The Walker Landslide; Evidence That Polls Have Been Inaccurate All Year?

[paulitician]

MSM Polls usually are pretty inaccurate. They get the results they want. But there are other Non-Media Polling organizations out there who do often get it right.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That's exactly what I am saying.

that's what i thought....you think American voters....and Wisconsin voters......are all lemmings that follow the almighty dollar....

No, that's not what I am saying at all and you know it.

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

You trying to pretend otherwise is pathetic.

so what are you really saying.........?

does money "buy" or "not buy".....???

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Walker survived the recall, but the Dems are now the majority party in the Senate. He is already sounding a conciliatory tone in acknowledgement of that. Plus, there are plenty of people that still regard Walker as a cancer on the political body in Wisconsin. As long as a large number of Wisconsin citizens feel that way, he is going to have problems in passing or implementing any of the Kochs policies.

what exactly are those horrible terrifying "Koch policies".....?

No benefits.
No overtime.
Hire and fire at will.
Monopoly.
Owners and executives making 700 times what labor makes in the same company.
No regulations.

That's what you guys are for..the gutting of the middle class and the creation of a super elite class that rules without question.

In other words..Monarchy.

oooh....scary....you've been watching too much Diamond Jubilee....



"super elite class"........what the hell do you think one world order marxists are all about.....?

 

[DiamondDave]

The poll that had Walker winning by 7 was also the poll that had Obama beating Romney by 8.

So if that poll was accurate, Obama is in good shape.

Walker outspent Barrett 8 to 1. Romney is not going to outspend Obama 8 to 1.

This race was not an indicator of anything for November.

so it was money that forced people to mark their vote for Walker.....?

does it really mean the Kochs have more money than Soros?......

i guess than means BO is toast....

Are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?

Are you asserting that the average Joe and Jane voter is brainless and only responds to political ads??

 

[The T]

so it was money that forced people to mark their vote for Walker.....?

does it really mean the Kochs have more money than Soros?......

i guess than means BO is toast....

Are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?

Are you asserting that the average Joe and Jane voter is brainless and only responds to political ads??

But people living the failures of those they elected is the largest motivator. And they spoke loudly!

 

[The T]

MSM Polls usually are pretty inaccurate. They get the results they want. But there are other Non-Media Polling organizations out there who do often get it right.

Better known as manipulation for desired outcome. The people are on to them and have had thier fill.

 

[Article 15]

that's what i thought....you think American voters....and Wisconsin voters......are all lemmings that follow the almighty dollar....

No, that's not what I am saying at all and you know it.

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

You trying to pretend otherwise is pathetic.

so what are you really saying.........?

Exactly what I have been saying all along:

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

All of this plays a role in running a campaign, has effect on the electorate, and helps win elections.

Look, I get that you are just denying that money is irrelevant because Walker just won and outspent his opponent 7 to 1. In your mind you probably think that by admitting that money has an influence in an election that you would be diminishing Walker's victory. That's really not the case, though. Personally, I think that even if the money were equal Walker still would have won, however by a lesser margin. Walker still won fair and square but it takes some big time naivety to believe that having that kind of a money advantage didn't help him out.

 

[007]

It is perhaps a white guilt thing.

Nobody really wants to tell a pollster that they aren't going to support the first mullatto POTUS.

It's a... "what the pollster wants to tell you" thing.

There isn't a poll anywhere that I trust. There is ZERO oversight to ensure they're not biased or outright changed to reflect what the POLLSTER wants you to believe.

I don't believe for one second that obama has even close to the support the "polls" say. Or should I say... "barack hussein kardashian" ...

 

[Article 15]

so it was money that forced people to mark their vote for Walker.....?

does it really mean the Kochs have more money than Soros?......

i guess than means BO is toast....

Are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?

Are you asserting that the average Joe and Jane voter is brainless and only responds to political ads??

No, I'm not saying they are "brainless" and "only" respond to political ads but I'm saying that political ads have an effect on the electorate.

There's really no need to deny that water is wet, guys.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, that's not what I am saying at all and you know it.

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

You trying to pretend otherwise is pathetic.

so what are you really saying.........?

Exactly what I have been saying all along:

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

All of this plays a role in running a campaign, has effect on the electorate, and helps win elections.

Look, I get that you are just denying that money is irrelevant because Walker just won and outspent his opponent 7 to 1. In your mind you probably think that by admitting that money has an influence in an election that you would be diminishing Walker's victory. That's really not the case, though. Personally, I think that even if the money were equal Walker still would have won, however by a lesser margin. Walker still won fair and square but it takes some big time naivety to believe that having that kind of a money advantage didn't help him out.

Look yourself.....you Dems are the ones claiming that Walker "bought" the election.....

i'm saying that Wisconsinites made up their own minds about it because they saw his results first hand....they are not just stupid voters who can be "bought"....

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Lehman wins, the Wisconsin Republicans lost the recall election, despite what the spin from the right tries to tell you.

 

[Article 15]

so what are you really saying.........?

Exactly what I have been saying all along:

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

All of this plays a role in running a campaign, has effect on the electorate, and helps win elections.

Look, I get that you are just denying that money is irrelevant because Walker just won and outspent his opponent 7 to 1. In your mind you probably think that by admitting that money has an influence in an election that you would be diminishing Walker's victory. That's really not the case, though. Personally, I think that even if the money were equal Walker still would have won, however by a lesser margin. Walker still won fair and square but it takes some big time naivety to believe that having that kind of a money advantage didn't help him out.

Look yourself.....you Dems are the ones claiming that Walker "bought" the election.....

i'm saying that Wisconsinites made up their own minds about it because they saw his results first hand....they are not just stupid voters who can be "bought"....

I'm not claiming he "bought" the election. Read what I said again. I said that he won fair and square and that even if the money were equal he still would have won, only by a smaller margin.

 

[007]

If Lehman wins, the Wisconsin Republicans lost the recall election, despite what the spin from the right tries to tell you.

Horse shit. Don't be a two time sore loser.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If Lehman wins, the Wisconsin Republicans lost the recall election, despite what the spin from the right tries to tell you.

so Wisconsin can expect another "Harry Reid Senate"....? whatever happened to "working together" bipartisanship....?

...well at least this way they won't have to run out of state........

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Exactly what I have been saying all along:

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

All of this plays a role in running a campaign, has effect on the electorate, and helps win elections.

Look, I get that you are just denying that money is irrelevant because Walker just won and outspent his opponent 7 to 1. In your mind you probably think that by admitting that money has an influence in an election that you would be diminishing Walker's victory. That's really not the case, though. Personally, I think that even if the money were equal Walker still would have won, however by a lesser margin. Walker still won fair and square but it takes some big time naivety to believe that having that kind of a money advantage didn't help him out.

Look yourself.....you Dems are the ones claiming that Walker "bought" the election.....

i'm saying that Wisconsinites made up their own minds about it because they saw his results first hand....they are not just stupid voters who can be "bought"....

I'm not claiming he "bought" the election. Read what I said again. I said that he won fair and square and that even if the money were equal he still would have won, only by a smaller margin.

well this whole argument got started when someone claimed Walker outspent Barrett 8 to 1...as if that was the real reason Walker won the election...

glad you agree that Walker would still have won even if the money was even.......

 

[NYcarbineer]

so what are you really saying.........?

Exactly what I have been saying all along:

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

All of this plays a role in running a campaign, has effect on the electorate, and helps win elections.

Look, I get that you are just denying that money is irrelevant because Walker just won and outspent his opponent 7 to 1. In your mind you probably think that by admitting that money has an influence in an election that you would be diminishing Walker's victory. That's really not the case, though. Personally, I think that even if the money were equal Walker still would have won, however by a lesser margin. Walker still won fair and square but it takes some big time naivety to believe that having that kind of a money advantage didn't help him out.

Look yourself.....you Dems are the ones claiming that Walker "bought" the election.....

i'm saying that Wisconsinites made up their own minds about it because they saw his results first hand....they are not just stupid voters who can be "bought"....

So the Republicans are idiots for throwing away 40 or 50 or more million on the campaign?

Okay.

 

[Conservative]

If Lehman wins, the Wisconsin Republicans lost the recall election, despite what the spin from the right tries to tell you.

nonsense. there are 16 Senate seats up for grabs in November, and all 99 assembly seats as well.

Losing a single Senate seat in the recall means nothing.

 

[candycorn]

No.

Now answer the question, are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?

if your vote cannot be bought then how is money relevant....?

You can't be serious. The point of a campaign is to convince an electorate to vote for you.

The money spent isn't "here, voter, is X dollars to go to the booth and vote for me"

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

Being able to vastly outspend your opponent gives you a huge advantage in ground game, getting your message out, and attacking who you are running against. All of this has an effect on the electorate and helps win elections.

SE is a dumbass who isn't worth your time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Exactly what I have been saying all along:

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

All of this plays a role in running a campaign, has effect on the electorate, and helps win elections.

Look, I get that you are just denying that money is irrelevant because Walker just won and outspent his opponent 7 to 1. In your mind you probably think that by admitting that money has an influence in an election that you would be diminishing Walker's victory. That's really not the case, though. Personally, I think that even if the money were equal Walker still would have won, however by a lesser margin. Walker still won fair and square but it takes some big time naivety to believe that having that kind of a money advantage didn't help him out.

Look yourself.....you Dems are the ones claiming that Walker "bought" the election.....

i'm saying that Wisconsinites made up their own minds about it because they saw his results first hand....they are not just stupid voters who can be "bought"....

So the Republicans are idiots for throwing away 40 or 50 or more million on the campaign?

Okay.

you can't stop enthusiam....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

if your vote cannot be bought then how is money relevant....?

You can't be serious. The point of a campaign is to convince an electorate to vote for you.

The money spent isn't "here, voter, is X dollars to go to the booth and vote for me"

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

Being able to vastly outspend your opponent gives you a huge advantage in ground game, getting your message out, and attacking who you are running against. All of this has an effect on the electorate and helps win elections.

SE is a dumbass who isn't worth your time.

says the candyass cornball..........