Scott Walker recall goes live

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Terrible poll.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's pretty impressive that a full 94% of people who disapprove of Walker want him recalled, and yet his disapproval is only a few points underwater.  That is one polarized electorate.

Thank you Scott Walker!

Based off of PPP, the far superior polling outfit, it looks like his negatives are going back up and Independents view him negatively at 43-55. Its going to be really close when it is all said and done. 

Lol, as if! Just a couple days ago PPP was blabbering about the Santorum surge in Michigan and polled Romney at a mere +17 in Arizona. Whoops.

Yes, their primary polling being like three or four points off during a season specifically notable for bizarre shifts in momentum at the drop of a hat is clearly indicative of fundamental unreliability, as opposed to Rasmussen, which has never exhibited consistent bias towards Republican candidates and causes, right? Right?

We can cherry-pick dropped balls all we like but the fact remains that PPP's methodology and business ethics as a polling firm, taken as a whole, beat Rasmussen's by a country mile.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's pretty impressive that a full 94% of people who disapprove of Walker want him recalled, and yet his disapproval is only a few points underwater.  That is one polarized electorate.

Thank you Scott Walker!

Based off of PPP, the far superior polling outfit, it looks like his negatives are going back up and Independents view him negatively at 43-55. Its going to be really close when it is all said and done. 

Lol, as if! Just a couple days ago PPP was blabbering about the Santorum surge in Michigan and polled Romney at a mere +17 in Arizona. Whoops.

Yes, their primary polling being like three or four points off during a season specifically notable for bizarre shifts in momentum at the drop of a hat is clearly indicative of fundamental unreliability, as opposed to Rasmussen, which has never exhibited consistent bias towards Republican candidates and causes, right? Right?

We can cherry-pick dropped balls all we like but the fact remains that PPP's methodology and business ethics as a polling firm, taken as a whole, beat Rasmussen's by a country mile.

The most recent polling shows that Rasmussen has put up solid results.

Other pollsters did better than PPP in the Michigan/Arizona primaries. I wonder why some people have a problem with that.

The most recent polling in what races? I'm entirely willing to accept that Rasmussen might have significantly better methodology for Republican primaries, since it's a right-leaning company and PPP is a left-leaning one even though it has a very slight Republican bias in general election races.

I don't have a problem with it. I just don't see what it has to do with polling approval ratings in anticipation of a recall election in Wisconsin.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But do you understand that there are qualitative difference in general versus primary election polling and Rasmussen hasn't had immensely good general election polling for several years?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But do you understand that there are qualitative difference in general versus primary election polling and Rasmussen hasn't had immensely good general election polling for several years?

Certainly. And soon enough we will have results. Of course in Wisconsin, numerous pollsters have shown Thompson dominating Baldwin. PPP is what you call an outlier!!!!!

I honestly don't think PPP or Rasmussen are especially good touchstones at the moment. I can't think of a single major polling firm that is right now, so I've become a big fan of weighted averages lately. I also think the Thompson/Baldwin race might be tricky to poll as a function of how bland Thompson is, but obviously that could as easily be a problem with PPP as with the other pollsters.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm pulling for Governor Walker, he's been a pretty decent governor so far. (Not as good as Kasich or Snyder, but still pretty good.)

What? Scott Walker, a decent governor? What has he done right, at all? I can understand liking his going head to head with the unions (since you seem to be a Republican), but other than that, what good has he done?

He's balanced Wisconsin's budget.

And at what cost?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm pulling for Governor Walker, he's been a pretty decent governor so far. (Not as good as Kasich or Snyder, but still pretty good.)

What? Scott Walker, a decent governor? What has he done right, at all? I can understand liking his going head to head with the unions (since you seem to be a Republican), but other than that, what good has he done?

He's balanced Wisconsin's budget.

And at what cost?

Not much at all, unless you're a butthurt union.

Yes, like a lot of working people in Wisconsin.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm pulling for Governor Walker, he's been a pretty decent governor so far. (Not as good as Kasich or Snyder, but still pretty good.)

What? Scott Walker, a decent governor? What has he done right, at all? I can understand liking his going head to head with the unions (since you seem to be a Republican), but other than that, what good has he done?

He's balanced Wisconsin's budget.

And at what cost?

Not much at all, unless you're a butthurt union.

You do realize that the unions had already agreed to Walker's budget cuts, and only went up in arms when he restricted collective bargaining, right? Because that's what happened. It isn't the budget that's the issue.

Certainly then, the cost was not much at all, was it?

The cost came in the life and pride of the working people of Wisconsin, which is bound up in collective bargaining. Unless you're playing dumb or sincerely believe that 'cost' is a solely budgetary term.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The cost came in the life and pride of the working people of Wisconsin, which is bound up in collective bargaining. Unless you're playing dumb or sincerely believe that 'cost' is a solely budgetary term.

Who are these people who lost their life and pride that was formerly 'bound up' in collective bargaining for certain public sector unions?

Particularly life!

Sorry. I meant 'way of' life, not that the people were literally killed. I thought this would be obvious, but I keep forgetting you're not one for appreciating any kind of linguistic nuance.

I am referring, of course, to cops, teachers, and firefighters, who have lost their right to negotiate on any kind of even ground for work conditions or benefits; to the private sector unions who are justifiably afraid that they might be next considering the kind of vile rhetoric being spewed from certain quarters on the Right; and those people in Wisconsin who might not have a personal interest or stake but who are simply rightly proud of their state's union and labor history.

Of course, it's pretty clear that you don't understand why one would care a jot about groups that one isn't directly part of, so you will, of course, continue to levy the rhetoric of tax-based spite against groups that almost certainly do more for society than whatever it is that you do.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The cost came in the life and pride of the working people of Wisconsin, which is bound up in collective bargaining. Unless you're playing dumb or sincerely believe that 'cost' is a solely budgetary term.

Who are these people who lost their life and pride that was formerly 'bound up' in collective bargaining for certain public sector unions?

Particularly life!

Sorry. I meant 'way of' life, not that the people were literally killed. I thought this would be obvious, but I keep forgetting you're not one for appreciating any kind of linguistic nuance.

I am referring, of course, to cops, teachers, and firefighters, who have lost their right to negotiate on any kind of even ground for work conditions or benefits; to the private sector unions who are justifiably afraid that they might be next considering the kind of vile rhetoric being spewed from certain quarters on the Right; and those people in Wisconsin who might not have a personal interest or stake but who are simply rightly proud of their state's union and labor history.

Of course, it's pretty clear that you don't understand why one would care a jot about groups that one isn't directly part of, so you will, of course, continue to levy the rhetoric of tax-based spite against groups that almost certainly do more for society than whatever it is that you do.

The legislation that Scott Walker signed exempts police and firemen from many of its provisions. So you're at best 1 for 3 before you start getting into amusing hypotheticals.

Then why did those unions still mobilize against it? Could they possibly have--gasp!--cared about other working people and feared for their own rights on the basis of things happening to others?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There certainly are people who are afraid of this, possibly for good reason, but one would have to be quite wealthy or quite misinformed to be so considering there's little political will to raise taxes on any other groups than those that can live pretty much anywhere other than San Francisco or Manhattan in concupiscent comfort if they don't blow through their money like Hammer, and besides, the 'right' to be taxed at some arbitrarily low rate does not exist, whereas the right to organize does. Taxes are the weregild we pay to society, and they're refunded in the form of getting to vote for leaders (which you of course also don't support since you're one of the voter-fraud concern trolls if I recall correctly). Including, unfortunately, leaders who rule from corporate boardrooms and prioritize the interests of the useless corporate middleman-class over the useful working and academic classes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go to Wisconsin and talk to ten or twelve people and five or six of them would probably be able to explain this to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This doesn't even make sense. Serious question: Do you in fact know what a union is or does?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You have a profoundly strange definition of 'dominating', did you know that? Do you have some sort of weird psychosexual trait to which that word is relevant or something?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The word would generally be used to describe victory somewhat more complete than leading by five points in a likely voter poll of a midsummer recall election with a margin of error of about three per cent.

I do apologize for my not particularly tasteful method of insulting you here, though. I'll keep it more collegial in the future.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why does the great union buster have to criss-cross the country on his fundraising trips?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why does the great union buster have to criss-cross the country on his fundraising trips?

Has to? I don't think he has to, but rather given his rock star status many people outside Wisconsin want to show support for a champion like him. It's certainly prudent to do so for Scott Walker.

Prudent, yes, but does him not spending his time within the state he's ostensibly governing indicate more concern for Wisconsin or more concern for Scott Walker?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My little point is that the social safety net costs a lot more today than it would in the 19th even if there were a social safety net then comparable to the scope of what we have now. So to the extent the existence of the net truncates growth (debatable), that is just the way it has to be and should be. Thus referring to stats from the 19th century (to the extent that they are accurate and compare apples to apples, which is another rather more complex issue which I won't get into now), it seems rather inapposite to anything within the realm of current public debate. Don't you agree AmericanNation? 

Yes, Scott Walker should not be associated with 19th century: slavery, imperialism, or lack of safety net. 

Yes, you have to go back a couple more centuries.

You need to hit that sweet spot where there's no safety net but also no projection capacity for imperialism or slave trade.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My little point is that the social safety net costs a lot more today than it would in the 19th even if there were a social safety net then comparable to the scope of what we have now. So to the extent the existence of the net truncates growth (debatable), that is just the way it has to be and should be. Thus referring to stats from the 19th century (to the extent that they are accurate and compare apples to apples, which is another rather more complex issue which I won't get into now), it seems rather inapposite to anything within the realm of current public debate. Don't you agree AmericanNation?  

Yes, Scott Walker should not be associated with 19th century: slavery, imperialism, or lack of safety net.  

Yes, you have to go back a couple more centuries.

You need to hit that sweet spot where there's no safety net but also no projection capacity for imperialism or slave trade.

Ah so one century forward. Calvin Coolidge or Hoover?

Coolidge Presidency.  Hoover was a great man after his presidency. 

Both were terrible for the median worker. I know that's not who you are concerned about, and that's why you think Scott Walker is great.

Hoover was, legitimately, a great man both before and after his presidency. Just not during.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

3) Why does the mention of Coolidge cause Dems to bring up Hoover within 5 seconds? 

Generally speaking, a major stock market crash within eight months of one leaving office isn't something to be proud of, even if the bubble leading up to that crash meant that people got to live the high life for the preceding seven or eight years.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well this was a hot mess.

It's still an absolute mystery to me as to how anybody can even remotely stand this guy, just on a visceral personal level.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well this was a hot mess.

It's still an absolute mystery to me as to how anybody can even remotely stand this guy, just on a visceral personal level.

He has a nasal twang when he says the word "time" -- it sounds something like 'tywimine.'  Outside of that I have no idea what you are talking about.  The guy is perhaps the most honest straightforward man in American politics.  truly a man of integrity.  "boyscout"    

He's not a 'man of integrity', he's just really masterfully slippery for somebody who's also such a boor. It's quite remarkable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What matters is we took the Senate...

So you spent between 50 and 100 million dollars and you get to "pretend" to have control of the Wisconsin State Senate for 5 months.  Wow.

I hardly think it's completely inconceivable that a bare Democratic advantage in the state senate could continue to exist after November (granted, it's distinctly unlikely on account of the gerrymandering), but admittedly it's not like this was done last year when it actually would have, well, mattered.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So then, regardless of what the outcome was, neither the governor or the legislature would've been able to do anything?  At least Walker can't do any more damage, then.

Not for another half a year or so, anyway. The state senate redistricting was admittedly rather, shall we say, skilful.