Round Two in Wisc

After their spectacular failure in the Wisconsin judicial race, the Democrats managed to pick up two seats in last night’s recall election. One of these was a heavily democratic district, the other involved a senator embroiled in scandal. So really, they didn’t gain much. And they’ll still have to defend two flee-bagging seats next week.

This can’t be anything but a colossal disappointment to Democrats. A few months ago, they were certain that anti-Republican hatred and a surge of union money would tip the courts, oust six Republican senators and topple Satan Himself, Scott Walker. It was the re-igniting of the revolution. Now … they’ll gain a senate seat or two, for all their efforts, at a peak of GOP unpopularity. It turns out that the public really isn’t very pro-union. And it also turns out that while the public hates the Republicans, that doesn’t mean they like the Democrats.

I expect them to try to recall Walker next. I hope they do. I will be wonderful to see them pointlessly burn through even more of their political warchest.

Comments are closed.

  1. CzarChasm

    Well, here’s what Al Sharpton thinks about the recall vote, though I believe this was before the results were in:
    Sharpton Puts His Best Foot Forward….Right Into His Mouth.

    Ha ha. Funny stuff Al. Comedy Gold.

    There was a big signal of anti-liberalism bubbling beneath the surface concurrent with the budget debates and protests that led to this recall vote yesterday. Wisconsin has been one of the most anti-gun/anti-2nd Amendment states for decades. Dems managed to keep WI “free” from the dangers of “allowing” citizens the “right” to carry concealed during that time. On July 8, 2011 all that changed when Scott Walker signed a new concealed carry law into effect that had (obviously) been passed by the same state legislature that passed the budget reforms. The Wisconsin DOJ just released a FAQ on the law, which goes into effect on Nov. 1, 2011, and can be viewed here in its entirety.

    My apologies if this seems like a thread drift. I don’t think it is. I think some predictions can be logically drawn from one, the State House and two houses of the legislature going Republican to begin with, and two, actual meaningful reforms to the budget and a devastating defeat of liberalism occurring simultaneously in the form of pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment legislation that expands on constitutional rights and protections for individuals in WI. I say it’s logical to predict that both houses and the State House will remain in Republican control. All the Dems’ ranting right now about fraud etc. is total bunk. They lost this round, and they’ll lose the next two. The People have spoken, and they would have to come out to vote in droves against the advances towards freedom they have achieved over the last couple of years. They would have to vote against their own economic interests to give the unions a free pass back to their members not having to pay an extra 2% for their retirement and health care costs, which is still a much better deal than those same voters enjoy in the private sector. Ain’t gonna happen.

    After 11/1/11, SEIU and its subsidiaries won’t be the only groups in the state capable of intimidation and violence. A legally armed populace will at least be a step towards making them think twice before engaging in their stock and trade, violent intimidation. An armed society is a polite society, and Wisconsin will join 49 other states with a modicum of state-sanctioned, constitutionally-mandated politeness on November 1, 2011.


    Thumb up 0

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Personally, I’m getting to the point that I think that outside money should be banned from use in state elections. Having all the unions from all over the country dump tens of millions of dollars into this election is just criminal in my point of view, for a large number of reasons.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    You got it all wrong Hal: they where cheated out of more wins! In fact, Walker and the Koch brothers rigged voting machines to prevent the poor and innocent people voting for the only party that wanted to represent their needs. The Unions, the big money machine in DC, and even George Soros sat this one out, and that’s why they lost.

    /idiot off.

    Thumb up 0

  4. sahrab


    And that goes for both sides. I was saying this with the Scott Brown run and election. I understand wanting to see a candidate for your party win, but its seems this side of shady when out of state money is used to elect a congressmen/senator.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT

    That’s from any site where these “progressives” run the show SO. When they win the elections where fair, despite the rampant cheating Holder & crew ignore, but when they pour more union/DC machine/corporate giant /special interest money in than god, or not, and still lose, then the election was stolen. Because nobody would ever vote for anything BUT democrats.

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT

    I want to bring up another point about this election. Do any of you remember all that talk before that election about how it was going to be a mandate and a precursor to the 2012 elections in the usual LSM outlets? All the predictions about how people where turning on the right for hating on the progressives? Now that it didn’t go their way, despite all their efforts, the story is all but dead. But this WAS a barometer for the 2012 election, and it is going to look ugly for Team Alinsky and their union money machines.

    I hope they pour a lot of money from these unions into these races only to see them go up in flames. Hopefully the union membership will catch on that their dues are being burned up by their masters attempt to elect their buddies.

    Thumb up 0

  7. hist_ed

    Sorry First Amendment trumps this. If the First Amendment doesn’t protect political expression then why the fuck do we have it (so that strippers can’t be forced to wear pasties, right? While this is a noble cause, the politics is what matters). As a citizen I have the right to influence the politics of the country and of every state. If I want to give Scott Brown’s campaign a shit lod of bucks, that’s my business (I do think that we should have near instant disclosure requirements-like you can’t spend the money until you have publically stated who gave it to you).

    Thumb up 0

  8. sahrab

    I get the First Amendment argument, but I still think its this side of shady.

    Using Scott Brown as an exmple, ultimately he was running to (supposedly) represent the people of Mass. Unless you live in Mass you are influencing an election that you have no skin in.

    Other than the President, we do not have national representitives by allowing foreign (out of state) money, in a state representitive election, you are helping to elect someone that holds values that the people he represents may not reflect.

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT

    Using Scott Brown as an exmple, ultimately he was running to (supposedly) represent the people of Mass. Unless you live in Mass you are influencing an election that you have no skin in.

    The problem I hae with this SarahB is that until the Tea Party got involved recently, senators and congressmen did not really represent the will of people of their distirct or state, but instead they reperesent their party. Remember the first 2 years of the “progressive revolution”? Remember how they completely ignored the will of the people they where supposed to be representing and thus block voted to straddle us with things like Obamacare? So Scott Brown’s election had a far greater impact and big consequences for the nation, than it just on the people of Mass.

    Don’t get me wrong. I would love for things to go back to being about these people representing their constituents, but I do not believe the way to do that is by limiting participation – cash from donations from the productive – but by removing much of the power big government currently wields – i.e. all that cash, yet again – from it.

    Thumb up 1

  10. sahrab

    Hell you’re preaching to the choir. My state representitive proudly proclaimed he was voting against his constituents wishes, on Obamacare

    Thumb up 0

  11. hist_ed

    Problem One: Any cure would be worse than the disease-we already have a healthy chunk of the population that disregards the First Amendement when it comes to political speech (Fairness Doctrine anyone?) they don’t like.

    Problem Two: It won’t work. There will always be big money in politics. No effort at speech regulation has changed that. Barring totalitarian speech bans, no effort ever will. Every single attempt at campaign finance reform has left big money routes to politics and generally made it relatively easier for incumbents. If you ban or limit out of state money, the out of state money will find a way in.

    And the Wisconsin election had national significance and impact. I don’t have a problem with out of state money being thrown at it.

    Again, we would remove all limits for political spending and donations but shouold have an instant disclosure requirement. You can spend the money as soon as you tell us who gave it to you.

    Thumb up 0