The left’s response to the Wisconsin rout is that their ideas weren’t rejected, but they were simply outspent by a flood of corporate, special interest cash. And it’s true the anti-Walker forces were outspent — by roughly the same ratio as Barack Obama outspent John McCain in 2008 — but obviously if Gov. Scott Walker’s policies were as draconian and abhorrent as Democrats claim then no amount of money could win him the election.
Still, Democrats are bringing back all the old conservative boogeymen — the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, corporate spending, Citizens United — in an attempt to turn the Wisconsin loss into an Obama campaign fundraising ploy. The Hill reports:
In an email to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina called Tuesday’s outcome — and, more specifically, the super-PAC money spent on Walker — a “terrifying experiment.” …
Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, agreed with that sentiment, saying Democrats learned a similar lesson in 2010, when they lost a slew of seats to Republicans.
“In 2010, we did not lose the House to House Republicans,” Israel told The Hill. “We lost it to Karl Rove and the Koch brothers. In 2012, we did not lose the Wisconsin recall to Gov. Walker, we lost it to an 8-to-1 spending differential, most from out of the state.”
One side is almost always outspent in politics, and Democrats certainly didn’t seem concerned when Obama was outspending McCain. But was Wisconsin really different because of the Citizens United decision, as liberal pundits have claimed? At the Examiner, Conn Carroll finds zero evidence that Citizens United had an impact in the race:
But the Center for Public Integrity link…proves no such thing. Yes, [Tom] Barrett was outspent heavily. But none of the money spent on Walker’s behalf would have been illegal before Citizens United either. …
At no point in CPI’s entire article do they cite a single example of conservative spending that would have been illegal before Citizens United, but is legal now.
Read the rest of Carroll’s piece, where he shoots down the different claims about Citizens United and political spending. Citizens United is the crux of the Democratic argument about Wisconsin, but so far they’ve presented no evidence it had an effect.
Well, what else are they going to say? The American people/the voters in Wisconsin carefully weighed their options and resoundingly reject our vision for society?
I think that the influence of money on politics is generally exaggerated, especially in the context of the recent Wisconsin recall. Nobody was in any doubt about the issues in this election, so it is hard to believe that many votes were changed by a TV ad or radio spot. I would argue that the amount of money spent on Walker's campaign reflects the passion conservatives feel about politics now. People from out of state want to participate somehow in the dismantling of the progressive structure when they can't vote directly on it. I've donated to out of state races more in the past few years than ever before for this same reason. nAnd the difference between the recall election and Obama's campaign in 2008 is profound. In 2008 Obama out-spent McCain 4:1 to promote the rather anodyne "Hope and change" message. There was absolutely no substance to any of it. Obama was not elected because of his position on specific issues, but because people formed a misleading image of him based on a massive propaganda onslaught generously paid for by the rich and famous. In his case, outspending his opponents by a large amount was necessary – he had to cover up his inadequacies. nMoney in politics obviously has its uses, but as Ms. Goodman notes, it can't cover up failure or truly unpopular policies.
All those nitwit progressives in the MSM are just whistling past the graveyard…. nThey must be snorting whiskey and drinking cocaine…. n nI live here….once you leave Moscow er Madison you are in the heartland…that place where we cling to our God and our guns…. n nThe recent conservative ascendency began in early 2009 when it became apparent we had a communist in the White House is sure to be his undoing…. n nThe results of the 2010 election are historical (1936)…. a solid majority of states now have conservative controlled legislatures ….. nThere are now thirty two states with gay marriage bans…even California voted for it…but of course the people were overruled there by an activist judge…. n nThe people have spoken.. n nThe elites who handle the "Chosen One" are quaking in their Gucci's right about now as they realise they have lost the consent of the governed due to the socialized medicine power grab, the profligate nspending which is an anchor to the failing economy as well as a harbinger of the pending collapse of the dollar. nThey are desperately seeking a 'game changer' as the steel themselves for the coming tsunami in November…
they really don't think we have the right to spend money to oppose them, well, they don't think we have a right to vote against them either and salami slice by slice they're trying to steal our democratic freedoms one by one. they are furious when the frogs leap out of the kettle before it reaches full boil
Why repeat without explicit refutation the Dim spin that Barrett was "heavily" outspent? Various media outlets have promoted the canard that Walker crushed Barrett with money (8-to-1, 10-to-1, or more) and not with politics and economics that challenge the received 'wisdom' of the left. n nWhat's omitted in the Dim spin is the tens of millions poured into the election by unions and their allies (both direct and indirect cash as well as paid-time-off union 'volunteers'). Many so-called public service unions in Wisconsin already have witnessed their member rolls take a severe nosedive in less than a year, once the state no longer acted as a dishonest broker in collecting (read: extorting) union dues on behalf of the unions. n nOf what use will those unions be to the Dims once they are no longer reliable cash cows and sources of virtual slave labor for the ground game? It's no wonder that the tens of millions in union boodle is carefully edited from the Dim spin!
exactly
I have long felt that union "volunteer" time ought to be accounted for as a campaign donation. Call it "rent a thug", call it what you want, when you have unions producing large numbers of people, that is a campaign donation of sorts.