Why Walker won in WI, and what Dems need to do right now.

[RBInMaine]

Walker DID NOT WIN JUST BECAUSE HE OUTSPENT the Dems. The Dems KNEW he was going to do this. They knew he was going to have that big wallet with his corporate asshole cronies dumping in millions. His big money did gin up his base, and it did allow him much more airtime and direct mailings. Also helped with his GOTV. But it is not that simple. Dems/Unions also spent millions (though not nearly as much, true), BUT they also OVER-REACHED with this, much as Walker is an asshole. Brave, gutsy, but BIGTIME RISKY. And they KNEW the risks (many warned against this). They went for it anyhow, and it failed.

While the D's were getting signatures and then having a primary fight, Walker was raising tons of cash and running ads proping himself up and amplifying that the recall was a sour grapes do-over. They knew that a majority of Wisconsinites would not like the idea of overturning an election and removing a sitting governor short of proven illegal activity. When the D's did get a nominee, it was the guy who lost before and he only had a month to campaign. A very tall order.

* In the end, the voters who actually gave Walker the win, MODERATE INDIES AND SOME MODERATE DEMS, did so because they were voting AGAINST THE RECALL and not so much FOR Walker. Every single bit of polling proves this without any doubt at all. 18% of the anti-recall voters said they will be voting for Obama who will most likely win WI if he and the Dems can keep that momentum going. Also, by a 60/40 margin, WI voters said they did not on principle like the idea of this kind of recall.

Unfortunately, WI does not have a People's Veto referendum option like they do in OH and many other states. If they did, they could have instead done what OH did and gone after the anti-union law with a campaign against WALKER'S OVER-REACH and extremism and showing how good unionism is and how reasonable the unions are. Knowing they did not have this option, they instead went after a Governor's recall which was not going to sit well with many moderate voters on principle. They were not strategic enough in this decision.

Yes, in the end these recalls did get them the narrowest of margins in a re-take of the State Senate. That is good. But the recall effort should have stopped at that level.

Now what they need to do is: Re-group and re-focus on the FALL elections to keep their Obama lead and broaden their number of legislative seats. Hopefully they can do that and haven't done too much damage to the idea that Walker is a guy whose power needs to be put in check. Rather than going for the recall against Walker, they should have focused on the FALL with a campaign to support the idea of unionism and building the narrative that Walker is indeed an extremist hatchet man who works for the Koch Brothers and that they need to return the legislature to the Dems to place a strong check-and-balance on Walker's executive power. That can hopefully still be their narrative. They also need to start their own superpac and raise more money to counter more of the RePub money. It will never be even, but they have got to do better on the money piece as do Dems everywhere unless and until we can do something about Citizen United. Finally, they need to work to change their state constitution so that it includes a People's Veto referendum provision. Then they can use that instead of so many risky electoral recalls.

Another hope is that Walker, realizing he dodged a bullet this time, will pull back a bit on his hatchet man approach to governing and will moderate a bit. Losing the state senate and being confronted with his real agenda and coziness to the 1% should be a bit of a wake-up call. The TeaPubs need to be very careful not to read too much into their win here. The Dems did increase Dem turnout over 2010 in a pretty big way. Barrett won late deciders and young voters. He got more votes than Walker did when Walker won in the "Republican Wave" of 2010. And as of now Obama wins WI by 7-12%. Walker needs to understand he dodged a bullet here and that he won mainly because enough Wisconsites stood on their principle of not liking the idea of a gubernatorial recall, not because they love him or his approach to governing.

[BlueToTheBone]

1. I don't think Walker will pull back at all.

I think that he considers this a "mandate" and if the Dems don't keep the majority, it's all over for WI...and I'm sure that as WI goes, so goes the nation....So, it is mighty important to keep the Dems in power in November. I hope they saved some cash for this.

[RBInMaine]

3. No, not "so goes the nation" over one state. And if after this he doesn't re-tune, that is GOOD for

the D's because they can show that he learned nothing from the experience and doesn't get how he won. Think about it,
he outspent his opposition 7-1, and yet got just 53%. That is not a massive landslide. Barrett got more votes than Walker did the first time. As I said, the Pubs have to be very careful about reading too much into this.

[BlueToTheBone]

8. They may be clever, but they aren't smart.

I hope you're right!

[Cal33]

20. He may consider this a "mandate," but it's quite possible that he will be indicted along with his

aides for corruption and scandal. One of his closest aides has said openly in court that Walker was
involved. And several others are already making deals with the prosecution for immunity or plea
bargaining, trying to save their own skins. Former Dem governor of Illinois Blagojevich is already doing
time. It looks as though Walker will be following suit.

How about Kleefisch, was she also involved? If not, she might be the next governor of WI.

[Savannahmann]

2. You make some valid points

However, the thing is this. We failed to get our message out. Barrett did not have a cognizant plan on what he would do to Govern. The single biggest mistake we made was failing to get the truth out about the budget and impact of Walker's extreme agenda. He was parading out those numbers we all knew were BS saying he'd balanced the budget with no problem after shafting the unions. We know those numbers are bull, but we weren't ready with our own studies and information on it.

We all know the truth, instinctively. But we have to be ready to defend the truth. The Koch machine won't stop with the propaganda. We need the numbers to back us up.

[RBInMaine]

4. Yes, that is true. I do mention that the signature and primary campaign then a short general cam-

paign gave them little time to establish their own narrative, and yes, that includes their own plan to govern the state and create more jobs.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. "Never do something unless you'll almost certainly win"

Is the Third-Way credo.

Strange, though: whenever the Third-Way is in charge, we lose elections like crazy and the country moves further and further to the right.

Maybe it's not the best credo?

[RBInMaine]

6. No Manny, but you also don't over-reach before you have the fundamentals on your side. And here they

didn't have the underlying fundamentals and they knew the risks. Going after a sitting governor who they knew would have tons of cash in a state whose voters do not on principle like such a recall absent proven illegal behavior was a very large strategic error. One must balance idealism with reality and practicality.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. You keep mentioning Walker's huge cash advantage

while also saying that it wasn't the cash that made the difference.

Can you clarify?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Maybe he means that it wasn't necessary for the DNC to directly provide the $500K Barrett requested.

Or maybe not.

[RBInMaine]

15. They contributed at least $1.4 million through various means and more would not have helped. Play

the blame game on Obama and the DNC if you must. Obama was BRILLIANT to stay the hell out of this STATE issue,
and Walker was going to win even with equal money because people didn't want to recall the sitting governor.

It was a wrong move, and they should have focused on November instead. And that is what they need to do now.
Even Barney Frank agrees, just was we all agree Walker is an asshole. But the WI folks didn't want to set this kind of recall
precedent. And we need to understand that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. They didn't contribute $1.4 million to Barrett's campaign after the primary. They had the money.

[RBInMaine]

30. The DNC and MANY OTHERS helped. You risked and lost. Learn from it and move on. No blame games.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. Aren't you one of those who said that the DNC's earlier help prior to the primary was sufficient

and that the DNC didn't need to help with Barrett's specific request for $500K after the primary.

Of course, no DNC supporter has ever directly expressed it that way. They endless say that the DNC provided $1.4 million (and do so without saying that such amount, if true, was for expenses prior to the primary). They also count the work done by others as being attributable to the DNC so as to excuse DNC's lack of performance when requested. In addition, while the DNC was sitting on cash, they point to the DNC's act of sending emails and requesting money from donors as equivalent to the action that was needed. They were the ones that said that what the DNC was doing was sufficient.

It should be obvious, but if you don't analyize the past, then you don't learn from it.

[RBInMaine]

14. He had a big cash advantage, but that was not the ONLY dynamic and anyone who thinks so is refusing

to see the rest which is indisputable. All the Indies and Dems who voted for Walker were not "brainwashed" by the big money ads as some may think. Those people already knew what Walker had done, and many didn't like it nor do they particularly like Walker. But people are more sophisticated than that. All polls show a large majority of Wisconsinites do not like the idea of recalling a sitting governor, even an asshat guv, without virtual criminal behavior. (This is entirely understandable. Here in Maine most voters think our TeaBag guv is a real asshole. But I will say right now they probably would not vote to recall him. They would feel he won his term fair and square, like it or not, and a recall would not sit well at all. I myself would have a serious problem with it and would rather spend the time and energy working to define him as the asshole he is and using that to help fuel a re-take of our legislature from his asshole allies in that body which we are working to do right now for the fall. The more the asshole talks, the more he hangs himself and his party, so let the asshole stay in office and cut his own throat. That is good new for us in the fall. This is what WI should have done.)

So no, the money was NOT the deciding factor. It did gin up the Repuke base and did help with their GOTV operation. But then again, the Dems with their several million dollars and thousands of volunteers also had very damn good turnout of Dems, many more of whom voted this time than in 2010. But why did a significant number of Dems and a majority of Indies go with Walker? Brainwashed by ads? Or maybe they didn't like the recall idea, which is what they have SAID in the polling. Again, 18% of the Walker voters also said they would vote for Obama giving him a 7-12 point advantage over Romney right now. This is what Dems need to understand. You can't win big elections without winning enough of the MIDDLE in order to do so. That is the plain reality. Barrett got everyone who signed the petitions plus about 150,000 or so more. This is more voters than Walker got in 2010 during his "wave" year. They did a good job getting many more Dems out to vote this time. The problem was that the Pubs also got their base PLUS a winning margin with the middle including some Dems. THAT is why Walker won.

All that said, yes, we do need to continue the Move To Amend movement, educating people on Citizens United, and work to get the big money out as in some races it definitely does make more of a difference. But Walker would have won this even with equal money. The margin would have been a few points closer, but he still would have won it. The fundamentals were not with the other side. People didn't like the recall.

Think about these facts too. Multi-Millionaire Meg Whitman out in CA outspent Jerry Brown bigtime. Why did she get clobbered? People were tired of the RePub Arney, and they also DID NOT LIKE WHITMAN. It was about other dynamics besides the money.

Here in Maine a few years back a

[MannyGoldstein]

19. How do you feel about Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy?

Was it more or less successful than the Third Way method of spending freely on a few candidates who have a good shot at taking a seat from Republicans, and more-or-less starving all other candidates?

[RBInMaine]

29. Yes, good, fine, like it, it's right. But you're comparing apples to oranges here as I've said.

The 50 state strategy is about building party infrastructure in all areas, and grooming and running candidates at all levels in all areas for REGULAR ELECTIONS. Yes, you need to have a presence and compete everywhere and build for the future. But this was a gubernatorial recall effort, an OPTIONAL election, attempting to remove a sitting governor just a year and half into his term which, like it or not, he won fair and square in 2010. VERY VERY different dynamics. VERy different situation. Nothing to do with the 50 state strategy.

[HereSince1628]

7. That's certainly some of it. It's certainly not simply about the amount of the money

Just on the money there are half a dozen important questions to which we don't yet have answers. And those answers are important to understanding how CU influenced the recall and how popular movements can fight the big money asymmetry.

The unexpected emergence of "Walker Democrats" is a great curiousity and explaining them will undoubtedly require more than one-liners about the amount of money that supported Walker.

Frankly there are dozens of questions that remain unanswered.

Not a few of those questions require serious intellectual investment from the kinds of people who have more knowledge of what dissertation projects in politics look like than how to write a sexy headline or subject line.

[midnight]

10. Another thought about why Walker might of won. He is not fond of the law, and has a history of

cheating to win...

Our Wisconsin courts are ethically anemic and our votes are in the hands of private source operated by the Republicans..

Time and money and National Party support were against the workers from the get go...
Barrett went into this recall with only 27 days after that to get out the vote- So all the Dem. voters came into this late.. Another disadvantage used against us in Wisconsin was the huge dump of resources from the Republican national Party into our state, and how very little financial support from the Democratic National Party was extended to Wisconsin. You could say that Walker missed a bullet, but the Wisconsin Middle class, teachers, nurses, and other state workers took the hit...

[RBInMaine]

16. You just proved with your own statement the recall was a bad move. Only 27 days to campaign. That

was one problem. But the main problem was not enough of your people wanted it. Indisputable. Risky shot that missed.
Can't play the "blame the DNC" card. And the RNC didn't give him all that money. Big money private donors did.

[midnight]

27. "My people"???? The nurses, or how about the teachers????

Or are you referring to the Status Quo Barney Franks??? Risky My my working family.... But my statement doesn't prove that the recall was a bad move....

[RBInMaine]

31. "Your people" means Wisconsinites in general. The idea of recalling a sitting guv didn't sit well

with too many of your voters, even if they thought he was generall something of an asshole. They didn't want to set that kind of precendent: overturning an election every time you get pissed at an asshole politician. Instead, work to vote him out at the next REGULAR election. That is what the voters said.

We all agree that Walker is TOTAL ASSHOLE. Hell, I donated to the cause myself because they were pulling the trigger so what else could we do? But everyone knew Walker would pull in those tons of cash, and everyone knew this would be very risky.

No crying over it. No blame games. Grown-ups LEARN from the situtation and move on. Re-Tune now and get to work for the fall.

[JNelson6563]

11. Very good post.

Well thought out, many valid points. Well done!

Julie

[RBInMaine]

17. Thanks. Appreciated. Repeated polls prove these points.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. We should now all SUPPORT UNIONISM? All of us? Should we oppose the next "free-trade" agreement?

Will you join those of us that already support unionism and oppose so-called "free-trade" agreements?

Or should we only all support unionism until the details of the next wage-lowering, anti-union "free-trade" agreement are finalized and the signatures are ready to be added?

Do you realize that another wage-lowering, anti-union "free-trade" agreement is in the works? No doubt, the super-rich and Rmoney supports it.

[davidpdx]

22. I think you can support both free trade and unions

It is not an either or proposition. Free trade lowers tariffs and other taxes on both items coming in and out of the country. Yes some jobs are lost with free-trade, but in theory we should be retraining people to work in other fields where the same type of skills are needed (clean energy production). The problem is not enough money is going into retraining and getting people back to work. Subsidies and tariffs (like ethanol and sugar) are completely a waste of money and are nothing but pandering to a particular part of the country.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. How did you come up with the idea that "free trade" and unionism are not mutually exclusive?

Have you reached that conclusion either after having experience with the situation or after researching the issue and giving some serious thought to the issue?

When so-called "free trade" was proposed during the Bush I (R) Administration, it was recognized as being detrimental to the American working class. When Clinton took office, he signed NAFTA. This was, again, recognized as being detrimental to the American working class. In contrast to those who say that "free trade" is good for America, Obama recognized that it is not and campaigned in 2008 on an issue of repealing or greatly modifying NAFTA.

If Obama recognized that "free trade" under NAFTA was detrimental to the American working class, and he and his economic experts recognized that, why would you think to the contrary?

We now have massive unemployment. Instead of using the word "recession," there are economists using the word "depression." The working class in America cannot maintain its standard of living and its wage base by competing against the working class in China, India, Mexico and South America.

You have opinions on "retraining people" to work for "clean energy production" and unspecified areas. But, and please excuse me, these seem to be parroting buzz phrases from campaigns.

Haven't the working class of this country suffered enough under "free trade"? Your answer is that you don't see "free trade" and unionism (and by extension the working class) as being mutually exclusive. Buzz phrases from campaigns are not going to solve the problem.

[davidpdx]

25. I have actually studied economics

Have a Masters in Business Administration and I am working on a Doctorate in Business Administration with a specialty in International Business. Please tell me your qualifications other than playing arm-chair quarterback.

By the way Obama supports free-trade.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. You say, "Obama supports free-trade." Now he does, but not too loudly. This is different from his

position in 2008 when he ran on a platform of being opposed to the economic harm caused by NAFTA. He promised to modify NAFTA to make the trade arrangments between Mexico, Cananda, and the United States beneficial for "main street" instead of just Wall Street.

Altlhough he is not campaining on a platform of supporting "free trade," his actions have informed you, me, and others who have paying attention that he now supports so-called "free trade." His Administration is also involved in negotiating the terms of the next "free trade" agreement and such negotations have not been publicized nor disclosed in a meaningful way to Senators and Congressmen.

Do you really have an MBA degree and really believe that an MBA degree gives you special insight that is not seen by the common folk? Did you know that George W. Bush has a Harvard MBA degree? Did you know that Robert McNamara (of Viet Nam fame) had a Harvard MBA? With your special insight, do you know any MBA - even one - who has done well for this country instead of the top 1%?

[davidpdx]

28. I agree Obama's views have changed

But look at his views on other things as well. He changed his views on many issues including gay marriage. His point of view from being in office is likely very different from when he was a senator/candidate. Also he had to be careful not to upset the unions too much.

Also give Obama credit as his administration helped renegotiation the KFTA (Korean Free Trade Agreement) to help the auto industry. I believe the administration also got some concessions on the beef issue (if you don't know about that Google "Korean, US Beef, Mad Cow&quot which there was a huge protest over.

I really do have an MBA and I am half way to having a DBA. From a theoretical perspective yes I believe it does give me insight. In addition I read commentary and books by Krugman and Zarkaria quite a bit, both of which I greatly admire. The only reason I got an MBA is I was willing to work my butt off in school and take out loans (same with the doctorate). Unless something drastic changes, I probably will never work in a company but will continue to teach. I have worked in retail management (before my MBA) and customer service management as well.

Bush was truly an idiot and it still baffles me why people voted for him. Romney will be equally disastrous (though not as bad as if McCain/Palin had gotten elected) if he gets elected.

I know who McNamara was, but I I'm young enough I don't remember when he was even the president of the World Bank (I will tell you I was born toward the beginning of that time period).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

32. I do not agree that Obama's views have changed. I say that his expression of them has.

[GeorgeGist]

21. I think Obama's lack of support ...

was taken as his vote on the recall.

[RBInMaine]

24. That is total crap. Obama was extremely right to stay of that mess so enough of that nonsense.