Did Tom Barrett deserve to get slapped by an irritated voter?

It’s funnier when politicians hit back
Don’t hit a guy when he’s down though, not good form.

The slap in question wasn’t to the face, but the upper arm/shoulder.
WTBFD?

Interesting. I watched the video. It didn’t seem like a slap, really. And despite the news wanting to create a story, I don’t think the mayor “looked stunned”. They were just chatting. I know many people who communicate in very physical ways. Think Elaine from Seinfeld (“Get out!”).

Anyway, I feel like I got slapped after I found out Walker won. WTF?

“If more people would have voted for him he would have won.”

Having ten times as much money (from out of state groups if you’re not picky) helps too I hear.

Lovely, lovely, lovely Glenn Beck for turning this into a story about a crazed voter slapping Tom Barrett. I agree with @filmfann that was not a slap. She hit him on the shoulder with very little force using an open hand. According to a clip from the Huffington Post, the voter asked if she could hit Barrett who said he’d rather she hug him. It looks as though she couldn’t bring herself to hug him but didn’t slap him either.

The way I see it a couple people/entities deserve to be slapped: Glenn Beck, The Blaze, Scott Walker, Scott Walker’s machine for starters. I’m not talking about a wimpy failed hug turned tap on the arm, I’m talking open handed with a full wind up as hard as possible on the face.

We got our asses handed to us. Another fucking learning experience. Clearly the people of Wisconsin don’t like their public employees very much.

IMHO nobody deserves to get slapped. That said, it didn’t really look like a slap to me.

She seems like a nut job to me. Go figure. Of course he didn’t deserve to be hit.

The media sensationalizes. This is another example of why I rarely refuse to allow media into my home.

@Qingu
“Having ten times as much money (from out of state groups if you’re not picky) helps too I hear.”
Money never hurts in an election.
But dollar bills don’t go into the voting booth. Are you saying that potential voters for Barrett were paid and agreed to not vote in the recall? I don’t see how that could work. If somebody offered me money to vote or not vote a certain way, I would take it from the moron, and then go vote how I wanted to anyway. So how else does the money promise an outcome?

So how else does the money promise an outcome?

Even on the non-Walker yard signs his name was on it “Recall Walker”. Money gets you into peoples homes and on their doors. Last week, every. single. day. we had a Walker flyer in our mail and twice we had door hangers.

The money was spent up north on a “get off the farm” to vote project. Down here in the Milwaukee area vasts amounts of TV ads were purchased.

It was proven far before the vote that Dems would have troubles. The polls all show that less Dems vote in summer. Had the recall taken place in November, the outcome would have most likely been much closer.

Almost all of Walker’s money was from out of state & in state Billionaires. The in state billionaires own large companies. Those large corporations have large vote for Walker signs on their properties.

100 million dollars total was spent on the recall. Sick.

@SpatzieLover
So the money actually trips the lever in the voting machine. And people are passionate about an important political question, but only at certain times of the year. Nice place, Wisconsin.

@josie, I don’t believe you’re stupid enough to actually think that money does not strongly influence elections. So that leaves dishonesty.

Why are there no honest conservatives?

I saw a different video on The Daily Show, and it clearly shows Tom Barrett being slapped across the face, with a bit of a jolt. I withdraw my previous comment.

What you are saying @josie is basically what I said in another thread and nobody could explain to me how money actually influences votes.

@bkcunningham, yes, it’s all very mysterious to you, I’m sure. Truly “paying for marketing” is an arcane power whose workings are occluded even to the most wise among us.

That was my question, @Qingu. The money goes for television commercials, radio spots, billboards, direct mailings, rallies, yard signs….So how does having more money than another candidate fairly or unfairly influence the votes? This wasn’t really answered on another question. And you didn’t answer it either.

Because having lots of money means you can buy more marketing. And buying more marketing means you get more votes.

I guess if you’re the type of person who believes that having lots of money is God’s way or the Invisible Hand’s way of rewarding virtue, then this wouldn’t bother you so much.

Buying more marketing means you get more votes. You don’t really believe that do you @Qingu? Even I know how much more complicated it is than that. The research shows the influence of finances are on elections has many, many variables.

You don’t believe that buying marketing gets you more votes? Wow. If you have evidence that this is the case you should really let your friends in the Republican party know. They’re wasting hundreds of millions of dollars!

Of course, I don’t believe that you believe this. I think you’re lying about what you believe, because the alternative involves admitting that your preferred politician might have won not on the merits but because he had more money.

How, @Qingu? Do you think the commercials brainwash people and they go to the polls and vote for the person who had the most commercials? I don’t believe it is as simple as you are making it out to be. Of course if a challenger is afraid of a big war chest, that is one thing. But your simple-minded stance of saying that whomever has the most money wins is childish, to say the least.

@Qingu
“Of course, I don’t believe that you believe this. I think you’re lying about what you believe, because the alternative involves admitting that your preferred politician might have won not on the merits but because he had more money.”
Does that mean that the candidate who spends the most money, and wins, is the one who merits victory the least?

That would be true in @Qingu‘s world if his favored candidate isn’t the winner.

“But your simple-minded stance of saying that whomever has the most money wins is childish, to say the least.”

That’s funny. I don’t remember ever saying that. Maybe you could go back and quote where I did.

Or wait. Nevermind. That might entail you admitting that you’ve dishonestly straw-manned my position so as to move the goalpost.

Man, you guys. I bet you both criticized Obama for outspending McCain in 2008, too.