So - what will Walker win (especially if it is not a squeaker but a solid win) do? Will it put Wisconsin in play in presidential elections? Will it have repercussions past the state’s borders?
I think it will be a crushing blow to unions and highlight just how weak and ineffectual, politically, they have become. Democrats will probably ignore unions even more than they are doing now after this (except from soliciting their donations, that is). And I think the momentum may carry over into presidential election. But I really don’t see it affecting anything outside of WI.
How would it highlight how “weak and ineffectual” unions have become? The fact that they were able to force a recall election in the first place seems a pretty strong attestation that they aren’t dead yet.
Walker has something like a 3 to 1 funding advantage, and he’s already beaten Barrett (in 2010), so I’m not entirely sure that this particular election really tells us anything.
No, Wisconsin will not be in play in the fall. Obama can safely tuck them in his electoral bed, as he can with Michigan.
I don’t think it’s a done deal that Walker gets a big win or any win, for that matter. If it does, it shows the power of money. Carpetbombing with negative ads got a zero like Romney a nomination, it can keep a complete dolt in the governor’s chair as well.
I think you’re prematurely dancing on the grave of unions. There are regions where their clout remains and will for some time.
I agree that it’s in play still but not because of money but because the uniqueness of this election means that it’s more difficult to judge who a likely voter is than in other polls where you can multiply the raw numbers by the likelihood of each choice’s voter actually casting a ballot on election day.
I doubt the recall is going to have any effect in terms of being a “crushing blow;” union power has been in decline for decades. It’s a signpost, that’s all.
Specifically with regard to teacher’s unions that have been so active in WI, the leaders in the school reform movement are mostly progressives, not conservatives. Dem politicians give lip service to the unions to keep the money coming in, but the writing is on the wall.
It won’t have much affect on the Presidential election primarily because it is happening in June and the election is still five months away. Whatever effect it has will decay to almost nothingness by that time.
The psychological and electoral effects of a political defeat on later elections/events are unpredictable; sometimes it discourages the losing side, sometimes it fires 'em up.
Figure I heard, not verified, was about 25 to 1 on spending, favoring Walker. Sure would be nice to see people power defeat money. Yessiree Bob, that would be nice.
Rachel Maddow posits that in the post-Citizens United world, that the removal of union’s bargaining rights will erase the biggest Democratic fund-raising bloc; ensuring a future where GOP can outspend Dems by a ridiculous margin in every election.
I’m pretty sure that will just lead to everyone voting what their parents voted. Like it or not, those ads are the only way most people find out what the candidates actually stand for. We do need informed voters.
The only way this works is if you set up an independent agency, funded equally by both sides, that is responsible for telling the truth. But, even then, that’s only one point of failure.
I don’t think so but the Dems are seriously playing it down. They threw a lot of money at this and if he wins the recall it’ll leave some egg on their faces…then be quickly forgotten.
Too often, political ads do NOT tell us what the candidate actually stands for, they merely give reasons, real and imagined, NOT to vote for the other guy. Did he vote (gasp) to raise the debt ceiling? Must be a big spending liberal! Did he not support the Patriot Act? Must be a terrorist!. And so on and on and on.
I think, from the Dems’ POV, in terms of morale/credibility/momentum going into November, the upside potential of winning this one is a lot bigger than the downside potential of losing it.
Well, that pretty much covers both sides, doesn’t it?
Look, this recall was a long shot in the first place. The general populace … those who aren’t party activists or who have an ax to grind … are typically reluctant to change horses in midstream, as it were, and toss out an elected governor in the midst of his term. Secondly, the Wisconsin Democrats probably could have come up with a better opponent than the guy whom Walker already beat. I mean, come on! I’ve heard Barrett was downplaying the public employees’ bargaining rights thing during his campaign. Wasn’t that the whole reason for the recall in the first place? Thirdly, I’m not sure how one can blame the unions for not coming through and toppling the governor, when the Koch brothers and other out-of-state conservatives were shipping money to the Walker campaign by the metric ton. Thanks, Citizens United decision! I guess money really is free speech! :rolleyes:
I agree with the thinking that even getting to the recall election in the first place was a pretty big achievement. The Democrats did earn a couple of seats in the statehouse, anyway, so it’s not like it was a complete loss. I don’t see this election having much of an impact at all in November.
It seems the anti-Walker forces were able get enough signatures to create several recalls but I believe the Democrats have lost all but one. And they lost the Supreme Court Justice vote.
Getting enough signatures, legal or otherwise, is nowhere near enough people to actually vote someone into office. There are very few people in Wisconsin who aren’t aware of this election and I suspect another large turnout. The Republicans have been on an upswing since Walker was elected.
