Conservative talk radio was just a twitter yesterday with the news that Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton would be dropping out of the race for Governor in Wisconsin. WISN’s Mark Belling in particular was quite over the top in predicting a “landslide” win for Republican Scott Walker several times on his show yesterday.
Perhaps caught up in his own rhetoric, he went on to say that “no Democrat would have a chance to win” next year because Milwaukee County Exec. Scott Walker would suck up too much support from Milwaukee County and deprive any Democratic candidate of the overwhelming support in Milwaukee they would need to offset Republican wins in other areas of the State.
While this isn’t news to anyone that follows Wisconsin politics, Belling claimed several times that Walker would “easily”
win 70% of Milwaukee County thanks to his strong support in the suburbs of Milwaukee like West Allis, Oak Creek, and his home town of Wauwatosa. With such a large margin of victory in a traditionally Democratic stronghold, Walker would cruise to an easy “landslide” victory no matter who the Democratic candidate for Gov. was.
As usual, Belling’s rhetoric – which is fueled by his own overly confident declarations that serve to convince himself he’s right – was not only rooted in an alternate reality where Walker is on the ballot as a Republican and wins over Democratic voters on a consistent basis, it’s factually wrong.
For those who prefer facts to the machinations of Mark Belling, here are the totals from the 2008 County Executive’s race in Milwaukee County between Scott Walker and Lena Taylor.
Scott Walker: 98,039 (57.6%)
Lena C. Taylor: 68,785 (40.5%)
Total: 170,251
In Wauwatosa, Walker’s home town:
Scott Walker: 9868 (70%)
Lena C. Taylor: 3973 (29%)
Total: 14,054
So in Walker’s home town, he pulled out an impressive 70% win, but in Milwaukee County as a whole, he won over 57% of the votes. Both are impressive numbers to be sure, but for those who want to look at the Governor’s race from a more objective standpoint, it’s no where near the kind of “landslide” that Belling and his cohorts are predicting.
To add to this, there are several other mitigating factors that will affect Walker’s performance in Milwaukee County, if he is in fact the Republican nominee for Governor (he does have a primary to go through first).
The first is to understand that Walker has never run as a Republican for County Executive as the office is non-partisan. Some people discount this and point out that he’s not afraid to run as a conservative, which I agree to, but they’re overlooking the fact that whether you disagree with them or not, a lot of people walk into the polling booth on election day and just vote the party line. This is one of the major reasons down ticket Democrats in Milwaukee always do so well.. They’re usually riding the coat tails of the bigger names at the top of the ticket. Not having to run as a identified Republican in a Spring election with low turnout has been great for Walker. Having his name on a ballot with an “R” next to it in a November election with higher turnout will be a challenge.
The second factor? Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Mayor Barrett is a widely popular politician who has very little baggage and is generally seen as a “good guy” even by those who don’t like his politics. His entry into the race would instantly nullify the Walker “Milwaukee advantage” as Barrett would more than likely outperform previous Democrats like Jim Doyle in Milwaukee County. The narrow margin of a loss in Milwaukee County the Walker campaign had been banking on would turn into a massive margin of victory for someone like Barrett.
Third, Mayor Barrett was also a well liked Congressman who represented some of the Milwaukee suburbs that the Walker campaign had been counting on. In as much as the Walker campaign was counting on those big margins of victory in Wauwatosa and West Allis to offset the vote from the city of Milwaukee to propel his campaign to a win, a candidate Barrett would turn the tables on him and use the same strategy to equalize the race in the suburbs and make Milwaukee County even more of a Democratic stronghold than it has been previously.
Lastly, Barrett has good name ID outside of Milwaukee County helped in no small part by his heroic actions last August when he stepped in to stop a fight and was severely beaten himself while leaving the Wisconsin State Fair. This got a ton of national coverage and made a lot of people stand up and take notice of the Mayor of the largest city in the State.
So while people like Mark Belling bloviate and pat themselves on the back in preparation for a “landslide” win by overestimating the support Walker has in Milwaukee County, the facts and several other possible factors in the race prove it’s going to be anything but easy sailing for Milwaukee’s County Executive in next year’s race for Governor.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and son Carter.
There is a poll floating around, done by a reputable national firm, reported by Bruce Murphy of Milwaukee Magazine, that finds Tom Barrett beating Walker 2-1 in Milwaukee County, with a spread of more than 30 percentage points. There is no way Walker wins in Milwaukee County in a partisan race, with Republican next to his name. Even Lawton beat Walker in Milwaukee County in that poll, but narrowly.
If the question were ever brought forth on whether to pass meaningful campaign reform, you can count on Barrett as a definite YES and Walker as a definite NO (at least, going by their track records).
One problem that I have with both guys is their interest in privatizing part of the government (Barrett the water supply and Walker the airport). Most certainly private cash (contributions) will start to flow, but I don’t think that’s in the public’s best interest.
Dan, that’s about the best analysis I’ve read yet and I think you are dead on.
Interesting analysis, but your numbers come from a year which was a giant democrat year. It 2010 the energy is much more likely to be on the republican side; there will be no Obama figure to draw out more democrats. Unless the economy really turns–and this seems unlikely with unemployment at 10% and companies fleeing the state–things will swing even further in Walker’s favor. Add to this public displeasure over stupid legislation like the auto insurance hikes which pointlessly rise the rates of honest people and one can see why Barrett does not want to get into this career-ending race. Why not remain the beloved mayor of Milwaukee?
Fianlly, Obama’s 57% was a “landslide”, so Belling’s prediction makes sense.
I’ve seen both of them speak in person. Unfortunately for Scott Walker, he just doesn’t present well. Tom Barrett has that “aw, shucks” nice guy thing going for him. On TV and in person, stump speech or debate, Barrett wins the likeability/PR race.
Now granted, the event I saw them at was not a political one, so maybe it won’t translate the same…
Patrick, the “landslide” comment Belling made was his prediction for the Gov. race, not that of County Exec. so no, it doesn’t make sense.
Second, there was no “Obama figure” that drew people to the polls in the race for County Executive last year, as the CE race was in the spring and well before Obama even had the nomination wrapped up.
Third, the unemployment rate in the Milwaukee area is currently at 8.5%, high yes, but down from previous highs and not quite “10%”.
Lastly, I’ll answer one of your questions with my own: Why doesn’t Walker remain the beloved County Executive of Milwaukee?
Sorry, but I think if Barrett goes in, he will go in half-hearted. He has a chance to run both MPS and the City. If he can turn MPS around, he can have any job he wants. I think that is what he wants.
Barrett will have more power if he does take over MPS and more prestige. Why would you want to take over the state government with all the problems it has. No matter who wins in 2010, there will enormous problems and the next governor could very well be a 1 term governor. And why would Barrett would want that?
Barrett has a good thing going as mayor, why would he give that up? The pay raise?
Barrett is the Mayor of a failing city, deeply in debt, high unemployment, little job growth and forced to cut services on every level while instituting major tax and fee increases… not just this year, but for the last several years. Barrett has also alienated many of the city employee unions that supported his election the first go around.
Walker has stood his ground on taxes and was able to manage a county saddled with a huge pension problem, He made judicious cuts and wound up with an award winning park system and a top rated paramedic system, even as he dealt with a hostile board that wanted to greedily gobble up more of their constituents money. He reduced the size of the County Board and county government, both by around 20%.
A Democrats needs wide margins in Madison and Milwaukee to win. Perhaps some the City of Milwaukee will vote for Barrett, I imagine Walker will be quite popular in the rest of the county. Perhaps Lee Holloway will compare Walker to David Duke again, helping to clarify further the differences between the two parties and gain Walker a larger margin. Walker gets to run on solid tax cutting credentials as a member of the opposition party, while Barrett is left running on bad times in his city while saddled with the failed policies of Gov Doyle as a comparison.
No, barring some Democrat shenanigans (do we have an ACORN office in Milwaukee?), Walker wins.
So in contrast to your post urging user fees for those who visit the lakefront in another comment, you’re now saying they are a bad thing when Barrett has instituted them? Gotcha. User fees are bad, expect when they’re not. Ok.
You are seeing what you want. Barrett took city services off of the tax bill and changed it to a fee, which is still the same cost but is now no longer deductible. It was eyewash, and intended to fool voters into thinking he was drawing the line on taxes. Not honest. Nor is it a true user fee if you are forced to use the service. Parking is a choice, and you can choose to park elsewhere, or not at all. If I could choose a private sanitation service or use the City of Milwaukee service and pay for that, that would be different. Give me a free market choice and I’ll gladly pay the fee… or not.
The hero factor will propel Barrett to the governorship. See I don’t have a job thanks in part by the Democrats policies in this state for the past 8 years. But I don’t care Tom Barret is just such a nice guy. He is someone you can have a beer with just like Bush was. So I’m going to vote for him because he is a hero. Just like Bush was to as those people in Iraq who he liberated.
You see this logic is not adding up and no one come November (of NEXT year for God’s sake) will remember or care. Just kind of like few seemed to care that John McCain, a war hero, was tortured for serving this country. In fact I know that logic didn’t have an effect on you as I’m certain you voted for Obama. I doubt you went into the voting both and said, “John McCain got tortured in service of this country what a nice hero, I’m voting for him.
Just sayin.
Gosh, now that you remind me, Barrett was a huge hero! I mean, some people ride around in police cars and confront gun wielding thugs and lunatics, some people rush into burning buildings to rescue children, some take up a rifle and patrol the dangerous streets of Baghdad and Kabul… but Tom Barrett, well he took up a cell phone and dialed 911 but got clubed by some goofball. Barrett is a real hero… or was he the victim of an assault. Hmp. Hard to tell. Well, in any case, liberals don’t like police and soldiers much, so I guess we’ll settle for Tom.
Well, Scott Walker didn’t call 911 for anyone, did he? He doesn’t have the hero/nice guy thing going for him. Maybe he needs to cruise the streets looking for a situation to report.
I know Tom Barrett. He genuinely is a nice guy. Maybe Walker is too, but he doesn’t have the press to prove it right now. And I’ll still go back to the personality thing. It doesn’t matter to those who vote the party line. It does matter to swing voters. I’ll imagine for a minute that some of those still exist in Wisconsin.
For those voters, public image/personality does come into play. Is it right, is that the way it should be? Maybe not. But, despite the fact that McCain is an American Hero, he also came across as a crabby, forgetful old man. In the absence of hard ideology that carries the far left and far right, image matters. And at the end of the day, Scott Walker needs to take an immersive public speaking class and lose the greasy hair to get himself likeable (and electable) vs. Tom Barrett.
And, FG, conservatives don’t hold the sole claim to liking the police and soldiers. Some of us have relatives who have been both and have the deepest respect for all of them. Some of us even like firefighters, too (if there is anyone who doesn’t like firefighters, report yourselves now, you seriously have a problem).
That’s a pretty petty comment regarding what the Mayor did TFG.
And your generalization about “liberals don’t like police and soliders” is, like most generalizations, completely wrong and misguided and frankly offensive.
Liberals often use soldiers as political billboards. When Bush was president, we had daily death tolls and demands to see the coffins. Now that a “D” is is in the White House, soldiers dying is little more than a footnote and coffins are passe’, if it is mentioned at all. Where did all those protesters go? poof, all gone.
Perhaps some liberals don’t hate the military, or the police, ok granted… some clearly do though and are tolerated by the movement, and often embraced when they are needed to bash an “R”. I doubt you’d get much mileage bashing the military or police at the RNC convention… in fact you’d probably need the police to get you safely out of the building.
I hope that everyone loves firefighters though, well, everyone but Mr. Barrett. He has pounded his Fire Department with big cuts every year to staffing and expenditures, even closing down fire fighting companies and reducing the size of crews to less safe levels, all as their workload increases. Everyone loves em…but Tom.
“Perhaps some liberals don’t hate the military”? Seriously, that’s as far as you’re gonna walk that ridiculous statement back?
We’ve had some good debates over the months and I’ve respectfully responded to a lot of the things you’ve said but over the past few days your line of commentary is beginning to make me wonder if it was even worth it because it’s becoming more and more obvious that you really just don’t get it.
What exactly don’t I get? I can show you quite substantively how many liberals and DNC politicians ignore the needs of the military, and even show them public scorn. You don’t actually deny that, do you?
Really Dan, what happened to the protesters, the call for coffins on the front page and the daily tally of the dead? What happened to bring the troops home, and Cindy Sheehan’s shanty town? Don’t you folks care about that stuff anymore now that BO is in the house?
Cmon Dan, a little honesty on your part might be in order rather than just huffing and puffing that I am wrong. Perhaps you care about soldiers, you seem to imply that you do. If so, where is your outrage at what has been happening to them the last 6 months in Afghanistan? Where did it go? Show me something to prove I’m wrong rather than just dismissing what you don’t agree with. I’ll be waiting…
Yes, FG, it wasn’t you, but some other conservative who hated the cops a month ago or so for tracking criminals out of Badger Gun. So conservatives love the cops when it’s convenient, but not so much when “interfering” with their second amendment rights or their right to troll for anonymous male sex in the MSP airport…
And let’s not pretend that George Bush loved the troops so much that he had no reticence about playing with their lives as if they were pawns in his sick game of chess that was the Iraq war.
Troll the airports? Huh?
It is also possible to disagree with the use of law enforcement, but agree that the cops have a tough and dangerous job. Same goes for soldiers.
Folks, I hate to take the shine off of their individual personalities, but the question is “who are we better off with as a state?” And to me there is one and only one major issue, and that’s which special interests own our politicians (if any at all). Because that drives every other issue out there: government spending, taxes, schooling, you name it. Barrett supported public funding of campaigns when he was a congressman, Walker did not when he was a state legislator.
Why is that important? Because if politicians are to be beholden to their funders, those funders should be the taxpayers. And for $5 per taxpayer per year it’d be the best bargain this state has ever chosen.
The call for coffins has been changed to a family decision… some opt in, some opt out. I support that.
You miss the point, Jack. The call for coffins was politics. They made Bush look bad, so we wanted them on the front page. The death toll made Bush look bad, front page again. It wasn’t out of concern for the troops, it was political games. Now we have the President we wanted…no more coffins, no more daily count of the dead, no more protests, even as we escalate the Afghan conflict to massive proportions. Remember how Bush was letting soldiers die so corporations could profit? Halliburton and Blackwater are still reaping huge profits from all this. Why don’t we hear that anymore? Don’t those lives matter now? If you stand behind the soldiers, it should concern you equally now as then, but I’m not seeing that even mentioned anymore. Am I wrong? Are the Democrats still outraged at the loss of life in a needless war? Please, show me I’m wrong. Nothing would make me happier.
I believe the calls from the left for withdrawals from Afghanistan (which I, as a liberal, believe are wrong) would qualify as “Democrats still outraged at the loss of life.” IMHO, they are misguided in their understanding of the Afghanistan and Iraq war as part of the same “war on terror” which they are not. The Iraq war was never about terror. The Afghanistan war is.
How is the Afghan war about terror? The Taliban did not attack us, they simply harbored people who did, and are now harbored by other nations. Also, we are no longer hunting terrorists, we are now changing our strategy to provide a shield to the Afghan population from the nomadic Taliban… a shield made of US troops. Why do you think the death toll is rising so sharply? It will rise much more before we are done.
Afghanistan poses no further threat to us, and what ever Al Queda camps they create could be easily handled by small unit actions, bombing, drones, and missiles. We are into something totally new now, I’m not sure exactly what yet, but I expect more blood to flow.
But no-more-coffins began under Bush, if I recall the dates correctly. My objection is that we broadcast the American dead but not the enemy dead, though I generally agree with you that Obama is getting a free ride from MSM (as he is on many issues).
“And your generalization about “liberals don’t like police and soliders” is, like most generalizations, completely wrong and misguided and frankly offensive.”
I have been a part-time soldier for 20 years and in my anecdotal view, 7 out of 10 liberals (i work in liberal circles) have an active dislike of those in the military. I don’t let it be known professionally that I am I am a reservist. I have had no such negative inclination from you and I appreciate your support. But I know you have been around enough liberals to know that this generalization has some merit.