Can Scott Walker be re-elected Governor of Wisconsin?

[BrainGlutton]

Or, even, stay out of jail?

Despite this?

Madison — Prosecutors allege Gov. Scott Walker was at the center of an effort to illegally coordinate fund raising among conservative groups to help his campaign and those of Republican state senators facing recall elections during 2011 and '12, according to documents unsealed Thursday.

In the documents, prosecutors lay out what they call an extensive “criminal scheme” to bypass state election laws by Walker, his campaign and two top Republican political operatives — R.J. Johnson and Deborah Jordahl. This marks the first time prosecutors have disclosed the details of their probe.

The governor and his close confidants helped raise money and control spending through 12 conservative groups during the recall election campaigns, according to the prosecutors’ filings.

He does seem to be getting in deeper.

Ballotpedia page on the election.

[Bricker]

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?

He also scolded prosecutors for their support of making records public, saying they appeared to “seek refuge in the Court of Public Opinion, having lost in this Court on the law.”

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

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.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

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
(C) Both
(D) Neither

[Bricker]

@Bricker

So are you predicting:

(A) Walker will be indicted
(B) Walker will lose the 2014 election
(C) 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?

[Tom_Tildrum]

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.

[Terr]

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?

[pkbites]

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

@BrainGlutton

The recall failed mainly because it was a recall and most Wisconsin voters apparently consider that inappropriate except in more extreme circumstances

:rolleyes::smack::rolleyes::smack::rolleyes::smack:

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.

[Measure_for_Measure]

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

@Bricker

So are you predicting:

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

@Bricker

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?

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.

The scope of the criminal scheme under investigation “is expansive,” Schmitz wrote. “It includes criminal violations of multiple elections laws, including violations of Filing a False Campaign Report or Statement and Conspiracy to File a False Campaign Report or Statement.”

[adaher]

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.

[BigAppleBucky]

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

The Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker

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

Predictably, by 2010, the WOW counties were aflame with anti-Obama fervor, and Walker set his sights on the governor’s mansion. This climate should have favored his primary opponent, Mark Neumann, a highly conservative ex- congressman from southern Wisconsin. But so formidable was Walker’s talk-radio base that it altered the course of the race. Day after day, Sykes and Belling lauded Walker and savaged Neumann. Belling called Neumann a “liar” for criticizing Walker’s county budgets and declared, “No one I know thinks [Neumann] has a chance of winning.” The attacks were unfair but damaging, Neumann told me. Walker beat him by 18 points. In some precincts of the WOW counties, he won close to 75 percent of the vote, but lost to Neumann across much of the rest of the state. To Sykes, it was no coincidence that Walker’s support aligned so closely with the listening range of their stations. “If you look at that map, you see talk-radio land,” Sykes says.

On his national aspirations:

. . . Walker’s ascent had not prepared him well for the national stage. In Wisconsin, he occupies a comfortable cocoon; nationally, he’ll face tougher questions and even tougher opponents. A segment in February with Fox News’s Chris Wallace about the investigation into Walker’s county administration and the e-mail release did not go well. “He hasn’t shown the ability to do that, to step out of Nerf territory,” says Chris Larson, a Democratic state senator from Milwaukee. Terry, the former Belling employee, agrees. “No one’s really pushed his buttons, and trust me, when they get a hold of him and he can’t jump in the safety zone, it’ll go hard on him,” he said. In Wisconsin, “if he says something stupid … he can run to the outlets and they’ll take care of it. He could eat a child on television and [Milwaukee talk radio] would go on about how it benefits children.”

At Marquette he earned the nickname “Neidermeyer”:

[BigAppleBucky]

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.

[BobLibDem]

@Bricker

So are you predicting:

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

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.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

So are you predicting:

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

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

[BrainGlutton]

@BobLibDem

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.

Then, why choose (D)?

[BrainGlutton]

@pkbites

Nobody who disliked Walker in 2010 voted for him because they disliked the recall system worse.

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

[BrainGlutton]

@Terr

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.

Yet.

[BobLibDem]

@BrainGlutton

Then, why choose (D)?

Brain fart. I meant (C).

[Tom_Tildrum]

@BigAppleBucky

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

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.

[Bricker]

@Measure_for_Measure

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

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?

Do you have a confident prediction?

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.

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.

Well:

Based on the prosecutors’ arguments, Kluka authorized sweeping subpoenas for a number of individuals, including O’Keefe. O’Keefe was ordered to turn over scores of documents dating back to 2009, the new documents show.

But Peterson, who replaced Kluka on the second John Doe case, quashed the subpoenas in January and ordered the return of any property seized because he found there was no probable cause shown that they violated campaign finance laws.

“I am persuaded the statutes only prohibit coordination by candidates and independent organizations for a political purpose, and political purpose, with one minor exception not relevant here … requires express advocacy,” Peterson wrote in an order included in documents released Thursday. “There is no evidence of express advocacy.”