Scott Walker narrowly survives recall election.

[Acer]

Spock wrote:
The Koch brothers must be delighted with their investment.

WHERE WAS GEORGE SOROS???

[Spock]

Acer wrote:
[quote=Spock]
The Koch brothers must be delighted with their investment.

WHERE WAS GEORGE SOROS???
No need to shout. :devil:

[Pam]

cbelt3 wrote:
Pam-
You would think that. but that is also not the case. Both parties have been badly infected with fringe elements over time. Democrats react to detailed political issues like a classic 'herd of cats' react to a box of cat toys. Republicans act a bit more like a pack of dogs, but there have been a number of mutts in the party that act more like squirrels.

The Democratic party was less so in 2008... the herd of cats all wanted an end to Republican Party control, so they voted alike. The Republican party was also less so in 2010.. the herd of cats was under the sway of a large meowy straggle haired tea drinking mutt, and voted alike.

In this election the Democratic cats are busy arguing about detailed issues. And the Republicans ? Well, the squirrels are loose in the kennel, and the party seems to be spending most of its time chasing its own tail.

Black-
The Democratic candidate conceded the election last night. The fat lady done sung.

It is the case cbelt. Yes the Republican party has more subsets than 4-8 years ago, but it is far more homogeneous than the Democratic party.

[kanesa]

It's a sad day. Many people felt that although they didn't agree with Walker, he had a right to finish his term. Wisconsin fairness. The only positive that occurred was the Democrats took control of the Senate. Although no legislative sessions are planned till after the November elections, Walker will probably not be calling any special sessions. He will now have to show he can create jobs. He promised 250,00 new jobs in his term. We have the worst record in the country for job creation. He may have to stay in WI and actually govern now. I blame the Supreme Court.

[Ombligo]

Recall elections are tricky because there is always a group that will vote for the incumbent simply to avoid future issues. There is a great deal of logic to that thought process. Simply because once you have set the precedent then it is fair game for the other side to do likewise when the opportunity arises.

Following the Clinton impeachment, I think it is fair to say that the Democrats would have tried to impeach Bush if they had the majority in in the house and senate. That is a very dangerous road to tread.

But I have other worries - My fear is not which party controls the legislature or lives in the White House; politicians come and go with each election cycle. What concerns me is the overt politicization of the courts. Judges are in for life and can change this countries direction with a single vote.

It used to be that SCOTUS judges were selected based on their ability more than political ideology (though it obviously always played a role). Today we are seeing judges selected despite their ability based primarily on their politics.

But I digress.

[Black]

cbelt3 wrote:
Black-
The Democratic candidate conceded the election last night. The fat lady done sung.

I don't think you understood what I was asking.

[Ted King]

Avenger wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=Avenger]
AFSCME membership has gone from 62,000 to 28,000 in just one year. Looks like the membership just couldn't wait to get out. MSNBC is in full mourning.

If a majority of AFSCME members in Wisconsin hadn't wanted a union they could have gotten out of it by voting to get rid of it long before the last couple of years. As someone pointed out in another thread (I think), most likely the biggest reason for the large exodus is that after Walker and the other Republicans in Wisconsin changed the rules for public unions so drastically, the membership looked at what the union could do for them and saw that it was basically not much of anything anymore with those new rules so there wasn't much point in staying in it.
I am not up to speed on all that changed. Didn't the new rules stop requiring union membership?
A majority of the membership could have voted to decertify the union any time they wanted.