Skip to main content

Now that I've had time to lick my wounds, I'm very interested in what is to be learned by
the loss of the recall in Wisconsin. And there's no one lesson, but many.  This diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/...        

had some very interesting, and I believe important answers.  Another article that has caught my attention, because it wicked my worst fears for November is this article by Paul Begala on the Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

Begala takes on the air war vs. the ground war.  Follow me below the orange cloud to find out why the ground war is not nearly sufficient to win.  Wasn't in Wisconsin, and won't be in November.

First let me say, that the biggest hurt for me in this thing was that despite our passionate ground game, and the incredible work of so many, it wasn't enough.  We so hoped that this would be another Meg Whitman election, where all the money in the world couldn't beat people power.  

And Walker did have all the money in the world, or might as well have. And he used that money almost exclusively on TV, for months.  Here's Begala's words on this:

It has become fashionable in progressive circles for activists and donors to delude themselves into thinking that a tidal wave of advertising can be answered by an army of grassroots organizers. It can’t.
Begala then goes on to make the case that liberals are outnumbered by 21 to 36% by conservatives in Wisconsin, so centrist Democrats and independents must be won over to win.  He shares this startling fact:
...consider this from John McCormack of the conservative Weekly Standard: even if every single person eligible to vote in the Democratic bastions of Dane County (Madison) and Milwaukee County (Barrett’s base) had voted—not just every registered voter, but 100 percent of everyone legally allowed to vote—Walker would still have won.
His point is that although extremely important, the ground game must be a follow up, NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR, a platform that has had ample exposure, and the most powerful place that happens is in TV political advertising.  And that costs money, and lots of it.

Why Wisconsin Democrats didn't have that kind of money is a source of debate and anger in itself, but not the point of my diary.  My point is what's been learned, and how it applies to the next big election down the road in November.

I have read this and variations of it here countless times:  "I'll vote for Obama, but I won't spend a dime, or a minute of my time on him."  I am not interested in attacking that view point, and I have no appetite for a pie right now.  Those who are disappointed in Obama are entitled to their opinions and their action choices.

I simply wish to put forth that one of the biggest lessons I'm taking away from Wisconsin is that money is God in politics in this Citizens United era, and I no longer have delusions about the ground game or people power being able to substitute for it.  

In other words, GOTV is not enough.  Voting is not enough.  Last month Obama was out raised by Romney---out raised for the first time ever since he ran in 2008.  And as we all know, the right has a Xerox machine when it comes to money. I get a sad kick out of those who try to take solace in the amount of money recallers forced republicans to spend in Wisconsin. That might have been true in the pre Citizens United world, but with super pacs--- bah. There's lots more where that came from, and I would counter that the GOP feels it got an excellent value for its money.

The recall was lost, and that can't be changed, and the point of my diary is not to make excuses, kvetch, or argue.  I'm interested in what we need to go "forward."  To win in November.  And I think Begala makes a very salient point.  We ARE going to have a Citizens United election, and everyone from the president on down has little choice but to roll with that, and go after and roll out the money---if we want to win.  It stinks to high heaven, but that's the way it is right now.

Furthermore, no matter how much we might think we can choose instead to support the reps of our choice monetarily, instead of the president rather than as well as the president, it cannot be argued that the best bet for every one on the President's down ticket is making sure people come out to vote for Obama.  Very few are going to come to vote for a senator or house rep and leave.  They're coming first and foremost to vote either for Romney or Obama.

So I'll be donating what I can to the president.  I'll be working for him too.  It takes both.  But I'm sadly convinced that money talks the loudest, and we've got to be able to compete. Policy, morality, whatever.  None of it out talks money anymore.  

I think of that little video/cartoon clip I so loved here in the 2008 election---the one with Obama, Biden and Hillary bobbing along happily in a jalopy convertible. I think Obama was driving but not sure.  If I were to re-configure that clip for 2012, I'd put a sack of money in the driver's seat, holding a can of Red Bull, and bobbing along as if it's the most natural thing in the world.  I'd put the democratic candidates in the back seat, not so jaunty anymore.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the same way they beat Russ. n/t (6+ / 0-)

    "Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world." — Howard Zinn

    by blueyedace2 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:49:50 PM PDT

      •  good analysis, though.... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StellaRay, FG, peptabysmal, rosarugosa, Smoh

        .... I'd edit and remove the last paragraph, it's gratuitously unpleasant imagery & a distraction.

        OK, so now we're dealing with the "air war," and BTW that's a damn good analogy.  

        TV advertising works on two levels: one is emotional messaging and the other is repetition.  What this tells us is that to be most effective, we have to do that both on the ground and in the air.  

        We can't match the enemy's TV budget but we can probably achieve comparable results by keeping our messaging "on the ground" consistent with our messaging "in the air."  Use the same memes and repeat them endlessly, and then for voters who want to go beyond that, have all of the deeper-level policy & other points ready.  

        Another key point: don't play defense, go on the attack.  As soon as we let ourselves get put in the position of "explaining ourselves" or answering the enemy's questions, the enemy has control of the battlefield.  The way out of that is to ignore their questions and pepper them with our questions.  Force them into the position of explaining and playing defense.  

        And in particular, go after their emotional messaging.  Tear their emotional narratives to shreds: expose it and then ridicule it or otherwise put a competing emotion in place.  Emotions are what make decisions: we ignore this at our peril.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:32:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't disagree with (6+ / 0-)

          most of this where it discusses messaging. All well and good.

          But we certainly CAN match, or come close enough to the "enemy's" TV budget to win.  We just have to think it's important enough.

          The Democratic party didn't think Wisconsin was important enough to make it a national election.  The republicans made it a national election, with the corresponding financial support.  That simply can't be argued.

          Yes, the message and the medium have to be right, but without the money to take advantage of the fact that TV works on repetition, then the message is irrelevant.

          Tom Barrett had great messages, and imo, handled the little time he had to sell the cause very well.  Some will disagree, but that's the way I see it.  26 million would have helped, hell, 10 million would have helped.

          And btw, sorry you didn't like my last paragraph, but I'll stand by it. It is not a "gratuitous" reference because it is directly related to the whole point of my diary, which is that Democrats better figure out how to be competitive on the air this fall.

          •  walker's ads didn't start with the recall (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peptabysmal, JVolvo, G2geek, StellaRay, AnnieJo

            club for growth and other wingnut and pro wanker orgs were on the air as soon as the resistance began, with scoldy bitchy ads meant to build up resentment and set the narrative, and they reached a receptive audience. It pays to remember Wisconsin has had plenty of repug governors in recent times, they just weren't the radicals of the current gop. Tommy always got smoked in Madison and Milwaukee, but won big everywhere else. He'd likely still be gov now if the bushies hadn't brought him in - "made" him so to speak. They bash Madison out in the country like we get all the tax money and rip them off, the dirty hippies that we are, and they vote pretty reliably repug. Much like the rubes in any other state.

            when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

            by bunsk on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:15:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It doesn't have to be matched dollar for dollar (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StellaRay, Smoh, G2geek

          but it needs to be at least close. Good points about messaging.

  •  air war helps (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StellaRay, G2geek, Smoh, madcitysailor

    but also messaging needs to be appropriate for the audience.  Need a better message than whatever the party wants to sell on any given day.

    all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

    by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:06:36 PM PDT

  •  I think your premise if wrong. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jgnyc, rosarugosa

    Some people, including indies and liberals, believe that a recall is only justified in the case of egregious misconduct. Sort of like an impeachment.

    the only people who are going to vote for the other team during a recall action are partisans.

    the numbers show that independents, who Barrett won handily in the 2010, were evenly split in the recall.

    You know why?

    Because a recall, 60% of wisconsin voters believe, should be reserved for serious misconduct.

    I'm a partisan. And if I was in WI would've voted for Barrett because well, I could. But I also think that a recall should be for misconduct. Otherwise you end up with endless recall actions.

    If Barrett was elected, the GOP could have started their own "recall" action, gathering petitions and forcing another election. Where does it end and at what point do the elections themselves become a joke? And what is the bar for impeachment/recall/expulsion? Is it "we don't agree with this policy"? What are going to be the grounds for recall going forward? And what use is an election if the grounds for recall are "You suck and I don't like your policies"?

    I'm saying that there were many indies who probably didn;t vote or voted to keep walker in place not because they like him but because they felt the recall itself wasn't warranted and would set a bad precedent.

    That's why Barrett lost.

    And BTW, Walker spent 7 times what Barrett did and won by only about 200,000 votes. I'd say ground game matters a hell of a lot. But there were other issues here, not the least of which is the recall action itself.

    •  I'm well aware (4+ / 0-)

      of the issue voters had with the recall.  However, I am far from convinced that if Democrats had had over 26 million, and began spending it, as the GOP did, months before the recall, I think we'd have had a good chance to influence that discussion.  

      The law allows for a recall for good reasons.  And I think there was a chance to educate people regarding that, not to mention throwing in that Walker owes his career to a recall, in which his side was doing the recalling.

      Your idea that there would be no end to the recalls is not realistic.  They're damn hard to pull off, and I don't see the Wisconsin republicans getting out of their recliners to do it.

      Furthermore, the grounds for the recall go beyond "You suck and I don't like your policies."  The definition of misconduct is NOT and does not have to be limited to criminal misconduct.  And again, with enough money I think the Democrats could have made clear that Walker was plenty guilty of enough misconduct that the recall was justified.

      The degree of Walker's misconduct is barely known by most Wisconsinites, as the media's coverage was absent or slanted to the right.  With 26 million we could have made that much clearer.  One week before the election most Wisconsinites didn't even know about the on going John Doe investigation.

      You may say no amount of persuasion bought by ads would change your mind.  But I'm willing to bet 26 million would have changed plenty of minds.

      And btw, those 200,000 votes were worth anything the GOP had to pay to get them, and like I said, I'm pretty sure they consider it a bargain.

      •  Seems to me the Dems misread it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rosarugosa

        If they'd had 26 million more I'm not sure a penny of it wouldve gone to "educating people" about the reasons recall isn't just for misconduct. We made the mistake of assuming people were partisans.

        Let's not rewrite it.

        Walker lied. He got elected. He started trying to dismantle unionized workers. The teachers shut the fucking place down and were joined by police and firemen and then all Dems and liberals. The recall action was about walkers lies and to save collective bargaining.

        And no matter how you cut it, some people don't believe that's cause enough for a recall.

        I never said criminal misconduct only.

        Further, as far as the GOP not getting out of their recliners: why would you think they wouldn't if  Barrett had won? Why? They've been oppositional since the recall petition phase. You mean to say they could use the so-called bottomless pit of money to make sure 1 million or so pissed of republicans signed a recall petition? Wow. Talk about dangerously out of touch. Of course their side would start one. Or worse.

        We misread it. We assumed that given a do-over, everyone who voted for Barrett the first time, plus a large enough number of people who didn't last time, would vote to recall walker. I think the miscalculation is an obvious one.

        That said: would it be good to have the same resources? Yes. My point is that to extrapolate that the money will trump ground game I think is erroneous because there were other factors in this race. It wasnt an election. It was a recall.

        •  No, I don't think the GOP (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mdmslle, myboo, 3goldens, JVolvo

          in Wisconsin would have started a recall against Barrett.  First of all, they'd have to wait to see how Barrett governed and what Wisconsin thought about it.  You can't just start a recall the day after a recall election with any credibility.  And certainly the Gray Davis recall did not result in a fatal waterfall of recalls. But as it is, we'll never know

          And I have to say, NO ONE ASSUMED anything.  Democrats and progressives in Wisconsin fought their asses off to get the needed voter turn out and still fell short. Democratic turn out was NOT maximized, not even close,really.  My premise is that a very large part of that is they were outspent---not that they misread anything.

          And yes I do think Walker's money trumped the Democrats ground game. But without being able to wave a wand and have a redo with more equal monies spent, no one will be able to prove either of us right or wrong.

          Ground game is exceptionally important, but IMO, the Dems better figure out how to be competitive on air this fall, and I'm sticking with that.

          But I like having the conversation mdmslle, and I appreciate that you took the time to add in.  

        •  The "endless recall" was an idea that Walker's (5+ / 0-)

          side put forth. Rep. Vos wants to write a constitutional amendment to outlaw recalls except for  criminality or something. He doesn't get it that Bob La Follette put the recall in there just for situations like this.

          However, I do admit, the GOP may have turned around and begun recalling Dems, since they don't use logic anyway, they could push the idea.

    •  but it arguably IS misconduct for a candidate... (9+ / 0-)

      .... to LIE their way into office, claim one thing and then do another.   If we don't penalize the most egregious cases of that, then they continue to escalate.  And even though Walker remains in office, his brand is tarnished and he had to spend tons of rightwing money to stay there.  We cost them a ton of money and that's worth something heading toward November.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:37:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I TOTALLY agree (4+ / 0-)

        that Scott Walker is guilty of numerous counts of misconduct where it concerns his professional responsibilities.  Misconduct in one's professional responsibilities gets you fired in the real world.  It should get you fired in the political world too.

        Not so much on board with "costing them a ton of money" as solace, as I stated in my diary.  There's plenty more where that money came from, and I'm quite sure the GOP considers they got a bargain.

      •  Politicians lying is grounds for recall (0+ / 0-)

        Impeachment?

        Oooookay.

        •  Ummmm, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, 3goldens

          remember that pesky time when the GOP impeached Bill Clinton for lying?  

          •  And it was wrong then. There's a standard for (0+ / 0-)

            Impeachment and it ought not be "lying" unless such lying is treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors like it says in the constitution.

            We're using GOP witch hunt against bill Clinton as our expulsion from office standard now?

            Ugh.

            This is ridiculous.

            •  I don't think it is a fair comparison. In one case (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens, peptabysmal, JVolvo

              people's livelihoods were affected. In Clinton's case his wife was the only one affected, it didn't matter to the population.

              But I can see your arguments. I am just not convinced that there are that many people who feel that way and would vote FOR Walker.  I could see them NOT voting at all. I just don't quite see it that they would vote for Walker. How about you, did you feel it was so important not to have a recall that you voted FOR Walker? ( you don't have to answer if you don't want to)

              •  I don't live in WI. Plus I'm a partisan. (0+ / 0-)

                If given any chance to oust a lying sack of shit republican I would. If I'd been in Wisconsin, id have voted for Barrett without hestation.

                But I simultaneously believe that there wasn't sufficient cause for Walkers recall.

                He lied his ass off and got elected. Then started enacting crazy assed exteme policies. While it makes me mad, to me, it doesn't rise to the level of removal from office. That's what elections are for. It sucks, yes, but what is the standard?

                That's a complicated answer, I know.

            •  No mdmslle, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, AnnieJo

              I wan not attempting to use the GOP with hunt against Clinton as our standard.

              Your earlier comment asked if lying was a standard for impeachment now, and I answered that it was 14 years ago, in the hands of the GOP.

              When people say "if a lie is the standard for a recall, then every politician would be recalled, is facile and not taking in the nature of the "lie" or "lies."  Many politicians exaggerate or present only part of the information.  Others cook numbers.  And yes, some, like Mitt Romney, out and out lie every day.

              But when you present yourself as one thing and then turn out to be another, you're already on shaky ground.  When you ram your agenda through, in some cases against the laws of Wisconsin, you are now in the misconduct area, imo. When you lie---and Walker like Romney lied constantly--- cook the books, disregard the letter and the intent of state laws, you're a politician who is vulnerable to recall.

              I know you don't believe in recalls, and don't see it as my duty to convince you. But four years is a long time, and in just 2 years Scott Walker took a hatchet to this state, divided it bitterly and indicated he had a lot more on his rabid right wing list---NONE OF IT HAVING TO DO WITH GROWING JOBS, which is what he ran on.  Wisconsin said Oh no you don't, and few of us regret it.

              So we'll agree to disagree.  The point of my diary was really that Wisconsin is a template for what happens when the Democrats think they can out run and out ground game being disastrously outspent in the air wars.

      •  If we tried to recall all politicians who don't do (0+ / 0-)

        What they promise...whew!

        Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

        by Smoh on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:36:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We would have a better world? (nt) (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, JVolvo
        •  It was a whole lot more (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peptabysmal, JVolvo, AnnieJo

          than not doing what he promised.  Much of how Walker rammed through his agenda was against the intent of the laws of Wisconsin, and in some cases he outright broke those laws.  And yes, there were attempts to stop him on that basis, but they did not work.  Did I mention that the attorney general of Wisconsin is a rabid right winger?

          Walkers budget repair bill was a trojan horse that had MANY more elements in it than killing collective bargaining.  For instance, there is a part of that bill that allows the state to sell state assets in no bid contracts.  Which means that Walker can sell anything he wants to the Koch brothers to thank them for their support, without even taking the time to make sure the state is getting the best offer---This is serious and scary stuff.

          And there's lots more, but you know, you had to be there, and even if you were, you sure didn't hear any of it from the Wisconsin MSM media.

          •  I completely agree with you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StellaRay

            I was responding to G2geek saying "[politicians] promising one thing and doing something else".  I don't know a single politician who hasn't done that.  Mine was simply a wry comment about how politics run in this country.  And many others I presume.

            Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

            by Smoh on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 01:14:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  If lying is the standard... (0+ / 0-)

        we could recall every politician in the country.

    •  That's Part of the Messaging Job. The Grounds for (7+ / 0-)

      recall were absolutely solid. Recall is for governance issues, impeachment or law enforcement is for legal misbehavior.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:19:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely, Gooserock. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, JVolvo

        As I said elsewhere in this thread, professional misconduct gets you fired in the real world, and it should get you fired in the political world too.  

        And it is INDEED part of the messaging job.  Imagine what might have been if the Democrats had spent the months between when the recall became inevitable and when we had a candidate, selling the reasons for the recall, with say, 12 million to do it.  

        •  Up above (0+ / 0-)

          you were saying 26 million, but even at $12 million, there is no way that the national party is going to commit that much money to one governor's race. They have a razor's edge of a majority in the Senate and 25 seats are in play this year. With the right candidates, there's a 33% chance we could take back the House. At the very least put a good dent in the overwhelming republican majority. That's where they're spending the money this year.
           And, for what it's worth, the DNC chipped in almost $2 million since the recall began and the Democratic Governor's Association gave $800,000.
          Most of the money spent on Walker was private money, and you even said it  above, I think, that we simply cannot compete in a money war.

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:01:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We sure did compete in the money war (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo, skohayes

            in 2008.  I realize 2012 is an entirely different thing. However, we must compete again if we want to win.  Not doing so would be risky beyond the definition.

            What I also said in my diary, is that it's important that all we Democrats contribute what we can.  For those who refuse, because they're angry with Obama, so bit it.  But for the rest of us it's imperative we not underestimate the power of money, and its ability to push its platform out front.

            Actually the DGA gave over 2 million.  Combined with the DNC that all equaled about 4 million. Parking meter change compared to what we were up against.

            There are rich Democrats too, plenty of them.  But the "private money" was not there for Wisconsin democrats as it was for the republicans.  And there was little help from the National Democratic party to help raise that money from the private sector till the last minute. The RNC was a different story, even if they didn't put in the money themselves.  It is simply inarguable that the two parties treated this election very differently.

            I understand the DNC has its hands full with the November election, so let them go for that, and not underestimate the need for more money. And let us not withhold what we can give.  

    •  In Nov., they DID feel the recall was justified, (8+ / 0-)

      by June, they didn't.  Why?  Because of Walker's air war.  Barrett lost in part b/c Walker and his puppeteers were able to convince moderates and indies, between November and June, that recalls should only be another name for impeachment.  If we'd put our own view on recalls out there with enough air time, we could have had a different result.

      The polling proves it:

      http://host.madison.com/...

      Walker, your pink slip is coming, unless the orange jumpsuit gets you first.

      by non acquiescer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:20:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I remember when they recalled Davis in CA and (0+ / 0-)

      thought this was an abuse of the law. Yeah, they had a right to do that but they guy has just been reelected and didn't do anything really bad. He was blamed for Enron mess and budget deficit. While he could have done a better job dealing with both, neither were really his fault.

      I think a lot of WI voters thought smth along the same lines about Walker.

  •  disagree - the margin's were the same (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    I'm sure you're aware of the other arguments/wouldacouldashoulda from our side: Distaste with recall. I've read that some say the campaign was unfocused. Rather than a specific focus of the collective bargaining they turned it into a referendum on Walker overall. Don't know.

    But what I think the margin's show is, sorry, the opposite of your thesis. That all the big money (and when you combine all expenditure isn't the ratio smaller than 7/1?) did was absolutely maximize their turnout. And we countered that with the ground game. Which didn't maximize our turnout but came pretty close. So I think those margins say that a ground game can also maximize turnout and that, in this hyper sectarian landscape 2012, all the air war does is fire up the base.

    Regarding Nov? Their base is already maximized by skin color and, let's hope, put off by the Olympian dishonest empty suit rich kid asshole vibe that is Mitt Romney. The huge issue is if their airwar ends up swamping close House races in districts where we don't have an inspired ground game.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:52:50 PM PDT

    •  When you say (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, Gooserock, peptabysmal, rosarugosa

      "all the big money did was absolutely maximize their turnout," I find the word "all" an understatement.  They paid a lot of money per vote at the polls, but as I've said here repeatedly, I think the GOP considers every dime spent a bargain.  They won, and they're still crowing, and use it in every speech they can.

      57% of Wisconsin voted. I would not say we came close to maximizing our turnout. If we had maximized our turn out, we'd have won, like we did in 2008.  Yes, the recall election had to be as important to Democrats as a presidential election.  It was for the republicans.

      And sorry, but the idea that republicans are going to be put off by the "Olympian dishonest empty suit" is wishful thinking. We thought the same about Walker.

      Agree totally air strength is a big issue in down ticket races.  But like I said, If people get to the polls to vote for Obama, they'll vote his down ticket too.

      •  but the margins were almost identical (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rosarugosa

        The percentages resembled the previous election.

        I also think - and there may be an element of wishful thinking here - that there are moderate Republican voters that are put off by Romney (there were recent focus group reports on this).

        There's also the general issue of the left wing echo chamber - and I get flamed for bringing this up but it's cool. We tend to not realize that the street actions are annoying their base. If lefty fervor had some mystical power we'd be in the second Dean administration and better for it. I also think that Wisconsin is that much of a divided state. I don't think that we would have chipped off people that voted Walker the first time with an ad barrage. HOWEVER, and this plays to your thesis, we may have dragged some of the Obama voters that did not vote this time to the polls.

        As for them getting value for their dollar: They don't care. A billion here, a billion there, doesn't matter to their budgets. Just the cash that went missing during the first year of Iraq is way more than this, the most expensive Presidential campaign in history.

        I wish we could work the other way around. That we got our people to the polls for down ticket and then they voted for Obama. That's not this election. I'm gonna spend my money down ticket but if Obama is in trouble in my town it's over.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:19:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's the down ticket races that will hurt the most (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StellaRay, JVolvo

    The Republicans know they can lie as much as they want, in fact the more the better, and the Dems simply won't be able to keep up with defending themselves.

    While we spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting wars against ghosts that had no chance of being a real threat to us, our democracy was stolen by the Oligarchs and their 5 Supreme Court justice puppets.

  •  ONE Recall Failed. The Senate Was Flipped. (6+ / 0-)

    Your point though about the spending is basically solid. This is going to be a profoundly difficult summer and fall.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:20:20 PM PDT

  •  I think we'll see an ugly national election (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StellaRay, rosarugosa, 3goldens, JVolvo

    with the republicans using some of the "lessons" learned from the recall.

    But I'll put forwards three points going forwards for WI

    1) The turnout still was not at presidential election level for WI. For better or worse, we do better with the  disinterested voter who only shows up on the first Tuesday of November every four years. We can't get them out at any other time.

    2) We need to get past the "it's Madison and Milwaukee" mindset. Barrett got thrashed by 16% here in an Assembly district that Obama won in 2008. And we had no "air war" - we're in the Twin Cities metro area.

    3) All bets are off if Walker is indicted in August.

    •  Yep---big uglies headed our way. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike Kahlow, rosarugosa, 3goldens, JVolvo

      #1---right, we did not get the turn out we needed.  And that every four years only/disinterested voter is a problem that has shown up over and over again for Democrats.  But again, I wonder how much more turn out we could have engendered with 26 million spent over 4 months instead of 6 million spent over one month.

      #2.  TOTALLY AGREE.  The stat I listed in my diary, which shocked me, certainly testifies to that.

      #3.  Yes, and oh, PLEASE.

    •  Its already started. Lies repeated often and long (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rosarugosa, StellaRay, 3goldens, JVolvo

      enough sway low info and willfully ignorant voters.

      Does anyone else think the early vote totals given out by the republicans was done to completely demoralize us. It seemed like there wasn't a chance of letting us get up a head of steam after the polls closed.

      I had to piece it together a couple of days later b/cause I was out all day on the 5th GOTV. Barely got to my daughters that night & got something to eat before the announcement was made w/the results.

      Yeah I am still willing to fight, but am worried other people might not be so inclined-don't like the way that was done on election night. I hope I am wrong.

      •  I do think so. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peptabysmal

        I think that because remember how they never gave out their internal polling numbers? They knew and I think they must have had numbers like 60-40, but then the last weekend they dropped to 57-43 or something like that. By not publishing the numbers, our ground game doesn't get credit for anything.
         Just my speculation.

  •  I have to go out for awhile. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    But please enjoy the conversation. I will be back in a bit
    and will do my best to respond to everyone who took the time to add in here.

  •  The irony is that folks here starting with (0+ / 0-)

    Kos were some of the loudest voices urging nd defending Obama's blowing up the Presidential public campaign financing system in 2008.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site