Thread: Wisconsin - Will anyone on the right admit that money was a factor?

Originally Posted by goober

Is that right wing doctrine, "If ads don't mislead they are useless"?


So you're saying the whole advertising thing is bogus, that Madison Avenue is a sham, that the billions spent on advertising are wasted with no effect?

In a race where both candidates are already well known to the public, they won't do much good. They just had a Walker-Barrett race, and it went the same as the last Walker-Barrett race. YOu don't need ads to explain why that happened. Have another election with the same guys in six months, you'll get the same result.

Originally Posted by Wagner

You misunderstand. I meant if unions wanted to they could have raised double what Walker spent, not Barrett.

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012

That's a pretty solid list of who donates what and to whom. Unions pretty much dominate the top part and donate exclusively to Democrats.

Thank you. This is interesting stuff that I had not seen before. I will give it some further thought.

Corporations have deeper pockets but that money is used to fund their businesses whereas unions pretty much collect dues to give to Democrats.

I cannot speak for all unions, of course, but the one I am in — while it does have a PAC — spends a lot of our dues on bread-and-butter stuff for its membership, like health insurance, pensions, etc.

The only reason unions even exist at this point, especially in the private sector, is because Democrats trade protection for buckets full of money. It's the single most blatant example of bribery in the history of the politics.

Yes, the only reason Republicans have failed to completely destroy unions (so far) is because of Democrats. That said, political donations are political donations. Either they all constitute bribery, or none of them do.

Corporations don't even donate significantly more to Republicans than Democrats. Aside from Koch Industries and a handful of oil companies, corporations pretty much given evenly to both parties.

You are correct, but all this means is that while only one party is beholden to unions, both parties are beholden to corporations. And as union power continues its steady decline into oblivion, the result will be that Democrats will become even more reliant on corporate money than they are now, meaning the government will increasingly exist to serve corporate interests.

Originally Posted by adaher

In a race where both candidates are already well known to the public, they won't do much good. They just had a Walker-Barrett race, and it went the same as the last Walker-Barrett race. YOu don't need ads to explain why that happened. Have another election with the same guys in six months, you'll get the same result.

Not if you run an ad campaign that's pro-Barrett and anti-Walker, you'll get a different result.

That's the theory of advertising. Every beer drinker in America knows Budweiser, but Budweiser still advertises, because the opinions of people are in constant flux.
Advertising can create positive associations and negative associations, just showing a candidate smiling with an American flag waving and saying something completely meaningless about supporting American Values (whatever that means) and a Stronger America (whatever that means) and a strong economy (whatever that means), will budge a few voters.

The margin in the recall election was 270,000 votes, that means a 135,000 vote swing changes the election.

Pro Walker spending 55 million, Pro Barrett 8 million.

That's 47 million more to change 135,000 votes or motivate 270000 people to show who wouldn't have.

I don't think anyone in advertising would say the spending had no effect, or that the result was not the result of the spending.

If Barrett had spent 8 million and Walker nothing, Barrett would have won, if both men had spent the same amount, probably Barrett wins.

Barrett spent $40/vote on advertising, why would someone spend that much if it wasn't going to have an effect?
$200/vote if you just look at the margin of victory.

To say that had no effect is being naive, at best.

Originally Posted by Lost Time

I think you need help when recalling Bush and what conservatives were saying at the time. For example, most conservative bloggers were dead set against increases in spending such as the drug reform and bank bailouts as disasters waiting to happen. Perhaps you have forgotten how upset they were when Bush reached out to Ted Kennedy and allowed him to write the "No Child Left Behind" bill?!

The bank bailouts were after everything went to hell and Bush was widely unpopular. But while nobody would say that there weren't a handful of policies that conservatives objected to, the fact remains that, despite overseeing massive increases in the deficit and an expansion in the size of government, Bush remained enormously popular with the conservative movement throughout most of his term. Certainly, he paid absolutely no political price for his fiscal irresponsibility.

Originally Posted by Wagner

I think his point is silly but you're comparing Bush to Romney which says it all. Romney is not a conservative.

The definition of "conservative" has shifted markedly rightward over the past few decades. I am not sure, for instance, that Reagan would qualify as a conservative by today's standards. George H.W. Bush definitely wouldn't. But my point was that, at the time, conservatives considered W. one of their own. It was only when everything turned to crap towards the end of his administration that conservatives, for reasons I would say were a bit self-serving, disavowed him.

I'm not much of an ideologue. I typically lean conservative but couldn't be bothered with either party and appreciate a good idea or candidate regardless of where it comes from. I liked Bush far more than I like Gore, Kerry, Obama, or Romney but not as much as I liked Clinton.

That's fair. As for myself, I always say that I was a centrist in the '90s, which makes me a liberal (if not socialist) now.

Originally Posted by goober

To say that had no effect is being naive, at best.

I'm not trying to say it had no effect, just that other factors explain the outcome better than money. Walker led before the advertising blitz, and his approval ratings were up and his policies had become fairly popular. Plus many anti-Walker voters were opposed to the recall on principle. He probably should have won by more than he did given that Barrett had almost no fundamentals going in his favor. He was outspent, he was up against a governor with approval rating above 50%, voters opposed the recall on principle, and he had just lost to Walker only a 18 months before. It really should have been a blowout.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

The definition of "conservative" has shifted markedly rightward over the past few decades. I am not sure, for instance, that Reagan would qualify as a conservative by today's standards. George H.W. Bush definitely wouldn't. But my point was that, at the time, conservatives considered W. one of their own. It was only when everything turned to crap towards the end of his administration that conservatives, for reasons I would say were a bit self-serving, disavowed him.

The country is always moving to the right on economic issues and to the left on social issues. It only seems like conservatives are ultra right wing if you focus on economic issues and role of government. But on issues like gay rights, both parties are far to the left of where they once were.

When Democrats complain about the health care law's lack of support among Republicans, I just like to cite the fact that if Republicans tried to re-pass DOMA, Democrats would almost universally balk,even though DOMA passed with near unanimous Democratic support the first time.

Originally Posted by adaher

I'm not trying to say it had no effect, just that other factors explain the outcome better than money. Walker led before the advertising blitz, and his approval ratings were up and his policies had become fairly popular. Plus many anti-Walker voters were opposed to the recall on principle. He probably should have won by more than he did given that Barrett had almost no fundamentals going in his favor. He was outspent, he was up against a governor with approval rating above 50%, voters opposed the recall on principle, and he had just lost to Walker only a 18 months before. It really should have been a blowout.

9% is a blowout. That's as much of a blowout as you'll get these days.

True enough. Barrett never had a chance even if he'd outspent Walker. I was actually kind of appalled that conservative put so much money into the recall, it was a waste even if Walker did have a chance to lose. It's 2012, we've got bigger fish to fry.

Originally Posted by adaher

In a race where both candidates are already well known to the public, they won't do much good. They just had a Walker-Barrett race, and it went the same as the last Walker-Barrett race. YOu don't need ads to explain why that happened. Have another election with the same guys in six months, you'll get the same result.

100% agreed--and same result would happen a 3rd time without spending a dime. Many seem to forget that over the last 2 years the unions spent a ton of money on a recall of a state supreme court judge and lost--and a recall on 8 state senate republican members in an effort to regain the senate and lost. There wasn't one person in the state of Wisconsin that wasn't fully aware of the things that were going on in their state. The unions got frustrated over these two loss's and were smart enough not to back Barrett with big money--in his attempt to defeat Walker. To try and recall Walker after these two previous loss's shows a lot of stupidity--wasted effort--and at a cost to the taxpayers--who are sick and tired of all these democrat left wing union tactics.

As stated before 89% of the citizens of Wisconsin had already made up their minds regarding the Walker/Barrett recall long before--and money came in. Money had nothing to do with it.

They deserved to get their butts kicked, on the futile 3rd attempt.

That doesn't mean they won't spend money again if it goes to a third election in 2014 with the same matchup. If there's an election, people will donate money, and politicians will spend it. What else are they going to do with it? Doesn't mean it's decisive.

Money is only decisive if you can use it to define your opponent early, as Harry Reid did to Sharon Angle in 2010. But even there, I don't think Angle would have won even if she had been able to match Reid's money. It's not like she didn't get a chance to sell herself to the voters.

Originally Posted by adaher

The country is always moving to the right on economic issues and to the left on social issues. It only seems like conservatives are ultra right wing if you focus on economic issues and role of government. But on issues like gay rights, both parties are far to the left of where they once were.

I don't think it's as simple as that. On gay rights, yes; but on abortion, civil liberties, immigration... the shift has been in the other direction.

When Democrats complain about the health care law's lack of support among Republicans, I just like to cite the fact that if Republicans tried to re-pass DOMA, Democrats would almost universally balk,even though DOMA passed with near unanimous Democratic support the first time.

I get what you're saying, but keep in mind that prominent Republicans were expressing their support for an individual mandate right up until the time Obama actually proposed it.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

I don't think it's as simple as that. On gay rights, yes; but on abortion, civil liberties, immigration... the shift has been in the other direction.



I get what you're saying, but keep in mind that prominent Republicans were expressing their support for an individual mandate right up until the time Obama actually proposed it.

What program does or has the Federal Government run--that hasn't ended up in severe red ink? Can you think of one single thing that the Federal Government has managed effectively and more importantly efficiently? Social security/Medicare/Medicade is bankrupt--and now you want to give them your health care too.