Outside the echo chamber, an election went exactly as predicted

[cthulu2016]

The RealClearPolitics final poll average was Walker up 6.7%. The result was Walker by 6.8%.

Barrett never led in a poll.

Barrett never led in the erroneous exit polling. (First batch roughly tied. Second batch Walker by 4%)


I do not think poll denial is a progressive virtue. It is faith-based and anti-intellectual.

I can understand falling into poll denial once. Maybe even twice. But how can one be in a state of constant surprise because elections results keep matching polls?

The theory seems to be that all elections are rigged and that pollsters collude with the corrupt election officials. The pollsters phony up the polls to show the desired result and then the corrupt election officials match the final tally to the polls. And the media is in on the same conspiracy.

That is not much more intellectually admirable than birtherism.

Yes, the media and big business interests do control American politics. Yes, monied interests conspire against the people. And their control is such that after generations of propaganda, slanted news, and exploitation of prejudice, and after months of Walker vastly outspending the opposition, the electorate that was motivated to actually vote was motivated to vote for Walker by a 6% margin.

And the cumulative effect on the electorate of the RW shaping of attitudes, the cumulative effect of slanted news and tons of RW ad-buys, is measurable.

And the science of measuring what people think is pretty sophisticated. Not measuring what they should think, measuring what they do think.

Of course the system is rigged, but not in the crude ways some imagine. We, as a culture, rig the voters.

There is no simple fix.

[The Magistrate]

1. Home Truths, Sir

[EFerrari]

11. Except it's incomplete and misses an important point.

The Republicans and their operatives have and do rig elections in crude ways, as well as using other methods that the OP ran down, to gain the advantage.

We don't know what happened in WI because our elections are not transparent.

So while it does no good at all to cry "election fraud" out of the blue to comfort ourselves, it also does no good to ignore the fact that we have no basis for having confidence in the result, especially when these same voting systems have been shown to be hackable and have failed so well and so many times all over the country.

[Scuba]

13. Thank you, stated perfectly.

[libtodeath]

18. Plus

there were abnormalities such as polling showing a break against walker and then massive turnout,both consistent with a challenger picking up undecideds.
Yet the election showed none of it...too fishy to just ignore out of hand given repukes track record of election theft.

[cthulu2016]

19. I agree with you

Our elections should be transparent, and they are not.

[rhett o rick]

23. I agree. nm

[truckin]

29. Well said. nt

[elleng]

2. Right.

Sorry that I can't say 'Thanks,' but you're correct.

[onenote]

3. +1

[Shrek]

10. +2

[emulatorloo]

4. "generations of propaganda" describes it perfectly

Very difficult to fight that, yet we must keep trying.

[EFerrari]

5. Maybe you can explain to people who don't know why we don't have an NEP any more.

"The theory seems to be that all elections are rigged and that pollsters collude with the corrupt election officials. The pollsters phony up the polls to show the desired result and then the corrupt election officials match the final tally to the polls. And the media is in on the same conspiracy."

[PufPuf23]

8. What is NEP?

I tend to agree with the OP.

[EFerrari]

14. The OP raises good points and doesn't go far enough.

The NEP was the National Election Pool National General Election Poll. I believe the last one we had was in 2004 and it was so badly corrupted by both the pollsters and the media participants that we no longer have one. In fact, what happened in 2004 is precisely what the OP describes as "the theory" . . . .

My point is not that WI was stolen yesterday but that until we fix our election systems, that theory is as good as any because we don't have a way to verify the vote.

[PufPuf23]

26. Thank you. I agree with you. nt

[fasttense]

30. Thanks for saying it EFerrari

You say it well.

I would just add 2 points.

1. Why should we give the RepubliCONS, proven liars and cheats, the benefit of the doubt that they run fair and accurate elections? RepubliCONS have proven both in Wisconsin and in national elections that they will rig the vote any way they can in order to win.

2. I have read here on DU so much about "poor loser-dom", and "crying wolf" that I'm beginning to think I'm back in the bush 2000 Florida recount.

[hifiguy]

6. The system is rigged. But it is rigged by

enormous amounts of reichwing money and low-information/stupid voters. Nothing more is necessary.

[aquart]

33. And yet those deliberately misleading robocalls went out anyway.

And people were illegally asked for photo i.d.

They don't put all their eggs in one basket.

Why pretend they do?

[hifiguy]

34. Most assuredly they do not.

But the money to catapult the propaganda onto the low-info types and the repuke sheeple have an enormous effect. Somebody is funding those robocalls.

[shcrane71]

7. Dems had momentum to take back the state of Wisconsin, and they squandered it.

Democratic voters probably aren't going to accept all the mea culpas and explanations of leaders. It's time some Dem leaders step aside. That's a first start.

[coalition_unwilling]

9. If you get a chance, can you please take a look at my poll and weigh in

with your thoughts and feelings?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002775296

I purposefully did not include an 'electoral irregularities' choice in the pol, mainlyl because I think such an explanation too often allows people to take the easy way out and not engage in the serious soul-searching that any defeat should occasion.

[cthulu2016]

16. Walker's job approval is much higher than during the recall drive

When an incumbent with a job approval around 51% is reelected it isn't stunning news.

Since Walker and Obama are both over 50% I will guess hat the economy in Wisconsin is better than it was a year ago.

Of course the big business money was decisive here, but a year ago it would not have been enough.

The simplest big-picture explanation is voter perception of the economy in the state.

[randome]

12. Can we get cthulu on our side next time?

[BlueCaliDem]

17. That would be a nice change. Just once. eom

[rhett o rick]

21. Please explain what "sides" you are referring to. Do you think Walker won fair and square? nm

[Journeyman]

15. Well phrased. . .

[jimlup]

20. Better to know the truth than to delude ourselves

I completely agree!

[rhett o rick]

22. I believe that the Republicans will cheat even if it isnt needed.

I dont think it prudent to assume they didnt cheat just because we cant prove it. In my book they are guilty of cheating until proven innocent.

[Bake]

25. Nothing will change until there is blood in the streets.

Or more particularly, in the streets of the gated communities where the Koch Brothers live.

Bake

[NAO]

27. In 2004 I could not accept the Bush lead in the polls

I went into election day 2004 expecting a Kerry landslide.

Never again will I ignore/deny the polls, or expect an election to go my way because the opposition is so evil, craven, and stupid.

[just1voice]

28. There is a simple fix, shame repukes at every opportunity

People put up with all their lies, misinformation, bullying, economic crimes, etc... The U.S. isn't even putting people in jail who created torture camps, lied our country into war, constantly issued false terror alerts, lied to Congress, wiretapped us, retaliated against us for simply telling the truth, outed CIA agents, etc...

Most repukes are criminals and we let them walk, it's that simple.

[Iliyah]

31. GOP does cheat and steal and there is no doubt about it.

Although the battle was lost, the war still continues and thats how I feel. Progressives did not start this. Progressive (and I know some do not believe) in my opinion live closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ/God than any so called conservative in this country. That said, I have faith that we will survive and prevail.

Also, progressives know how to adapt. Citizens United is pure evil, dumped on us by the greedy who seems not to get enough. They are the Greedy party.

Plus Unions will also adapt and become stronger. I already knew that Palin was an idiot, but come on - Americans want Austerity, really????

[Surya Gayatri]

32. Well done, cthulu2016, for this dose of hard-headed realism...

Tin-foil conspiracy theories will solve nothing. What you said:

Yes, the media and big business interests do control American politics. Yes, monied interests conspire against the people.
.../
Of course the system is rigged, but not in the crude ways some imagine. We, as a culture, rig the voters.

Indeed, there is no simple or simplistic fix.

[EFerrari]

35. Ignoring real and/or potential election fraud is not hard headed realism, it's denial.

2000 should have taught us that. So should 2004. So should the San Diego house race in 2006 and others, I'm sure, that I don't recall right now. Los Angeles Prop 8.

[cthulu2016]

36. The OP suggests ignoring only the presumption of

voter fraud to explain results that require no explanation.

All election processes should be transparent, and there is no excuse for them not to be.

But the dynamic on this board is that a delusional reality is created which then fails in the real world, because it is delusional, and rather than accept that the created reality was delusional folks will leap to absurdities to protect their fantastic worldview.

It's just cruel.

If there is evidence, then it warrants exhaustive investigation.

And I can see a stance of insisting that all elections are fake as an argumentative stance... a means of pointing out that the lack of transparency makes such a claim untestable. But in that case, where were the posts announcing that McCain actually won big in 2008?

[EFerrari]

37. I understand that for the most part, you and I are on the same page.

And, the presumption of legitimacy is misplaced when the vote is not verified. You are mistaken that results require no explanation: they all require not only explanation but verification, not the other way around. In other words, show me the votes before you require me to prove a negative.

It is in fact more fantastical to presume that partisan election officials will conduct clean elections when the count is in secret and unprovable. Years ago, this was nicknamed "vapor voting". I see no reason to withdraw the term today.

Additionally, I was responding to a poster who took your OP and threw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were, discounting perfectly legitimate concerns about election integrity.

[cthulu2016]

38. Sorry. I do recognize that you were not responding to me

I just wanted to take another opportunity to say that I do not discount voting integrity issues categorically, since I know one or two folks might read the OP that way.

As to the burden of proof, yes, I acknowledge that the burden falls on the government to demonstrate the integrity of elections, and that the presumption, in logical terms, would be that the count is wrong.

Actually... that's not quite right. The presumption should be that the count in unknowable.

And the burden of proof falls on any government ratifying any election result. And states cannot meet that burden,. categorically.

But that presumption is formal, not practical. Obama really did win in 2008. I am not agnostic on that point, though I concede it cannot be proved.

[mzmolly]

39. IIRC, Barrett lost to Walker in a previous election.

Was he a poorly chosen candidate?

Nothing against the good man, but I fear people may read too much into the loss.

It's devastating for me personally, as a supporter of labor etc. But reasonable questions must be addressed if we're to win future elections at the local level.