MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, October 25, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 55.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Rich Schultz » Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:55 pm

"One week after the recall election: Romney 47%, Obama 44% in Wisconsin.
The new Rasmussen poll of likely voters:
Prior to this survey, Obama's support in the state has ranged from 45% to 52%, while Romney has earned 41% to 45%. Last month, the numbers were Obama 49%, Romney 45%. The president led his likely Republican challenger by 11 points in March - 52% to 41%...."
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/one-week-after-recall-election-romney.html

Yeah, it's Rasmussen so you can continue to fool yourself a little longer and no, I can't prove it's the recall but darling, This Is What Democracy Looks Like.

But you still got that no show senate seat LOL.
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby massimo » Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:57 pm

Filed under taunting, thread closed.
massimo
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Rich Schultz » Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:00 pm

Yeah, that should fix it.
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:57 pm

Jeebus, one poll out and Rich Tool just shit his pants. Time to get a new pair of undies. Better stock up cause it's a long time till the election and there are about 100 polls that change nearly daily. Better yet, get a diaper.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Rich Schultz » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:32 pm

The trend is not your friend. Did your silly insults win the recall?
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Cornbread » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:03 pm

massimo wrote:Filed under taunting, thread closed.

Why do all you leftists always exert so much energy in squashing anything not lockstep with ya'll's ( <- that should piss off the grammar grannies) cultist worldview?

[from the person above you, starting this thread]This Is What Democracy Looks Like.


I guess ya'll now know why I interact with leftists rather than watch TV--I've already seen most of "america's funniest videos"......
Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Earthling » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:34 am

It will be very close in Wisconsin. How things unfold the next 5 months will make all the difference. Wisconsin, a per usual, is going to be a battle ground state for the white house and I imagine both sides know it.
Earthling
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Ned Flanders » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:31 am

Obama told us this week that the private sector was doing "fine" and the public sector was suffering....
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13380
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby wack wack » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:40 am

Ned Flanders wrote:the private sector was doing "fine"


Hey, look at that! Ned agrees with the President! Right there, direct quote.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Earthling » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:54 am

wack wack wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:the private sector was doing "fine"


Hey, look at that! Ned agrees with the President! Right there, direct quote.


Perhaps the publc sector would be doing better if the private sector were actually doing fine. Government needs to shrink when the economy shrinks. Not the other way around.
Earthling
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby wack wack » Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:02 am

Earthling wrote:Government needs to shrink when the economy shrinks. Not the other way around.


Many economists would disagree with you.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby david cohen » Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:17 am

a poll in June? Really? Give it 7, let alone 28, news cycles.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby nutria » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:02 pm

Earthling wrote:Government needs to shrink when the economy shrinks. Not the other way around.


OK, honest question -- what is your reasoning here?

My thought is that during a recession and times of relatively high unemployment, you'd expect less consumer demand, as consumers generally have less disposable income during such a situation. Because of this, employers would be less likely to hire new workers. Phrased concretely, would a business owner hire a worker to produce product X, when there is no demand for product X? So we have our vicious circle: no demand -> no hiring -> higher unemployment -> no demand. Here is where government ought to step in, to provide stimulus.

You're statement above seems to imply disagreement with my reasoning, and I'd like to hear it.
nutria
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Earthling » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:23 pm

nutria wrote:
Earthling wrote:Government needs to shrink when the economy shrinks. Not the other way around.


OK, honest question -- what is your reasoning here?

My thought is that during a recession and times of relatively high unemployment, you'd expect less consumer demand, as consumers generally have less disposable income during such a situation. Because of this, employers would be less likely to hire new workers. Phrased concretely, would a business owner hire a worker to produce product X, when there is no demand for product X? So we have our vicious circle: no demand -> no hiring -> higher unemployment -> no demand. Here is where government ought to step in, to provide stimulus.

You're statement above seems to imply disagreement with my reasoning, and I'd like to hear it.


The economy is a cyclical phenomenon. Always has been and it always will be. When government decides to start increasing it's programs and spending during a recessionary period it puts strain on the economy, providing superficial relief to those who are unemployed in the form of short term unemployment benefits. This does nothing to address the long term financial ability for those recieving unemployment benefits to attain ongoing employment. Merely compensates them enough to get by until they can find employment.

Is umemployment compensation nescessary? Yes. Does it need to last 2 years? No. Does everyone who qualifies for unemployment benefits truly deserve them? I say no, but I'm sure you'll explain to me why the guy who bounces from job to job, staying just long enough to cash in deserves that benefit just the same as someone who is laid off after many years of employment.
Earthling
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Recall Results put Romney in Lead in Wisconsin

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:06 pm

Earthling wrote:
nutria wrote:
Earthling wrote:Government needs to shrink when the economy shrinks. Not the other way around.

OK, honest question -- what is your reasoning here?

My thought is that during a recession and times of relatively high unemployment, you'd expect less consumer demand, as consumers generally have less disposable income during such a situation. Because of this, employers would be less likely to hire new workers. Phrased concretely, would a business owner hire a worker to produce product X, when there is no demand for product X? So we have our vicious circle: no demand -> no hiring -> higher unemployment -> no demand. Here is where government ought to step in, to provide stimulus.

You're statement above seems to imply disagreement with my reasoning, and I'd like to hear it.


The economic is a cyclical phenomenon. Always has been and it always will be. When government decides to start increasing it's programs and spending during a recessionary period it puts strain on the economy, providing superficial relief to those who are unemployed in the form of short term unemployment benefits. This does nothing to address the long term financial ability for those recieving unemployment benefits to attain ongoing employment. Merely compensates them enough to get by until they can find employment.

Those economy cycles during the laissez-faire era led to periodic depressions (or panics, as they were once properly named). It was only government regulation after the Great Depression (along with stimulus spending) that has prevented another in the eight decades since... although after years of deregulation, Bush (the younger) almost had another.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20016
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Next

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Westsidegal and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar