Wisconsin - will Walker win be hugely detrimental to Democrats in general elections?

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

He might just not know the law.

You think he doesn’t have a lawyer involved in his legal defense fund?!

To which he has just diverted another $100,000:

Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign has transferred another $100,000 to the defense fund used to pay his pricey criminal defense lawyers in the lengthy John Doe investigation into activities during Walker’s time as county executive.

Newly filed campaign reports show Walker’s campaign transferred $70,000 to the Scott Walker Trust on May 3 and another $30,000 on May 17.

That bring the total the first-term governor has put in the defense fund to $160,000 in the past six weeks.

State law requires that the campaign get prior approval from donors before shifting their money to a legal-defense fund. Walker’s campaign has declined to identify the contributors who OK’d the transfers.

<snip>

Walker is represented in the case by Milwaukee lawyer Michael Steinle and John Gallo, a Chicago attorney and former federal prosecutor.

Ciara Matthews, spokeswoman for the Walker campaign, said she had no comment on the transfers.

The spokesman for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Walker’s foe in the recall election, repeated the point that Walker is the only governor in the U.S. with a defense fund.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Of course, but that doesn’t mean he consulted with the lawyer on everything he says. Politicians talk a lot, which means politicians often say things when they shouldn’t. I’m not saying he doesn’t know, just that it’s possible.

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Politicians talk a lot, which means politicians often say things when they shouldn’t.

Certainly true in Walker’s case, see post #36.

[elucidator]

Or what they fail to say. If Mr Walker had been upfront and honest about his anti-union agenda in the election campaign, does anybody believe he would have won?

[BigAppleBucky]

@Reginald_Hobbes

The bolded does not appear in the transcript of the video.
Thanks, I was aware of the investigation. What I was asking for was proof of an imminent indictment.
The legal defense fund may or may not indicate Walker’s in trouble. The fact that they are looking for evidence to connect him to the actions of his aides may be enough to trigger the “under investigation” clause of the defense fund law, even if they find nothing.
But, I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know that for sure.

Not solid but aside from rumors I’ve heard from Wisconsin people, there was this:

Wisconsin Governor Walker And Five Others To Be Charged In John Doe Probe...

Milwaukee – On Friday, investigative information released by a reliable source indicated that Governor Scott Walker (R) and up to five others in the governor’s circle while he was Milwaukee County executive will be facing several felony charges resulting from the John Doe investigation.

Frankly, I think it’s unfair to both sides not to have neither issued an indictment nor cleared Walker.

[BrainGlutton]

@BigAppleBucky

Not solid but aside from rumors I’ve heard from Wisconsin people, there was this:
Wisconsin Governor Walker And Five Others To Be Charged In John Doe Probe After The June Election | Hispanic News Network USA Blog

Frankly, I think it’s unfair to both sides not to have neither issued an indictment nor cleared Walker.

OTOH, it might be professionally irresponsible and therefore unethical for the Milwaukee County DA’s office either to have hastened or delayed indictments for political considerations. We just don’t know – this kind of investigation is so secret that nobody outside the office can really know what they’ve got on Walker so far, if anything, or when they might be ready to indict him or to drop the idea of doing so.

[Lochdale]

Still likely he is going to win the recall and he hasn’t been indicted yet. According to today’s WSJ union membership in the public sector unions in Wisconsin is down significantly.

[BrainGlutton]

Exit poll: Obama bests Romney in Wisconsin by 11 points.

[Terr]

@BrainGlutton

Exit poll: Obama bests Romney in Wisconsin by 11 points.

Not just that - it was a blowout compared with 2010. Take a look:

Wisconsin Recall Election Results Map

all those dots above the line - that’s counties where he did better than in 2010.

[BrainGlutton]

@Terr

Not just that - it was a blowout compared with 2010. Take a look:

Wisconsin Recall Election Results Map

all those dots above the line - that’s counties where he did better than in 2010.

No, that’s about Walker v. Barrett. I was linking to the exit poll about Obama v. Romney. Which goes directly to the OP.

[Terr]

@BrainGlutton

No, that’s about Walker v. Barrett. I was linking to the exit poll about Obama v. Romney. Which goes directly to the OP.

Ah, I misread.

The blow from this loss to the morale of the Democrats in WI is pretty strong, I would say. Will be interesting to see the presidential results.

[Jas09]

If Romney wins in WI then it won’t matter - he’ll have won in a landslide.

[BrainGlutton]

From The Nation:

Robert M. La Follette, the architect of the progressive movement that a century ago made Wisconsin the nation’s “laboratory of democracy,” recognized that the experiments would at times go awry. “We have long rested comfortably in this country upon the assumption that because our form of government was democratic, it was therefore automatically producing democratic results. Now, there is nothing mysteriously potent about the forms and names of democratic institutions that should make them self-operative,” he observed after suffering more than his share of defeats. “Tyranny and oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other.”

<snip>

There’ll be plenty of speculation about whether things in Wisconsin would have been different if Obama, the national Democrats and their donors had gone all in for Barrett. But that misses a deeper point; the unlimited spending that Republicans and their allies can now engage in is a new factor in our politics. And it has the potential to be definitional unless Democrats and progressives figure things out quickly. They should have been on the ground in Wisconsin not just to beat Walker but to get a read on where politics in America is headed in the Citizens United age.

The answer is not that Democrats and unions need to figure out how to counter Republican and corporate money. They can’t. So does Wisconsin then tell us that its over for progressive politics of any kind in America? Not necessarily.

The Wisconsin result says that big money matters more – perhaps much more – now than it ever has. It can take a damaged candidate like Scott Walker and repurpose him as a winner. That’s very good news for Mitt Romney. But it does not have to be the end of the story.

“Democrats don’t have to have as much money as Republicans to compete in campaigns,” says state Representative Fred Kessler, a Wisconsin Democrat who has been running campaigns for 50 years. “What they have to do is figure out how to spend the money they have in a way that counters the big money.”

In Wisconsin, Democrats struggled with their message, trying to transition the radicalism of the Capitol protests of 2011 – which took as their symbol a clenched “Solidarity” fist in the shape of the state – into the narrow confines of contemporary politics. It didn’t work. Months of soft messaging about important issues – from education to voting rights – took some of the edge off the movement messaging that had defined the protests and the petitioning for the recall. As a result, polls conducted after the Democratic primary picked Barrett showed that a third or more of voters who identified as coming from a “union household” intended to vote for Walker. Private-sector unions found themselves scrambling in the weeks before the June 5 election to shore up a base that should have been secured from the start.

<snip>

“You can’t spend all your money on television. You’ve got to spend it on the ground,” says Congresswoman Gwen Moore, a Milwaukee Democrat. “That’s the most important thing to take away from Wisconsin. Investing on the ground more Democratic voters the polls. Even if it wasn’t quite enough, people have to realize that’s where you begin. That’s how you build the base for winning next time.”

There will be a next time, not just in Wisconsin but nationally. The fight to remove Walker was necessary, and important. That it did not succeed is heartbreaking. But it cannot be definitional.

Republicans will continue to push their austerity agendas, in Wisconsin and nationally. And progressives have to get better at beating them, in the streets and at the polls. Robert M. La Follette, who suffered more than his share of defeats before he started winning against the robber barons of his day, got it right – for his time, and ours. “We are slow to realize that democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle,” La Follette explained. “It is only as those of every generation who love democracy resist with all their might the encroachments of its enemies that the ideals of representative government can even be nearly approximated.”

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

Romney leads Obama in Wisconsin 46 - 44

Obviously biased*, but discuss.

[magellan01]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Romney leads Obama in Wisconsin 46 - 44

Obviously biased*, but discuss.

Well, one can only hope that the election will give Obama the opportunity to do what he’s apparently good at: community organizin’. Unless he can get reelected to the state senate and beat his own “voting present” record. His future is filled with opportunity.

[elucidator]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Romney leads Obama in Wisconsin 46 - 44

Obviously biased*, but discuss.

Rasmussen. Obviously biased. Discussed.

[Terr]

@elucidator

Rasmussen. Obviously biased. Discussed.

Rasmussen was pretty accurate in its Walker vs. Barrett polling.

[elucidator]

Tell you what, Terr. I think the facts speak for themselves, Rasmussen consistently overestimates towards the conservative side of things. Now, if you want to believe that they are strictly non-biased and non-partisan, you go right ahead!

[Terr]

@elucidator

Tell you what, Terr. I think the facts speak for themselves, Rasmussen consistently overestimates towards the conservative side of things. Now, if you want to believe that they are strictly non-biased and non-partisan, you go right ahead!

We’re talking about polling in Wisconsin. Rasmussen was pretty accurate in the Walker/Barrett race (while the Democrat pollster was wildly wrong, by the way). If anything, it “underestimated” and didn’t “overestimate”. So it is likely that the poll they did on presidential race is as accurate.

[Jas09]

Here are the final polls for Walker v. Barrett. The consensus was 52-45 (6.7 point spread). Final result was 53-46 (6.8 point spread). You’ll notice two things: Rasmussen didn’t release a final poll, and the consensus was closer to the final result than Rasmussen was.

These are both important points (which Nate Silver among others have highlighted). Rasmussen has a long history of pushing his polls a certain way and then either quickly moving back to the consensus at the end or not even bothering to do a “final poll”. Also, the average of multiple polls is almost always more accurate than an individual one.

Here is current polling from WI for Obama v. Romney. What conclusions would you draw from this? For a bit more context you should not that the national horse-race number has been completely flat. Until I see another poll that backs up Rasmussen I’m going to assume that he’s pushing a poll that supports his narrative, as he’s been wont to do in the past.