleen Falk in the democratic primary.

The GOTV was amazing on both sides and the turnout was better than the 2010 midterms, almost presidential level. This wasn't an election that the people of Wisconsin were uneducated about, we've been dealing with this 'crisis' for more than a year. By the time this recall actually happened, people's opinions on the matter were pretty much set in stone. There was remarkably little movement in the polls.

But what did all that money actually buy them?:


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-mu ... y+|+OTB%29

This is true - in Greece, and in Hungary, proper fascists are being elected there. Not just your conservative types who might hold a 'bigoted' view on abortion or a somewhat backward view on gay marriage - we're talking serious fascists here. Fascist parties that beat up journalists and political opponents on a regular basis, fascist parties with gangs closely linked to them that attack immigrants, that sort of thing. In parts of eastern Europe you have democratically elected politicians overtly supporting attacks and the extermination of national minorities.

This is what's happening in Europe. People in Greece are literally going without food and medical supplies. They are angry. Both the far-left and fascists have made huge gains. I suspect that the gulf will now be even further away depending on how Greeks vote.

In the Netherlands, and in Denmark and in Finland (and in some other European countries) and in the UK as well, national populist movements have been born out of nowhere. Fifteen years ago - and less with some of them - these parties didn't even exist. Now, two of them are the third-largest in their parliaments. They are all very different from each other due to their own national origins but they have a mandate which is hugely popular with much of their electorate - they actually listen to their people about what's troubling them and campaign for an end to mass immigration, for an end to EU membership, for an end to benefits for all and sundry. These parties aren't "fascist" (as the politically motivated left would call them) but more radical conservative in many respects. These people are disenfranchised and want to be listened to - above all, they want their democracies back.

Except the initial round wasn't under the same circumstances as the rematch, where Scott Walker went in amid controversy. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if Tom Barrett's votes costed less in advertising, this wasn't a parliamentary election with proportional representation, it was a winner-take-all gubernatorial election.

All the money in the world won't persuade someone who isn't receptive to what's being sold. Considering how close these results are to the first match up between the two candidates, voters simply not being interested in kicking Walker out certainly seems the more likely explanation. Dems are just going to have to accept that public opinion regarding public sector unions may have turned, and either change their own position on them or be prepared to go down with them.

Good point. Except that the US is not a democracy; it's a republic. The only way to get the big money out of politics is to have complete separation of state and economy. The only way to keep politicians from being bought is to make them worthless to those who would seek to purchase them.

++ truth.

ruveyn

This is exactly why I love Swiss style direct democracy.

The Swiss people can veto, overturn or pass any law by popular vote so any politician deciding to put the interests of the elite over the people will get their arse kicked fairly swiftly.


Can you imagine the politicians of your nation doing this sorts of thing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/au ... witzerland

Setting car fines based on income and severity, so if you go round speeding in a supercar they impound the supercar and fine you a million dollars?


Can you imagine the elite in the US or UK allowing a law like that on the books, one that holds THEM to account?

Indeed. I'm jealous of Swiss democracy and their SVP in particular. The sheer provocative bluntness of their election campaigning is a sight to behold.

What do you make of them, DC?

No, the way to get big money out of politics is to pass & enforce laws to that effect, as most democratic countries have done, to some degree or another. It's fallacy born of ideological hubris to assume that simply trusting in the free market & minimizing government would solve this problem or bring about a just or desirable outcome. Believe what one will in terms of ideology, but in real life it just doesn't work that way.

As to the argument that the U.S. is not a democracy, this is outright false. The statement that the U.S. is "a republic not a democracy" is a false dichotomy. Whatever problems we have in the U.S. with political paralysis & the erosion of civil liberties, by almost any standard we still do qualify as a democracy. A country is a republic if sovereignty is considered to reside with the people rather than in the person of a monarch. Some republics are democratic (like France or India); some most definitely aren't democratic (like Belarus or Vietnam); some fall somewhere in between (like Turkey, Iraq or Indonesia); some republics are totalitarian police states (like Syria or China). Likewise, some monarchies are fully democratic (like the UK, Netherlands or Denmark); some are quite autocratic (like Saudi Arabia or Swaziland); some fall somewhere in between (like Thailand, Jordan or Morocco).

As to whether a country is a republic - it's pretty straightforward. Does it have as its head of state (irrespective of whether such person has actual political power) a president or a monarch? A country either is or isn't a republic. As to whether a country is a democracy, it's more qualitative & a matter of degree. Does a country have the rule of law? Are elections relatively clean & competitive with a level playing field? Does a country have an independent judiciary? Are freedom of speech, press & assembly generally respected? Are police bound to respect individual rights or do they have impunity? Does the military loom over the country's political process? All these questions come into play when judging whether a country is democratic or not.

Thus, the U.S. is both a republic AND a democracy, more democratic than some & less democratic than others. Sorry to come across as pedantic, but I get really sick of hearing this argument. In the end, it plays on popular confusion about the meaning of words - "democracy" has a much broader definition than "direct democracy". It's easily debunked, & always it seems to come from a right-wing snark who thinks that he's just too clever for the masses.

As far as simply making lobbying and corporate campaign contributions illegal, I refer you to the US war on drugs for a perfect example of how making a behavior illegal has little effect on whether it happens or not. The only politician who can't be bought by corporate interests is one who has nothing to offer corporate interests. You can't buy a Big Mac at KFC. A product or service must first be available for it to be purchased. No one can buy what's not on "the shelves".

Dox, do you really believe that or is this just part of your "Devils Advocate to the Left" game? Because polls on the public position clearly showed that Scott Walker was on the losing side of the issue. Why did so many of Walker's ads deal with crime if the public was solidly against public sector unions?

Which polls? I can show you polls from various stages of the election that show exactly the opposite of what you're claiming, among other results. There's a reason that I'm not particularly trusting of poll data of any sort, and in this case I'm simply debating on "harder" information than the poll numbers. A guy outspends his opponent whom he's previously and recently faced by that amount and only gains one point, it tells me that political advertising isn't as effective a tool of persuasion as many believe it to be. Remember that another poll, an exit poll in this case, found that many people who voted to retain Walker also said they planned to vote Obama, which if the poll is to be believed, might indicate that the union issue is simply not that important to many Americans, even Democrats.