Can Scott Walker be re-elected Governor of Wisconsin?

Or, even, stay out of jail?

Despite this?

He does seem to be getting in deeper.

Ballotpedia page on the election.

From 2012: So, Walker won the election. Will he now be indicted? (Answer: no)

From 2012: Democrats expect to win control of Wisconsin State Senate (Answer: they didn’t)

And, here we go again.

So to be clear, BrainGlutton, are you again predicting that Scott Walker will be indicted?

It is now beginning to look as if he might be indicted after all, but, even if not, mightn’t the scandal hurt his re-election chances? The recall failed mainly because it was a recall and most Wisconsin voters apparently consider that inappropriate except in more extreme circumstances; but this is different, this is an ordinary scheduled election, a routine chance to make a new choice.

So are you predicting:

(A) Walker will be indicted
(B) Walker will lose the election
© Both
(D) Neither

Even though you started the thread, I will offer my own prediction: (D)

Specifically, (A) will be true through the end of November, 2014. Just to have some finality as opposed to enduring years of, “Well, he could still get indicted later!”

Do you have a confident prediction?

BG, the Scott Walker saga has not been kind to you. It might be time to step back and watch events unfold, without offering predictions. :cool:

So let me see if I got it straight: the prosecutors allege that Walker was “at the center of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws”? But they did not charge him with anything. Isn’t it a bit weird to accuse someone of criminality but not bring charges?

Without commenting on whether or not Walker will be indicted or re-elected;


This is crap. It’s absolute crap! I know you’re going to post some ridiculous cite that says politics are so pure that people who don’t like Walker still voted for him in the recall because la de da and kumbaya, and yabba dabba doo.

Jebus Kripes. More people voted in the recall in 2010 than voted in the original election in 2008. And Walker received more votes in '10 than he received in '08 against the same lame opponent.

Nobody who disliked Walker in 2010 voted for him because they disliked the recall system worse. That is one of the most absurd arguments I’ve ever heard and I wish you’d grow up and give it up! The fact is, at that time more people wanted Walker Governor. Whether they still feel that way this November will be seen.

Those who create threads are not required to make predictions. Especially when they pose questions.

Do you have a confident prediction? If so what odds are you giving for Walker’s re-election? Personally, I think it’s a toss-up, so extreme views in either direction create quatloo arbitrage opportunities for me. Or putting it another way, it’s a toss up. OTOH, I think Jerry Brown (D) of California, Cuomo (D) of New York and Dayton (D) of Minnesota will coast to victory. (Same cite.)

As for the alleged criminal scheme explicitly claimed by prosecutors, I think the judicial branch should enforce the law and the governor should obey it.

I don’t know whether or not Walker will be indicted and personally I don’t care. But he’s too tainted for my tastes as a Presidential candidate now. The evidence that he illegally coordinated is strong, not to mention some of his aides have actually pled guilty to crimes.

In the end, the people of Wisconsin should judge him, but he should stay in Wisconsin.

The New Republic on Scott Walker, hate radio, and the WOW counties:

The WOW counties are 93% white and are just outside Milwaukee. They vote 80% for Walker and are growing, especially relative to Milwaukee.

On his national aspirations:

At Marquette he earned the nickname “Neidermeyer”:

I rather doubt Walker will be prosecuted. Conservatives have been stacking the Wisconsin courts in their favor for the last 20+ years and the crimes, if any, are state, not federal in nature.

But if by some odd set of circumstances Walker is indicted and tried, I suspect he could lose his reelection bid.

But he will have at least a two to one spending advantage. (Official campaigns might be about even, but Walker will have a huge dark money edge.) As big as that seems, it’s not as great as his eight or ten to one edge during the 2012 recall election. He also won’t have a built in extra seven month campaign period the way he did from November '11 to May '12. (By rule, the Democrats weren’t allowed to campaign before May '12 and Walker’s recall campaign began spending big money in November '11.)

Another factor is that he will miss on his 250,000 new private sector jobs campaign pledge. That probably will hurt him a little.

I expect him to win by about the same margins as 2010 and 2012, but at least as of now, he is on more shaky ground than he was two years ago at this time.

I’ll take (D). Not for money, of course. My idea of big gambling is to play the penny slots and buying a lottery ticket.

From what I recall, many Wisconsinites voted against the recall because they didn’t believe in recalling someone for what they do legislatively and not because they’re thrilled with Walker.

Walker was fortunate to run in 2010 when the anti-Obama fever was at its peak. Now that the ACA turned out not to be the satanic creation it was portrayed as then, the fever has broken.

As to whether he gets indicted, from what I read it seems like a rather good possibility. Ideally, both him and Christie would get convicted of federal charges and wind up in the same cell.

I’m not predicting, I’m asking, that is, opening the subject for debate, as one does 'round here.

Then, why choose (D)?

No, of course not, but there are always swing voters.


Brain fart. I meant ©.

Whether or not Walker can succeed on the national stage, the suggestion that he hasn’t faced scrutiny or rough opposition is ludicrous. And if the best example of “hate radio” that TNR could come up with is a back-and-forth about county budgets, then that attack is likely to go nowhere.

Of course. Just asking questions.

That’s convenient, isn’t it, if the goal is to smear and create innuendo without actually risking one’s credibility on a verifiable future event, is it not?

I have a prediction. I made it.

I have a confident prediction: ~(A). (That’s the notation for saying I confidently predict (A) will not happen by November 2014.

I’d give five to one against it.