May 22, 2012

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to win the 5 June 2012 recall election: 93.8%.

It's just Intrade, but still. That's a high percentage. Too bad we still have to dump $18 million in taxpayer money into conducting the special election. Thanks, petition signers.

How many people signed the petition because they were afraid of being detected as supporting Scott Walker's budget reform? Thanks, protesters, for the atmosphere of intimidation that led so many to drag us into this wasteful exercise.

And while I'm at Intrade: Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012: 58.8%.

57 comments:

james conrad said...

Has a feeling Romney is going to win this fall by a considerable margin. I just dont see voters pulling the lever for 4 more years of no jobs and no growth.

Tom Spaulding said...

Imagine investing that $18 million on Intrade, betting on Walker.

Schools! Children! Bargaining Rights! Hitler! Koch Bros.!
Prosser! Vuvuzelas!

Scott M said...

And while I'm at Intrade: Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012: 58.8%.

NOT IF JOHN WOLFE HAS ANYTHING TO DO ABOUT IT...which he won't, but vote for him anyway. Just cuz.

TosaGuy said...

Still have to vote. Every Walker supporter needs to work their personal network to bring all people who either support Walker or hate the recalls to the polls.

The only way the recall machine will end is if they fail.

glenn said...

Just saw a commercial for the recall Walker folks as a leadin to streaming video on my local ABC affiliate. In Sacramento California, featuring a bevy of "Wisconsin" women bashing Walker for all manner and form of sexist, racist stuff. What's that all about, fund raising?

rhhardin said...

And while I'm at Intrade: Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012: 58.8%.

Probably businesses hedging against the collapse of the economy.

Mitchell said...

Too bad we still have to dump $18 million in taxpayer money into conducting the special election.

It would be more efficient to pay it over directly to the public unions.

TWM said...

Considering how Barry's campaigned so far, all Romney has to do is continue being the rational adult of the two. He just needs to hammer home "jobs, jobs, jobs" with a little debt talk and just respond sadly (in the Reagan "There you go again" vein) to Barry's childish attacks and he should have it wrapped up.

As to Walker, it's unfortunate that these spoiled brats have forced the state to waste all this money, but a Walker win - especially a big one if it happens - only makes Barry weaker and that's money well-spent.

The Farmer said...

It sounds like you're saying people should've decided whether or not to sign the petition based on poll numbers.

If Walker loses, will that 18 million somehow have been better spent?

If the law regarding the recall allows abuses, argue against it and fight to change it. Why blame people for playing the game by the rules?

TWM said...

"Why blame people for playing the game by the rules?"

The old saying "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it" comes to mind if nothing else.

MadisonMan said...

How many people signed the petition because they were afraid of being detected as supporting Scott Walker's budget reform? Thanks, protesters, for the atmosphere of intimidation led so many to drag us into this wasteful exercise.

This is why I think signatures should not be placed out on the internet for all to see. What good comes of that, except to demonize someone who did -- or did not -- sign the petition?

Original Mike said...

"This is why I think signatures should not be placed out on the internet for all to see. What good comes of that, except to demonize someone who did -- or did not -- sign the petition?"

I don't see any other way to assure integrity in the process.

The Farmer said...

The old saying "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it" comes to mind if nothing else.

Fair enough, I guess. It just seems like it would be more effective to halt alleged abuse of the law by working to change the law rather than by scolding people.

"Shame! Shame!"

It's pretty silly coming from either side.

Barry said...

As a petition signer I guess... You're welcome?

I wasn't intimidated. And I'm not a teacher or a union member. I'm a white middle-class independent voter who thinks Walker is doing terrible job and the state would be better off without him as Governor for a number of reasons.

Sorry it costs money, but maybe the Governor could ask Americans for Prosperity to help the state out and cover those costs?

Also, all those campaign donations on both sides are going somewhere. How about some analysis on numbers employed, advertising revenue, and subsequent tax revenue that the election is causing? That would be interesting to see.

Tom Spaulding said...

Why blame people for playing the game by the rules?

The irony! Everybody but the Fleabaggers played by the rules. The Dems didn't like the results, so they got a recall. 'Cause that's what fair play is all about.

"It's not over until we win" - Russ Feingold, famous Republican

Ann Althouse said...

"This is why I think signatures should not be placed out on the internet for all to see. What good comes of that, except to demonize someone who did -- or did not -- sign the petition?"

Here's a solution: Abolish the recall. It sucks in so many ways.

Ann Althouse said...

And abolish the referendum too.

I've had it with these democratic innovations thought up 100 years ago.

Let's go back to the republican forms of 200+ years ago.

Ann Althouse said...

"If the law regarding the recall allows abuses, argue against it and fight to change it. Why blame people for playing the game by the rules?"

1. I am arguing against it. I say change it.

2. Do you really want to stand by the notion that people who do something that is permitted under the rules are beyond criticism? That would mean any statute that was passed following the how-a-bill-becomes-a-law procedure is just fine. That would really be one of the stupidest things you could believe. Care to retract?

MadisonMan said...

I don't see any other way to assure integrity in the process.

I've no problem with the signatures being available -- but their presence on the internet is IMO a bad thing.

It's like the online property records in Madison. You can opt out and make people walk or bus or bike (certainly not drive a car) downtown to look things up. Why should recall petitions be different?

TWM said...

"I'm a white middle-class independent voter who thinks Walker is doing terrible job and the state would be better off without him as Governor for a number of reasons."

Please, we're all ears (or should I say eyes), tell us a few of your reasons.

Tom Spaulding said...

Let's go back to the republican forms of 200+ years ago.

Point for Gryffendor! The Sorting Hat of Recall elections takes into consideration which House you want to be in, Ann! :)

Ann Althouse said...

"It's like the online property records in Madison. You can opt out and make people walk or bus or bike (certainly not drive a car) downtown to look things up. Why should recall petitions be different?"

Discriminates against people who are old, poor, disabled... employed.

Original Mike said...

"Let's go back to the republican forms of 200+ years ago."

The Constitution? That's like a hundred years old, or something.

Jay said...

I'm a white middle-class independent voter who thinks Walker is doing terrible job and the state would be better off without him as Governor for a number of reasons.



Laugh out loud funny.

Pastafarian said...

Barry: "How about some analysis on numbers employed, advertising revenue, and subsequent tax revenue that the election is causing?"

Why, they could have employed three as many people, if only they'd hired three groups: One group to print material; one group to tear it up; and another to reprint it.

Why do you suppose that something productive is being done, just because someone else's money has been confiscated and spent?

Here's a clue: If your "productive" activity could be replaced by just giving the "employed" people a paycheck and sending them home, and the economy wouldn't be affected in any way, then your "investment" isn't really being productively spent.

MadisonMan said...

Discriminates against people who are old, poor, disabled... employed.

Meaning...what? Exactly.

If it's important enough for you to check out records, the government has to make it super-easy for you at the expense of my privacy?

Thanks, but no.

TWM said...

"How about some analysis on numbers employed, advertising revenue, and subsequent tax revenue that the election is causing?"

Typical Democrat jobs program - $18 million for a few temp jobs . . .

Original Mike said...

"...at the expense of my privacy?"

I don't see your privacy right, here. You want to drag the state through an $18M, extraordinary exercise, but you don't think people have a right to know who you are.

Tom Spaulding said...

Typical Democrat jobs program - $18 million for a few temp jobs . . .

Things that are jobs programs: Unemployment Benefits, Stimulus Bills, Recall Elections.

Things that are not jobs programs: Jobs Programs

Is that about it, Progs?

Jay said...

the government has to make it super-easy for you at the expense of my privacy?



You don't have any expectation or right of privacy when signing a form that is being handed to you by a stranger.

The Farmer said...

Do you really want to stand by the notion that people who do something that is permitted under the rules are beyond criticism? That would mean any statute that was passed following the how-a-bill-becomes-a-law procedure is just fine. That would really be one of the stupidest things you could believe. Care to retract?

Retract what, your mischaracterization of my comments?

You've been complaining about the cost of the recall for months. From what I've seen, when you bring up the cost, you spend most of your time and energy complaining about the petition signers rather than the law that allowed the recall election to occur. That seems misguided. Or maybe just sore loser-ish.

I don't want to put criticism of the petition signers off limits. I just want to point out that your laser focus on the individuals rather than the process seems petty. Criticize away! I'll pop in to return the favor now and then!

Petunia said...

I've seen quite a few Recall Walker signs replaced by "Stand With Women" signs. They know they can't win on the union issues so they're trying to deflect.

The hateful house down the street, which is covered in recall signs, including one of Walker pushing someone in a wheelchair over, has as its most recent addition a "vote for Kohl-Riggs: a real Republican" sign. At least they took the Vinehout sign down though.

They also have two non-union-made cars in their driveway. Hypocrites.

Tom Spaulding said...

I just want to point out that your laser focus on the individuals rather than the process seems petty.

I just want to point out that the laser focus on recalling Scott Walker in a special election rather than waiting for an actual election seems petty.

Mark Nielsen said...

Barry: "Sorry it costs money, but maybe the Governor could ask Americans for Prosperity to help the state out and cover those costs?"

Wow. That comment alone tells me your self-description as an "independent voter" is a bit over-the-top.

If we're going to allow things like recall elections, maybe it would be good to put in a "loser pays" system. It would be far more fair to have the fleabaggers pay that 18 million (assuming Intrade is correct and they do in fact lose this) than to suggest Walker should pay it.

Tom Spaulding said...

The Hill reports that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has signed a $20 million deal with a public relations firm to produce a multimedia ad campaign promoting Obamacare this election season\

Sorry selling a bad idea costs money. Maybe Concerned Independent Voters could ask Unions for Unions to pay for the $20 million ad campaign for the awesome health care bill they are exempted from.

purplepenquin said...

I still don't understand how having our elected officials being less accountable to the public is a good thing.

A common expression during the time our country was being formed was "that where annual elections end, tyranny begins"

Thomas Jefferson stated "a government by representatives elected by the people at short periods was our object"

However, if one beleives that elections are too costly to be held too often, then are they suggesting that we extend the terms of our elected officials?

Instead of 4 years, why not 10? 15? Why not elect Governors to office for the rest of their life? After all, that would save a lot of money on elections...no?

Original Mike said...

"Instead of 4 years, why not 10? 15? Why not elect Governors to office for the rest of their life? After all, that would save a lot of money on elections...no?"

That's just brillant. In fact, instead of every year, how about every month? every day? every hour?

Ann Althouse said...

"Fair enough, I guess. It just seems like it would be more effective to halt alleged abuse of the law by working to change the law rather than by scolding people."

Actually, changing the procedure just as your opponents are about to use it would be subject to more criticism than waiting until after. We're talking about amending the state constitution. It's a pretty big deal and doing it for immediate partisan advantage would seem wrong.

MadisonMan said...

but you don't think people have a right to know who you are.

Certainly they have a right to know who I am. That's not what I'm arguing.

Why should the default be, on signing a recall petition, that everyone will know that you've signed it? I don't see the big onus that exists by requiring someone to go somewhere to look it up.

Scott M said...

However, if one beleives that elections are too costly to be held too often, then are they suggesting that we extend the terms of our elected officials?

Are you calling for term limits for elected officials, PP? Annual elections would wreck havoc on state's business unless you likewise suggest that all incumbents running for re-election are held to very strict guidelines as to how many days/hours/etc they can spend politicking.

Annuals are not rational, but I'm with you on the term limit thing.

Jay said...

ad of 4 years, why not 10? 15? Why not elect Governors to office for the rest of their life? After all, that would save a lot of money on elections...no?


Love the fact you think this is a response.

Your intellect isn't your strong suit.

Original Mike said...

"I don't see the big onus that exists by requiring someone to go somewhere to look it up."

Of course you do. That's the crux of your argument; make it onorous so people are disinclined to do it.

MadisonMan said...

If it's important to someone, they will do it.

purplepenquin said...

Are you calling for term limits for elected officials, PP?

I have mixed feelings about term limits. But I don't have mixed feelings about people who are wanting our elected officials to be less accountable to the people. Seems like those folks are wanting a return to the days of Kings and Nobles where the rulers (at least for the term of their office) are totally unaccountable to the people. As long as no actual laws are broken (or, at least if your own political party controls the legislative branch) then anything-at-all can take place without any fear of consequences from the citizens.


Seriously, if our hostess had her way then the day after winning an election the Governor could say that he was actually the Grand Wizard of the KKK* and he would be working to enact that organization's philosophy into State Law, and there would be nothing at all** that the public could do about it until four years later.

Tenure for professors might be a good idea, but tenure..even for a limited time...for elected officals isn't. They need to be held accountable at all times, rather than just every four years.




*If you personally support the KKK, then please substitute "Black Panther" for the organization.

**nothing legally, that is. Under Ann's plan there would only be one way for the citizens to remove an elected official prior to the end of a term.

Scott M said...

I have mixed feelings about term limits.

Then why did you mention them in support of your point?

Seriously, if our hostess had her way then the day after winning an election the Governor could say that he was actually the Grand Wizard of the KKK* and he would be working to enact that organization's philosophy into State Law

Are you suggesting that WI doesn't have the means to impeach a sitting governor? Do you know enough about WI's state Constitution to speak intelligently on this subject?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Why should the default be, on signing a recall petition, that everyone will know that you've signed it? I don't see the big onus that exists by requiring someone to go somewhere to look it up.

Ah, maybe it's because you're attempting to overturn the results of a valid election while simultaneously blowing millions of taxpayer $ in the process.

In situation like this, the onus should be on those trying to overturn the previous election results. If you're afraid to publicly voice your opinion on a recall petition, don't sign it.

purplepenquin said...

Then why did you mention them in support of your point?

I didn't mention 'em, you did.

Are you suggesting that WI doesn't have the means to impeach a sitting governor?

Are you suggesting that the citizens are the ones who initiate and conduct the impeachment process? My understanding of the State Constitution leads me to beleive that other elected officials are the ones who do such a thing.

I also am of the understanding that "impeachment" is for illegal acts, and it ain't illegal to belong to the KKK/Black Panthers.

Are you saying I am totally wrong about that all of that?

I admit that I could be wrong about how the impeachment process works in our state. If so, can you please explain how citizens in WI can directly impeach a sitting Gov who hasn't broken any laws? Thanks.

Original Mike said...

How much hyperbole do you think one thread can support, penquin?

Pragmatist said...

Elections have consequences. If you do not like who is elected, with Walker or Obama, then win next time. Do not whine and act surprised when they do what they said they were going to do when they got elected the first time. And do not waste money trying to redo something you did not want to happen in the first place. That is what a general election is for.

damikesc said...

Has a feeling Romney is going to win this fall by a considerable margin. I just dont see voters pulling the lever for 4 more years of no jobs and no growth.

I'm thinking so also. You wouldn't see such ridiculous partisan breakdowns of polls if it was close.

This is why I think signatures should not be placed out on the internet for all to see.

They absolutely should be put on line. The intimidation occurs at the time the petition is asked to be signed.

I wasn't intimidated. And I'm not a teacher or a union member. I'm a white middle-class independent voter who thinks Walker is doing terrible job and the state would be better off without him as Governor for a number of reasons.

Do you often confuse "independent" with "moronic"?

Instead of 4 years, why not 10? 15? Why not elect Governors to office for the rest of their life? After all, that would save a lot of money on elections...no?

Why wait 4 years. DAILY elections, babee!

I don't see the big onus that exists by requiring someone to go somewhere to look it up.

Care to guess how many of the signers oppose, vigorously, photo ID requirements for voting?

Chip Ahoy said...

The thread already cracked and fissured. Notice the middle redistributed further and further to the edges.

Patrick said...

Purple,

Endless elections don't hold politicians accountable. We have limited executive authority in order to prevent a wacko form abusing the office. So, if a KKK guy snuck in, he can't start enacting their ideas, he'd need to get the legislature to go along. Checks/balances and all of that. You may see this recall differently, but I see it as a loud mob trying to get its way after losing a legitimate election. In this case, yes, they are following the law, but the law should be changed.

rpmcvp said...

whaaa, i get mad when people exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights! what a baby you all alre.

Scott M said...

whaaa, i get mad when people exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights! what a baby you all alre.

Legitimate debates about whether or not the constitution should include a recall mechanism = being a baby.

walter said...

"the Governor could say that he was actually the Grand Wizard of the KKK*

Yep..Walker reigned in bennies and his detractors called him Hitler and demanded a redo...another chance to vote in their own management.

t-man said...

what a baby you all alre [sic]

That's right, we are all a baby, one giant baby!

damikesc said...

Come on Progressives, why not daily elections? Think of how accountable people will be.