Wisconsin keeps Scott Walker

I think it can be argued that we didn’t “keep” Scott Walker so much as we rejected the effort to recall him for something less than malfeasance in office (a fairness issue). After all, polling before the official start of the recall showed a majority of Wisconsinites unhappy with the way Walker carried out the changes he made (again, a fairness issue). And how else to explain these two facts from last night’s exit polls: 60% expressed disagreement with the recall itself (not all of them Republicans); 17% of those who voted for Walker said they’ll vote for Obama in November (not all of them Democrats).

Tom@1:

1) Exit polls are worthless for horse-race reporting purposes. News outlets shouldn’t have been using them (and shouldn’t ever use them) as predictive of final election results. They’re useful for analyzing the demographics of voters, but they are absolutely not reliable for predicting outcomes in the final moments. Media outlets just trumpet exit poll numbers to get some attention in their interminable, wall-to-wall coverage of election results (because, really, what else is there to talk about until results are actually tallied?).

2) I agree that a substantial proportion of Wisconsin citizens disapproved of the recall election in principle. I was one of them, and I am acquainted with many others. But you don’t have the evidence on hand to proclaim that Wisconsinites didn’t–couldn’t possibly have!–“keep” Scott Walker but rather rejected a recall. Maybe they did, but the numbers simply don’t say. Maybe they were rejecting Barrett, a decidedly milquetoast mayor of a failed city. Maybe they actually were endorsing Walker and his policies. After all, the results of this election were basically similar to the results in the 2010 election. And who didn’t see scads of “We Stand with Walker” signs? It smacks of sour grapes at this point to declare that most people didn’t actually vote for Walker-qua-Walker (rather than against a recall).

3) As I’ve been saying–and as most political scientists will say–gubernatorial elections aren’t strongly correlated with presidential elections. I agree: I think Obama will win Wisconsin again rather handily. But that will have little to do with voter attitudes toward Walker or toward recalls, I suspect.

As much as I think Tom just wants to spin this away from being considered a Republican victory, I do think the numbers, especially among union members (30 % of whom voted against the recall), a strong element of disapproval of using the recall vote irresponsibly.

Sorry, “the numbers suggest a strong element of disapproval”.

Tom is right, to the extent that this election is probably more about rejecting the public employee unions’ abusive misuse of the recall process than it is about Walker. Hopefully, it will be instructive in discouraging such heavy-handed undemocratic efforts in the future. The man was fairly elected for a four year term, giving full notice during the campaign of what he intended to do if elected, and short of committing malfeasance of some kind should not have been subjected to this recall effort. That is how the voters felt, as they resoundingly demonstrated yesterday.

As for the exit polls, Tom, as Cincinnatus said above they are not for the purpose of predicting elections or short-term analysis. The data on the presidential election is not predictive yet, because the polling results have not yet been weighted or analyzed to ensure demographic integrity. Media outlets and self-serving politicians use them for political and business purposes, if it suits their interests, but they have little predictive value — they are long-term analysis tools only.

I should also note, Tom, that in the past two months, Walker’s job approval rating has exceeded his disapproval rating. It was a solid Republican victory and a rejection of frivolous recalls. It’s simply not the case that a majority of Wisconsin citizens disapproved of Walker’s policies or performance here lately.

And, yes, I extend my hatred of frivolous recalls to both ends of the partisan spectrum! I was vindicated but disappointed last month when Republicans in northern Wisconsin initiated a recall effort against their Democratic legislator for voting against the mining bill. It’s simply a terrible precedent to establish: the idea that we should mount expensive (this recall election alone cost the taxpayers 18 million dollars, not counting all the other outside money spent) plebiscitary recalls every time an elected officer does something of which a particular faction disapproves is patently dangerous. It’s expensive, destabilizing, and it discourages politicians from making bold policy moves–as if there weren’t already enough disincentives to bold political action.

I’m happy with yesterday’s election results not because I have Republican sympathies–I don’t, and I really can’t stand Walker, both as a person and as a corrupt politician–but because my months-old prediction has been vindicated and because I’m hoping that it settled the populism question, for a time at least.

Well, I’m looking at it all this way. Romney desperately needs some conservative credibility, and will need even more to hold the base when he dances to the center this Fall. Who’s got more of it right now than Walker, or is likely to have more of it before the GOP convention? No one, I’d wager. So Mitt picks Scott as his running mate, and we’re rid of the guy after all.

Tom,

I think Gov. Walker said about a week ago that he wouldn’t be interested in running with Mitt.

Of course, things change…it would be one way for him to sidestep
the John Doe probe here in Wisconsin. Or would it?

Walker won for a few reasons, I think.

1.Republican core passion was the highest it’s been in my lifetime (I’m 25). Conservatives finally thought that it’s one of us who is in charge. He’s less motivated to politically pander. Instead he really thinks smaller government, giving school districts more choice and the citizenry a lower tax burden is the path to a thriving economy and job creation.

2. Scott Walker is unflapable. I know, I know, people can site the fake Koch brother phone call, or the “divide and conquer” quote. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. He’s got an almost supernatural calm about him. That’s why Barrett’s campaign strategy of painting Walker as a “rockstar”, was ineffective and just weird. In other words Walker has a leadership style that people respect.

3. People finally came to see the difference between public and private unions. Public unions are often bargaining with government officials who are desperate for their votes and political support, with no one to take the other side of the table. With Walker’s continue repetition of his pro jobs and manufacturing mantra, I think many private sector union workers finally came to see Walker in a positive light.

And there are others of course. Barrett ran a poor campaign. Rural Wisconsin voters don’t like Milwaukee canidates. Walker’s monetary advantage. People being tired of the recall. The public unions mass rage in Madison looked irrational, rather than reality based. Etc…

Tom@7: I think you’re right in suggesting that Romney will be picking a VP who is a) demonstrably and obviously conservative (as opposed to Romney’s “moderate” shape-shifting) and b) from a swing state, obviously in the hopes of snatching a state from Obama.

Wisconsin is just such a swing state. But I don’t think Walker is anywhere near the list of likely VP candidates. For one, he’s too divisive, and that John Doe investigation may very well catch up with him at some point (and even if Walker isn’t the target of the investigation, the media would be all over it). Paul Ryan is a more likely option from Dairyland. Second–and more importantly–Wisconsin probably isn’t a big enough prize for Romney. Ohio, with its lucrative haul of electoral college ballots, is more ambitious. Thus, I’ve heard that Romney’s campaign has a couple of conservative Republican congress/senate members under investigation at the moment. Such a scenario seems more plausible to me.

Matt @9:
“.Republican core passion was the highest it’s been in my lifetime (I’m 25)”

Same here (I’m 57).

Cincinnatus:
“Maybe they were rejecting Barrett, a decidedly milquetoast mayor of a failed city.”

Barrett is a milquetoast, but speak for yourself about Milwaukee being a “failed city”, West Virginia boy. As medium-large cities go, Milwaukee is at least one such city that middle-class taxpayers can still live in, as opposed to near. I know; I live in Milwaukee, as do most of my adult children.

But you are quite right about Walker’s approval rating growing. Therefore, DonS @5 I have to disagree with you about the election only being about the abuse of the recall process. The democrats tried to make this election about everything except Act 10 (Walker’s public employee reform law), and this is because they knew from every poll that the people of Wisconsin (including very many non-republicans) approve of at least part of it, often all of it. This is also why the democrats rejected the decidedly non-milquetoast Kathleen Falk as a candidate. She would have made the recall election all about Act 10, and the democrats knew that was a losing issue. But everybody in Wisconsin (including liberal media outlets like the Milwaukee Journel-Sentinel) knew that the recall was ALL about Act 10. And the people of Wisconsin have come to believe that the public employees abuse of taxpayers (not just the recall process) had to remain stopped (would that California and Illinois would reach the same conclusion). So, anyway, while the voters may not be completely in love with Walker the man, they support what he did at least enough to give his program until at least the end of his term before throwing him out. But the program IS working as predicted. Taxes haven’t gone up, few, if any, government employees have been laid off, and services remain pretty much as they were, and the budget is balanced. If that keeps up and the economy grows enough to create more local jobs, Walker will be re-elected in 2014.

But Cin, why do you say that Walker is a “corrupt politician”? Unless you believe that “corrupt politician” is a redundancy (in which case you have a point), I don’t understand your position.

Kerner @ 11: I completely agree with your post. My comment @ 5 concerned the incredible margin of victory, not the fact that Walker won. In other words, I think the margin of victory was swollen by those who might not have supported him in a regular election between Walker and Barrett, but voted against the recall to make a statement about union abuse of the process. But Walker would have won handily even without this protest support.

kerner@11: And, arguably, it’s possible for white, middle class people to live in some fringes of Detroit. Now, Milwaukee hasn’t achieved Detroit’s level of failure, but it’s still a failed city with a dessicated urban core. It’s educational system is truly and famously dismal. It ranks near the top on illiteracy, poverty, and unemployment levels for large American cities. I could go on. As a former East-Coaster, my closest experiential equivalent is Baltimore–or maybe Memphis: formerly great cities, still a couple of tolerable neighborhoods, even the major league teams remain, but overall depressing (and often dangerous) spectacles. And things only got worse under Barrett, so my point was that he had no accomplishments upon which to run.

Walker a corrupt politician? Well, yes, the term “corrupt politician” is about as redundant as “egotistical politician,” but, yes, in a place like Virginia, which in recent decades has actually accomplished clean and moderate government, as opposed to Wisconsin, which only brags about same, resting on the laurels of the Progressive/LaFollette era, Walker would be considered laughably corrupt. He’s a product of an urban political machine, where he was, as far as I can tell, an adept practitioner of the sorts of tactics that make political machines mechanistic. And this John Doe investigation? Even if he’s not the ultimate target–and I have no idea either way–the entire spectacle just smells bad. I’ve appreciated some of Walker’s policies, including Act 10, but I don’t find him to be a particularly praiseworthy guy when compared with, say, recent Virginia governors (excepting Tim Kaine, though he wasn’t corrupt per se–just rich, urban, and annoying).

Cincinnatus:

Milwaukee vs. Baltimore? Oh please. According to my favorite tv show, “the Wire”, a year with under 300 murders is a good year (ok, it’s fiction, but I don’t have time to look up the actual figures). In Milwaukee we get all upset when we approach 100. Rotting core? Well in some places. But I have to say I don’t feel unsafe in most of our neighborhoods, including downtown. I have to say that one accomplishment I have to give Barrett credit for is his attempt to keep the crime rate down by hiring a decent police chief (despite some fudging of the crime figures).

Our schools may stink, but that is partly a function of there being so many accessable alternatives to the public schools that all but the most disfunctional parents have enrolled their children elsewhere. And the schools are not controlled by municipal government but by a separate school district government.

This is not to say that Milwaukee has no problems. We do. But Baltimore?!?!? Not yet.

I’ll tell what the best thing that we could do for Milwaukee would be. Dynamite 50% of the low income housing in the city. Not that I don’t want to leave room for the poor in our community, but any city will reach critical mass when the urban poor/middle class ratio gets too high. We should simply rebuild the dynamited low income housing in other places…say, Dane County…preferably on both sides of John Erpenbach’s house. Then we’ll see how well white liberals do when faced with the problems of the urban poor.

@ 3, I don’t deny that the Walker victory was an expression of support, by a large part of the populace, for the Governor. Yes, we’re a state with a progressive history, but we’re also the state that gave the country Joseph McCarthy. So we have a hard-right history too. But I still think it was anti-recall sentiment, more than agreement with Walker’s policies, that put Walker over the top. A lot of people want a sense of normalcy, especially in economically troubled times. And the seventeen months of protests and recalls were anything but normal. The swing voters who put Walker over the top just wanted it all to end.

So what next for Wisconsin progressives? Well, in a democracy, when your side loses, you either work twice as hard to win the next election (and there’s always another election not too far down the road) or you rethink your whole platform. I believe the latter is what’s required now. Unfortunately, in this state, currently, we lack progressive leadership with intellectual chops equal to the other side’s. Not to mention the charisma of confidence.

Tom H @15:

Yes, and the news from the state democratic party convention over the weekend was more of the same. Look, I know I am a political opponent of the dems, so I am hardly objective. But I come from a party that has balance the fervor of its own base with the moderation of swing voters as well. And it just seems to me that the dems are way out of balance at this point. Just sayin’.