Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

The Scott Walker Recall Election


Original Post: 

Today is a very important day. Voters go to the polls in Wisconsin to keep or recall their current governor. This is only the third time in American history a sitting governor has faced a recall election, and unless you live under a rock, you've probably heard about it. As it was in 2010, (minor candidates aside), embattled republican governor Scott Walker faces Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett. This is the second time in less than two years that Walker has faced Barrett head-to-head.

Image source: Walker/Barrett

All kidding aside, this is a very serious issue. Walker was elected "fairly and squarely" (a term used by his supporters) with a plan to cut spending, reduce unemployment, attract businesses, and lower taxes. By most accounts he has, and it's great to see a politician that has done what he said he was going to do. His opponents claim he has wiped out the collective bargaining rights of state employee unions and infringed on the rights of workers. Through all the hard-fought campaigning, polls have shown a consistent lead for Walker, though news outlets are claiming Barrett has narrowed Walker's lead in the last few days (click the image for a popup view):

That being said, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that this blog supports Scott Walker. Bigger questions need to be asked, however:

- Who do you think will win the recall election?

- What will be the percentage of votes cast for each candidate? See 2010's results here:,_2010

- Will this race have national implications? If Walker wins, would the state go to Mitt Romney in November? If Barrett wins, will it go to Obama?

Please share any thoughts and opinions below. Thank you.


  1. Walker will win!


  2. 51.5% - Barrett
    48.5% - Walker

    good by republiCON

  3. So my opinion is out there, I have it as:

    Walker: 50.8%
    Barrett: 49.2%

    In my opinion, I don't think this will play out in November, and, unfortunately, I think WI will remain blue. The Obama campaign machine (raised $3.2M alone last night), you know, the guy from the party that rails against money in politics, is just way too strong.

    Just my opinion :)

    1. Good morning Mr. Radio Celebrity, er, I mean LME.

      I believe Walker wins too. I think 53-47. As far as November goes, that is hard to say. The people of Wisconsin ousted Russ Finegold a couple of election cycles ago. We will see in a few short months.

    2. LOL - that made my day, Slim.

      And very good point about Feingold! I never even thought about it. You always have a way of making a great connection to your point(s)/position(s).

      My only concern is that I keep reading, "Barrett has made it close in the last few days." Apparently it's based on the most recent debate between him and Walker. I guess he did pretty well. But either way, your point is very true.

      I think it's:

      32slim32 - 1
      LME - 0


    3. Good morning LME! Hope all is well, and grats on the recent developments on the radio!

      I'm curious on your sentiments, you made the remark "The Obama campaign machine (raised $3.2M alone last night), you know, the guy from the party that rails against money in politics, is just way too strong." as if to imply there is a problem with the current system of political financing. But if I recall correctly, you don’t necessarily agree with regulating it?

      Would you elaborate on that more? Is it more of a poking fun comment at Obama or do you see how unregulated money in politics can be problematic?

      And, related topic, but Scott Walker is actually out-financing Tom Barrett in this election by nearly 8 to 1… with nearly 70% of his donations/sponsors coming from outside the actual state. Facts like that are exactly part of what discourages me with the current system; why is nearly 70% of the political influence for a state’s governor coming from outside the state itself? Doesn’t that seem wrong to some? Especially in a country that, many conservatives would argue, was originally built on the idea that the states control the majority of the power for their own people. I sure wouldn’t want people from outside my state having such a large factor higher of political influence over me in determining who runs my own state, and I think that most conservatives feel the same in regards to a big federal government vs bigger state government.

    4. And just for further clarification of my ladder point, this is of course not exclusive to Scott but is also being demonstrated in Barrett’s financing who is increasingly receiving large donations from outside the state as well. It happens on both sides and is no more or less bad for either, but the original point still stands in that it's getting a bit ridiculous (and will only get worse).

    5. Good afternoon, RKen! Happy Tuesday to you!

      With regards to my comment about Obama, you're correct in that I don't think we should be regulating it at all. My comment was focusing on Obama's hypocrisy: that he rails about it (money in politics, as does his party - even in an unprecedented move of admonishing the SCOTUS during a State of the Union address), but then pledges to raise a billion dollars for his campaign, as stated, raised $3.2 mil last night, $15 mil from George Clooney and on and on and on. I would rather him just be honest about it and say he is okay with it. Or perhaps he shouldn't rail against it and just participate like he is. But to say you're against it, and then fully participate it, in my opinion, is hypocritical.

      Do you have any links or citations that back the claim of "70% of his donations are coming from outside the state?" I'm not asking you from a facetious standpoint; I'm actually asking because I know you're good at giving links and I've heard that talked about allllll day. I've seen it on Twitter, and even had someone email me directly about it, but I have found no proof of it. I figured if I can get some answers, I'm turning to you :-) The closest thing I found was this:

      But even this only says, "The battle over Gov. Scott Walker’s agenda has attracted millions of dollars from out of state," with no backing or evidence or anything. So I hope you know I'm not trying to be a jerk; I really do want to know if this is the case. On a side note, I've heard the right saying that unions are busing in voters from MI, and, as per my usual protocol, I've asked for links and proof (see Twitter) to back this and have received none.

      As for funding from out of state, yes, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is a government so powerful that it can tell people how to express themselves via spending (or not spending) their money. As you know from my views, that leads to a very slippery situation.

      Definitely a good debate. I hope to chime in more. Work might restrict me today, but I'll do my best if you write back.

    6. Oh, yeah I actually had the source but forgot to post it. My mistake.

      Here's a couple other articles covering this:

      Although, the exact location of the numbers seems difficult to track down. Like you I've seen it mentioned across different news sites but I don't think I've seen exactly where the numbers come from.

      What would your opinion be if other nations/nation's citizens started donating large amounts of money into our presidential candidates?

    7. RKen - thank you for writing back. That's a good question.

      As you know, I've talked about my personal views on this before, and I believe the way to solve a problem is not by overstepping the Constitution. As I've said, I favor the Citizens United ruling because, in my opinion, as nasty as a problem is, we have a Constitution in place to always protect our freedoms no matter what. I don't want to sound redundant here, but I'm just prefacing my position (though I know you already know it) here:

      With that, as I've said, I believe in the Constitution... and the Constitution protects American citizen's rights; not the rights of foreign nationals. I do not believe the government should be so powerful that it can limit the power of an American citizen to express him/herself with how he spends his money, or what kind of art (yes, many could argue political videos, posters, etc fall under this category) he/she produces or whom he gives it to and when... but the government can have the power to protect its people for foreign nationals. If we don't want foreign money coming in and bankrolling campaigns, we can stop it. Of course, a counter position is basically, "how would we if it is done in secret." I think a fair compromise is that campaign funds/spending must be disclosed. It doesn't violate my free speech if I contribute to a campaign, and the candidate (not me), upon accepting it, must disclose from whom he received his contribution. It does, however, violate my free speech if the government says, "no, you cannot spend your money as you see fit." It also does not violate the free speech of the candidate to disclose who he receives his funding from because, well, running for office is a privilege, not a right. I think that's a fair compromise that doesn't make the government intrude into the private spending powers of its citizens, and protects the monetary influence of non-American citizens from influencing campaigns.

    8. *the power to protect its people FROM foreign nationals... Sorry :-)

    9. That's actually my biggest problem with the current structure of our system, in that Super PACs do not have to disclose their donors or amounts. At the very, very least this aspect should be revisited and properly addressed.

      As you said, there is no violation of free speech/rights in requiring that donations are disclosed. And it is certainly an open area for possible exploitation.

      I'd even argue that we all have a right to know where this money comes from when it involves electing the people that represent us and our government, regardless of the methods that brought it forward (whether directly from a candidate, their campaign, their party, a PAC, or a Super PAC).

  4. All this talk of "getting out the vote" is going to fizzle. Walker has this 55% - 45%.
    It DOES carry over in to nov (sorry LME), and WI goes red!

  5. Walker = 50.2 Barrett = 49.8% (sorry dems, reality is reality, i'm as liberal as they come, but sometimes you just have to face it)

    Won't matter a hill of beans in november.

  6. Barrett will win slightly in my opinion, they were able to mobilize enough people to force a recall election and the unions have alot riding on them being able to prove a point.

    but... only time will tell.

  7. @LoyaltyWatcher... 'they were able to mobilize enough people to force a recall election'

    People?... like Donald Duck? and Mickey Mouse? - oh and don't forget (DEAD) Hitler and (DEAD)Lenin...

    'and the unions have alot riding on them being able to prove a point.'

    What you say? Oh, 'to prove a point' the unions simply 'forgot' these 'people' were FICTITIOUS and/or DEAD?

    And the 'progressive' WI courts said - 'Dead you say? Fictitious you say? Signed numerous times you say? Oh noes...We couldn't possibly believe our OWN lyin' eyes... let's just cost the TAXPAYERS another bundle - and have ourselves a good ol' recall election...'

    Walker - by close to the same margin he won the first time... 50.5%?

    National - After keeping an eye on WI blogs and papers since last year...I think they just might go with Romney (I can hope : )

    1. Dara im pritty sure the point of this blog is to back up your claims,

      I love all the rhetoric you have but please post proof of all the claims your are making. Im not saying your wrong or right but back up what you say with facts.

      I look forward to seeing proof from you that Donald duck and mickey mouse were apart of this. Thanks!