What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers (3 Viewers)

Gotta plug my nose and stay strong on my no incumbents campaign...
I think it's really silly to have any kind of pledge like that. I don't like Walker, but he's obviously more competent that this woman. To me, unless you're dealing with an extremist of some kind (rare in American politics, and certainly Walker is not one), you have to go with competent over incompetent, no matter what else is at play.

 
Gotta plug my nose and stay strong on my no incumbents campaign...
I am a "no incumbents" person.. thinking all politicians should have term limits.... but.1. IMO, an incumbent to be voted out shall have already held 2 terms.

2. There must be a competent person to vote for

In this case the no incumbent does not work.. :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a good piece about the story and her response. It's entirely an opinion but he makes some really, really good points about Burke and the whole story.
Would LOVE to have someone ask her about this:

But Burke would have us believe that in “eliminating” her job, the company made a decision to kill their own golden goose.

In her television ads, Burke brags about increasing Trek’s European sales from $3 million to $50 million during her tenure, numbers that have never been verified. That hardly seems to be a record that would prompt a business owner to “downsize” his own daughter.
Guessing it would sound like the plagiarism response. Umm...well..umm.. you know.. ummm.. it's like..ummm.. well.. umm.. using someones.. umm words :lol:

 
I live in Madison and I'm a VP for a well known local company. I regularly talk with many Trek VP's and other insiders. One of my Business Analysts at my prior employer went to work at Trek and reported directly to Burke. Her lack of competence and business acumen is well known in the area. I was surprised that she ran primarily on the basis of her 'executive experience' and her ability to revitalize the WI economy and 'create jobs' while the Right did nothing to discredit that. Until this week : - ) Clearly Walker's party planned all along to dump this bombshell the very last week of the campaign. Brilliant.

And for those of you who doubt she was fired, think about this. Who voluntarily leaves a company like Trek while they were experiencing a meteoric rise? No one. That's not how it works.

Why didn't her very own brother, the CEO, endorse her? He, and Trek, only issued statements defending Trek's outsourcing of jobs to China. And, by the way, while doing so her brother said she had nothing to do with that decision. How in the world can you be an Exec at a small company with a very small management team, and not have a say in such a fundamental decision? If you're an Exec, you do. If you're nothing but a figurehead who was given a 'make work' job by Daddy, then you don't.

 
Walker's got this. Anybody but Walker backfired.
Hope you're right./

Not so sure here
Feeling about 70% positive he will win... but that 30% of my mind is really trying to push me to 50/50.. :oldunsure:
Seeing the HUGE turnout has me thinking Burke will pull this out
thats true of most states but not necessarily yours. Didn't the recall vote also have a big turnout? And that also went Walker's way.
 
Walker's got this. Anybody but Walker backfired.
Hope you're right./

Not so sure here
Feeling about 70% positive he will win... but that 30% of my mind is really trying to push me to 50/50.. :oldunsure:
Seeing the HUGE turnout has me thinking Burke will pull this out
thats true of most states but not necessarily yours. Didn't the recall vote also have a big turnout? And that also went Walker's way.
Many from the recall said they didn't like/want Walker but they didn't agree with the recall process. I think if the Dems would've picked a decent candidate it would be over for Walker but can't see Burke getting elected.

 
Did my part against incumbency :)
I hope you voted libertarian otherwise if the only reason you voted for Burke was this then :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, too many are voting for incumbency and status quo, had to vote for someone with a realistic chance of winning. But if less sheeple supported Walker, I'd have definitely voted Libertarian.
Sheeple? Really? So a vote for an unqualified "disaster" in Burke is an informed vote? :lol:

A vote for her is the very definition of being a "sheeple".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did my part against incumbency :)
I hope you voted libertarian otherwise if the only reason you voted for Burke was this then :rolleyes:
I expect most Libertarians in Wiscnsin did vote for Burke, as I didhttp://robertburkeforgovernor.org
:lol: yea.. should have said Mrs. Burke.
There's 2 Burkes running for the same governship?
Lady Burke and Pothead Burke...

 
It's a minor race, but it looks like Secretary of State Lafollet is going to get beat like a baby seal. Thank god. After his partisan hijinks publishing laws passed by the WI legislature I'm so glad he's going to get crushed good.

It's really a minor, unnecessary office but at least it looks like he's going to go.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did my part against incumbency :)
I hope you voted libertarian otherwise if the only reason you voted for Burke was this then :rolleyes:
I expect most Libertarians in Wiscnsin did vote for Burke, as I did

http://robertburkeforgovernor.org
Just curious, what do you see her qualifications as?

ETA: I'd like to know what D-House thinks of her qualifications too.

ETA: :doh:

But still what do you guys think HER qualifications are?
 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
Madison and Milwaukee will vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Walker should carry pretty much the rest of the state, including Green Bay and Appleton area.

ABC calling the election for Walker. Pretty early to make a call but many of the counties Walker carried in the recall elections Walker is winning by a greater margin even.

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
Madison and Milwaukee will vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Walker should carry pretty much the rest of the state, including Green Bay and Appleton area.

ABC calling the election for Walker. Pretty early to make a call but many of the counties Walker carried in the recall elections Walker is winning by a greater margin even.
61% to 38% with 26% of the vote in

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
It's actually the opposite. Madison and Milwaukee are about 90% Republican but many of the smaller cities and towns up north all vote Democrats.

 
Well good for Scott Walker. I don't like the guy, but I would have voted for him. Shameful of the Democrats to put up such an incompetent opponent. Scary that she might have won.

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
It's actually the opposite. Madison and Milwaukee are about 90% Republican but many of the smaller cities and towns up north all vote Democrats.
This couldn't be any more incorrect

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
Madison and Milwaukee will vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Walker should carry pretty much the rest of the state, including Green Bay and Appleton area.

ABC calling the election for Walker. Pretty early to make a call but many of the counties Walker carried in the recall elections Walker is winning by a greater margin even.
61% to 38% with 26% of the vote in
Very few returns from Milwaukee and Madison yet so that will narrow. But the margins in other counties are much greater than Burke wants or needs. She needs to keep the other counties close and she's losing most by a very very wide margin.

 
Have to say too that love him or hate him, (and I know a lot of you love him) Scott Walker is a winner. He has now won 3 major elections in 4 years in a battleground state. He has challenged progressives each time. He kind of is starting to remind me of Richard Nixon (not in ethics- don't get me wrong) in that he seems to be a normal guy, rather dull IMO, without any personal charisma that I can see- and yet the guy keeps winning. I think the Republicans really need to think about putting this guy on the national ticket.

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
It's actually the opposite. Madison and Milwaukee are about 90% Republican but many of the smaller cities and towns up north all vote Democrats.
This couldn't be any more incorrect
What I wrote is true. You, are incorrect.

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
It's actually the opposite. Madison and Milwaukee are about 90% Republican but many of the smaller cities and towns up north all vote Democrats.
This couldn't be any more incorrect
What I wrote is true. You, are incorrect.
What am I missing? Milwaukee AND Madison are 90% Republican? That's not true at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
It's actually the opposite. Madison and Milwaukee are about 90% Republican but many of the smaller cities and towns up north all vote Democrats.
This couldn't be any more incorrect
What I wrote is true. You, are incorrect.
This has to be schtick right?

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
It's actually the opposite. Madison and Milwaukee are about 90% Republican but many of the smaller cities and towns up north all vote Democrats.
This couldn't be any more incorrect
What I wrote is true. You, are incorrect.
You are 100% wrong. Dems carry Milwaukee and Madison every election by huge numbers. It's the remainder of the state, led by Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Brown counties that bring the Republican vote. Milwaukee and Dade County (Madison) vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
It's actually the opposite. Madison and Milwaukee are about 90% Republican but many of the smaller cities and towns up north all vote Democrats.
This couldn't be any more incorrect
What I wrote is true. You, are incorrect.
You are 100% wrong. Dems carry Milwaukee and Madison every election by huge numbers. It's the remainder of the state, led by Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Brown counties that bring the Republican vote. Milwaukee and Dade County (Madison) vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
Madison is in Dane county.

Madison is full of republicans. The 60's with all their hippies are gone. Milwaukee is more red than any city in the state.

 
Question: does Wisconsin pretty much go the way of the other battleground states, where the rural counties vote red and the counties with the big cities vote blue, and it basically comes down to a question of turnout? Or are there other dynamics at play?
It's actually the opposite. Madison and Milwaukee are about 90% Republican but many of the smaller cities and towns up north all vote Democrats.
This couldn't be any more incorrect
What I wrote is true. You, are incorrect.
You are 100% wrong. Dems carry Milwaukee and Madison every election by huge numbers. It's the remainder of the state, led by Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Brown counties that bring the Republican vote. Milwaukee and Dade County (Madison) vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
Madison is in Dane county.

Madison is full of republicans. The 60's with all their hippies are gone. Milwaukee is more red than any city in the state.
Miss Lippy's car is green

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top