Recalling the recall
Last night I was listening to some talking heads nattering on about the results of the Wisconsin recall. What it means for Obama, what it means for public sector unions, what it means for Democrats, what it means for Romney. I noticed that the heads on the left were making so many excuses that I began to wonder whether they actually believed any of them.
I’ve read quite a few articles by liberal pundits about yesterdays results, too, and I have yet to find one that really deals with the actual issues that were at stake, the ones that the voters may have thought they were considering. Here’s an article by John Nichols that nicely encapsulates the gist of the arguments offered by the left to explain what happened in Wisconsin, and apparently it wasn’t about issues. Walker won because he spent eight times more money than the challenger. He won because the Democrats weren’t as good at “messaging.” And this just might be my favorite, because it seems to make no sense at all:
Yet, against overwhelming odds, Wisconsin’s recall movement fought its way to a dead heat, losing only narrowly in its effort to remove a “right-wing rock star” whose reelection became the top priority of the Republican party, the conservative movement and the 1% billionaires who made Walker’s reelection a national priority.
So now a 7-point spread is known as a “dead heat”? What twisted logic can lead to a conclusion like that? Is that something like 1984‘s O’Brien’s two plus two equals five if the party says it does?
So, do the talking heads and pundits such as Nichols, author of the Nation piece, actually believe what they’re writing? My answer would be “yes and no, simultaneously,” if that makes any sense (and see this for an in-depth discussion of how that can work). It serves them to believe it, and even if they are also aware on some level that there might be deeper problems that explain their loss, it’s too threatening to acknowledge that—to the public, and perhaps even to themselves. And of course they’re also acting as cheerleaders for the left, rallying the troops.
If you think (or want to think—which isn’t exactly the same but can have a similar effect) that elections can be bought by throwing enough money into them even if the policies you advocate don’t resonate with the majority of voters, then all you need to do is raise more money rather than change your message. If you think elections can be won by framing the pitch better, even if the underlying principles you’re advocating go against what the majority of people believe is right, then all you need do is hire better media consultants to manipulate them. And if you think a 7-point spread is close, neither you nor the rank and file need despair.
The alternatives may be too difficult to contemplate. They might require having respect for the fact that most people can actually think. They might require accepting the fact that the majority of people, even in a liberal state like Wisconsin, aren’t on the same page as you ideologically. Nor are they mere putty in your hands, who would come over to your side if only you had enough money and skill to say it properly.
Nichols takes it as a given that the electorate of Wisconsin was manipulated by the right into thinking, as Nichols says, that “up was down, right was left,” and to believe the right’s “fantasy and fabrication.” If you see your opponents as having no valid substantive message, that their entire campaign has been built on convincing the public of a fantasy, then all you have to do is create and sell a better fantasy.
Strategy and money are all very well and good in politics. They are necessary. They are influential. But they are not everything. Perhaps they are not even all that important above a certain basic threshold that is necessary to get the message out to the public. But if the message doesn’t resonate with people, they’re not going to buy it no matter how much you advertise.
[NOTE: Even Nichols’ assertion that Walker outspent Barrett 8-1 may be a self-deluding (or public-deluding? or both?) fabrication. As this commenter points out:
They are comparing Walker and all the independent PAC money on his side to the money that Barrett had left for his campaign after a tough primary. They’re excluding all the dough that the unions spent collecting recall signatures with their paid, out-of-state operatives. The union money that paid for GOTV efforts and advertising also isn’t counted. Nor are the expenditures from the progressive PACs. If you include all this money spent on the left, it goes a long way towards bringing this back to parity.
If that’s true, and the money amount spent by each party wasn’t all that different, then what good does it do you to fool yourself into thinking that the financial disparity was the cause of your defeat? Maybe you’re more interested in saving face than in actually winning next time.
The whole thing reminds me very much of the Scott Brown victory (what is it about these Scotts?), The Democratic Party denied and made excuses for that one, too. Look where that got them—the election of 2010.
None of this is to say that propaganda and lies don’t sometimes work. They certainly do. But hopefully, in this day and age, they don’t work as well or as effectively or as often as they used to. “You can fool some of the people…”—well, you get the idea.]
and look! Google has scrubbed D-Day..
anyone other than me remember that event?
I noticed that the heads on the left were making so many excuses that I began to wonder whether they actually believed any of them.
of course they do… which is why feminism can fight FOR porn and AGAINST porn and not draw a unfalsifiable attention of the geniuses of the future participating… but defending your ego and vanity from the idea you been used is more important.
see my post in the prior thread as to why narcisissim is great for this… because the minute the other side does something you cant comprehend, you become superior to them, as they are “idiots”.
YOUR not who they are talking to, and YOUR not the one receptive and needs to be provided an ego saver by your masters.
so your not going to get the message that you weren’t wrong Sherlock, it was Moriarty the way the left will. (With or without the 6% solution).
so they are doing what the left narcisists want of their leaders. providing their EGOs with outs.
but as i always said:
Leggo my EGO!
[sorry, i couldn’t resist]
THIS is why the thing you note doesnt make sense.. for the same reason you dont spackle a wall with no hole… you have no hole to fill, and so their running around with a platter full of spackle dont make sense…
but then again… we are not equal, and if you forget that, you miught think that everyone thinks like you and not realize they target markets and natures, then deny that exists.
like a woman dressed to kill flirting with all the men… Who ME? I am not bad, i am just drawn that way…
you keep missing that once your off the farm, the messages are not for you… and so your trying to analyse them in terms of MERIT will NEVER work, as they are antithetical to merit, so their methods arent about merit, but manipulation using sociological games, and psych games.. (which is why the government passes the worst control things to the medical profession. if Bloomberg didn’t throw in the medical justification, the smart people would not say… oh… ok… those aren’t the droids i was looking for… )
Artfldgr: again, I am not saying what you think I’m saying. Did you read the link to my article about two and two equals five?
And of course I’m not who they’re talking to.
i should be clearer about who is Winston… sorry
on a related note..
MSNBC Host Reacts To Walker Win: He Could ‘Be Indicted In Next Few Days’…
but this is my favorite…
Sobbing man: ‘Democracy died tonight’…
Democracy is dead if it votes for the wrong thing as determined by this sobber..
now… anyone other than me realize we are constantly referring to a smart devious leadership, playing to dumb dumbs that think they are smart, are told they are smart, and who have no clue as to the meanings of the words they use and regurgitate.
i am waiting for one of them to say “Banary” and the whole community to be a twitter..
[for those that dont know the reference its to Alex of the Alex instutute, a african grey parrot that combined banana and cherry to make up a word for apple. OR trained his keepers to jump to meaning, got an apple, and had that reinforced so kept repeating it once he saw it made his fellow birds excited and feed him]
‘Kill Scott Walker’: Angry libs flood TWITTER with death threats after recall defeat…
so when democracy votes the wrong way, the losers resort to murderous bloody rage?
oh, what a democracy these people would make!!
so reasoned, calm, and full of debate…
The delusion is strong in the commenters on this Open Saloon post –
http://open.salon.com/blog/old_new_lefty/2012/06/04/wisconsin_the_best_election_that_can_buy
I stopped posting there six months or so ago. After a certain point I was biting my tongue so hard, I was afraid I’d do myself an injury.
look! Look!
the break down of who voted for what!
it reads like a Gliechshaltung paid for the votes of the Volk with favors list
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/05/us/politics/wisconsin-recall-exit-polls.html
women voted against, as they get perks from the dems, like loans, grade inflation, removal of men from competition, free sba stuff, mentorships, and on and on…
and lets see.. african americans and minorities..
hey! fancy that… the people who get free money taken from the other groups vote free money, affirmative action, and so forth.
age… well that fits… they are voting to get cheap loans for great useful things like womens studies and black liberation theology
[same as college degree]
and income.. hey! poor dummies who are slaves to the state show they get paid off by the dems and unions too!
a good look over the rest will show you that across the demographic lines..
EVERY group that gets free mony stolen from the unprotected class of white males (the othes that pay have access to a return, that one group does not. so if i take 10 from WM, they get zero back… if i take 10 from one of the others, they get 5 back in redistribution programs)
so basically they are using the wealthy and resources of one race to fund the lives of other races to buy votes. and the more those other races use that cash to have babies, and get more freebies, the more people vote that way.. so its also a vote breeding program too.
but then what happens in less than 20 years when their economic base cant afford to give each of them 600 a week and medical benefits?
Did the lefties not notice Obama collected more money for 2008 than anybody in history? Do they not notice that Obama is doing three to five fund raisers a day, mostly to big bucks boosters?
As I noted in an earlier thread, we don’t like the dog food.
Shh… delusional opponents are the best sort.
I’ve seen little reference to the intimidation, thuggery, vandalism, bad behavior in public, and general uncouth exhibitionism common to the left. There had to be lots and lots of pissed off moderates and conservatives who went to the polls with a mission. You can’t pee on someone’s leg and tell them it is raining.
Of course you can piss on some people’s heads and convince them its rain, because you can fool some people all of the time and most of the people some of the time.
Walker’s reelection is indicative that most of the people have some sense of just how bad things are economically and are partially aware of what must be reformed.
But it is only partial awareness because Wisconsin voters appear to have simultaneously handed control of the state Senate to the democrats…
So, but a battle has been won and the war for America’s soul is still far from over.
Many on the left are so completely convinced of their own personal superiority and the superiority of their philosophy it is impossible for them to look inwardly and question their own assumptions. So yes, I think the pundits believe their own BS.
OTOH, I have a feeling Bill Clinton is very pleased with last night’s results and I’m sure he does not believe 2+2 = 5.
I understand that 38 percent of union votes went to Gov. Walker (radio; I do not recall, and I cannot vouch for, the specific source).
Whatever the actual percentage . . .
That may explain why many polls had forecast the vote to be a bit tighter — what union member (or spouse) who values his/her life and/or livelihood will tell a stranger he’s going to vote to retain Walker?
The front page of the Washington Post said the Wisconsin race was close. Yes, to the WAPO 7 percentage points is close. That’s why I don’t subscribe to the WAPO anymore.
And yet Teh Won’s 5 point win over Johnny Mac was a mandate.
It came down to this: Walker’s reforms had time to work, and show their effects. And people noticed that their local school district went from projections in the red to being much less red, breaking even, or even having a modest surplus.
Without massive layoffs. Methinks the people noticed. Which is why Walker ended up with a wider margin of victory than in 2010 against the same candidate.
2 + 2 = 5 is true for large values of 2.
Walker won because he spent eight times more money than the challenger. He won because the Democrats weren’t as good at “messaging.”
Yet, against overwhelming odds, Wisconsin’s recall movement fought its way to a dead heat, losing only narrowly in its effort to remove a “right-wing rock star” whose reelection became the top priority of the Republican party, the conservative movement and the 1% billionaires who made Walker’s reelection a national priority.
So … this is like an accused murderer saying he didn’t kill the victim, he wasn’t there, it was an accident, it was suicide, it was self-defense, and besides the guy had it coming.
Call it the “dim sum” defense.
The good news is that the Reds will have trouble formulating an effective riposte until and unless they accurately diagnose what happened this time, and why. The more delusional they remain, the longer their tenure in the wilderness.
It is entirely typical of the Progressives to call a bad defeat a victory. Here is the truth: They pulled almost all of their tricks to win this one and came up seriously short.
I can’t wait for November.
I think the Left seriously under estimates how
much Obama & Michelle are disliked by the real middle class (non union working people) in this country. They (the obamas) have made incredibly lame & divisive comments that have truly rankled us. She “First time I was ever proud of my country” then she whispered to Barack at a flag folding ceremony, “All this for a flag”. (Was it cutting into her gym time?) plus the whopper (in my opinion & a dead commie give away) “We will need to change OUR HISTORY” !!!! Talk about a page from Joe Stalin or Saul Alinskey. “Change our history” what exactly does she mean????
Of course he, “you bring a gun I ll bring a knife”
” I ll put on some comfortable shoes & picket with you” (How presidential taking sides) Thanks to the soldiers in Afganisrtan “fighting on my behalf” Then the times (plural) that he has called out the Supreme Court !!! Especially when he had the audacity or stupidity to insinuate that they don t have the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws. What ???? Is this the “Changing of our history” that Michelle was so keen on because my humble education taught me that yes indeed the Supreme Court would be the final decision on the constitutionality of a law.
Checks & balances & all that to rein in any potential tyranny. But the Obamas well after all they do seem to be into tyranny. Barack he just decrees things & they should all just happen….
like the parting of the waters etc. etc.
The libs are in that famous Egyptian river – D Nile.
According to this Bloomberg article,for the 2008 campaign, Obama spent $741 million, compared to McCain’s spending $250 million.
“Obama outspent him by a 4-to-1 margin from Sept. 1 through Nov. 24, FEC records show.”
Would those Demos who claim that money was why Walker won agree that Obama’s outspending McCain was why Obama won?
Just wondering.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anLDS9WWPQW8
Grim’s Hall has collected three different takes from the WWW on what was spent on the campaign.
Money spent should also include what was spent on the Recall campaign on on the primary. I find it hard to believe that with with Big Labor’s resources, the Pubs outspent the Demos 8-1 for the whole campaign- from the Recall campaign on through election day. How much did Big Labor spend on the unsuccessful far left primary candidate for governor?
For the Demos weeping about how they were vastly outspent- a dubious proposition- they picked the fight.
In comparing how the counties voted yesterday with how they voted in 2010, by and large both the Pubs and the Demos increased their winning margins in 2012 in counties they took in 2010.
Yeah Gringo I totally know what you re saying.
Amazingly O reilly had a great segment with them liberal dames he often has on “leslie marshall & Maryanne” ( I am not a huge oreilly fan, he is so fullof himself but…) he did call out this leslie when she started those DNC talking points “ya da ya da Walker out spent barret 18 million to 4 blah blah ” Oreilly jumped all over her !!!! It was a thing of beauty. He even said she did nt answer the question, wasn t this all because money notwithstanding “You do not have a message, what you are saying does not resonate with voters no matter how much money you throw at it ” Loved it, loved it, loved it!
Again gringo it s just as rielly said a DNC talking point, this was the spin they pre determined to put on the results. As you are pointing out some of the actuall spending shows they were closer to equal !! I also read the conservative WI citizens were very infuriated about what those goons did to their state capitol back last yr & the money it cost to clean it up & pay the cops overtime.
So the voters had a score to settle.
Go badgers !!!!
Neo neo you hit the reason for this odd delusional behavior when you noted that the left, in general, as trouble acknowledging that the other side has any merit to their point of view.
The left tends to arrive at their positions via emotional reaction not dispassionate reasoning.
These points mean that if the other side wins it can’t be we the left were wrong (and therefore need to reexamine our positions) it must be due to manipulation or messaging or more money etc.
Not too long ago I read several opinion columns from the left discussing Obama’s reelection strategy for ideas/inspiration.
What was amusing is that they were studying Reagan’s reelection strategy. He won not because his policies were superior – that obviously could not be the case – but because he communicated better i.e. he fooled people into believing they were better off than they were.
If an honest self evaluation of positions is not an option than falling back on excuses like poor communication and messaging and money etc that’s all that’s left.
wowsers trousers. Time hits it on the head! Unlike that dottering old fool Hugh Hefner. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to live out his life? How a life of pure lust and gluttony, now precluded by the advances of old age, demand obedience but cannot be obeyed? (Wow, where in the hell did that come from?)
“Walker won not despite his refusal to compromise but because of it. He cast himself as a politician of conviction, even when his convictions might not be popular. Voters may bemoan the absence of bipartisanship, but the truth is that most prefer their elected leaders to be ideologues.”
http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/05/uncompromised-why-scott-walker-survived-his-recall/
The large clang we just heard was the cognitive dissonance of the Left collapsing after the Walker victory. For months all they could talk about was how the people of Wisconsin were going to take back their state from the vast right wing conspiracy. After all, didn’t a bunch of unwashed students and union goons from Illinois occupy the Capitol building in Madison? What further proof did anyone need that Walker and his minions would be sent packing?
Seeing Rachel Maddow’s smirk vanish in the 49 minutes it took for the networks to go from crowing that the race was “too close to call” to awarding the victory to Walker was almost worth the crap we endured in the past few months.
an exclusive connect the dots for NEO… 🙂
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party.
He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz
and for those not in the know (that by focusing on the erroneous german connection we ignore the soviet one)
Vpered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vpered
Vpered (1909 – 1912) was an organisation within Russian Social Democracy set up by Alexander Bogdanov in December 1909…
but THATS not the important part…
thats just the core and so forth..
Pavel Ivanovich Lebedev-Polianskii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Lebedev-Polianskii
but THATS not the important part…
thats just a station along the trip
note the link is to RUSSIA
VPERED (“FORWARD”) SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
http://vpered.org.ru/index.php?category=14
and pray tell what is “Fourth International”
[before i say, i will point out that you can find my comments from neo all over the blogosphere now… (but not the witticisms)]
The “Third International”, known as the Communist International or “Comintern”, was founded by Vladimir Lenin in 1919, after the failure of the Second International at the start of World War I, and was dissolved in 1943.
and so HERE is the IMPORTANT thing:
Fourth International
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International
get it before its scrubbed… changed… etc
and
oh.. the fifth international..
(can you imagine your average leftist who cant check mcarthy and assumes facts following the chain this far?)
Fifth International
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_International
remember obama hugging chavez, and others? ever wonder why in a REAL way?
League for the Fifth International
(told you league meant communist)
oh… so the Vpered social democrats have reonstituted the comminterm… its global “great game” and is heading towards what the prior internationals pushed everyone to.
now. if only someone knew back in say… 2008, that this stuff was being put together and if only said person told someone else..
eh? (i did)
anyone want to go over that list and compare it to the list of countries with new leaders and in play?
hows this in fiction:
funny, but that is a fictionalization of what a real spy, Golytsin, revealed… but if you make it a sci fi story, no one will believe reality is that (even if they copy from reality)
League for the Fifth International
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_the_Fifth_International
“They also believe in permanent revolution / They believe imperialism is world capitalism, like Lenin, rather than just militarism and war. / They see the current stage of their life as being a ‘fighting propaganda group’”
and whats the punchline?
next post
ISTR Fifth International Conference
Cape Town, South Africa / July 7-10, 2002
Transforming Civil Society, Citizenship and Governance: The Third Sector in an Era of Global (Dis)Order
The paper summarizes major results of original qualitative surveys conducted by the author in two major American foundations that operated in Russian science after the disintegration of the USSR – the International Science Foundation (ISF) established in 1992 by American multimillionaire George Soros with the budget of $100M
fun starts when you track down things like Definition of the Third sector
the reason is that, as i keep saying, they speak in codes and terms not straight speech.
the Third Sector, like the Fifth Column (social fronts like feminism) is another army of subversion..
its the volunteer organizations, saul alinsky (see a soviet with vpered with similar name), and others are all running things now..
now, look up community organizer and third sector…
and you get an explosion of policy papers, theory, names of agencies like soros big one… and so on.
Partnership, the Big Society and community organizing: between romanticizing, problematizing and politicizing community
as i said..
you can read what they are GOING to do if you find the thread of what they discussed over the years that cover what they are now doing.
[edited for length by n-n]