[lbo-talk] Wisconsin recall results

[Bryan Atinsky]

I do have to say that while Sandy Pasch is a very nice person, I was annoyed
by two things. After taking up the candidacy, she really didn't shoot out
the door aggressively and make herself heard until very near the time of the
fake primaries...and not to overemphasize the importance of political
signage, but I happen to live on a main thoroughfare in her district and it
was weeks upon weeks until they even got signs for us, though we asked them
repeatedly. Meanwhile, Darling had two huge signs in her yard on the same
street just up the street from us and made sure to get signs out early. 

Second, Pasch's platform was wishy-washy talk mostly about not losing more
ground, and very very little discussion of any positive agenda. There was an
inherent agenda in how she framed what shouldn't be lost by fighting the
Republican attack, but Doug is right, she did very little to no discussion
of collective bargaining issues...merely about the "need to support our
teachers and education." And a really annoying tact was her repeated
statements that "Darling has changed, she no longer represents us." HUH?!
What kind of nonsense is that? When did she ever represent anyone but River
Hills and Mequon wealthy conservatives? That has been her agenda all along. 

But Pasch did have a genuine grassroots activist base getting out and
supporting her. There were 70 people at any time in the offices and I can
only guess how many were out on the streets. I went by Darlings headquarters
on election day and it was almost empty...she won by top down corporate
activism and disciplined conservatives galvanized by their churches and
their more disciplined personality types and such.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 09:56
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Wisconsin recall results

On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Wojtek S wrote:


> Does not the former explain the latter?  I honestly doubt that
> any openly pro-union candidate would have a realistic chance of
> winning elections in most jurisdictions.

We don't know, do we?

 --