Quantcast
Channel: Common Blog » In the States
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 29

Analyzing the Walker win in Wisconsin

$
0
0

Only three American governors have been targeted in recall elections. Republican and Non-Partisan League Governor Lynn Frazier of North Dakota was ousted in 1921.  California Democratic Governor Gray Davis was removed in 2003.

And on Tuesday, Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker broke the pattern, turning back the Democratic Mayor of Milwaukee and Walker’s 2010 opponent, Tom Barrett.  The margin of victory was larger than polls and even exit polls predicted – 53 to 47%.

The contest featured unprecedented campaign spending.  When all the cash is tallied, I expect that total spending will approach $70 million.

Keep in mind Wisconsin has fewer than 6 million people. Gov. Walker probably will end up having raised close to $35 million and Tom Barrett about $5 million.  That’s a 7-1 cash advantage for Walker.

Much more was dumped into the campaign by outside “independent” donors. I estimate that total outside spending will approach (or perhaps exceed) $30 million.  That includes both independent expenditures — which are disclosed by law in Wisconsin; and phony issue ad spending (campaign communications masquerading as issue advocacy), for which the disclosure of totals spent and donor identities are not required. I estimate that the $30 million in outside spending breaks down to about $17 million for Walker (or against Barrett) and $13 million for Barrett (or against Walker).

So, total campaign spending by or for Walker would be about $52 million and by or for Barrett about $18 million.  That’s a margin of nearly 3 to 1.

Even before the votes were counted, we knew that a Barrett victory would signal to Wisconsin and the nation that the people of Wisconsin resented the huge infusion of outside money on Walker’s behalf.

The Walker victory, in contrast, signals that a politician can undertake and push through a radical, polarizing and even secret policy agenda and weather the storm it generates if given enough campaign cash and outside help to overwhelm the opposition.  In that context, it’s worth noting that two-thirds of Walker’s money came from outside of Wisconsin, compared to about one-quarter of Barrett’s.

Because election winners generally control the after-election narrative, Walker’s victory gives him a larger megaphone to talk about the role of money after the election.

While Walker scored an impressive victory, Democrats appear to have gained a one-vote majority, 17-16 in the State Senate. Their candidates won one of the four GOP Senate seats that also were at stake in the recall. The new majority will last at least until the November elections, when new, very partisan and pro-Republican legislative district boundary lines will be in effect as a result of the redistricting law passed in 2011.

In the wake of the recall, reformers need to continue to point out how big money — as a result of Citizens United vs. F.E.C. — has undermined the voices of ordinary citizens.  And we must continue to press for disclosure of the millions of dollars of undisclosed phony issue ads.  We also have to press hard to take redistricting out of the hands of partisan legislators and establish a non-partisan redistricting process, We must act now to have something better in place for 2021. Those are all big issues in Wisconsin and I suspect in most other states.

Tuesday’s voting produced one big surprise, unexpected by pretty much everyone other than Common Cause/Wisconsin Board Co-Chair Bill Kraus.  Exit polls indicate that Walker’s margin and the fact that more Republicans were not defeated in the recall elections has a lot to do with the fact that more Wisconsinites than I imagined just didn’t feel comfortable with, or like the recall frenzy that has gripped this state for almost a year and a half.

I think there was a greater sense than many reformers (including me) were willing to recognize or even now admit that a lot of people who don’t live and breathe politics like we do believe that if someone is elected to a four-year term, they have the right to serve that entire term. Then, at the end of that term a judgment can be rendered.  A recall — unless the person in office is charged with a crime or is committing malfeasance in office — just seems to be unwarranted and even unfair to more citizens than I had imagined.

I am sure there will be a lot of reformers and progressives who disagree with this observation.  But I think it played an undeniable role in this recall election.  The proof is that 17 to 20 percent of Walker voters who responded to exit pollsters said they’ll support President Obama in November.  Some citizens just don’t like all politics all the time.  That is important to know.

On Wisconsin!


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 29

Trending Articles