... Mordecai Lee, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, [says] the primary elections are likely to have very low voter participation, and low-turnout elections tend to attract more conservative voters than high-turnout races....It seems to me that the whole idea of recalling a senator is a protest, and anyone trying to unseat him might as well be called a protest candidate. What makes the Democrat challenger "real" and the Republican challenger "fake"?
Charles Franklin, a political scientist at UW-Madison, considers the likelihood of a protest-candidate win as "remote but not impossible."
"What makes it remote," he says, "is that it requires a tremendous amount of coordinated effort" to educate voters on which candidate to favor, and then get them to the polls.
If, as Franklin says, it's hard to educate voters, why would that problem favor one primary candidate over the other? We're talking about districts that went Republican in 2008, which was a strong year for the Democrats. Why shouldn't the people who want a Republican senator head over to the open primary and vote for the Republican? I think a lot of people are irritated that recall elections are happening at all, that Democrats have failed to accept the results of the last regular election. These people have every reason to come out to the primary and protest against the whole misguided recall movement.
Posts
32 comments:
Don't worry, it's not like ren et. al. can recall you.
BTW, is it only in recall elections where it's good for Rs to choose the D candidates?
Or, should Rs try to choose D candidates for all primaries?
The most efficient process would involve Rs taking over all the leadership of the D party.
This would be the most effective way to "protest" the Ds: protest their very existence.
Destroy them, Prosser style. Bitches.
pbj - you've gone completely unhinged bordering garage mahal territory.
Wisconsin has staggered past weird and into spooky.
_
Mur-Cow-Ski did it.
Remember when she had to teach Alaskans to go to the polls. And write in her name?
Political scientists laughed.
But she won.
Maybe, today, what's critical, is how information is passed along on the Internet?
I'm still so impressed with that call Clarke made (District #42), when "Susan" ... the woman who answered the phone ... responded to his question "Did you hear about the recall?" ... with "SUCH A CRIME."
What if the recall was a bad idea?
Won't we learn this when the first of the recall elections swings around? July 12th?
Maybe, we need to ask if Abhramson, and Bradley, aren't going to be faced with recall elections of their own?
Why assume people don't vote?
That's like assuming people don't buy birthday cakes.
Only politicians, who have already tried racing to Illlinois ... Only to see Walker sign the Budget Bill, today ...
Begin to realize they've crapped on their own parade?
And, they stop inviting in people to play with their loaded dice?
"Destroy them, Prosser style. Bitches."
HAHAHA.
That poor old man has been transformed into Satan himself in the heads of many crazy people.
But if some kook pulls a Giffords on him, there will be no calls for civility from any of these idiots.
Poor guy was attacked and defended himself. He was almost cheated out of his election. You guys just can't accept democracy.
It's only OK when the sons of Saul do it.
Otherwise, PB&J goes all moral about it.
This is what democracy looks like, I guess.
Here in Wisconsin, 6 Republican senators are facing recall elections, and there must be a challenger in that election.???
What does that mean in English?
So, if the Democrats lose this time around, will they shut the fuck up and accept the results?
Shouting Thomas,
No.
You see, in any election there are only two possible outcomes:
1) The Democrat wins, whereupon it's over and done with, forever;
2) The Satanic forces of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy wrench the very fabric of spacetime to create the illusion that the Democrat didn't win.
In case (2) it is, of course, the absolute duty of every right (that is, Left) thinking Democrat to leave no tern unstoned until the injustice is corrected, and they will never rest until Justice is restored.
I'm in the 32nd.
I'll be voting in the primary against the Democrat and for the "fake" candidate, i.e. the Republican.
You hit the nail on the head. This is my protest vote. Do I think it will work? No. When I protest, I remain a reality based citizen. No silly chants, no thuggish behavior or vandalism to public property. This is more than I can say about many of the liberal protesters of the past six months.
NPR's This American Life did a segment on Wisconsin politics. The story was told in the typically understated style punctuated by ironic music, although I did learn that Wisconsin was a moderate state "leaning a little to the left" until Scott Walker turned the state "into a political bloodbath."
Getting to the point, the NPR reporter described a tactic in the recall process as follows:
"The GOP decided to run fake Democrats in the recall elections to confuse Democratic voters, but more importantly, to trigger Democratic primaries which will put off the moment when Republicans face Democrats, presumably to give them more time to campaign and boost their poll numbers."
Assuming this is a valid description of events, why isn't it correct to call GOP-inserted candidates running in a Democrat primary "fake Democrats" or "fake candidates." What would a better term be? To me, it just seems. . . accurate.
Writ Small, they're not Democratic primaries, they're open primaries. These candidates are not claiming to be Democrats, are they? So what makes them fake?
BTW, is it only in recall elections where it's good for Rs to choose the D candidates?
Or, should Rs try to choose D candidates for all primaries?
The republican won't have a primary, because in the recall election he will already be on the ballot. That is, Republicans won't have to use their primary votes to pick their general (recall) election candidate, so they can either sit out the open primary or cast a chaos / cynical / use the rules to fullest advantage.
Milhouse -
Fair enough. But if the GOP-supported candidate triggers a primary election to select the Democratic challenger to run against the Republican incubment in the recall election, is it not fair to call him or her a "fake Democrat?"
Open primary or not, if you're running on the Democrat side and your loyalties are with the GOP, you are indeed a "fake Democrat" are you not? I'm not passing judgment on the tactic, I'm trying to see what is unfair about the label.
If it is unfair, what would a fair description be? A loyal-to-the-GOP Democrat candidate would also be accurate, but that mouthful doesn't seem materially different.
I think a lot of people are irritated that recall elections are happening at all, that Democrats have failed to accept the results of the last regular election. I think a lot of people outside of Wisconsin are irritated with the silly idea of democracy in action. Given the number of signatures necessary to force a recall and with 8 recall elections going on, there are alot of people inside Wisconsin that are irritated with those who were elected.
As has been stated, these are not fake democrats. They are simply primary candidates. Nothing requires that the Democrats get a free pass. My fervant hope is that the GOP candidate wins, and then says "Vote for my opponent!"
Reminder, there is no second bite at the apple. If any imcumbant surves recall, that's it.
Ref Hagar:
I interpret it thusly; As with the California recall of Davis, the voters don't vote on the bare question of throwing out the current office-holder and voting later on the replacement. They vote on either keeping the current office-holder or on their replacement. So at least one challenger for the office is required, if multiple challengers file, an open primary is held to select who gets to be the challenger in the recall election.
Fair enough. But if the GOP-supported candidate triggers a primary election to select the Democratic challenger to run against the Republican incubment in the recall election, is it not fair to call him or her a "fake Democrat?"
No - because your premise is false. You misunderstand the nature of the recall election, and thus the primary election being held prior to it.
General elections are partisan affairs. Each party puts up a candidate for it that represents their interests and the voters choose. The primary elections are thus partisan affairs in which voters select the member of their party that best represents their interests.
A recall election is different. A certain number of people petitioned that their district's representative is so inadequate that he or she should be replaced mid-term. It's non-partisan. You can vote for recalling a Democrat because you don't think they're liberal enough just as well as because you think they're too liberal. You could have a group of Tea Party Movement members trying to get rid of a RINO.
Thus, you cannot assume that the opposition candidate is automatically to be of the other party. As a matter of law this election was not organized to replace a member of one party with a member of another, it was to overthrow an incumbent for whatever reason the electorate desires.
No one party can be presumed to own the challenger spot. You cannot assume that the primary in a recall election is to pick an opponent from Party X if the incumbent is a member of Party Y. I'm sure the members of Party Z would vociferously protest that concept.
Tristam:
The republican won't have a primary, because in the recall election he will already be on the ballot.
Again you misunderstand. This primary is not for a given party. If this primary is for the Democrats, how will the Green Party and the Socialists and the Constution party choose their candidates? No one party is having a primary. No one party has the right to oppose the incumbent. Everyone has a right to oppose the incumbent. The Tea Party movement has just as much right to choose someone more conservative than the incumbent to oppose him (or her) as the Democrats have a right to choose someone less conservative.
A recall election, unlike a general election, is not a contest between parties, where multiple candidates can vie for a seat. It's a one-on-one affair, so the process to choose the opposition candidate is - and MUST be - open.
I was going to say that it's funny that the open primary rules that Dems have always agitated for are being used against them, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
It's just being assumed that Democrats are aggrieved and are therefore entitled. Meh.
Why are none of the usual Lefties not comparing this to the Dem policy of running fake Tea Party candidates in elections? I would imagine they would have been outraged by this, right? C'mon, Garbage, mold sandwich, et al. Link us to your comments of outrage over that.
Assuming this is a valid description of events, why isn't it correct to call GOP-inserted candidates running in a Democrat primary "fake Democrats" or "fake candidates.
What specifically is "fake" about them? (I'm assuming they are real people and not "Mickey Mouse")
What would a better term be?
Candidates?
running in a Democrat primary
But it's not a Democrat primary.
I strongly recommend David Brin's article "American Democracy: More Fragile Than We Think". It's an excellent article in general, and one part is particularly relevant for this issue: he calls for everyone who lives in a gerrymandered "safe" district to officially register for the majority party in that district, and then "Make the primary election the locus of real argument, real campaigning over issues, real voter participation. Real politics."
Most of you are assuming there is a significant difference between Rs and Ds. There is not.
Currently we have 3 parties in America. The Rs, The Ds, and the TEAs.
It is the TEAs that are giving the fits to the rest.
And if you don't believe me look up Orrin Hatch in the news.
LarryD said, "I interpret it thusly; As with the California recall of Davis, the voters don't vote on the bare question of throwing out the current office-holder and voting later on the replacement."
I disagree. Whether or not "Prince of Darkness" Davis* should be recalled was the first question on the recall election ballot. Following that was a separate choice for the candidate the voter wished to be governor should the incumbent be recalled.
That's California's system for recall elections; they may be conducted differently in other states.
* I also remember the rolling electricity blackouts and brownouts of 1999 and 2000 that were worsened by Gray Davis' spinelessness. He had to go.
I'm actually surprised you have a following. Yor writing is unoriginal and disjointed. I am a voracious reader and enjoy perusing news stories and opinions from all spectrums- I've stumbled on your blogs a few times and have to say, your writing is just boring.
Post a Comment