how anybody is taking this recall to mean anything one way or the other is screwy he won 52 percent to 46 percent in the original election and 54 percent to 46 percent in the second recall election basically no difference in the two big surprise you take any election on the US, make them redo it, and the results will pretty much be identitcal imagine that!
Obamas spending is relevant. Sorry you can't see that. Wisconsin is a key state that shows a swing in support. Not many republicans have carried that state... Not sure what your issue is. BOTH parties dump HUGE amounts of money on key elections..
No need to apologize. It's well known that your comprehension skills are lacking so I will attempt to simplify things for you. See, in this thread we're talking about the recall election in Wisconsin and why Walker won. You inserted a comment about Obama's campaign fund-raising after I mentioned how Walker bought his election with outside-of-Wisconsin money, 8:1. Not only is a Presidential election (which involves every state in the country) four years ago irrelevant, a Presidential election in which both candidates spent obscene amounts of money with neither being significantly greater than the other is also irrelevant to this discussion. I'm sure you're still going to try and crawfish your way out of this or attempt to spin the conversation another way, but anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together can clearly see that you're simply incapable of relating the two situations with a reasonable amount of logic. Which makes Presidential polling relevant a couple months from now. It does not make it relevant now because 1) the Presidential campaign will be much more organized, 2) Romney will not outspend Obama 8:1 or a similarly large number and 3) Romney is a ****ing tool. Agreed. However, only ONE party dumped a huge amount of money on THIS election. I'm not sure why or how you don't grasp that except that you simply refuse to.
Poor thing. I pointed to Obama's spending in reference to your comment about about Walker buying the election. Yes, the thread IS about why Walker won, my comments to start this thread had NOTHING to do with money spent. It is a GENERAL RULE of thumb that if you want to win, you will most likely need to spend MORE than the other guy. The conversation never started off about money until YOU went there. My statements about money were about as meaningless as your comments were. You claim he bought the election in which I pointed to Obama's spending, which was huge, but Obama still didn't buy an election. Even thought Obama recorded record funding. "A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states." "This year it failed at both. OpenSecrets.org tells us a record $2.4 billion was spent on this presidential election. And with Mr. Obama's wide financial advantage, it's clear that money is playing a bigger role than ever and candidates are not competing on equal footing." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835139848377873.html "In Florida, where recent polling suggests an Obama surge, the Illinois senator disbursed more than $2.8 million for television ads in the last week while McCain spent $623,000 -- a massive $2.17 million spending gap." "A detailed look at campaign spending on ads over the last week shows clearly how Obama is using his financial edge over McCain. In 13 of the 15 states where both candidates were on television, Obama outspent McCain -- in some states, drastically." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2008/obamas-spending-edge.html "During the 60 days ending Nov. 1, Obama has outspent McCain on television by better than 2.5-to-1. And in the most recent week, Obama has spent $23.6 million to McCain’s $4.8 million, a spending advantage of nearly 5-to-1." http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/ So you see what you said, from what I have linked and what more information is out there, tells me that your silly little statement was rubbish... Walker didn't buy that election no more than Obama bought his.. Grats on thinking through an opinion, however I disagree. Wisconsin has been a Dem state for a long period of time. Walker has made some good changes, with regards to public unions, which allowed people more choices. Things have worked and his policies have made lasting changes. Changes that I think, people around the nation have paid attention too. It is clear you really don't give a shit, which is fine. Edit: To sum it all up, he won on merit and was re-elected on merit....
