Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A recent poll by St Norbert college showed that only 6% of people polled that are are going to vote for Burke are doing so because they believe she has great ideas, the other 60% surveyed are voting for Burke because she is not Walker.
It's clear that most democrats would vote for a ham sandwich if it were on the ballot against Walker. Also what is very common on that side is many voters are not informed on the issues and as long as they have a "D" in front of their name they are voting for them.
Quite possibly, a ham sandwich could do a better job of governing this state.
Quote:
So far when I ask liberals why they are voting for Burke, I get answers like "anyone but Walker", or "I don't care as long as Walker doesn't win".
There is indeed a lot of that: Burke isn't a very magnetic candidate. But it's too bad Walker has divided the state so much that so many people feel that way. It sort of makes me wonder if he planned to be so obnoxious just to disenfranchise large numbers of people.
Quote:
We might have the most unqualified person running for Governor in our states history, I don't know how you go from being fired from your two most important jobs and think you can run the state, especially after doing nothing for the last 7 years.
If the propaganda about being fired is true, and if you consider her philanthropy/volunteer work as doing nothing.
Quote:
We see how incompetence has ruined the presidency, now we want to put in charge of the whole state someone who is even more unqualified than Obama.
Obama will probably be remembered as a better president than both Bushes, and he has shown himself much more qualified and competent than many of the others: Taylor, Hoover, Harrison, Grant, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Harding, and Buchanan, to start.
Quote:
BTW, I bet a million dollars that if Jim Doyle passed all the same exact reforms that Scott Walker did we would hear grass grow, it's similar to the anti-war crowd. I'll never forget the day one of my Bay View neighbors at the time had about 97 stop the war signs and the very next day after Obama won the signs were all down, he wasn't even sworn in yet.
Doyle probably would have talked about his intentions to push for such reforms during the campaign, instead of pulling them out of a secret hat and pushing them through like Walker did.
For every wrong or silliness committed on the left, I guarantee there's one to marvel at on the right. I still remember a conservative guy at a job interview who illegally questioned me about my beliefs regarding Clinton/Lewinsky and the death penalty. It's probably a blessing that I'm not working in southern Missouri.
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City <<A recent poll by St Norbert college showed that only 6% of people polled that are are going to vote for Burke are doing so because they believe she has great ideas, the other 60% surveyed are voting for Burke because she is not Walker.
It's clear that most democrats would vote for a ham sandwich if it were on the ballot against Walker. Also what is very common on that side is many voters are not informed on the issues and as long as they have a "D" in front of their name they are voting for them.>>
Quote: Quite possibly, a ham sandwich could do a better job of governing this state.
<<So far when I ask liberals why they are voting for Burke, I get answers like "anyone but Walker", or "I don't care as long as Walker doesn't win".>>
Quote: There is indeed a lot of that: Burke isn't a very magnetic candidate. But it's too bad Walker has divided the state so much that so many people feel that way. It sort of makes me wonder if he planned to be so obnoxious just to disenfranchise large numbers of people.
I am interested to know what people think Walker has done to divide the state so. I am not questioning the division...it is very real. Just curious as to what folks think he has done to make it happen. It's gotta be something more than the usual stuff politicians do (lower/raise taxes, decrease/increase program funding, cater to special interests, etc.) since all politicians in a state as purple as ours make decisions that are unpopular with a substantial percentage of residents yet do not cause such a serious division.
Aside from the venom, the attack on Governor Walker is weak sauce. Your defense of same, even weaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpindogs
Sad bingo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kv7370
Walker is VERY ethical. Burke is, well, read the latest news. If this Albers guy is wrong then she should sue him. I'm sure a president of a company is going to lie, right? He would be a fool. She is bad news all the way around and anyone that votes for her deserves her. yea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kv7370
thefragile=die-hard democrat his own agenda. Selfishness at it's height. I say this because obviously Mary Burke is a very poor candidate for a governor yet you will vote for her just because she is a democrat!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kv7370 thefragile=die-hard democrat his own agenda. Selfishness at it's height. I say this because obviously Mary Burke is a very poor candidate for a governor yet you will vote for her just because she is a democrat!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile
Why ever would I vote for Walker???
I don't think the poster was suggesting you vote for Walker.
There has been a rare time or two when I simply could not vote for any candidate because I either very much disliked their platform, their character or felt they were seriously unqualified. Not voting is an option and one that does not always imply apathy. There are ramifications to be sure but the choice remains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kv7370 thefragile=die-hard democrat his own agenda. Selfishness at it's height. I say this because obviously Mary Burke is a very poor candidate for a governor yet you will vote for her just because she is a democrat!
I don't think the poster was suggesting you vote for Walker.
There has been a rare time or two when I simply could not vote for any candidate because I either very much disliked their platform, their character or felt they were seriously unqualified. Not voting is an option and one that does not always imply apathy. There are ramifications to be sure but the choice remains.
I would never not vote. That's pretty unconsciable to me. You don't vote? Don't have a say in how things are going. My thought process is, not voting is giving a vote to your opponent.
There has been a rare time or two when I simply could not vote for any candidate because I either very much disliked their platform, their character or felt they were seriously unqualified. Not voting is an option and one that does not always imply apathy. There are ramifications to be sure but the choice remains.
I voted 3rd parties for a while (as I think both parties are nearly indiscernible, despite what "tastes great/less filling" hardline partisan hacks will bluster), and it pained me to see the "more objectionable" of the 2 objectionable candidates win. Not that my vote would have swayed the election, I just feel it's my duty to do my part, and "not voting" or "throwing away your vote" seems like a waste of time to me. So I will continue voting for the less objectionable (and occasionally an unobjectionable) candidate for the rest of my life.
As someone else mentioned, I was a big fan of how Tommy Thompson ran things back in the day. I couldn't stand Doyle, a career politician intent on greasing palms and wasting state monies; nor can I stand Walker, a non-native career politician more focused on a national run than the welfare of the state of Wisconsin.
What is Wisconsin's position in the Midwestern hierarchy vs where we were before Walker took office? I think everyone knows the truth, here. Walker ran on jobs and didn't deliver; he is intent on bringing in non-Wisconsin firms that will destroy large tracts of beautiful wilderness for a comparative pittance paid to the local citizenship; he made drastic changes that divided this formerly friendly state, changes that were not outlied in his campaign or he would not have won the election in the first place; he is clearly a political weasel, selling his ace to the highest bidder, which quite often is the Koch Brothers; and so on down the line.
Is Burke another Doyle but with less political experience? Seems that way. Better 4 years of that experiment than 4 more years of proven ineffectual rule, by a guy affecting a TUFFGUY image that he hopes translates to greater power in Washington but has left the state citenzenry he's supposed to represent more divided than at any point in my lifetime.
1. Ended collective bargaining, and the unholy alliance of voting into office, those who then negotiate the union contract. An unholy alliance. CHECK!
2. Ended the stranglehold the WEA Trust had on school district health insurance. Gave more options for school districts and their employees. Lowered cost for both the district and employees in many cases. CHECK!
3. Improved the ratio between school districts and school district employees cost sharing of health insurance and health costs. Lowered cost of operation, gave employees more of an ownership of their health decisions. CHECK!
4. Lower property taxes as a result of Nos. 2 and 3 above for all tax paying citizens. CHECK!
Ineffectual? Hardly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheese plate
I voted 3rd parties for a while (as I think both parties are nearly indiscernible, despite what "tastes great/less filling" hardline partisan hacks will bluster), and it pained me to see the "more objectionable" of the 2 objectionable candidates win. Not that my vote would have swayed the election, I just feel it's my duty to do my part, and "not voting" or "throwing away your vote" seems like a waste of time to me. So I will continue voting for the less objectionable (and occasionally an unobjectionable) candidate for the rest of my life.
As someone else mentioned, I was a big fan of how Tommy Thompson ran things back in the day. I couldn't stand Doyle, a career politician intent on greasing palms and wasting state monies; nor can I stand Walker, a non-native career politician more focused on a national run than the welfare of the state of Wisconsin.
What is Wisconsin's position in the Midwestern hierarchy vs where we were before Walker took office? I think everyone knows the truth, here. Walker ran on jobs and didn't deliver; he is intent on bringing in non-Wisconsin firms that will destroy large tracts of beautiful wilderness for a comparative pittance paid to the local citizenship; he made drastic changes that divided this formerly friendly state, changes that were not outlied in his campaign or he would not have won the election in the first place; he is clearly a political weasel, selling his ace to the highest bidder, which quite often is the Koch Brothers; and so on down the line.
Is Burke another Doyle but with less political experience? Seems that way. Better 4 years of that experiment than 4 more years of proven ineffectual rule, by a guy affecting a TUFFGUY image that he hopes translates to greater power in Washington but has left the state citenzenry he's supposed to represent more divided than at any point in my lifetime.
still getting up to speed with the WI gov race; seems (unless there are other legislative races i'm not aware of) that with WI legislature controlled by the Rep party, if we vote in a Dem gov and the party rule does not change we'd only be looking at gridlock as we all know in most cases they can not play nice in the sandbox together let alone work together to better our situations/resolve our issues.
Am I correct on the above, or could there be enough potential legislative changes that a vote for Burke wont mean instant gridlock?
I am interested to know what people think Walker has done to divide the state so. I am not questioning the division...it is very real. Just curious as to what folks think he has done to make it happen. It's gotta be something more than the usual stuff politicians do (lower/raise taxes, decrease/increase program funding, cater to special interests, etc.) since all politicians in a state as purple as ours make decisions that are unpopular with a substantial percentage of residents yet do not cause such a serious division.
Here's one perspective, among many, about Walker's role as "divider-in-chief":
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
