Go Beavers wrote:Good questions. I would say that people shouldn't draw conclusions without additional data. Without the polling data, people make their conclusion based on how the battle was framed by media before hand. In this case, it was made to be Walker vs. the unions, and since Walker won, people then falsely conclude that it was a declaration against unions. But the polling data suggests otherwise, so that should be incorporated into the dialogue.
There's more information to gather about San Jose and San Diego. Those were essentially votes about budgeting. Voter turnout and attitudes about fiscal responsibility would be good to know. There's also always hardcore conservatives in liberal areas.
If Walker would have lost of course at first I would view it as a liberal victory over a jack-ass conservative. In that case exit polling would have shown that he was recall worthy. I'd be open to hearing the reasons why people thought he was recall worthy. Maybe those wouldn't be liberal in nature.
I didn't say anything about Unions. As a matter of fact I stated it should not be spun as an anti-union commentary, but solely an anti-spending. Which, is the unspun truth.
It was Walker vs. Spending with the Union twist to get in the way (of interpretation, etc. as you say). But, at it's core, it's clearly an anti-spending vote. Like you said - the media may have framed it as a Union battle, and we should not take those simple terms. Those like you and me are way too smart to fall for that. We know it was truly about spending in general.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.