On April 1, he led the field with 17 percent in the RealClearPolitics polling average. On August 1, he was in second place, behind Donald Trump, with 13 percent. And in the seven weeks since then, his support has collapsed to the point where he is in tenth place, with 1.8 percent—putting him just above Rick Perry, who has 1.0 percent support despite having dropped out ten days ago. The last three polls have Walker at 0, 2, and 2 percent support.It was actually more shocking that Walker had ever leaped to the front of the group, and that wasn't really that amazing. The facts are:
1. Most Americans didn't know him and they were suddenly amazed by his one good speech.
2. That was his one good speech, his stump speech, used to fight the recall and then to get elected to a new term, here in Wisconsin. It was well-honed, but it only sounds new and amazing once.
3. 17% isn't really such a high number. It only reaches the top in a big field when people are still shifting around looking for somebody, anybody to favor. Walker's Real Clear Politics average topped out transitorily at 8 points above the next guy. Others — including Rubio and Christie and Huckabee — have enjoyed a stint at the top.
4. Walker, grabbing for a defining issue in the last couple weeks, went big on attacking public unions. It's no surprise that Americans — are we always hot to get angry about something? — didn't see fit to suddenly see unions as our biggest problem. Trump was able to suddenly forefront illegal immigration, so maybe Walker thought it could work to whip out a big new issue, but Walker didn't figure out how to make an equivalent move. Walker's not Trump, and unions aren't illegal immigration. For one thing, unions aren't illegal, and people don't reflexively think there's something wrong that needs immediate fixing. In Wisconsin, Walker got elected, along with his party's majority in both houses of the legislature, and then they revealed the legislation. They had the votes to pass their bill, and, from that position, they spent months trying to educate us about why public unions were a special problem, different from unions in general. It wasn't easy to understand. And they got a lot of pushback. How could Walker have thought he could do anything like that from the position of candidate? Even if he hadn't had to fight to be heard in a crowded field, Americans were in no position to learn the details of a new issue they hadn't been thinking about.
5. Walker had to do something impressive at the big debate last week. What he chose to do was to be the first person to butt in and interrupt when it wasn't his turn. He had nothing really to say at that point. Paul had been attacking Trump and Trump had just delivered a comic line — "I never attacked him on his look, and believe me, there’s plenty of subject matter right there." And Walker starts up: "But Jake, Jake, Jake, Jake…" Jake — the moderator Jake Tapper — pushed him back, because it was totally Trump's turn to speak. There was a rule that when you were attacked, you got a chance to reply. Walker insisted that somehow — absurdly — it was his turn: "But Jake, this — this is — this…" This is what? Important? No, it wasn't. Trump, in fact, got his turn. The next question went to Jeb Bush: "Governor Bush, would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear codes?" In the middle of Bush's answer, Walker started up again, saying: "Jake, this is — this is — this is…." This time, he got a chance to finish his "This is" sentence: "This is what’s wrong with this debate. We’re not talking about real issues." But then, instead of raising a "real issue," he took a shot at Trump: "And Mr. Trump, we don’t need an apprentice in the White House.... We have one right now. He told us all the things we wanted to hear back in 2008. We don’t know who you are or where you’re going. We need someone who can actually get the job done." That, of course, just gave Trump another chance to respond to an attack, and Trump being Trump, nobody even remembered Walker's line — "We don’t need an apprentice in the White House.... we have one right now" — which, I assume, his people prepared and coached him to deliver. Behind the scenes, I bet they believed they'd set up the take-away quote of the evening, the quote that would leverage Walker as the Trump slayer. But Walker got absolutely nothing out of that.
Posts
57 comments:
Hmm...Walker was the guy that was so critical of the way Mitt Romney ran his campaign.
Scott didn't even make it to the first primary.
Presidential politics...tough stuff.
Stay tuned for more surprises!
It was a terribly poor line, when Fiorina had an authentic zinger on Trump his rehearsed line looked even worse.
The question is, is he done here too?
He didn't make many friends going around the nation telling people how it was him who held the legislators feet to the fire to get Act 10 passed.
His Republican controlled legislative branch did not take that all so well. Nor was he much a help on the budget....
Cruel neutrality strikes
Richard Epstein essay is totally against Trump, apparently not realizing that political correctness is the major problem today, after which every problem is open to solution.
The question is whether Trump will be open to ideas, rather than whether his ideas are stupid today.
Some tiny stories from Trump's personal business relations indicate he's a good man. That might be good enough.
Trump, apparently not realizing that political correctness is the major problem today, after which every problem is open to solution.
No, those who think political correctness is the major problem are the problem.
No, those who think political correctness is the major problem are the problem
Well, we are the major problem for those trying to impose a political conformity on the rest of us, no argument there.
I was disappointed when he came out against the federal unions. Sure it is a legitimate issue, but the Democrats plan to elect a new people through abetting and encouraging massive illegal immigration of Mexican peasants, a natural constituency for them, is a far bigger problem.
If American keeps it up long enough, maybe we can get the electorate of Greece! Won't that be great!
Trump and now Carson are on fire because they are saying things that people agree with. This is a preference cascade where people suddenly realize that what they were thinking is what a lot of people were thinking. This is how revolutions start.
Ironically, the Quebec Mayor is getting a lot of attention because of an account of something he was supposed to have said. It isn't actually true but it really hit a nerve about Muslims just like Carson did only for real.
(1) Resisting the prodding.
I recall from many years ago some high school teacher advising us to talk back to our TV sets. Maybe it was middle school.
Anyway, it would be a few years later that I took some adult education class on "communication" or something like that and the guy made reference to some theory by which we internalize all of our social interactions/verbal inputs as if they derived from a single, superordinate entity.
Seemed plausible if immature.
(2) My wife and I were just this morning talking about the Penzey's spice catalog she got yesterday in the mail. Something on the cover congratulating Ireland for democratically instituting same-sex marriage.
They sell garlic salt.
Anyway, that reminded me of the time way back when that I saw Paul Newman on the Tonight Show and he was all insistent that he will not be intimidated by others from expressing his political opinions because he did not forfeit his rights of citizenship when he became a success in the entertainment business.
(3) Time, place and manner restrictions, born of well-established custom, is my takeaway.
Some people are pushy, attention-seeking, and the ad hoc justification is pretentious.
They still offer adult education classes in what used to be called salesmanship, probably.
"I'm resisting the prodding to feel "shocked" that Scott Walker is already out of the race."
Are they using cattle prods on political pundits now?
Interesting.
The thing about encouraging massive immigration at this time is that it is coming just at a time when automation is obsoleting so many low skill jobs. But fuck low skill workers, we need the voters!
Plus nothing helps your arguments about income inequality like importing millions of low skill, low education workers to skew the numbers further!
I didn't really notice Walker's "apprentice" line at the time, but in hindsight it does look like he was told to use it, the line would be gangbusters, and he tried to shoehorn it in when it wasn't his own turn. Carly's line got a lot more traction, particularly as it came up on the fly (I'm sure she was prepared to say something about Trump's comment, but building it off of Trump's shot at Bush had to be spontaneous).
Partly though I think Walker's problem is the same as many of these candidates--they're redundant. Need a Christian Right candidate? Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum and to some extent Cruz have that covered. Need a foreign policy hawk? Rubio and Graham cover that, though many of the others share the same hawkish tendencies. Controversial blue state governor who made lots of enemies back home? Christie and Walker. Need governors but prefer they be out of office a while? Pataki, Huckabee, Bush, Gilmore. A candidate the party's moderates can stomach? Bush, Kasich, Walker. Tea Party senators? Cruz, Paul, Rubio. Primal scream candidate? Cruz, Trump. Candidate with no political experience? Trump, Carson, Fiorina.
If the crowd continues to thin, look to see those groups of voters merge around the remainder. Either someone will have enough crossover appeal to take the whole thing, or we'll see a plurality candidate who is missing key parts of the GOP and will go off to be destroyed in the general election.
Penzey's spice catalog
I'm not sure who writes the copy for Penzey's, but I've stopped reading it.
Walker was momentarily in the lead. He had people's attention. He could have staked out the same position as Trump on immigration. He was asked about it. Instead, he had two or three or four positions, none of them inspiring, and none of them capturing what so many Americans actually believe.
He showed that he did not understand what is important right now, and he is out.
His departure was a study in bad sportsmanship.
Freder: "No, those who think political correctness is the major problem are the problem."
No. Those who think those who think political correctness is the major problem are the problem are actually the real problem.
Clearly.
Tired of politicians. Sadly walker demonstrated he was a politician still
A 17 person field.
A very large base voter revolt against the party establishment at the very moment Walker signs on to some inside the beltway resources.
A wild card candidate popping in who is really quite unique and then loudly and without fear gives voice to the concerns of the base voters (whether or not it's more than lip service would remain to be seen).
My question: How did Walker last this long?
So we have us a new Secretary of Labor in the Trump Administration.
The question now is whether Trumps double down realist approach makes Trump a " Conservative" as mis-defined by its own inner pundit's mythology, or whether being a realist means he is a Horrible Liberal that also supports a pro-American military, pro-American border, pro-American trade and pro-American Protestant Christianity just like the common man voters.
the more he was seen and heard, the less he was liked and respected.
not shocking at all...
I was disappointed. The one thing the Republicans are missing is a conservative with enough cross-over appeal to win the general election. I see a lot of talent, but it's niche talent. The don't have anyone with general appeal yet. I thought Walker had potential, but he flubbed early and faded. (I suppose Fiorina is the next best hope.) I support his initiative to end government unions, but you're right that nobody's going to rally around that. He would have done better to include that in a package of initiatives framed around ending government corruption.
Walker: "I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same, so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current front-runner."
High school girl: " Why don't you guys fight it out while I stand safely over here."
Ha, the Penzey thing is intriguing to me. A year or so ago I had discovered an online retailer, The Spice House. Some of their recipes referenced the Penzey name, and then I noticed a local storefront Penzey's. Went in there and noticed the left wing bent, but was also wondering how this place related to The Spice House. Best I can tell, the two places are run by two different offspring of the original Penzey couple, and I wonder if they are political as well as commercial rivals.
In any case, the spices from both are fantastic.
Disappointing, but he really doesn't have the charisma. Part of me feels that shouldn't be an issue, but the reality is that personality is part of the job. It's important for electability as well as governance (on the national stage more so than in state government.)
Now he should just concentrate on ending Wisconsin government corruption...
the more he was seen and heard, the less he was liked and respected.
not shocking at all...
That is pretty funny coming from a supporter of a party that is doing everything it can to hide its candidate from any scrutiny whatsoever. She finally goes on a Sunday show after years, and surprise surprise, the host is somebody who wrote an editorial urging Obama to gut the Republican Party.
But you go on drinking the Kool-Aide, but be careful, it rots your brain.
Speaking about popular appeal of The Donald is a gender issue made large. He is so masculine that many men are reacting in envy and want to cut him down for out shining them. But among women who know how to read personalities he continues to climb in acceptance while they react negatively to Carly the mean woman.
But Trump still speaks truth to media mythology.
Speaking about popular appeal of The Donald is a gender issue made large. He is so masculine that many men are reacting in envy and want to cut him down for out shining them.
Or, just possibly, the more he talks, the more it is apparent that there is no there there.
"Blogger machine said...
the more he was seen and heard, the less he was liked and respected.
not shocking at all..."
The lefties like you are all agog about Sanders. Now there is an exciting old man.
Walker needs to increase his depth like Carly did the past few years. He has been too involved in all there battles with unions. He needs time. He'll be back.
Carly has badly disappointed me with her comments about Carson on Muslim presidents. Our romance may be over.
If walker butted in and interrupted when it wasn't his turn, its because the moderators dominated the debates with he said she said questions about Donald Trump. A lot of the nominees didn't really get much of a chance to say anything.
Walker got cheated (of time) in the last debate, by a CNN more interested in staging a Trump vs. The World fight than in televising a debate.
BUT Walker has largely been running his own campaign; no gaggle of media consultants and campaign managers for Mr. Authenticity!
Perhaps if he goes again he'll hire some professionals to help map the territory for him, and to help him assemble a workable strategy.
Walker lacks charisma. The early departure was about the money. The sub-5% in the polls group can stay in as long as they have money or spend little of it. It's a losing strategy: spend as little as necessary to remain in the race until the convention. The reason for doing so is to have some delegates in your pocket, gain some national exposure, and maybe get a job in the administration.
"The one thing the Republicans are missing is a conservative with enough cross-over appeal to win the general election. I see a lot of talent, but it's niche talent"
Depends on whether you find Rubio "conservative." Not a niche talent, should have cross-over appeal.
Walker is good man who, as some unusually prescient blog commenters pointed out long ago, failed to raise his game.
Drago is right.
The party base - and not just the base, but the rank and file Republican voter - is angry and frustrated. Trump just figured how to get to the front of the latent parade. Anyone who promised to go to Washington and Wall Street and burn them down would be doing better than average.
Based almost soley on Althouse and Meade reporting, my impression of Scott Walker is that even in pursuit of dramatic policy change, he is a pragmatist. Dropping out of a losing race is pragmatic. It also means you will never succeed against the odds.
In the Wisconsin controversies Walker already had the governorship and always had the legislature. The odds were on his side and he played the game accordingly.
Wait, wait, wait.
Is Walker the Machiavellian sell-out who was bought and paid for by special interests to ruin Wisconsin, or is an unpopular, uncharismatic person who couldn't raise money?
I think the anti-Walker talking points writers need to take five and confer to straighten out their story.
Good thing we didn't underestimate him!
"And anyone following campaign financing knows he was the purchased candidate of the rich billionaires who are trying to buy stakes in Wisconsin"
Somewhere an idiot is missing its village, or something. Your comments will vanish in 3, 2, 1....
"The one thing the Republicans are missing is a conservative with enough cross-over appeal to win the general election. I see a lot of talent, but it's niche talent."
That depends on what "conservative" is. Even Jeb, who is hilariously being called a liberal by low-information voters, has a pretty conservative record and is pushing conservative policies. Far as I can tell, the only things that make him "liberal" are his support for Common Core (which is a pretty low-ranking issue in this campaign) and support for immigration reform (which unlike a lot of issues, doesn't fall neatly into a liberal/conservative dichotomy, as many on the left, inclduing Sanders, are restrictionists, and many on the right are pro-reform).
Rubio and Kasich are also both pretty conservative when you look at their records and proposals. What I think causes some people to think these guys are not "conservative" is the fact that they may have crossover appeal--partly because crossover appeal has as much to do with tone and ability to talk to those outside the conservative base as it does with any particular policies. So if say Rubio can make a speech selling conservative policies to moderates, that's seen as less truly "conservative" than say Ted Cruz, who speaks only to the base and treats moderates like an enemy.
The real question to ask in this primary is "who has a good chance of not only actually winning the general election, but actually implementing certain policies or stopping certain policies?"
You realize the "hard" money is not a lot. Even Obama, who allegedly raised loads of small donations, primarily relied on big, reliable Democrat donors.
I get the distinct feeling you have no idea exactly how much money we're talking about here, and that you don't know anything beyond the pre-formed Walker Bad thoughts supplied to you.
Also, I notice that: Republican PACs prove that they are bought and paid for politicians with evil, ulterior motives. Democrat PACs prove that a wide group of people support a candidate and are willing to band together to support them against the Evil Republican PAC.
It's like... there's no consistency here.
See, I'm indifferent on Walker as president. I think he would not have been any better or worse by a significant margin than other people on average -- maybe better or worse than certain specifics.
I'm specifically trying to figure out your logic and reasoning. But, I forgot that there isn't any. It's just ginning up the 2-minute hate, then moving on to the next target.
Walker's mistake was following Trump, not just in grasping at immigration but in insisting the issues were a crisis and thus required large changes. Every policy suggestion he offered should have stressed it as a minor adjustment.
His best path would have been to say unions have upset a delicate balance as they became more entwined into the political process (queue FDR quotes) and say we need to make minor corrections because of this. This not only would reassure voters but would reveal the pro-union reaction as hysterics, which is exactly what won him the recall and second term elections in Wisconsin.
This is what most Americans want. Minor steps in the right direction. Walker blew his chance by getting all extreme-y when his only appeal is to people who reject that mindset.
I notice immediate problems with the NYT piece. They claim Walker's PAC/Super PAC was on track to raise 40M, and act as though it did. It did not. Their own graphic shows that it raised half that. In other words, Walker was doing nowhere near as good as the NYT wants you to think he was. They claim that he had "tens of millions" of dollars behind his run thanks to PACs. Which is literally true: he had 20M.
Also, you seem to think that small donations make up a lot of money. The NYT wants you to think that, because they think you're dumb and will associate it with small donors who helped Obama. Because the NYT is, essentially, propaganda. However, small donors do not donate $2,700 a plate at fundraisers. The NYT effectively got you to associate the guy who gives $5 in an email with a rich CEO who gives the maximum allowable to as many different people as possible to curry favor. You got tricked.
The NYT desperately wants you to think Super PACs don't matter, but all the experts they interview basically say, it isn't that big of a deal right now, but later it might be. But, they still acknowledge: "“I think Jeb Bush, without a super PAC, would not be doing well at all,” Mr. Backer said. “But $25 million can put out a lot of information to help change people’s minds.”"
The NYT is incoherent, poorly thought out and, as far as I can tell, a rush job to get something into print about Walker leaving the campaign that no editor bothered to read [you can tell this by the dishonest statistics/money raised cited in the opening paragraphs.] Also: EVERY candidate has billionaires backing them; the NYT acts like Walker having that is somehow special.
It isn't. And if the NYT had a functioning political editor, they'd realize that, and have asked a "So what?" and either deleted it or moved it down the article where it belongs: A not too important footnote.
No, you did get tricked. You bought into the NYT's frame of "small donors." When they say it, they mean individuals giving the maximum amount possible as well as a guy who tosses a fiver at a politician who shook his hand and said a nice thing about his dog. Using their deliberately obscuring language is part of the trick. Don't buy into it.
he should not have lied about the bald spot...that was the beginning of the end.
The MSM is making sure that Trump sucks all the air out of the room so that either a) he ends up winning the nomination, figuring that he's the least electable of the GOP contenders, or b) he damages the field and the brand so much that whoever is left is tainted.
The MSM controls not only what they tell you but what they don't tell you. They don't WANT you to see/hear what reasonable GOP candidates think - so they just don't put them on the air, and fill the time with some controversy about Trump.
"The MSM is making sure that Trump sucks all the air out of the room so that either a) he ends up winning the nomination, figuring that he's the least electable of the GOP contenders, or b) he damages the field and the brand so much that whoever is left is tainted."
I think that's the result, but the MSM more than anything wants views and page clicks--and Trump certainly delivers. People at this stage aren't going to check to see Christie's plan for saving Social Security (a genuine issue that people really should be paying attention to) but then Trump goes and says something zany and that gets all the attention.
I am just happy for garage. It's been a long time coming, but the end to his long dark nightmare is now within sight. In general, governor's who perform badly on the national stage subsequently struggle to get reelected. The local voters will begin to see Walker through the skeptical eyes of the nation, or, in this case, hard-core Republican voters.
"Silly white boys..."
I think there might be more than one village missing its idiot. This is too much stupidity for one commenter. Sounds like a team to me.
Clean up in Aisle crazy, please.
I guess garage mahal is going to have to settle for Gov Walker over the next several years.
I assumed (wrongly) the person to rise to the top this cycle would be the person who could best bridge the gap between the warring Republican factions. Ahead of the campaign, Walker seemed to be that guy. He was a governor (satisfying the people looking for administrative chops), a guy who fought and beat the D's, a true fiscal conservative, a tea party favorite, a strong social conservative, and a guy with sensible foreign policy instincts. Unfortunately, good on paper doesn't mean good on the campaign. Walker often looked like they guy who didn't do his homework. But my biggest predictive error was in assuming Republicans were interested in coming together around a candidate. It's clear now that many want to choose someone who is the least acceptable to others in the party. We'll all get to see how this approach works out.
What I have found interesting is that Althouse has not linked to the WSJ story of how the John Doe investigators looked for dirt on Wisc Supreme Court justices to try to force recusals when their case came up.
That is as raw an abuse of power as I can imagine in a democracy that still functions.
I liked Walker and still do. But I always wondered if he'd make himself heard on the national stage and he couldn't do it.
As for coming back to Wisconsin, I heard today that as soon as he began to run for President a group of handlers formed around him and barred access to all the conservatives in Wisconsin who formerly talked to him. This was not a good strategy but it was interesting to hear that it happened - that he would run as conservative while cutting off access from conservatives - this based on advice from election "experts". You are famous for doing "X" and as a result you are running for President and SO "never do "X" again."
I believe that the Democratic party has gone to the extreme left due to Obama's failures. They blame them on Obama "not being left enough". So party managers, campaign advisors think that Republicans could pick up the center (the left behind Democrats and the liberal Republicans) and win. They simply don't think at all about how it sounds to scurry after the Democrats advocating policies that Democrats have abandoned as the Democrats go further left. These policies were failures. That's what real Republicans think.
So don't go advocating warmed-over Democratic policy left-overs. Make the case: the blue model is a failure.
Democratic cities are terrible places for the poor; they aren't places of opportunity; they are the places of least opportunity and greatest inequality these days. The police WERE protectors in the cities and the Democrats crippled and handicapped them and then turned their eyes from the death toll, the rising murder rate.
Democratic foreign policy has caused an overwhelming flood of immigrants in Europe and here also because the Democrats abandoned the effort to make a better world and ran away home. And said other countries were better and had their own way and "who are we to say." And now we have to take in all the other people running from the mess the Democrats left. Now it turns out that we have to take in asylum seekers by the millions - almost as if we were better.
Men in college are having their rights taken away - they should be asking for asylum, they should be talking about a well-founded fear of persecution. And women in college are looking stupid and hysterical and as if they wanted a Salem witch-hunt instead of an education.
And so on. No, Republicans, don't run after the Democrats toward the hard left, picking up dirty scraps of policy from the failed past and waving them like inspiring flags. The pendulum is swinging back as it always does, it's the Republican time. Act on that
Men in college are having their rights taken away - they should be asking for asylum, they should be talking about a well-founded fear of persecution. And women in college are looking stupid and hysterical and as if they wanted a Salem witch-hunt instead of an education.
Oh spare me, your white cis-privilige. I drink male tears.
No, Alex, he just told you it was tears.
And Althouse, I will credit you with not being shocked. I think for at least the past few days if not the past couple of weeks you've been climbing down off the Walker band wagon. I guess even with that cadmium filled nose, you could still smell it.
Post a Comment