With numbers like these, the voice of the voters today is arguably a mere footnote.
Democracy does not decide our elections. Money does. Wisconsin is a case study in that.
I'm afraid the writing is on the wall — and has been since long before the ink dried on the first recall petition signature.
Anyone disagree?
Check out my original thoughts on today's elections here if you haven't already.
Actually, it looks like the voice of the voters will probably be heard, it's just that you disagree with what they'll say: http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/05/despite-earlier-predictions-walker-will
ReplyDeleteI'm eagerly looking forward to the way you'll bemoan the veritable truckloads of cash the President is amassing come November.
As I indicated above, money decides our elections, not voters. Did you think I was excluding Obama from that observation for some reason?
DeleteThe voice of the voters were heard? Are you kidding me? Walker outraised Barrett 8-1, and two-thirds of that was from out of state. People are influenced by what they hear, and money sets the narrative. If this election had been held a year ago, Walker would have been sent packing. But you and I both know that a year is like a decade in politics — and more than enough time for the Koch brothers and other monied interests to funnel their resources in.
So when Obama outspent McCain 3-1, he bought that election? The will of the voters wasn't heard? Which elections are decided by voters, in your mind? Are there any?
ReplyDeleteAlso, your numbers are not reflective of the union money, which - although not sent directly to Barrett - was poured into the recall nonetheless, to the tune of over $20M (this is only on-the-books money, btw): http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2012/06/big-labor-recall-total-to-exceed-20-million/
LOL at "if this election would have been held a year ago." This election was held TWICE in the span of less than two years! I guess we should start immediately holding elections at the time when interest groups are the angriest, then we'll really get an accurate sense of what the voters want.
And your lack of response to the actual sentiment in Wisconsin turning against a recall is telling (unless your hilariously vague "uh...money bad!" was a response). I get it, it's frustrating when people don't agree with you, but somehow claiming that a guy who has now won statewide elections in 2010 and 2012 is somehow not who the voters really want is desperate to the point of comedy.
Your insistence on revisiting the 2008 Obama-McCain contest misses a key factor: That was before the Citizens United decision. Spending by special interest groups that year won't even be a drop in the bucket compared to what we've already seen in 2012.
ReplyDeleteSentiment against a recall? More than 1 million people in a state of just 5 million signed the petition to recall Walker. Obviously the public was dead-set against it.
The numbers you provide regarding the alleged money poured in to assist Barrett comes from a think tank whose mission is to "promote free markets, individual freedom, personal responsibility and limited government." That definitely sounds like a reputable, unbiased source.
I have more to say, obviously, but I'll carry the discussion over to your latest blog post and respond to that when I have more time. Lots to tackle here.
Those are the numbers that are self-reported by those organizations. Foot stomping noted, however.
ReplyDeleteFor all your hand-wringing, Walker won by a margin 1.1% greater than in 2010. That's the result of your money boogeyman, it's almost statistically insignificant.