Do you believe it should be illegal? On an unrelated note, I really like the Greek policy of not publishing any polls in the 2 weeks prior to an election. It takes away some of the ridiculous microtargeting/etc - though it would be more helpful if it was much longer than 2 weeks.
I dont think polls are the problem. Polls are fine. I think the level of tv, radio, signs, etc.. all need to be toned down 2 weeks before an election. It just becomes overkill at a certain point. This race became funded to such a ridiculous degree that it exploded in a wave of advertising and voter contact that is not possible in any normal election.
I do. The info should be public.....but distributing it in this way should not be allowed. You OK with this?
Supposedly a huge turnout, similar to a presidential election year. Conventional wisdom says that favors Democrats. I certainly hope so. A hypothetical question. What political impact would a Walker defeat have beyond the obvious one in Wisconsin?
They were always going to get a huge turnout. What they need is 2008 level turnout (above 70%). To me that has to be their goal. Republicans are as fired up about this as democrats. In 2008 they hit 70% with a Republican base that was dejected. The only thing this might do is help Tammy Baldwin win Herb Kohl's seat since they've ID'd so much of the state in their targeting programs for the recall. It'll be great for Wisconsin races. Data like that is money. As for nationally, eh. This was a weird recall. It'll probably make some governors lay off removing public sector bargaining rights but that was killed off already by the repeal of the Ohio law with a voter referendum. This is like the California recall. Just a weird event created by some unusual circumstances and laws. I dont think it'll have much of an impact.
I agree with that. The polling thing was sort of separate - I think it would be great if either Obama or Romney would, at one of the debates, ask voters to simply abstain or lie in the polls and throw all of the validity of those out the window. I just think polls allow candidates to tailor their message to win votes of certain groups. Taking positions on various issues after focus grouping and polltesting them sucks, in my opinion. I'd love it if the candidates just had to have national platforms and let the votes fall where they may. No, I'd be OK with it being illegal. I'd be up for overhauling and limiting all sorts of campaign finance laws and activities. But for supporters of the concepts behind Citizens United, it seems like a reach - buying this public information and using it how you want is free speech, no? As for the morality of it, I agree its wretched. But I think much of what is perfectly accepted is morally unacceptable too, so I don't really separate this much from any of the other ridiculous stuff that happens in campaigns.
Early results here are strange. Only 1% reporting, so these results mean nothing in terms of margins. But what is odd is this: Governor: Walker (R) 62% (19700 votes) Barrett (D) 37% (11700 votes) Lt. Governor: Mitchell (D) 59% (8800 votes) Kleefisch (R) 41% (6000 votes) Not surprising that there are more Governor votes than Lt. Gov. But it doesn't seem like a good sign at all for the Lt. Gov that even with Walker dominating early on, she's getting beaten handily earlier. Basically, lots of Republicans just seem to be voting for Walker and no one else.
Hmm - never mind. Those results seem to have been totally off. Updated to 2% and the results have normalized quite a bit, actually with Kleefisch leading by a larger margin than Walker. There must have been some kind of data feed fluke.
Not necessarily. As I view simultaneously TPM, CNN, and Ace of Spades, the Walker vote is: CNN: 279,529 (21%) TPM: 234,668 (19%) Aces of Spades: 227,116 (18%)
you turn a 3 million dollar deficit into a surplus and people will take notice. That's a real accomplishment. hint hint.
