Unions spent 21 million

[Ragnar]

Have any of you every actually been swayed by one of those political ads or a flyer left on your front doorknob? Personally, no amount of money spent from either side would make a damn bit of difference to me.

I have. My voting criteria:

#1 - Most ads.

#2 - Best ads.

#3 - Dog person?

#4 - Is candidate hot looking?

#5 - Who gave me a flyer first (or most).

It's basic logical reasoning here.

 

[SniperFire]

That does include money spent on running a primary candidate against Barrett earlier in the year, I believe. Not the money spent on the earlier recall election which democrats spent more on.

Big Labor Recall Total to Exceed $20 Million | MacIver Institute

The MacIver Institute, now there is a reliable source!

Thank you!

And you can't refute a word of it!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unions spent 21 million in support of Barret. Walker raised 34 million and Barret raised 4.8 million. The left keeps claiming Walker spent 7 times that of the left.

Yet when called on this blatant lie they all run and hide.

Once again Unions spent 21 million, Barret spent 4.8 million. that is 25.8 million, being nice I will ignore the .8 and now left provide evidence that Walker and his supporters spent 175 million.

Wait I will be kind and use Peach's claim of 5 times, provide evidence Walker and his supporters spent 125 Million.

You left Walker's support from huge corporate SUPER PAC millions I see. 47% wanted him OUT now, while over 60% believe recalls are only for wrongdoing, not a vote of confidence by any means.

You made a mistake, only something like 62 million was spent on the election. 21 million by labor 4.8 by Barret. At most 34 million by Walker. That leaves very little else out there.

Provide evidence Walker out spent Barret by 5 to one or admit you are wrong. Further Walker only won by 5 percent the first time and di better then that THIS time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That does include money spent on running a primary candidate against Barrett earlier in the year, I believe. Not the money spent on the earlier recall election which democrats spent more on.

Big Labor Recall Total to Exceed $20 Million | MacIver Institute

The MacIver Institute, now there is a reliable source! The FACTS:

Millions Spent on Wisconsin Recall Election - Graphic - NYTimes.com

Your own source proves not even close to 5 to 1. And it is a biased source. Remind me what you say when we use biased sources? Gonna admit you were wrong yet?

By the way the claim is that because Walker outspent Barret he stole the election from people to stupid to know better. Care to remind us who spent what in 2008? Did Obama steal the election? Or was that different?

In 2010 Walker only one by 5 percent this time he had how much with the exact same opponent? THAT is the comparison. Further places like Milwaukee had 120 percent voting.... can we say FRAUD? And still the dems lost. Further no Governor ever recalled ever won before. Not only did Walker win but the Lt Governor won too.

Obama bragged he would have a billion dollar war chest this time. Does that mean he is going to steal the election cause he outspent his opponent? Or again is THAT different?

You made a claim, it is wrong, gonna admit it? Gonna call BDBoop on her outrageous 7 to one claim? or the 8 to one some claim? Gonna quit claiming that Barret only had 4.8 on his side?

Can you not own up to your mistake?

 

[Sinjorri]

Obscene.

That makes this "win" 8 times more obscene than we thought.

And the rw's 8 times dumber than we thought.

But hey, that's just petty cash to your owners, the kochs.

Damn koch suckers.

we are the left if you dont agree with us we insult u. obviously u are to stupid to know what we know and agree with us, so we'll insult u. I present evidence A.

 

[healthmyths]

.

I'd like to see an accurate accounting of this, because all I'm hearing about is the 7-1 or 8-1 spending advantage. Anyone have a credible link?

.

Well another factor NOT taken in consideration is the number of anti-walker volunteers that took time off from the tax payer jobs to march, canvas, hand out leaflets all activities that far out numbered the Walker volunteers who for the most part didn't take off work!
And we also don't know how many "paid" union members did "volunteer" work!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

At best using Peach's figures Walker and supporters outspent Barret 2 and half to one.

According to these lefties that means Walker stole the election.

Banking on Becoming President | OpenSecrets

Using that criteria established by the left then we can clearly see with the above link that Obama ALSO stole the 2008 election as he out spent McCain over 2 to one.

Or is that different?

 

[Amelia]

Have any of you every actually been swayed by one of those political ads or a flyer left on your front doorknob? Personally, no amount of money spent from either side would make a damn bit of difference to me.

I have. My voting criteria:

#1 - Most ads.

#2 - Best ads.

#3 - Dog person?

#4 - Is candidate hot looking?

#5 - Who gave me a flyer first (or most).

It's basic logical reasoning here.

I held onto my absentee ballot for five days.

Then I voted for the person who made the most robocalls during that time reminding me to get my ballot in.

Made sense to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Couldn't 1 day pass without the wingnuts here having to make some shit up?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Couldn't 1 day pass without the wingnuts here having to make some shit up?

You mean like the claim Walker outspent Barret 5 to 1, 7 to 1 and 8 to 1? Like that? Or perhaps the claim that cause he raised more money he stole the election? You mean like those made up claims?

 

[Mac1958]

.

So are Barret supporters saying that unions did NOT contribute millions of dollars that are not being used in the total figures and comparisons? So much obfuscation it's a little difficult to tell. I'm curious (crazy concept, I know), and it seems like a pretty freakin' easy question.

Seems to me a reasonable response might be something like this: "No Mac, the unions did not contribute millions that are not being used in the total figures and comparisons, and here's a link."

Something like that.

.

 

[SniperFire]

Couldn't 1 day pass without the wingnuts here having to make some shit up?

You mean like the claim Walker outspent Barret 5 to 1, 7 to 1 and 8 to 1? Like that? Or perhaps the claim that cause he raised more money he stole the election? You mean like those made up claims?

NY Carbineer is Pelosian in her detachment from realty.

 

[Peach]

Unions spent 21 million in support of Barret. Walker raised 34 million and Barret raised 4.8 million. The left keeps claiming Walker spent 7 times that of the left.

Yet when called on this blatant lie they all run and hide.

Once again Unions spent 21 million, Barret spent 4.8 million. that is 25.8 million, being nice I will ignore the .8 and now left provide evidence that Walker and his supporters spent 175 million.

Wait I will be kind and use Peach's claim of 5 times, provide evidence Walker and his supporters spent 125 Million.

You left Walker's support from huge corporate SUPER PAC millions I see. 47% wanted him OUT now, while over 60% believe recalls are only for wrongdoing, not a vote of confidence by any means.

You made a mistake, only something like 62 million was spent on the election. 21 million by labor 4.8 by Barret. At most 34 million by Walker. That leaves very little else out there.

Provide evidence Walker out spent Barret by 5 to one or admit you are wrong. Further Walker only won by 5 percent the first time and di better then that THIS time.

Super Pac money spent on BEHALF of Walker. I have posted stats, never claimed more than 5-1.

Another article:

A record amount of money spent on Wisconsin recall - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[Seawytch]

.

I'd like to see an accurate accounting of this, because all I'm hearing about is the 7-1 or 8-1 spending advantage. Anyone have a credible link?

.

We're in a post Citizens United world. No such thing as an accurate accounting. Money, not votes, buys our politicians. That's the bottom line.

 

[naturegirl]

I'm thinking if Barrett only spent 4.8 million there was absolutely no reason for Walker to spend 7 times that, but hey................if you believe that he did, you might be looking for any excuse to justify the loss.

 

[skookerasbil]

who cares about the money BS................

I just cant stop watching this vid!!!!! ******* classic......................and I still have a hunch its Lakotra


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEwXa197uBU]The Most Disappointed Barrett Supporter In Wisconsin - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SniperFire]

who cares about the money BS................

I just cant stop watching this vid!!!!! ******* classic......................and I still have a hunch its Lakotra


The Most Disappointed Barrett Supporter In Wisconsin - YouTube

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'd like to see an accurate accounting of this, because all I'm hearing about is the 7-1 or 8-1 spending advantage. Anyone have a credible link?

.

We're in a post Citizens United world. No such thing as an accurate accounting. Money, not votes, buys our politicians. That's the bottom line.

Can't argue with that a bit, and it's among our biggest problems. Our entire system is now distorted, damaged, and getting worse by the day.

That said, after watching MSNBC (my go-to source for what the Democrats are saying) a few times yesterday, the 7-1 spending advantage (if that's true) is being used as, by far, the reason Walker won. Or even the only reason.

Seems to me that if the Democrats are going to just hang their hat on that, and if it's not true, they're deluding themselves. I realize that self-delusion is a fundamental tenet of partisan ideology, but it's not a great strategy.

So I'm assuming, until being told otherwise, that the Democrats have decided the only reason Walker won is a 7-1 spending advantage -- whether that's actually true or not.

Okay.

.

 

[Peach]

.

I'd like to see an accurate accounting of this, because all I'm hearing about is the 7-1 or 8-1 spending advantage. Anyone have a credible link?

.

We're in a post Citizens United world. No such thing as an accurate accounting. Money, not votes, buys our politicians. That's the bottom line.

Can't argue with that a bit, and it's among our biggest problems. Our entire system is now distorted, damaged, and getting worse by the day.

That said, after watching MSNBC (my go-to source for what the Democrats are saying) a few times yesterday, the 7-1 spending advantage (if that's true) is being used as, by far, the reason Walker won. Or even the only reason.

Seems to me that if the Democrats are going to just hang their hat on that, and if it's not true, they're deluding themselves. I realize that self-delusion is a fundamental tenet of partisan ideology, but it's not a great strategy.

So I'm assuming, until being told otherwise, that the Democrats have decided the only reason Walker won is a 7-1 spending advantage -- whether that's actually true or not.

Okay.

.

Not that the Walker drones will read this, but 60-66%* of RECALL voters polled stated RECALL should be only for official misconduct. Walker won nothing NEW, he keeps his seek, and now speaks of reconciliation(.) I hope he learned his lesson.


*I read 60%, another post had 66%.

 

[Seawytch]

.

I'd like to see an accurate accounting of this, because all I'm hearing about is the 7-1 or 8-1 spending advantage. Anyone have a credible link?

.

We're in a post Citizens United world. No such thing as an accurate accounting. Money, not votes, buys our politicians. That's the bottom line.

Can't argue with that a bit, and it's among our biggest problems. Our entire system is now distorted, damaged, and getting worse by the day.

That said, after watching MSNBC (my go-to source for what the Democrats are saying) a few times yesterday, the 7-1 spending advantage (if that's true) is being used as, by far, the reason Walker won. Or even the only reason.

Seems to me that if the Democrats are going to just hang their hat on that, and if it's not true, they're deluding themselves. I realize that self-delusion is a fundamental tenet of partisan ideology, but it's not a great strategy.

So I'm assuming, until being told otherwise, that the Democrats have decided the only reason Walker won is a 7-1 spending advantage -- whether that's actually true or not.

Okay.

.

If spending all that money doesn't make a difference, why do it then?

Walker didn't get recalled because a lot of people don't like recalls, period.