Pretty much everyone is calling the election for Scott Walker at this point. Bitter alluded to this election earlier, as to whether this was more important than the November election. I tend to think, that in the long term, it is. Walker has stood up to public sector unions by limiting collective bargaining. This attacks the very root of public sector union power, which is getting close to bankrupting a number of states. Those states will surely going to be looking to Uncle Sugar to bail them out of any financial crisis they are likely to find themselves in as a result of these unions running out of other people’s money. The problem is that Uncle Sugar is also running out of other people’s money.
The end of the road is nearing. The New Deal coalition is hitting a hard limit on how much it can suck out of our collective wallets. The question is whether this will end with a bang or a whimper. I think that will largely depend on how well guys like Walker, who are actually willing to challenge the New Deal establishment, fare in their electoral prospects.
12 thoughts on “Wisconsin Recall Election Called for Scott Walker”
Please forgive my raw injection of religion into this, but:
I am so thankful!!! This was a battle against communism IMHO, and the taxpayers of Wisconsin won! And perhaps all American taxpayers won. The adversaries spent a ton of union (socialist) money on this.
No need to apologize for this Arnie: “Please forgive my raw injection of religion into this”
I’m all for separation of Church and State, but this isn’t so much public life that we have to feel a separation is necessary. You can praise God on my blog without apology.
Wisconsin has a history of radical leftist politics. I think the average Wisconsin voter has become tired of Milwaukee socialism. I don’t know much about Walker or his policies but I have no doubts the labor unions, students and liberal politicians enraged the average voter. The early results would seem to report this.
Though, I don’t think media outlets should be calling this election with on 25% of precincts reporting.
We should collect Ed Schultz’ bitter tears. I hear they cure cancer…or at least can be used to rid a house of bed bugs! Victory is so sweet.
I suspect that all this recall election achieved was to let the Democrats know how hard they will have to work at “adjusting” the results come November.
They know how much effort they put into this. Now that they know it wasn’t enough, they’ll just organise harder.
By the same token, it let Priebus of the RNC ground-test new tactics, technology and process that until now were only theoretical within the GOP.
The RNC – working with others – learned from the Obama ’08 campaign about ground operations, organization and decentralized campaigning. The GOP has always been a top-down campaign that focused on centralized messaging and media buys, but this time the GOP actually put more people on more front doors than the Dems, the unions and the liberal groups, combined. Each visit was logged in real-time and demographic data was sent to the mother-ship, which was then able to create tailored responses based on micro-geographical demographic data.
The Dems started this in 2008 and are furiously improving the technology even now. The GOP was behind the curve a bit, but Priebus is catching them up fast.
So yes, the Dems know they are going to have to work much harder, but that was becoming obvious already. I think the conventional wisdom is that while the Dems now know the Kool-Aid doesn’t taste like it used to, the real advantage accrues to the GOP because they got to test a new game against the Dems, and they won.
Perhaps I am drinking the Kool-Aid myself, but I think the GOP got more out of this by performing a real test of a new strategy for them. The fact is that this strategy is also the same one used by Obama in ’08 and the one being used by the Dems this Fall. That suggests the GOP can match it, and maybe even better it.
The GOP for some time has had the best election day Get Out The Vote (GOTV) effort; which what you’re describing is sounds like an extension of it. If for no other reason, Priebus now is the head of the RNC because Steele punted on GOTV in 2010; the Republican Governors Association stepped into the breach, but they were seriously resource limited and various Republican defeats were likely in part due to them skipping e.g. Washington state (no governor’s race) and Colorado (they sat that one out).
A reversal of that “strategy” and an extension of the approach before the election is more than welcome and is the sort of thing the RNC should be doing.
Correct about the New Deal. It is ending and soon. The only question is how. Either we will elect people who jam on the brakes and swerve hard – or let Obama and others hit the wall with the petal to the metal.
Denial of automatic paycheck deductions for union dues is what hurts the unions most quickly. Reports are that WI government employee union dues collection has dropped to 1/3 or so of the previous level.
This limits the ability of the unions to buy politicians.
Starving the Beast, by denying it money, is a pretty good way to stop all sorts of malfeasance, from government to unions to kids who don’t do their chores.
When I was a member of the Grad Student Union, I wanted to reduce the percentage that was taken out of my paycheck and paid to the unions, to exclude the amounts that went to political purposes. While I knew that there was legal precedent, I couldn’t figure out the labrynthine path that was required to do this. Of course, part of the problem was that, as a grad student, I didn’t have much time…
But, in any case, if automatic paycheck deductions were made optional, rather than required by law, I would have jumped at the chance to no longer send dues! I should not be forced to support an organization I largely disagree with.
Now deny the Unions in California that same automatic deduction and see how they fall – it’s the only thing propping-up the SEIU.
I’ll take the challenges to the New Deal more seriously when politicians start doing more than talk about Medicare costs. The majority of people are in favor of redistribution of wealth as long as they’re on the receiving end.
Comments are closed.