Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

[SgtMeowenstein]

while you were asleep several states have already gutted collective bargaining or are on their way, but you go ahead and get your groove onfeeling invigorated? go check Ohio...

Ohio Dems are collecting signatures to force the Ohio union law to a referendum vote - meaning, if Dems get enough signatures, the law will be voted on by Ohio citizens.

oh, so the votes of the electorate DO count?

What the **** are you talking about? You seem to be onto me about something that I never even mentioned. Check your posts. You're either arguing with the wrong person, or you're making up an argument that I never participated in.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

This election shouldn't even be close.

Given the attention it got and the intensity on the dem side in a historically pretty blue state... why would that be? Seriously, you guys are deluding yourselves if you think this 204 vote speed bump means anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This election shouldn't even be close.

Given the attention it got and the intensity on the dem side in a historically pretty blue state... why would that be? Seriously, you guys are deluding yourselves if you think this 204 vote speed bump means anything.

He beat her by 30 points 2 months ago in the non-partisan primary.

 

[Trajan]

Ohio Dems are collecting signatures to force the Ohio union law to a referendum vote - meaning, if Dems get enough signatures, the law will be voted on by Ohio citizens.

oh, so the votes of the electorate DO count?

What the **** are you talking about? You seem to be onto me about something that I never even mentioned. Check your posts. You're either arguing with the wrong person, or you're making up an argument that I never participated in.

no, you just have apparently zero sense of the context and total argument of which this is all a part. November sweeps in rep.s with comfortable majorities, a bill is proposed and away go the democrats so as to prevent a vote....get it now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This election shouldn't even be close.

Given the attention it got and the intensity on the dem side in a historically pretty blue state... why would that be? Seriously, you guys are deluding yourselves if you think this 204 vote speed bump means anything.

If what Walker and wingnuts are trying to do in WI was such a good thing, you'd think they'd benefit from 'attention'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

oh, so the votes of the electorate DO count?

What the **** are you talking about? You seem to be onto me about something that I never even mentioned. Check your posts. You're either arguing with the wrong person, or you're making up an argument that I never participated in.

no, you just have apparently zero sense of the context and total argument of which this is all a part. November sweeps in rep.s with comfortable majorities, a bill is proposed and away go the democrats so as to prevent a vote....get it now?

I don't recall any complaints about the Senate Republicans after 2008, using 41 votes to stymie the Democrats' comfortable majorities.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

False, you just don't understand the argument. You didn't "prove" anything except that you don't have a clue what losing in these recalls this year is going to mean for you next year.

Are you being purposely obtuse or are you just ignorant as to what we were talking about?

I'll give you one more shot. Here's the original argument between the two of us:

What's laughable is your state of denial. Prosser (the conservative judge) should have won easily. The fact that it's this close is a big indicator that Repubs in WI are in big trouble with voters. Read it and weep:

See that? You claimed that Dems should have easily won the election; and since it's so close, you believe they're in trouble. As I showed you, Dems actually flipped three Republican counties to their side. That fact, and the fact that Prosser, a known, incumbent justice, just lost the election to an unknown candidate, proves my original point - that WI Repubs are in trouble with voters. Otherwise, they would have won a relatively safe Repub seat. Get it yet, or do I need to break out the sock puppets in order to explain it to you?

Proves your point? Thats some funny shit there. Did you miss the point? In the senate races most likely to have serious recall efforts Prosser won 4 out of 6 districts. I wouldn't call that "being in trouble" which is what you siad the GOP was. I would call that really, reaaly bad for democratics when they actually LOSE seats in thier recall bids.

Your assertion that Prosser should have won easily is a fantasy you cooked up in your mind to make it seem like 204 voites is some huge win. It doesn't matter that 19 counties flipped, it's still only 204 votes, and that when democratics have ALL of the intensity. I expected Prosser to lose by more than that given the attention this normally quiet race would usually get, and the intensity level for democratics. Close, but not this close.

BTW, how is any statewide seat in WI "relatively safe" for the GOP? It's a pretty ******* blue state and I can't think of too many people who thought the GOP would take the legislature in NOV to begin with.

Now, I also showed you that the GOP "flipped" 2 democratic state senates districts to its side, so I'm not seeing any disaster here. Or much trouble for the GOP. You've proven nothing except that you know how to follow the spin your masters put out. "204 votes is a ******* landslaide.... arrghhhhh the GOP is dead"..... LOL, what a rube. Sorry dude, ain't seeing it.

Actually, I did make a mistake. I said that 3 Republican counties flipped to Democrats. It was actually 19 counties. Even worse than I thought. I understand why you want to dismiss that fact and focus instead on 204 votes. But hey, that's cool. You want to talk about 204 votes? I'll talk about that. Prosser is down by 204 votes - meaning, the Republicans lost the election. So sorry. Try again.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

From what I've read, this wasn't even supposed to be close.

It wasn't supposed to be close because it's a judicial race which the vast majority of voters don't pay attention to and don't even show up to vote for in the first place. This race was put into the spotlight because of the recent law passed and the legal challenge to it and so both sides got their get out the vote machines into full swing. Even with that, the turn out was only in the 30 percentile.

You can look at the results two ways. One, the people pushed back against the Walker administration and tossed out an incumbent conservative judge. Or, the blow back was anemic compared to all the talk of outrage and punishment the unions claimed would be dealt out to the Republicans because they just barely edged out the incumbent judge by a mere 200 votes in a statewide race in a state that has been reliably union friendly.

It all depends on your point of view and I imagine the partisans will spin it which ever way fits their agenda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

From what I've read, this wasn't even supposed to be close.

It wasn't supposed to be close because it's a judicial race which the vast majority of voters don't pay attention to and don't even show up to vote for in the first place. This race was put into the spotlight because of the recent law passed and the legal challenge to it and so both sides got their get out the vote machines into full swing. Even with that, the turn out was only in the 30 percentile.

You can look at the results two ways. One, the people pushed back against the Walker administration and tossed out an incumbent conservative judge. Or, the blow back was anemic compared to all the talk of outrage and punishment the unions claimed would be dealt out to the Republicans because they just barely edged out the incumbent judge by a mere 200 votes in a statewide race in a state that has been reliably union friendly.

It all depends on your point of view and I imagine the partisans will spin it which ever way fits their agenda.

Anemic?


http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/2011 Spring Primary Canvass Results 2.15.11.pdf

 

[BenNatuf]

This election shouldn't even be close.

Given the attention it got and the intensity on the dem side in a historically pretty blue state... why would that be? Seriously, you guys are deluding yourselves if you think this 204 vote speed bump means anything.

He beat her by 30 points 2 months ago in the non-partisan primary.

That was before all the attention. Honestly, the Unions pushed to make this race a refferendum on Walker, it's a historically blue state and very pro union, and all they could do in a statewide race with all of the intensity on their side was a 204 vote possible win? (essentially a dead heat).

I just don't buy it, in fact, over the last couple weeks given the press I expected Prosser to lose. The report of him calling the CJ a ***** I thought kind of sealed it for him. For all I know she is a *****, but you just can't say that.

 

[BenNatuf]

What the **** are you talking about? You seem to be onto me about something that I never even mentioned. Check your posts. You're either arguing with the wrong person, or you're making up an argument that I never participated in.

no, you just have apparently zero sense of the context and total argument of which this is all a part. November sweeps in rep.s with comfortable majorities, a bill is proposed and away go the democrats so as to prevent a vote....get it now?

I don't recall any complaints about the Senate Republicans after 2008, using 41 votes to stymie the Democrats' comfortable majorities.

That would be because they didn't have 41 votes. The democratics stymied themselves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

2001 Wisconsin Supreme Court General

Non-partisan election[63]

Candidate Votes Percentage

David Prosser (incumbent) 549,860 99.53%

(Scattering) 2,569 0.47%

 

[NYcarbineer]

no, you just have apparently zero sense of the context and total argument of which this is all a part. November sweeps in rep.s with comfortable majorities, a bill is proposed and away go the democrats so as to prevent a vote....get it now?

I don't recall any complaints about the Senate Republicans after 2008, using 41 votes to stymie the Democrats' comfortable majorities.

That would be because they didn't have 41 votes. The democratics stymied themselves.

You are full of shit.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

I don't recall any complaints about the Senate Republicans after 2008, using 41 votes to stymie the Democrats' comfortable majorities.

That would be because they didn't have 41 votes. The democratics stymied themselves.

You are full of shit.

Very full of shit. How anyone could make that easily refuted argument is beyond me.

 

[BenNatuf]

Are you being purposely obtuse or are you just ignorant as to what we were talking about?

I'll give you one more shot. Here's the original argument between the two of us:





See that? You claimed that Dems should have easily won the election; and since it's so close, you believe they're in trouble. As I showed you, Dems actually flipped three Republican counties to their side. That fact, and the fact that Prosser, a known, incumbent justice, just lost the election to an unknown candidate, proves my original point - that WI Repubs are in trouble with voters. Otherwise, they would have won a relatively safe Repub seat. Get it yet, or do I need to break out the sock puppets in order to explain it to you?

Proves your point? Thats some funny shit there. Did you miss the point? In the senate races most likely to have serious recall efforts Prosser won 4 out of 6 districts. I wouldn't call that "being in trouble" which is what you siad the GOP was. I would call that really, reaaly bad for democratics when they actually LOSE seats in thier recall bids.

Your assertion that Prosser should have won easily is a fantasy you cooked up in your mind to make it seem like 204 voites is some huge win. It doesn't matter that 19 counties flipped, it's still only 204 votes, and that when democratics have ALL of the intensity. I expected Prosser to lose by more than that given the attention this normally quiet race would usually get, and the intensity level for democratics. Close, but not this close.

BTW, how is any statewide seat in WI "relatively safe" for the GOP? It's a pretty ******* blue state and I can't think of too many people who thought the GOP would take the legislature in NOV to begin with.

Now, I also showed you that the GOP "flipped" 2 democratic state senates districts to its side, so I'm not seeing any disaster here. Or much trouble for the GOP. You've proven nothing except that you know how to follow the spin your masters put out. "204 votes is a ******* landslaide.... arrghhhhh the GOP is dead"..... LOL, what a rube. Sorry dude, ain't seeing it.

Actually, I did make a mistake. I said that 3 Republican counties flipped to Democrats. It was actually 19 counties. Even worse than I thought. I understand why you want to dismiss that fact and focus instead on 204 votes. But hey, that's cool. You want to talk about 204 votes? I'll talk about that. Prosser is down by 204 votes - meaning, the Republicans lost the election. So sorry. Try again.

I don't recall saying prosser didn't lose. Only point I'm making is that the 204 votes isn't any harbinger of doom. In fact if the recall pettions do play out in those 6 districts and the voting pattern remains the same from this election... it's looking pretty damed good. GOP picks up between 1 and 3 seats.

 

[BenNatuf]

I don't recall any complaints about the Senate Republicans after 2008, using 41 votes to stymie the Democrats' comfortable majorities.

That would be because they didn't have 41 votes. The democratics stymied themselves.

You are full of shit.

you are ful of shit

The Democratic Supermajority: What Does It Mean? - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic

go ahead and show me 41 GOP seats.

Did you forget your supermajority that stymied itself?

 

[BenNatuf]

That would be because they didn't have 41 votes. The democratics stymied themselves.

You are full of shit.

Very full of shit. How anyone could make that easily refuted argument is beyond me.

Lying won't help, the democratics had a supermajority. The GOP didn't have enough votes to conduct a filibuster never mind make it stick.

 

[jillian]

They gave in for 1 (one) contract, Jillian. This tax and spend isn't going away in the next 3-4 years.

there have been give-backs everywhere.

but don't you find it a little obscene that the middle class has to make up for corporate welfare and tax breaks to millionaires?

don't you think that people should be a little intransigent about that?

i do.

until i see realistic tax policy and the right stops it's wealth re-distribution to the rich, i'm kind of not inclined to be told that working people have to take it in the neck.

I want to see a realistic tax policy, also, Jillian. But, I also want to start seeing a realistic spending policy going forward. It's all out of control right now.

but why cut the things that hurt people while shifting wealth to corporations? if it were me, i wouldn't agree to cut a dime until they did away with the bush tax cuts.

harsh? maybe. i'm all for shared pain. I'm not for carrying it for the people who need the breaks the least.

 

[Annie]

there have been give-backs everywhere.

but don't you find it a little obscene that the middle class has to make up for corporate welfare and tax breaks to millionaires?

don't you think that people should be a little intransigent about that?

i do.

until i see realistic tax policy and the right stops it's wealth re-distribution to the rich, i'm kind of not inclined to be told that working people have to take it in the neck.

I want to see a realistic tax policy, also, Jillian. But, I also want to start seeing a realistic spending policy going forward. It's all out of control right now.

but why cut the things that hurt people while shifting wealth to corporations? if it were me, i wouldn't agree to cut a dime until they did away with the bush tax cuts.

harsh? maybe. i'm all for shared pain. I'm not for carrying it for the people who need the breaks the least.

Really? You mean like Obama's callous disregard for oil prices and the subsequent rise in food and other goods? Tell me Jillian, where are those of us that have been hurt supposed to go to buy the green cars? Any car? I can't afford the oil changes on my 34 mpg car. Many of us now off the unemployment rolls, can't afford his oil policy of waiting for the green that's not reality.

In the meantime, he just wants to spend and blame the 'fat cats', while the rest of us go down the tubes.

 

[Trajan]

What the **** are you talking about? You seem to be onto me about something that I never even mentioned. Check your posts. You're either arguing with the wrong person, or you're making up an argument that I never participated in.

no, you just have apparently zero sense of the context and total argument of which this is all a part. November sweeps in rep.s with comfortable majorities, a bill is proposed and away go the democrats so as to prevent a vote....get it now?

I don't recall any complaints about the Senate Republicans after 2008, using 41 votes to stymie the Democrats' comfortable majorities.

my god......read my post again, the very one you quoted for Christs sake.