Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
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.Corporations have deeper pockets but that money is used to fund their businesses whereas unions pretty much collect dues to give to Democrats.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
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.
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.
Last edited by Oreo; 06-07-2012 at 08:24 AM.
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.
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.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.
Political opportunism and constitutional ignorance. Many conservative think tanks had already pointed out that the mandate was likely unconstitutional, but of course the politicians don't care until it benefits them to care.