General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Walker Really Won Wisconsin
Much ink has been spilt and punditry hot air vented in explaining the failure to recall Scott Walker....Walker provided a false empowerment to the electorate...His campaign rebranded the electorate as “the taxpayer” or veritable stockowners of a company they owned: government. The people would take charge of their lives through a Walker-led movement against government waste by union and bureaucratic “elites.” Walker’s campaign thus took on the hue of a liberatory project...
On strategy, Walker’s campaign was a fairly typical deployment of the Powell Doctrine...to use overwhelming force against an opponent. Walker’s campaign carpet-bombed media with non-stop television and radio commercials for a half-year. Meanwhile, they positioned what seems to be an army of professional bloggers to control comment forums in the local press. In effect, they crowded out the public and often aggressively spread outright falsehoods on these sites... This itself represents a major turn in the management of public opinion.
Walker was able to capitalize on the very crisis and long-term economic decline Republicans helped engineer over the past thirty years–with no small help from the Democrats. UCLA’s Robert Brenner described how the Republicans managed to jujitsu the crisis of the 1970s to the GOP’s advantage by turning people’s economic distress over declining living standards to electoral victory. The key was to shift the public’s concerns over the private economy and move them onto government. Ensuring that wage increases match levels of economic growth in the economy is difficult. It requires organizing... The GOP innovation was to provide an easier route to fattening one’s wallet: tax cuts....While people could not control their wages... they could determine their level of taxation, and thus their take home pay. The long run cost of this delusion was the destruction of the state’s educational and transportation infrastructure. Before Proposition 13 California’s schools were ranked number one in the US. They are now typically ranked in the bottom 10%...
Walker’s comic-book narrative is much easier to grasp than any serious economic analysis. Moreover, Walker is an effective salesman for it....Rather than a tool of billionaires, Walker is perceived as the people’s hero that has enlisted the “job creators” (billionaires) to take on the special interests in the public sector. Thus, merely exposing Walker as on the hook to billionaires will not enlighten them to who he really represents. Walker’s constituency desperately needs a hero. Who are they? Overwhelmingly, they were the white working classes with no college education. By and large they have lost these benefits. They may have not seen raises in years. The public sector is an inviting target for them...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/08/how-walker-really-won-wisconsin/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)They voted FOR Walker... they deserve Walker.
I have been having this argument for a few years now with my father... and I contend it will need to get A LOT WORSE until Americans wake up and realize they are being fleeced. That means that the current generation of 50-90 year olds are totally screwed... BUT THEY VOTED for this! It's the next generation that will see the light and rise up against the corporate control of everything.
Redistribution of wealth can happen in an instant... a total revolution can make that happen. I predict in 10 years from now there will be about 1000 multi-billionaires, that control everything. But 1000 people is a small number... they literally could be all murdered in a global revolution and all the wealth and power just goes back into circulation.
Americans, in particular, are stupid. We buy into the dream that everyone could get super rich - so they continually vote against their own best interests.
It's going to take 30% unemployment, with it hovering around 50-60% unemployment for 18-30 year olds... that will signal the start of the Revolution. We are almost there in Europe now... but America control the world's economy.. the Revolution will start in the United States, and I predict it will be real ugly.
The rich can't hide from the masses... and there are just too many weapons in the hands of the poor. It's the natural progression of survival, people will kill for food and water. But for now, the American Sheeple are distracted by television shows like the Housewives of I Don't Give A Fuck.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Who verified the vote count? Do you know where and how your vote was counted? Can you honestly say each vote tallied was an actual representation of an individual voter's will?
There is no way to determine if the vote was accurate. So, no they didn't vote for it. You didn't vote for it. Only Walker and those who administered the vote actually had a say in the election. It's what many people call faith-based voting. We have faith in RepubliCONS, no matter how often they are proven liars and cheats, to run fair and accurate elections.
Oh a bunch of statisticians will tell you the results are all in accordance with past, future and present results. The number are all in accordance with their best mathematical models. But the economic crash was based on models too and those models said there would be no crash.
The only votes that counted were Walker's and those who administered the election. It's not who votes that counts but who counts the vote.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)your theory false. Because your hypothesis lacks 'falsifiability' (as defined by philosopher Karl Popper and others), it fails as a hypothesis.
Was Barrett in on the plot? After all, he did concede the election and he didn't say anything about election fraud in his concession speech.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--to prove that the count is accurate. As David Dill once said "It is not enough that elections be accurate; we have to know that they are accurate, and we don't."
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)
that would satisfy you, short of a Barrett victory. Any other result becomes simply further proof of the fraud. So there is no way you shall ever be satisfied. Generally, the party that alleges 'fraud' is obliged to provide some evidence or proof of the allegation.
You also ignored the second part of my post. Barrett conceded without alleging any fraud in the results. Was Barrett himself a party to the fraud?
Now if you can show any 'proof' or 'evidence' of fraud, why then we can discuss and debate this. Until then, I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree.
midnight
(26,624 posts)equalizer and proof.... However, this code is private and written by a Republican...
eridani
(51,907 posts)The elections department needs to prove that there is not for each election. Who gives a shit what Barrett did? What matters is what the elections department did not do.
What analytical chemists do to prove our results reliable--
--present methodology descriptions and clear chain of custody data
--present standard curves and the data on the check standards injected every tenth sample
--present system suitability results
--present daily system check results for every piece of equipment used, from scales all the way up to quadrupole mass spectrometers.
--present software validation data
--present internal standard data
--present data on duplicate samples (every 10th one), blank samples, solvent spiked samples and matrix spiked samples to show that percent recovery results are in a specific designated range
--present a set of hand calculations with every data set to illustrate that calculation software is functioning correctly.
No customer EVER has to present evidence that our results are wrong. We must present evidence that our results are right. Real confidence in election results should be at least as important as confidence that you know how many ppm of benzo(a)pyrene is in your drinking water.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)has to land near the top of the list if not at the very top. Barrett made no allegation, not even the merest suggestion, of fraud. Does that not matter to you in the slightest?
What evidence or methodology would convince you that the Wisconsin results were free and fair? Is there any possible data set that would do it? If Barrett had been declared the winner, would you still suspect the results?
eridani
(51,907 posts)A proper audit of all machines (before, during and after the count), plus mandatory hand recount according to protocols designed by the American Statistical Association would convince me.
Unfortunately, results are no more reliable when we win. And it is true that in 2008 we tended to blow off many indications that Obama won by much more than the stated margin, just because he won. We have to get out of the habit of only pushing for election integrity in years like 2000 and 2004.
To quote David Dill again-- "It is not enough that elections BE accurate; we have to KNOW that they are accurate, and we don't."
greytdemocrat
(3,300 posts)Well at least you are clear.
L. Coyote
(51,134 posts)Remember when 87% of workers had pensions. How quickly they forget what life was like before Reagan, when construction workers made more per hour than they do today!!
HarveyDarkey
(9,077 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
kentuck
(115,393 posts)"While people could not control their wages... they could determine their level of taxation, and thus their take home pay. The long run cost of this delusion was the destruction of the state’s educational and transportation infrastructure. Before Proposition 13 California’s schools were ranked number one in the US. They are now typically ranked in the bottom 10%... "
calimary
(89,898 posts)Anybody gonna learn from this? ANYBODY on our side gonna learn from this and do something different?
Or are our party leaders just gonna keep clinging to the notion that "but, but, but, the American People will SEE! They'll see what's going on and they'll KNOW..."
NO, YOU IDIOTS, NO THEY WON'T! Not as long as they're nonstop carpet-bombed with the messaging from the other side.
The 64 BILLION dollar question is - what do we do about it????????
kentuck
(115,393 posts)unless they are educated to see. We cannot change if we cannot educate.
TBF
(36,568 posts)when I asked the question about what happened in Wisconsin. I think he's correct. I'm not sure exactly how we get there, and we've been talking about that, but this is the analysis:
Working class people currently do not vote in the interests of the working class; they vote in "self interest" which is how they are supposed to vote in this political culture. Each individual votes for or against what he/she perceives as his/her personal interest. If anyone wants to know why anyone voted one way or the other you would need to ask the individual voter - and so far no has asked.
It is illogical to expect working people to vote in support of the working class when they have been brought up from the cradle with the ideas and aspirations of the "individualist", eschewing membership in groups or unions except in blatant self-interest. We fight and compete against each other in the shameless way we are trained to. Liberals and progressive "can't understand why these people vote against their interests." The actual bottom line is, they don't. They just don't act as a class...yet.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)distinction between a class "in itself" (having membership in said class by virtue of a shared relationship to the means of production but having no, or at best an imperfect, class consciousness) and a class "for itself" (meaning a class that has class consciousness and acts upon that consciousness).
Props to your Commie friend! 
On most social issues, the Communist Party tends to arrive at justice about 30-40 years ahead of the bourgeois liberal parties like the Dems. Saw it first hand with the campaign against South African apartheid.
eppur_se_muova
(41,875 posts)I saw a wonderful quote on DU -- Americans never regard themselves as poor, but as temporarily inconvenienced millionaires. Thus they vote with the interests of the millionaire class, and happily cut their own throats.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)and God knows what else for over a year, wasn't it? While the DNC was dancing around how much money to send in there, WI voters were learning the other side's story.
To be fair, the DNC can't compete with that kind of money. And that's the problem.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...just like theirs are. The difference being, our party has a natural inclination to be more caring about the masses. I'm not saying there's no difference between the parties -- I tend to vote straight Democratic, in fact I don't remember ever voting for a Republican. But, our party's leaders made the decision to go after corporate money, and their support for unions diminished in direct proportion to the corporate money they received. Well they made a bargain with the Devil, and now their message is so diluted it has no resonance. No one believes they are looking out for the little guy/gal, and the reason no one believes them is there is so much evidence to the contrary. That, and the fact that none of them give firebrand speeches anymore, again, because they don't want to offend their corporate sponsors. Whereas, the Republicans can continue to make firebrand speeches, because they have always supported the wealthy and the corporations; therefore, what they are selling is okay with their corporate sponsors, and therefore they can go ahead and make their arguments as forcefully as they want to.
Make a bargain with the Devil, pay the price. That's what has happened to the Democratic Party, IMO.
Kind of depressing, but hits the nail right on the head.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Does anyone have a link for that? We lived there around that time and my memory is that they were one of the worst.
Perhaps they were near the top in per-pupil spending?
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Graduated HS in 1971.
Didn't realize it then but do now. I attended a top-notch public school system.
And there were no such thing as "multi-purpose" rooms...
12zelda12
(12 posts)For the folks who live in other states, you can't believe the heartbreak here. i am very involved in party politics and have been for the past decade. i have never felt like this before - so hopeless. i don't know if people realize this but when we lose the unions and i believe if we don't do something now, we will. This loss will be devastating to anyone who is not in the one percent class. Who will have the money to help us then? That is also the strategy of the Republican Party - to extinguish the last powerhouse that stands against them. Have you ever tried to start a movement? How 'bout a movement with no money? The Republicans have gained a lot of ground winning local races. Also, Republicans have started attacking womens' rights. We are clinging to a Senate majority win - although it's not being reported, a Democratic senator won his recall race. How he did it was viscerating his opponent's anti-women voting record with well thought out ads. This is a winning issue for us. Any interest in a discussion about a 50 state messaging strategy?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)L. Coyote
(51,134 posts)Unions need to represent the working class, not one small fraction of workers represented by myriad, distinct unions. We need a national, low wage workers union anyone can join if they fit the class. We need unions that function as political entities, gaining higher pay by new methods, political action instead of piecemeal representation of very small slices of people. All the unions need an umbrella for national action representing all workers.
Lefta Dissenter
(6,703 posts)Don't give up, zelda. 
That Senate race was the only thing that got me through election night - we started to learn about it at about 1am. That's what will stop the train wreck and give us a chance to turn this thing around. We need to regroup, kick some ass in the Dem party, and fight on these election issues.
Welcome to DU. 
Where in Wisconsin are you? I'm west of Madison.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)going raise and spend HUGE amounts of money and that MANY Wisconsinites simply would not like the idea of the recall. A lot of people warned against going after a sitting governor like this.
16% of Dems who voted in this voted against the recall.
But Obama still leads there. You need to re-hone your message for the fall and move the hell on. Learn from this. The great lesson is be more careful in the fights you pick.
I do applaud the effort and all the hard work. Barrett won more votes than did Walker in 2010, and you got a slim lead now in the State Senate. That is an accomplishment. But going after Walker was VERY risky, too many Wisconsites didn't like it, and is failed. Simple as that.
Now buck up and move on. There is a presidential election to win in November and many other state and local elections to win. And you can WIN them.
Vinca
(53,927 posts)I really don't get that.
kentuck
(115,393 posts)...and Repubs vote party line over unions, over mother, over everything.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state. This objective was carried out by the Reagan administration (Abramovitz, 1992). After taking office in 1981, the administration set out on a course to alter the (relatively) labor sensitive political economy to be more business friendly. Reagan appointed anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board, "implicitly {granting} employers permission to revive long shunned anti-union practices: decertifying unions, outsourcing production, and hiring permanent replacements for striking workers" (102). Reagan himself pursued such a policy when he fired eleven thousand striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Regulations designed to protect the environment , worker safety, and consumer rights were summarily decried as unnecessary government meddling in the marketplace (Abramovitz, 1992; Barlett and Steele, 1996). Programs designed to help the poor were also characterized as "big government," and the people who utilized such programs were often stigmatized as lazy or even criminal. With the help of both political parties, the administration drastically cut social welfare spending and the budgets of many regulatory agencies.
The new emphasis was on "supply side" economics, which essentially "blamed the nation's ills on 'big government' and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives " (Abramovitz, 1992, 101). Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no longer had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the average income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased (Barlett and Steele, 1996; Schor, 1992).
dan shays
(9 posts)Frankly, i'm flabbergasted at how most Dems have bought the official story and seem to be in denial about irregularities posted around various progressive sites. Has anyone here seen this:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/07/recall-election-fraud-in-wisconsin-you-betcha/
How about this: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/05/scott-walker-recall-disturbed-by-voter-issues
Are you guys, like Ed Schultz, afraid to be pegged as part of the tinfoil hat crowd for even entertaining thoughts of vote tampering, exit poll irregularities and the like??
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)to believe this was stolen you have to believe that ALL of that data, which is consistently shows a 53% vs 46% split, is wrong. And that it is produced by some big secret conspiracy between pollsters, news outlets, campaigns and vote tabulators for 3 years.
That is way toooo much.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)And we don't know if the vote count is good because it's vapor voting.
I think he probably did win but let's keep track of what we know we know and don't know.
12zelda12
(12 posts)I know this is all sounds conspiracy but elections are probably being rigged on a national scale. You all know about Waukesha here but how many Waukesha's are out there? Google Brad's blog. Also Google about a Kentucky case a few years ago where the school superintendent, DA, and other high powered people in the community were convicted for vote rigging. Voter suppression, intimidation, vote rigging, it's all Republican strategy that we haven't even begun to wrap our arms around, let alone form our own strategy - if there even is a strategy.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It had been front and center in the state and local news for a year, as well as in the national news. Even the laziest of citizens wouldn't help knowing the basics.
The VOTERS decided what they wanted, and they voted that way.
It's time to face it, so a lesson can be learned. The VOTERS wanted the public unions busted, or at the very least, their pensions signficantly decreased.
If you can't learn from the past, you can't move forward.
One thing is certain: Walker did not wave his magic wand and hynotize Democrats and union members to keep him in office. They decided that on their own.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)on them. The unions never countered that argument. This is not just a WI problem. It's a national problem for unions. Countering that argument is a 24/7/365 task.
Check out WorkiingRI. It is a template to what should happen in EVERY state to counter rightwing frames of unions.
This group is make up of unions within Rhode Island and their primary goal is to educate the public that union members are their neighbors and financially help the communities by spending their wages locally.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It doesn't work that way. That only works with an uninformed public or those who are on the fence about an issue.
The unions forced workers to join, so I'm guessing those are the union workers who voted to keep Walker in.
Unions have made missteps and gotten greedy over the years, generally speaking. I didn't think it was a big enough issue to make people vote to break the unions, but maybe it was.
Recognizing that local and state govts are feeling financial pressures, if not going bankrupt entirely, is a good starting point when bargaining. I don't know about Wisconsin, but I haven't heard of too many unions who came to the table in the last several years with an offer to give up parts of pensions. Here in Dallas we actually had AT&T union workers picketing in 2009 for continuance of their free health care for life pension. In 2009, in the midst of the beginning of what may have become the second Great Depression, with millions out of work. and the AT&T union workers weren't recognizing the seriousness of hte situation or willing to give an inch on their pensions. The rich don't have the market cornered on greed. I posted here on DU to an AT&T union worker & pointed out how inappropriate that was at that time, that it would hurt the image of unions. The AT&t union worker responded that AT&T top level brass were still getting those big bonuses! I responded and told him that no, it was in the news that AT&T was not giving bonuses that year to top level brass. The AT&T union worker didn't respond.
It's that attitude that has hurt the image of unions. I still would, and do, support unions, refusing to blame all unions for the greed shown by some. But it's certainly possible that that greed has affected the Wisconsin voters, where the taxpayer pays the bill.
Fat pensions for life, with free health care, are a thing of the past in this day and age. Some unions refuse to acknowledge that. A company asking a union for its NEW pensioners to contribute something toward their health care is met with anger, protests, picketing.
TBF
(36,568 posts)it is systemic. Even when executives don't get a particular bonus they are still pulling million dollar salaries.
Companies are going to run themselves any way they want in order to make their profits - and capitalism encourages/rewards this behavior. Until we change the economic system it will be like this. You can cut union salaries/bennies every year and the company will still demand more cuts because they want more profit. That's the way it works.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Yes, rich people are greedy, too. That's why there is a movement against them.
Yes, unioners are greedy, too. That may be partly why there is a willingness to vote against them.
We were specifically talking about unions and the Wisconsin vote. I didn't say that rich people weren't greedy, as well. I pointed out to you that unions, since the beg. of the recession, have sometimes shown an unwillingness to give an inch on their benefits that were based on a healthy, robust economy, and low cost health care. Those days are gone. AT&t didn't propose doing away with health care for pensioners. It asked the union for new pensioners to pay part of the premium. Every private sector worker in America would've jumped at such an offer. But AT&T workers picketed. When millions didn't have a job at all. When health care costs had soared to unbelievable heights. Greed.
Some union workers have never worked outside a union environment and don't understand how good they've got it, and how greedy some of their demands may seem to private sector workers.
My brother is retired on a union pension, in addn to SS and he'll get Medicare. When I was unemployed recently (I've found another job), he said to just go ahead and consider myself retired, so I can get my pension from my co. I had to remind him....private sector workers don't have pensions usually, like I didn't. He asked how much health care coverage my co. would be providing. My answer: None. I have to buy it myself until I find other employment, and then get Medicare at age 65. He had no clue.
So when I see AT&T workers picketing, while others are unemployed in a recession, and they're whining about having to kick in a bit for their health-care-for-life pension benefits, yes, I consider that greed. And so do a lot of other people, apparently. Esp. those who voted to keep Walker in office.
If I had been in Wisconsin, I would've voted to recall Walker, but then supported anyone who pressured the public unions to give in on their pension benefits. Those healthy pensions are no longer supportable in today's economy.
TBF
(36,568 posts)Greed is a symptom rather than the problem. Capitalism is the problem.
Give that power back to the employers and let those union members decide if they want to be in the union or not.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)in ad buys. Propaganda works, there's no way around it.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I see papers from the UK, France and Germany have all run stories telling us in Wisconsin what happened and what we did wrong.
I see pundits some who have credentials only in communications (sometimes sport news) telling us in Wisconsin what happened and what we did wrong.
It was just way too much money against the recall. It was hacked black boxes. It was Waukesha/Kathy Nicklaus. It was disloyal renegade Union households. It was inability to 'nationalize' the recall. It was up-state vs down state. It was rural and suburban voters vs urban voters. It was disenfranchised young voters. It was the north-side of Milwaukee who generally feel taken for granted. It was the south side of Milwaukee. It was because stories of big turnout made people feel they didn't need to vote. It was deer hunters. It was out of work auto-workers in Janesville and Beloit. It was because it turned into a redo of the past election. It's because Mike Tate was in over his head. It was republican dirty tricks. It was because the Barrett campaign was too short. It's because the recall had to wait too long. It was independent voters who don't believe in recalls. And it doesn't matter because Walker was going to be 'Fitzmassed' on Wednesday June 6, anyway???
Yep. There are certainly parts of answers in there...somewhere...
Still....So many folks are sure that they have the RIGHT ANSWER or at least want to claim that. So many folks are eager to jump up with subject lines and/or headlines explaining WHY the recall was lost, while it seems fairly obvious they are shooting more or less instinctively from the hip with at least one eye closed.
Why?
Probably because some of the factors do seem so obvious...and will remain obvious until someone credible digs into them to see how they actually worked
Probably because some writers just feel pushed to write something timely and so run with whatever idea comes to them...
Which is to say probably because some of them know this is just facile crap, but that they must fill bandwidth.
Probably because some writers (and party chair people) are so ensconced in their old ideas that they have a narcissistic need to supply us with self-confirming statements.
Probably because there is an anxious demanding audience needing to link to facebook or to twitter about the election.
Probably because that activity provides them some form of emotional catharsis whose need is immediate.
Probably because zeitgeist can't wait for answers from investigations by credentialed political researchers who haven't yet posed probing questions in a way that actually controls for all the correlated confounders that are the many curiosities and asymmetries that broke in the same direction as the election results.
Sadly too many will go into similar battles with the zeitgeist rather than the analysis.
L. Coyote
(51,134 posts)" aggressively spread outright falsehoods on these sites... This itself represents a major turn in the management of public opinion."
What BS. Cognitive dissonance is as old as politics!!!
Remember Nixon --- lies, lies, and more lies, then Ford --- lies, lies, and more lies, then Reagan --- lies, lies, and more lies, then Bush --- lies, lies, and more lies, then Clinton --- lies, lies, and more lies, then Bush --- lies, lies, and more lies, then Obama --- lies, lies, and more lies.
kentuck
(115,393 posts)<snip>
Walker’s comic-book narrative is much easier to grasp than any serious economic analysis. Moreover, Walker is an effective salesman for it. He has carefully cultivated his image for years, presenting himself as the plucky working-class kid made good that still carries a brown-bag lunch to work. It’s a throw back to Frank Capra central casting, and the image works for a public generally desiring an honest politician they can identify with. Much of the suburban and rural population has bought into it. Rather than a tool of billionaires, Walker is perceived as the people’s hero that has enlisted the “job creators” (billionaires) to take on the special interests in the public sector. Thus, merely exposing Walker as on the hook to billionaires will not enlighten them to who he really represents.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Were they willing to accept 4 years of a tragic mistake?
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)Is take over the message. We need to control it. And we need to direct it.
That includes using feedbacks on websites and using Twitter.
We need a concerted campaign to twitter bomb the hell any messages we need out there. By twitter bomb, I mean we do super duper tweets by everyone so that everyone that follows you or key in on specific hashtags will see the messages and it goes beyond just the primary group. And either those receiving or hearing the message retweet or tweet it in addition to the primary person or persons involved. So instead of 2 or 3 persons tweeting something it escalates to 100's to 1000's tweeting or retweeting the same message.
We also need to gain control of the opposing view content and throw it back at them so that their followers begin to question the logic and sanity. If we have supporters with the time they can also engage campaign staff and take away valuable time that prevents them from completing their tasks.
