The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Brittain33]

If the state senate had the votes to abolish collective bargaining now, they could "go nuclear" and do it. They have no reason not to strip that out from the fiscal bill and pass it with their reduced quorum. Many people feared Walker would do it.

But the fact that they haven't and the GOP leader in the State Senate said he would not move on this until the Dems returned is a tell that they haven't got the votes within their caucus to do so.

[Brittain33]

If the state senate had the votes to abolish collective bargaining now, they could "go nuclear" and do it. They have no reason not to strip that out from the fiscal bill and pass it with their reduced quorum. Many people feared Walker would do it.

But the fact that they haven't and the GOP leader in the State Senate said he would not move on this until the Dems returned is a tell that they haven't got the votes within their caucus to do so.

Alternatively, though....if there isn't a majority in favor of the bill, why are Democrats having a problem showing up? If there aren't enough votes to pass, there would be no reason to stay in Illinois.

A number of reasons:
1. They don't know the true state of play in the caucus the way the GOP leader does. There are probably senators who are wavering, but not committed no votes.
2. Returning to Madison and enabling the legislature to call a vote gives the Republicans a chance to screw up their courage and do it and get it over with, and call it a victory. By staying away and keeping the outcome in doubt, they keep the pressure on the Republicans and make it unbearable, meaning some waverers could become solid nos or start publicly floating compromises.
3. Maybe it's all a trap for the Dems to return--can't rule that out.
4. There are surely senators who would rather vote for this in a full senate than in a rump senate and so are only conditional yesses.

Time is the enemy of the Republicans.

[Brittain33]

Another pressure point is that Walker could start firing people without a budget.

Walker can do all kinds of things with a majority. The question is, and it has always been, how the Republicans judge the consequences of these actions for the future and if they think these are all good thing that are being accomplished. I really wonder if Walker laying off state employees when he is the one who is seen to be unwilling to compromise will play out well in Wisconsin. But there seems to be a real gap in this forum on that.

[Brittain33]

Torie, where I part ways with you is that I see the Republicans having already won a substantial victory in the big givebacks from the unions—especially the precedent in going from zero contributions to significant ones. I think they should take that win and consider themselves fortunate. No, they won't be able to kneecap the Democratic Party's troopers for future elections. But they'll have done a lot for good government and good budgeting.

[Brittain33]

If the GOP drops the unions can't F with pensions and medical benefits anymore stricture, it will be seen I think as a massive and castrating defeat. That is where we disagree I suspect.

I think Wisconsin was a tough state for them to start this particular rollback and they'll have better luck elsewhere even if Walker falters. We'll see.

[Brittain33]

Talking Points Memo implies that even Rasmussen's polls are showing bad news for Walker now... no real numbers yet. Whether or not Walker successfully busts the unions in this term of the legislature, he seems to be completely playing into the hands of Obama 2012.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/rasmussen_walker_flailing.php#more?ref=fpblg

[Brittain33]

The bit about younger voters being more pro-union is kind of notable, now most people would say it's not surprising that youngs have more liberal views, but unionization is something people tend to association with olds as unions were far more relevant back then.

I wonder if it's because the biggest group affected is the teachers.

[Brittain33]

I can match krazen's swagger. That resolution has no power as long as they are not in Wisconsin, right?

One of the senators arranged to get his paycheck while out-of-state by granting power of attorney to his staff members to claim it for him. The Republicans folded and gave it to him.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/awol-wisconsin-dem-beats-the-system-gets-his-paycheck-mailed-to-him.php?ref=fpblg

[Brittain33]

Wow, when even Rasmussen is showing numbers like that, you know the jig is up.

The Pubbies cannot afford to back down, and won't.

Walker can't afford to back down. But it's not just him. Eight Republican senators are eligible for recall elections and Daily Kos is coordinating an effort to gather signatures. Some of them are from districts that won't elect a Democrat even though Obama narrowly won in '08... some are from more Democratic districts than that. I doubt all of them want to face a union-powered recall over the issue of collective bargaining when the unions have already offered big concessions on money. 

[Brittain33]

Hrm, good find. The Dems had said that they stand together and won't allow only one or two to go back and provide the quorum... provided that still stands, we'll have to see if they cave, or if other senators echo what he said. The Dems really do have the momentum here and the issue can be forced prior to 2012 if signatures to get recalls underway really do get going. But I understand his point, if it comes down to them staying away for two years, that's not going to happen.

[Brittain33]

Cinyc, go for it. I could have made the same argument in '09 that voting against health care reform was going to be deadly for Republicans in Obama districts. I would love to live in a world where obstructionism was punished... instead I live in the world where the 2010 election happens. That's the template.

Even Rasmussen has Walker's disapproval rating up to 57%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/wisconsin_governor_walker_43_approval_rating

The polling shows the public is very much not on the Republicans' side. I didn't predict this would be the outcome, and I'm surprised to see them rallying to the unions' side. Like many here, I thought unions and teachers were less popular than they were. I think both sides of senators can see where the future lies, and also which party is more overextended in the Wisconsin legislature based on partisan fundamentals. I think the last thing Walker wants is to have to take this back to the voters in recalls, either in offense or defense... their plan was to ram this partisan bill through the legislature without people noticing and hope it only made them stronger. It's already too late for that.

Which Republican senator wants to be the next Suzanne Kosmas?

[Brittain33]

BTW, the Rasmussen poll shows Walker tanking among voters with children in schools. That was the Republicans' base--solid, traditional, middle class American families, not unmarrieds. Bad move.

[Brittain33]

The signature collection for the recalls was 35% above expected this weekend.

Is this for recalls of Dem senators as well as for Republican senators, or only the Dem efforts?

[Brittain33]

Walker and the WI Republicans had the same right to do this that Obama and a Democratic congress had to pass PPACA, and have the potential to face the same consequences.

No, the voters didn't want this when they elected them, but let's face it, many people voting for Dem Senators in '06 weren't thinking too clearly about health care reform. It's how our two-party system works, no actual platform commands 50% of the vote. If union members and their families lost touch with why voting Democratic 100% of the time would have been in their interest, this is the reminder that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We'll see if they can win back anything they've lost in future elections, the same way the tea party is fighting to win back the right to get pre-existing conditions back as a reason to deny coverage, etc. Game on, I guess.

[Brittain33]

Remember kids: Unfettered corporate and millionaire money flowing unchecked into the GOP coffers = good . A fraction of that amount flowing from middle class union members to the Democratic Party to counteract corporation and millionaire money = undermining the political system.

Here's a list of the top 20 political donors from 1989-2010.  10 of them are unions.  But of course, their contributions are just "a fraction"of the amount "flowing" from "middle class union members" who are forced to join or pay the union regardless of whether actually want to do so.

Does that chart capture all the money that goes into third party advocacy groups, Republican astro-turf groups with big advertising budgets, etc.? How was the ratio after Citizens United blew the doors off any restrictions on corporations financing ads to elect people who will cut checks to them in office?

[Brittain33]

I believe that chart shows money from PACs.  I'm not sure whether that chart shows the type of third party advocacy groups you are looking for.  But for every Republican-leaning one of those groups, there are also Democratic third party advocacy groups, Democratic astro-turf groups with big advertising budgets, etc.  Remember MoveOn.org and complaints about George $oro$ trying to buy the 2008 elections?  The system is not tilted toward either party.

That last line is an assertion.

I think that prior to Citizens United, you had money tilting toward power, with Republicans having a natural advantage and a cyclical advantage while they controlled Congress and in 2000, but Democrats sometimes doing better when they had the advantage (namely, the Obama campaign) and big business knew they wanted a winner, and thought McCain would suck. But with Citizens United and big business deciding to go thermonuclear on Obama, the taps were opened. I think it is far too soon to say that the effects of Citizens United is to preserve a level playing field when industries have access to more money than anyone else and have a vested interest in "encouraging" elected officials to cut taxes on their highest managers, to relax regulations for the environment and safety, etc.

[Brittain33]

All 20 of the 20 largest industries donated more to Democrats in 2010 than Republicans.

Give us a link, so we can tear apart whatever bogus assumptions underlie that argument.

I'm going to guess that oil and natural gas now aren't among the 20 largest industries in America, despite Exxon breaking profit records for any corporation, past or present—or that they donated to Dems in 2010?

[Brittain33]

And, again, no accounting of the money plowed into "Citizens for Health Care Choice", "Citizens Against Food Taxes," "Taxpayers for Coal Warmth," "Bald Eagles For A Balanced Environmental Policy," "Patriots for Job Growth" etc. which pound Democrats with millions of dollars in ads funded by industries who oppose Democratic policies.

[Brittain33]

I'm less worried about money making elections than money making policy... some industries can buy Congressional votes by pouring tons of money into an attack campaign, but they also can buy votes by the threat of running campaign ads against an incumbent.

[Brittain33]

I suppose it's the open meetings provision? The Senate will pass it again under proper rules, but that keeps it in the news even longer, which is only good news for the recalls.

[Brittain33]

The pubs knew exactly what was going to happen by doing this in the middle of the night.....so why did they do it if all it could do was hurt them?

I wonder. I don't think the senators counted on this happening, I really don't.

[Brittain33]

How insane is it that we have to assume the political leanings of the justice will determine how they would rule on a case that is purely about procedure under the law where there is no undefined gray area. I don't even know what Walker's argument would be. He's clearly in the wrong on Open Meetings, hence the steamroller approach to establish facts on the ground.

[Brittain33]

How insane is it that we have to assume the political leanings of the justice will determine how they would rule on a case that is purely about procedure under the law where there is no undefined gray area. I don't even know what Walker's argument would be. He's clearly in the wrong on Open Meetings, hence the steamroller approach to establish facts on the ground.

If you only read the left wing blogosphere echo chamber, which is often uncritically regurgitated by the mainstream media, Walker has no argument.

I admire the craftsmanship in this sentence.

I wonder if you can google up a link from a conservative blog that proves that Walker was right to pretend the law had passed because the LRB published it, too.