Wisconsin Recall Musings

So Scott Walker wasn't recalled this week. Depressing for the left, but how much of a victory, and what KIND of victory, was it for the right?

Was it the money? The Walker side outspent the Barrett side by roughly 7 to 1. That is a stacked deck, to be sure. If we had a MMA match between Bruce Lee and 7 guys armed with swords, sure Lee could probably disable a couple of them, but eventually the numbers would prevail. Clumsy analogy there, but hopefully the point is made. It can't have been just about the money, to the extent that the results were far closer than such a financial disparity would suggest.

Keep in mind that Obama outspent McCain by ~4 to 1 in 2008; his margin of victory in the popular vote wasn't substantially different than Tuesday's outcome in Wisconsin.

Was it a referendum on Obama? Hardly plausible as the sole explanation - based on what I'm seeing from exit polling and other data, voters prefer Obama over Romney by a healthy ~10point margin. Obviously some of those pro-Obama folks pulled the red lever.

Was it a referendum on public unions? Seems more likely, since that was the primary reason for the recall in the first place. I can't imagine it was the only thing on voters' minds Tuesday evening, though, simply because of all the issues that have arisen since the recall process was started (Koch call, John Doe, jobs numbers, other data). A voter would have to be pretty myopic to pull a lever JUST on the union issue, although in fairness each voter only gets one pull regardless of how complex their thinking.

Was it philosophical? Meaning, was this a case of voters intrinsically reacting to the fact that this was a recall election, and seeing no really serious evil, declining to go to that extraordinary length to get rid of Walker? I think this is definitely in the mix. Remember that it was Walker vs. Barrett in 2010, and Walker only won by around 5 points. So if we think of Tuesday's vote as a re-test, the control was having exactly the same people on the ballot, and the results were only slightly different (8 point Walker victory, as opposed to the 5 point margin in 2010).

Was it much higher turnout on the Republican side? The numbers suggest that turnout overall was higher on both sides, so that's a challenging metric on which to blame the results: if, on average, 58 of 100 Wisconsin voters (for whatever reason or reasons) felt that the recall wasn't appropriate, then the results would have been the same even if every eligible voter had actually voted, right?

On the philosophical question, I would like to think that a voting population which harbors a general distaste for recall elections would also harbor a general distaste for a Governor who blatantly kisses David Koch's ass, is under active investigation, intentionally uses misleading jobs data, and is on record as liking to use "divide and conquer" tactics.

Moving on, the Democrats picked up one Senate seat, which to me is significant, and it makes the outcome a bit trickier to analyze. Was there something specific about the Republican who lost? That would imply a somewhat more informed voter, in that such specifics aren't being covered in the general media (who has the time?).

So what are we to think of the outcome? For me, I see it as a combination of factors, with the philosophical, financial, and union issues leading the pack in terms of influence.

What do you think?

Thanks for reading.