I'm not going to directly link it, but.............

[socialist_n_TN]

There's a brand new article on the web site about Wisconisn. An overview and what we believe we need to do going forward. See what you think.

http://www.workerspower.net/

[patrice]

2. A research perspective on the matter:

http://irehr.org/issue-areas/tea-party-nationalism/tea-party-news-and-analysis/item/418-the-tea-party-impact-in-wisconsin

Votes fell heavily along partisan lines: 94% of Republicans backed Walker, as did 86% of conservatives. Barrett received similarly strong support from Democrats, winning 91%, and liberals (86%). Once again, independent voters gave an edge to Walker, giving him 54% compared to 45% for Barrett. That was down slightly from 2010, when Walker received the votes of 56% of independents, and Barrett 42%.

The Tea Party effort focused on strategically targeted rural and suburban parts of Wisconsin. And it worked. Barrett convincingly won the vote in cities of more than 50,000 people, with a 62%-37% margin. That vote only accounted for about 21% of the total, however. Walker won the suburbs, which accounted for 47% of the voters, 56%-44%. The Governor also won small cities and rural areas, 60%-39%. That accounted for remaining 33% of the voters. Thus the suburban and small town vote trumped the city vote.

According to exit polls, Tea Party support was often a deciding factor. The Tea Party got out more voters and won over more “neutral” voters than did unions and progressives. Voters supporting the Tea Party made up 36% of total, the largest grouping according to exit polls. Those who registered support for the Tea Party voted 93%-7% for Walker. Of the 27% of voters who claimed to be neutral on the Tea Party, they also voted for Walker, though in a smaller 53%-46% margin. Those who opposed the Tea Party made up 35% of the voters, and voted for Barrett, 86-14%.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, the article you link to appears to think what "we need to be doing" is to vote against Democrats . . .

The good news is many workers and youth don’t want to vote Democrat anymore.

. . . kind of like the Tea Party wouldn't you say?

[TBF]

5. I think you completely misinterpreted the article.

Do you realize that you are in the socialist progressives group? Welcome, but please read our SOP:

Welcome to the Socialist Progressives Group. Posts in this group should generally be supportive of socialism and socialists. We are largely anti-capitalist and will not tolerate red-baiting. We welcome leftists of all persuasion as allowed per the admin's TOS. Democratic (ballot box) socialism, revolutionary socialism, Syndicalists and autonomists are all ok. Pure black flag (as opposed to red/black) anarchists who would rather organize with any anarchist than socialists, including anarcho-capitalists and libertarians, will not be welcome. If you don't know what kind of anarchist you are, cool, so long as you don't hijack and red-bait. This includes no "you're a dictator-lover" if you support the Russian Revolution. CPUSA members, please chime in.

Social Democrats are welcome with the explanation that if someone believes in "regulated" capitalism and social programs, they're a Keynesian, not a socialist. We welcome your questions as long as you're pleasant and don't red bait or shift the discussion away from socialism. You'll find many of us support Obama and his re-election given our two-party system, but this is not the forum to talk about the intricacies of elections - see Politics 2012 for those conversations. We are more concerned with safe-guarding the working class gains we've made in this country thus far and encouraging the peaceful transition to socialism. Please no Trotsky or Stalin baiting, we've all seen it fracture groups and do not want to fight that battle again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1024881

[madrchsod]

3. interesting article but

going third party is`t going to work. what will work? i have no idea.

[patrice]

4. Oh, it works just fine if you're preventing change. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

7. One thing to keep in mind........

We're a revolutionary socialist group. We don't believe that any real change will EVER be accomplished by electoral means because there are too many ways that the electoral system can and does short circuit any revolutionary impluses (IOW real change) of the people.

That however, doesn't mean that we won't occasionally get involved in electoral politics. There are several reasons a revolutionary socialist might get involved. If there is a REAL champion of the working class on the ballot that might be able to make some incremental gains that benefit the working class, it would be worth getting involved. It's also worth getting involved to use the electoral system as a platform for ennunciating a revolutionary programme. We also will get involved in order to show the bankruptcy of bourgeoisie "democracy" in getting anything real done.

This last reason is the reason I've voted and voted Dem for the last 40 years. Nobody can say that I haven't "done it your way" and tried to enact change by voting for the "lesser of two evils" and even the occasional "good" candidate. How's that been working out for us?

BTW, I've never said don't vote and this article on Wisconsin ONLY deals with Wisconsin and NOT the national political races, including the Presidency.

[socialist_n_TN]

6. Not just going third party..........

Going with a party in electoral politics that is UNASHAMEDLY AND UNABASHEDLY ON THE SIDE OF THE WORKING CLASS! That hasn't been the Dems for years, except in individual cases.

Just the threat of an alternative and the Dems would have a choice to make. Get with the working class or become Republican.

[limpyhobbler]

8. I thought it was a pretty good analysis of what happened,

and from a perspective we need to hear, and we won't hear it on MSNBC.

When they had thousands of people out in the street and occupying the Statehouse, there was some real momentum. I guess all that energy went into the recall election. Instead maybe it could have been kept going as a mass movement or a big strike or physical occupation, with better long term results. Maybe next time.

The call for a regrouping and unity on the left makes sense. Instead of a new party, I'm thinking a broad coalition of the existing left parties and teams would be better. There are already so many.

As far as elections, they are one tool, so we might as well participate. That's assuming the results are at least partially legitimate. No small assumption. Maybe somebody should try running some openly anti-capitalist candidates in the Democratic primaries. Not sure how that would work out, but don't know if it has been fully tried. Socialists should join with other concerned groups to push for run-off voting or something like that. So we could vote for third parties in the general election without fear of throwing the election to the Republicans.

Anyway one of the main points was that there are more important things than elections. Organizing and building class awareness and solidarity for big movements. Stuff like that.

A good article though.