Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrat Desperation Time in Wisconsin
Rush ^ | June 4, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 06/04/2012 3:16:21 PM PDT by Kaslin


RUSH: The Wisconsin recall election tomorrow. The incumbent Scott Walker is opposing the former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, and the Democrats are pulling out all the stops in the past three or four days. I don't know what the exact time frame is, but somebody in Wisconsin started a rumor that Scott Walker fathered an illegitimate child 24 years ago. It's much like the rumor on the Friday before the election in 2000 that George Bush had been convicted of a DUI that nobody heard of. That rumor did hurt Bush.

It has been documented statistically that that rumor did some damage to Bush's vote count on Election Day five days later. Now this rumor about Scott Walker having fathered an illegitimate child 24 years ago is by some outfit called the Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op and they said they got it from a woman named Bernadette Gillick. Bernadette Gillick teaches physical therapy at the University of Minnesota.

And the story goes that she said she knew Scott Walker's girlfriend when they were students at Marquette. And this Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op said they hadn't been able to "independently verify" Bernadette Gillick's account, but they went ahead and ran the story anyway. So a reporter at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tracked it all down and talked to Bernadette Gillick's freshman-year roommate at Marquette and she said: Oh, no, no, no, it's not true!

She denied that Scott Walker is the father of her child. Yeah, she said she got pregnant as a first-year student. But she thinks that the Walkers are being confused because there's Scott Allen Walker and the governor is Scott Kevin Walker. So they ran with this before anybody actually knew whether it was true or not, which also smacks of desperation. A couple of polls are out today that Reuters is misreporting. Two public opinion polls released Sunday, actually, show that Walker has a lead of three and six points.

Public Policy Polling, a Democrat firm, shows Walker leading 50 to 47. Angus Reid polling has Walker ahead 53 to 47. "Both findings," says Reuters, "are within the margin of error so the results could be even tighter." But they're not within the margin of error. I looked at the internals of both polls and these results are not within the margin of error. They're still trying to say the race is tightening. These are Democrat polling groups, and you would expect nothing else.


RUSH: So Reuters is claiming Scott Walker, the recall race, tightening based on two polls. The first is from the Democrat pollsters at Public Policy Polling. They say Scott Walker is leading 50 to 47 over Tom Barrett. Second poll, Angus Reid Polling, they say Walker is up 53 to 47. And then Reuters says that both findings are within the margin of error. So the results could be even tighter, quote/unquote. But the truth is, Reuters is just making this up. Neither of these polls show that Scott Walker's lead is within the margin of error. At least according to Reuters's own article.

In the Public Policy Polling poll, Scott Walker is up by three. Reuters says that their margin of error is 2.8 percent. Well, I'm sorry, 2.8 percent isn't three. They're obviously rounding up. In the Angus Reid Polling, Scott Walker is up by six. Reuters says the margin of error is 4.3. Now, 4.3 is not anywhere close to 6. So why is Reuters lying? Don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical question. It is clear that this article was written to give Wisconsin Democrats some hope to get out the Democrat vote, which Reuters admits is necessary if Barrett is to have any chance of beating Walker. So they've got a story here that says: Hey, it's tightening up. Look at these two polls, both within the margin of error. But it's going to be turnout, it's all going to be dependent on turnout. Well it's always dependent on turnout. Nothing spectacularly new there. But this is clearly an effort to send panic waves through the Democrat constituencies in Wisconsin.

I also saw on -- I forget which network -- they're calculating where the money came from, the donations. And I don't have the numbers right in front of me. Something like this, though. Tom Barrett, the Democrat: 74 percent of his campaign money has come from inside Wisconsin. Scott Walker, on the other hand, only 38 percent of his donations have come from inside Wisconsin. So what are the conclusions we're to draw? Well, obviously, the conclusion is if this were left to simply Wisconsin voters then the Democrat would win but we're being swamped with out-of-state money and it isn't fair. None of that is stated, that's implied. The viewer is supposed to infer it. Oh, no, that forces, powerful forces outside Wisconsin are tampering with this election.

The explanation is simple for both of these numbers, and it doesn't matter anyway because money pours into candidates from all over the country in every race. It is irrelevant. I'll tell you what's more relevant is to go back and look at the vote totals of the primary. Don't forget. A month ago or so there was the primary election to determine who the Democratic opponent to Scott Walker would be. Tom Barrett, whoever else. Some woman. Doesn't matter. The point is that Scott Walker, who was on the ballot but didn't need any votes, he was unopposed. Scott Walker got more votes than the two Democrats combined.

Now, this rumor that Walker fathered a child, that is so blatantly grasping at straws, that could hurt Barrett among Democrats. A lot of Democrat websites are trying to brush this off and get people to forget it. They were embarrassed by it. If Scott Walker had fathered an illegitimate child 24 years ago we would have known about it long before now. It would have been a factor long before now in previous elections. The Democrats, there's so much at stake for them in this election: unions, their role, their power. The entire government model is at stake here.


RUSH: Steve in Green Bay, we start with you on the phones today. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Rush, thank you for having me.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: One more day and maybe our lives in this state can get back to normal. But I don't think we'll discover what normal is again after all of this.

RUSH: That's an excellent point, because even if Walker wins, the effort to destroy him will only increase.

CALLER: Oh, absolutely.

RUSH: The Democrats don't go away, and the effort to miscast and recast what happened will start.

CALLER: Exactly. I have just about had my fill, as most of the residents of this state have, with all of this complaining about out-of-state stuff. When this all started who came in and got all these recall petitions going and signed? It was the out-of-state union people.

RUSH: That is exactly right. And, by the way, it was a lot more than a thousand of them. When this recall nonsense started... Steve, you live there. You can confirm this. When this recall nonsense started they were turning out 60,000 people for these rallies, and they were bussing in union people from all over the country, am I right?

CALLER: You're exactly right.

RUSH: Some of these rallies were even 100,000 people. Now they're complaining about all the out-of-state money that's going to Scott Walker.

CALLER: And where did those 14 state senators go instead of standing their posts and all that? They ran "out of state." The Democrats have set the table here. And if they don't like it that they're being beat by their own rules, well, that's just tough. You are the folks that got us here. You're going to have to live with it tomorrow, and I hope and pray to God that the state just sends them packing.

RUSH: Well, we'll see. It's all going to be known here in a little over 24 hours. I gotta tell you something. This latest thing, the out-of-state money, it's really a funny statistic: 74% of donations to Tom Barrett are from within Wisconsin; 38% for Walker are from within Wisconsin. Well, things don't happen in a vacuum. If a lot of out-of-state money is coming in for Scott Walker, it's called the Tea Party. And they saw what this started as, with the unions all over the country trying to take over this state.

Wisconsin is a battleground for the very future of the union-government model. That's what's at stake here. And Obama and the Democrats have looked at it that way themselves, particularly back in the days when they thought they were going to get rid of Walker and when they were going to defeat Walker. But I have to tell you, folks -- and I'm not trying to be a downer. I live in Literalville. Well, Literalville is a suburb of Realville. I live in both places.

I've got two homes, homes in Realville and Literalville, and I like to say that when you look at Scott Walker's record in Wisconsin, he hasn't laid anybody off. He's lowered taxes. Unemployment in Wisconsin is much lower than the national average. Employment is looking good. The state's coffers are looking good. Everything Scott Walker has implemented has worked exactly as he said it would. And my point in trying to keep people enthused about this and feeling positive is:

"Let the Democrats say whatever they want. Let them try to create all kinds of alternative universes. The fact is, people are living this, and so they know." But I saw something over the weekend. It was either at Power Line or HotAir (I'm not sure which) and I didn't print it out, so I'm going to have to do this from memory. Do you know what the gay population of the country is? What percentage of our population is homosexual? It's much less than 10%. It's like 2% to 3% of the population is gay.

However, a couple of companies went out and did surveys, polls, and they asked average Americans: "What percentage of the population do you think is gay?" And the answer came back: 25%. Now, why? How does that happen? If the real number, if the real population of gay people in the country is 2% to 3% of the population, why do people think that it's 25%? And the answer is: Television. The answer is: The media. The same thing about murder. Interesting statistics about murder.

You watch television and practically every drama show is oriented around cops, robbers and murders. Yet, when you ask people, "How many people in your life do you know who have been murdered?" for the vast majority of us, the answer is: Zero. It doesn't happen that much in relationship to what people think the murder rate is. People think the murder rate is much higher than it really is. Well, now (sigh), it depends who you ask. I know.

I remember using this argument during the Clinton years. The Clintons happen to know a lot of people who were murdered, but most people don't. How many people do you know who have been indicted? We watch television, and we think murder and indictments are common, ordinary things that happen to a lot of people. But they don't. And the analysis was, "Well, if you look..." They did an analysis, actually, of primetime television and the number of characters who were gay and the number of storylines involving the gay lifestyle.

And then you go to schools and how it's being taught now starting with Heather Has Two Mommies and how it's being portrayed as a very commonplace thing. And the guy that did the poll said, "I'll bet you I can probably do the poll in 10 years and they're going to think 50% of the population is gay, without stopping to think how that would not be possible, couldn't be possible." And so while I sit here and say, "People of Wisconsin know full well that Scott Walker's policies are working because they're living them," that's not necessarily the case.

In fact, I hate pointing this out.

I wish I were wrong about this.

But one of my laments about the 1980s is: "Why do we have to keep teaching conservatism after the 1980s when everybody that was alive saw the robust economic recovery, saw what happened to their taxes, saw what happened to the jobs pictures, saw how much this economy grew? They saw patriotism and successful military operations. Why? ("How?" is the better question.) How was that history rewritten?" And it was revised and rewritten with a constant, never-ending, assault. Everywhere you looked on television, in the news, in movies and TV shows, Reagan was this and Reagan was that.

"Trickle-down economics" didn't work. And so people were eventually able to be convinced that what they knew to be true by virtue of having lived it, wasn't. And so the lesson in Wisconsin is, for all of you on the pro-Walker side: You can't rely on the fact that even Democrats are going to realize that Walker's policies have worked. Because everybody in that state, media-wise, is trying to tell you the opposite. Just like they're trying to tell you the opposite about Obama. This is all Bush's fault. But, of course, if presidents have no control over the economy, then how can anything be Bush's fault either?


RUSH: No, I'm not concerned about Republican enthusiasm in Wisconsin. Not at all. I think people are going to be shocked. I think... Look, the Democrats lie to themselves. They create these false realities to live in, and I love it when they get so shocked they can't believe it. I think that's what's headed their way tomorrow, and in subsequent elections.


RUSH: This Wisconsin business and the attempt here to make it look like people inside Wisconsin don't care for Scott Walker, because that's what the story is. When they have a graphic that says 74 percent of all of Tom Barrett's money is coming from Wisconsinites or inside Wisconsin and only 38 percent of Scott Walker's contributions are coming from inside Wisconsin, the clear implication is that if it weren't for outside money and outside interests, why, Walker would be history. These campaign donations are only comparing candidate to candidate.

Now, Walker has been the Republican candidate since the beginning. Tom Barrett has only been the Democrat candidate since I think March. And I don't know this off the top of my head, but I just bet you that the contributions to parties rather than candidates tells a very different story. And I want to re-emphasize what our first caller of the day said. When these rallies for the recall of Scott Walker began, these union people were being bused in from all over the country, particularly California, Service Employee International Union member people and a number of others and these rallies were 60,000 people strong. And there were stories about some of the vandalism going on inside the state Capitol. These were, in some cases, militant and quasi-violent protests and being conducted from people out of state.

Now Bill Clinton shows up over the weekend for a rally for Tom Barrett and not even a thousand people show up. It should also point out that Scott Walker has raised seven times the money that Barrett has. Now, it's just not possible that Walker has seven times the money that the Democrats have. But that's what they're putting out there. Walker has seven times the money that Barrett has. How can that be with the same stat that only 38 percent of Walker's money is from inside Wisconsin? It's hard to believe that Walker has seven times the money that the Democrats have. They're setting up an excuse here for losing. All this union money. The Tea Party is strong, don't misunderstand, but that's an incredible statistic to put out there.

Now, this information I have, the little story I had about the gay population in this country, it's Gallup polls, and it was reported in the Atlantic, which is a liberal publication. And the title of the story was: "Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are ... In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. ... Overall, 'U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian,' Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian." The number is actually, I think, 2.8 percent.

"By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay." And get this. This is a quote from Stuart Gaffney, a spokesman for the group Marriage Equality USA: "My first reaction to that, aside from a little chuckle, is that it's actually a sign of the success of the movement for LGBT rights." And he's right. It is. If the actual gay population is 2.8 percent, but if people think 25 to 30 percent of the country is gay, it's a massively successful project that they've had. Well, if you're going to talk about gay marriage, for example, within the context of equal rights, but you're talking about 2.8, not even 3 percent of the population, do we really want to totally redo cultural standards established from the beginning of humanity for 2 percent of the population? No. For 25 or 30 percent of the population? Well, it becomes a different proposition then.

And, of course, this then gets to why do people think that 30 percent of the population's gay when it's not even 3 percent? And the answer is the media. The answer is television. And so the real point of all this is that despite the fact that people live certain circumstances they can be convinced that those circumstances are not true or are not a majority. It's how I explain the '80s. I mean, anybody alive, anybody paying attention who lived through the '80s as an adult ought never ever vote liberal again or Democrat again. But they do. Why? Well, because ever since the '80s ended there's been a nonstop effort to mischaracterize them, to revise history, and to basically say that what happened during the '80s didn't happen and if it did it was unfair and all that.

It's a point that establishes the persuasive powers of even a media which once had a monopoly doesn't any longer, still fractured, still has that kind of influential ability. But even with that they don't win every election. They lose a vast majority of national elections. Now, they've got themselves believing in Wisconsin that they're on the brink of victory here. And they've got themselves convinced here that they're going to be able to persuade voters that Walker's chump change, doesn't have that much support, is not popular. His ideas, while maybe working, people don't really like. That's what they're counting on. They've thrown everything they've got in this election. It will be fascinating to see. And, of course, what they're underestimating, they always do underestimate it, is Republican enthusiasm. I think they're ill-prepared for the shock that's going to hit them tomorrow on Republican turnout.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: wisconsinshowdown
Filthy liberals, I despise them
1 posted on 06/04/2012 3:16:27 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They pulled this slime just in time for the desperation move to be outed. There was a scandal with a Scott Walker but it wasn’t Gov. Scott Walker. I can’t believe the story never got looked at until now, and neither will most voters.

2 posted on 06/04/2012 3:20:55 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Let me ABOs run loose Lou!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The incumbent Scott Walker is opposing the former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, ....

I guess this is part of the .3% of the time Rush is wrong. Barrett is the sitting mayor of Milwaukee.

3 posted on 06/04/2012 3:22:32 PM PDT by bsdsan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bsdsan; Kaslin

Actually, Rush made a much more embarrassing mistake here. He said:

“In the Public Policy Polling poll, Scott Walker is up by three. Reuters says that their margin of error is 2.8 percent. Well, I’m sorry, 2.8 percent isn’t three. They’re obviously rounding up. In the Angus Reid Polling, Scott Walker is up by six. Reuters says the margin of error is 4.3. Now, 4.3 is not anywhere close to 6.”

But whaen the margin of error is “plus or minus 2.8%,” it means that the poll finds, with 95% certainty, that support for Walker is at 50%, plus or minus 2.8% (meaning, his support is between 47.2% and 52.8%), and support for Barrett is at 47%, plus or minus 2.8% (meaning that Barrett’s support is between 44.2% and 49.8%). So, in theory, the PPP poll shows that the race could be at 49.8% for Barrett and 47.2% for Walker (a 2.6% lead for Barrett), so Walker’s 3% lead in the poll is within the 2.8% margin of error. And, similarly, a 6% lead in the Angus Reid poll is within the 4.3% margin of error.

This is an embarrassing mistake for El Rushbo, and one that might decrease his accuracy below his vaunted 99.7%. There are plenty of reasons to discount Reuters’ take on the recent polls, the most obvious ones being that (i) PPP is a Democrat pollster, and even there Walker gets the same 50% he got in the prior PPP poll, (ii) I don’t think that Angus Reid had polled the recall before, so how could it show movement towards Barrett?, and (iii) it ignores the We Ask America poll that shows Walker’s lead holding at 12%. But Reuters was correct in that the lead in those two polls was “within the margin of error.”

4 posted on 06/04/2012 3:46:13 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m keeping my fingers crossed, but I’m hoping MSNBC will be really fun to watch Tuesday night.

5 posted on 06/04/2012 3:49:11 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
And then you go to schools and how it's being taught now starting with Heather Has Two Mommies and how it's being portrayed as a very commonplace thing. And the guy that did the poll said, "I'll bet you I can probably do the poll in 10 years and they're going to think 50% of the population is gay

I watched the History channel's "History Bee, Contest"? It was among middle school students and they were all pretty sharp, answering some pretty tough questions but when this question was asked: "What administration was associated with Whitewater"? Not one of them knew the answer, one guessed Nixon, one guessed Harding. They didn't know because they were babies or not yet born when it was going on and they knew everything in their history books but friends that just ain't in there.

6 posted on 06/04/2012 3:49:26 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Obama versus Romney? Cyanide versus arsenic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Everything you said is correct, and important. I would add that results can also be outside the margin of error. As you said, the MOE covers 95% of the cases. There remains a one in twenty chance that the error is greater.

7 posted on 06/04/2012 4:24:21 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I really appreciate you posting some of Rush's monologues and show conversations! Always timely! :^D

8 posted on 06/04/2012 4:53:16 PM PDT by Artcore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson