SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Meet The Walker-Obama Voter

PLANK JUNE 6, 2012

Meet The Walker-Obama Voter

Amid the big mood swings last night as exit polls gave way to real vote tallies, one question began to rise above the din: how to reconcile Scott Walker’s victory with exit polls showing that a majority of voters—52-43 percent, according to the Washington Post—would vote for Barack Obama in November? We can argue about just how much those exit polls can be trusted, given that they suggested a stronger result for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett than he ultimately received. Still, it’s clear that there was a crucial sliver of voters who backed Walker but plan to support Obama in the fall. Who are these people, who could somehow support both a union-busting darling of the Koch Brothers, as well as the capitalism-hating president?

Well, loyal readers of this site had somewhat more preparation for this paradox than others did, for I wrote about just these voters at length yesterday. As I read it—and at the obvious risk of over-generalizing—they are swing voters who are, despite the difficult times we find ourselves in, in a grudging pro-incumbent frame of mind. They see that we’re climbing back out of a deep hole and they see no reason to replace the guy on the ladder at this moment. It is, again, what I observed reporting on the ground in Ohio, where the people I spoke with predicted that the economic comeback there (more apparent than in Wisconsin) would redound both to the benefit of Obama and the Republican Gov. John Kasich. Another factor apparently driving these voters to back Walker in Wisconsin, exit polls suggest, was simple distaste for the whole notion of the recall—they might not be thrilled with what he’s done in office, but they found a recall an unnecessarily extreme and costly step. And some of them, surely, were voters who agreed with Walker on the issue at the heart of this fight—his assault on public employee unions—but do not see this local stance translating into support for the national GOP candidate, Mitt Romney. [The Post quoted just such pro-Obama voter in Green Bay: “I voted for [Walker] in 2010 because I realized we have to do something about the deficit. I voted for him in the recall because I don’t believe recall elections are meant for what they’re doing with it,” said Katy Tomlanovich, who teaches at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College. “Scott Walker is actually doing something about [spending], and I think he should be allowed to serve the rest of his term.”* For what it’s worth, we also have this from The Post’s examination of the data: “The exit poll—a survey of 2,457 randomly selected recall voters—has barely enough such Walker-Obama to analyze. But some breakdowns are clear: 59 percent are independents, far above the rate in the overall electorate. More than half—56 percent—described themselves as moderates, again well above the number in the full voter population. Some 52 percent are male; 23 percent are from union households.” (Yes, some voters from union households voted for Walker—as much as a third of the overall total union-household vote.)

Now, the Obama campaign should not take too much comfort in these Walker-Obama voters. They are, after all, swing voters, and Romney and Walker will do their best to swing them in the next few months. But they are the reason why, as I argued yesterday, a Walker win was not necessarily going to as disastrous an augur for Obama as most of the commentariat was prepared to label it.

A few more quick thoughts on several other questions that arise from the recall:

1. How much did money matter? A ton. Tallies showed Walker and his allies outspending the Democratic side by a 3-1 margin on the airwaves. What was the gist of much of the Walker messaging? That the recall was an unnecessary and unnatural step to take -- just what so many crucial swing voters were telling exit pollsters last night. It’s hard not to see that as money well spent. It’ll be interesting to see whether fundraisers for the Obama campaign—particularly for the SuperPAC supporting him, which is badly trailing its GOP counterparts —uses the Wisconsin result as a goad to donors, to say: look, even if we have a strong ground game, as we did in Wisconsin, we need to compete on TV.

2. Why was Wisconsin so different than Ohio? In the Buckeye State, the backlash against Kasich’s anti-union legislation won big—the law was overturned in a referendum last fall by a 23-point margin, and with more votes than Kasich himself received the year prior. I see three main explanations for the difference: first, Kasich’s law did not exempt cops and firemen, as Walker’s did, which made logical sense, given that cops and firemen have among the best benefits of public employees, but which let the union side in Ohio rally around the popular figure of the local cop and firefighter in a way that their Wisconsin counterparts could not. Second, it’s easier to win a referendum than a recall—one is a straight-out rejection, the other involves a choice between the guy in office and the guy who will replace him; along with that comes the matter of timing—the drawn-out recall process gave Walker more time to argue that his law was already paying benefits. (Not to mention that the recalled the awkwardness of an intra-Dem primary this spring. Said one union source who's been active in the Midwest "The referendum was more of a seamless timeline they could keep building towards, whereas the recall became a jump ball 60 days out." *) Third, there is, again, the matter of the money. There was just a whole lot more outside money from conservative groups pouring into Wisconsin than into Ohio.

3. What could unions have done differently? The Wisconsin defeat is a huge blow to public employee unions, and it may well help decide the election later this month of the next president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—Danny Donohue, the challenger from New York, will surely use the Wisconsin loss an argument against Lee Saunders, the union’s current number-two and the anointed successor to outgoing president Gerald McEntee. I keep coming back to a question I’ve asked many union leaders the past few years—why did unions not make more of an effort to get out ahead of the anti-union push by engaging in more self-reform, reining in the obvious, glaring excesses (the cops in Yonkers, etc.) that have made public employee unions such an easy target for opportunistic conservatives like Walker? The union leaders rebuff this question by arguing that they simply found it wrong for their members to be scapegoated—bankers’ shenanigans had a far bigger role in the financial crisis and recession than union pensions. Which is true. It’s also true that politicians like Walker, and the groups backing them, were intent on eviscerating organized labor in a way that went beyond mere concessions over pensions and pay, which the unions in Wisconsin made clear they were prepared to make. Still, though, one can’t help but wonder whether the unions could have done more to see this coming and, by self-reforming, draw support from the median voter. At some point in the past year, one could have argued that the unions were benefiting from the assault by Walker et al—after all, when was the last time they saw people rallying to their side as was occurring in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere. But it’s awfully hard to say that today in Wisconsin, where public employee union rolls are plummeting as a result of the new law, just as Walker wanted, and as millions of dollars spent to remove him have gone to naught.

Addendum, 1:30 p.m.: A final point worth noting is that the results sure backed up my theory late last week about why Walker's urban crime scare-ad might resonate with voters: because the Milwaukee metro area's demographic/political divide between the city and the suburbs is starker than in many other northern cities, a result of the Great Migration arriving later there than it did elsewhere. Walker romped in the suburbs, winning the three counties to the west and north of Milwaukee with at least 70 percent.

*Added these quotes after originally posting the item.

follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 22 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

22 comments

"even if we have a strong ground game, as we did in Wisconsin, we need to compete on TV" That's what is so depressing. I was hoping there was a way out from beneath Citizens United.

- Nusholtz

June 6, 2012 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not afraid to make the distinction between unions and public employee unions: the attitudes in Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere about public employee unions has more to do with attitudes about public employees than attitudes about unions. I appreciate the historical reason for public employee unions (they were the only large white collar occupation that was willing to organize as blue collar occupations went into decline), but to many people "public employee" is not a subset of "working American".

- rayward

June 6, 2012 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not sure is was all for "naught." One thing that sticks in the craw of many public union members is the "fair share" provision - that a portion of your salary can be automatically deducted for union dues even if you don't want it. At first blush, this seems very unfair and many people I used to work with complained about it. I can see this as strong motivation to support Walker even if you're a union member. Of course, it's very short-sighted - without a strong union you wouldn't get the benefits you have. Now the unions have to start from scratch to rebuild and those type of "union members" have to feel the hurt as their salaries and benefits get chopped. It's a sad state of affairs, and you may have a point that union leaders could have been more pro-active on this point and on reforms. It looks like Walker caught them completely off-guard. (And as a side issue, it's terrible that he exempted public safety workers from union decimation. When your police and other public safety workers live and work among you as average citizens like you, there is a shared commitment to the community. But when they are perceived to have "special status" and begin to become relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the community, you have the makings for a police state. Very bad public policy.) But I still don't see how money makes the difference (see my comments on Nate Cohn's blog). If Walker was able to convince people that a recall was an unnecessary use of time and money, how was that the effect of "big money" per se? Apparently people bought the message; he didn't buy their votes. Is it because the opposition didn't have the money to counter his message about why recall is a good thing and perfectly legal and acceptable within the law? You have to lay it out for me. I don't get it. (Citizens United is a threat to democracy, but as far as I know, the U.S. is still a democracy.)

- Claris

June 6, 2012 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A completey minor point, but after reading the above analysis something from the past occurred to me. It's curious that voters in California ten years ago didn't have a problem recalling the then Gov. Gray Davis, even though that recall campaign was an early example of a conservative funding-driven effort that bore all the signs of an astroturf movement.

- ironyroad

June 6, 2012 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the NYT analysis they showed that Gov Walker picked up 7% more of the non-college educated voters than 2 years ago. That is a big swing with a lot of Voters. That is where I think the Talking Heads will be focusing their analysis.

- CRS9TNR

June 6, 2012 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nush, there is a way out of Citizens United. It is to raise more money from sympathetic donors with big bucks. There are plenty of them in the entertainment world, the tech world, even parts of the financial world (and attempts by your opponents to demonize you for associating with such persons don't tend to work -- Walker's ties to the Koch Brothers weren't enough to get people to hate him just like Obama's ties to the Anna Wintours of the world are not enough to get people to hate him). Ground games are not a substitute for effective messaging, as a good ground game won't reach persuadable voters but will simply help turn out your own partisans -- which helps, but is clearly insufficient when the other side is turning out their own partisans. The view among progressives that Citizens United is icky and you shouldn't try to run paid media advertising for your candidate early and often is beyond foolish and must stop, tout suite.

- wildboy

June 6, 2012 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, regarding the CA recall campaign 10 yrs ago: isn't California's system a 2 step process? I thought the recall happens first then a new governor is elected. That's a big difference from an election (like what happened yesterday in Wisconsin).

- tmmats

June 6, 2012 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Public service unions, especially ones not yet confronted by the head on attacks they faced in Wisconsin and Ohio, are deaf t the howls of taxpayers who do not have defined benefit pensions that cannot go bankrupt. those feelings are magnified by many of the interactions the public has with those employees every day. (Go try to ask a question about a tax bill in Philadelphia , PA without walking out thinking about writing a $100 contribution to the first statewide candidate who will eliminate collective barging for public service unions.) I know some of them have given stuff back, but it is peanuts compared to what the taxpayers have suffered. Their leadership just cannot seem to get that message.

- SFergessen

June 6, 2012 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alec, great reporting as usual, but I think you miss one big reason for Walker's win: people agreed with Walker's reforms. Walker left in place bargaining for wages, but took control of the extra benefits that public sector workers get--benefits which are usually generous and occasionally scandalous. California, for example, could make huge steps toward reform if they were able to get their public sector employee costs under control. In other words, Walker's reforms were generally good. The ancillary benefit of actually requiring unions to compete for membership--instead of having automatic cash being funneled into ossified organizations--is a reason liberals as well as conservatives can be happy with this kind of reform.

- polcereal

June 6, 2012 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know SFergessen, I worked as a state employee. When I left the position for a similar one in the private sector, I received a full 20% pay increase. They could pay me 80% of the going rate because I had good health insurance and they were contributing 11% of my pay into a defined benefit pension plan. I will never work in the public sector again, because of the looting and changing of the benefits plans along with the demonization of the workers. I wish they had just paid 20% more, and I bet the rest of the public workers do too--then people couldn't come along and vote to retroactively remove that salary paid, as they working to do with retirement benefits. I think what the GOPers are great at doing is divide and conquer--call poor people lucky duckies, point to public sector benefits as being too great without deigning to mention the lower salaries, tell people in the middle of the country that people on the coasts aren't American, and their concerns and opinions aren't authentic, get less educated people to resent more educated people, it goes on and on. By the way, my experience was with the state retirement system in Wyoming.

- ReganaD

June 6, 2012 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know SFergessen, I worked as a state employee. When I left the position for a similar one in the private sector, I received a full 20% pay increase. They could pay me 80% of the going rate because I had good health insurance and they were contributing 11% of my pay into a defined benefit pension plan. I will never work in the public sector again, because of the looting and changing of the benefits plans along with the demonization of the workers. I wish they had just paid 20% more, and I bet the rest of the public workers do too--then people couldn't come along and vote to retroactively remove that salary paid, as they working to do with retirement benefits. I think what the GOPers are great at doing is divide and conquer--call poor people lucky duckies, point to public sector benefits as being too great without deigning to mention the lower salaries, tell people in the middle of the country that people on the coasts aren't American, and their concerns and opinions aren't authentic, get less educated people to resent more educated people, it goes on and on. By the way, my experience was with the state retirement system in Wyoming.

- ReganaD

June 6, 2012 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry for the double post, I won't blame the software it was too clicky a finger.

- ReganaD

June 6, 2012 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the record, SFergessen, public employees are also taxpayers. Walkers "divide and conquer" strategy is succeeding beautifully. Or shall we call it the politics of envy? Do we have to end up like India before people catch on? It's a race to the bottom with Walker & Co. on top.

- Claris

June 6, 2012 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tnmats, that's true in a sense, in that there were two separate parts to the vote: yes/no on the recall itself, and then the vote for the new governor (there were over a hundred names on the ballot!) which would apply only if the recall was approved. It was all on the same ballot paper on the same day, however.

- ironyroad

June 6, 2012 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found Walkers victory speech to be absolutely horrendous, he compared himself with the founding fathers, the man really is a total POS. Personally I am opposed to recalls, Pa. has Corbett who I think is terrible but he won, elections have consequences. The worst thing about this is now the POS Walker will now be stuck upon us for decades as he will milk this for the rest of his life.

- blackton

June 6, 2012 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have worked in both the private sector and the public sector, as has my wife. In both sectors, there are parasites and freeloaders, as well as honorable and competent people. In the long run, it's not a particularly effective method of argument to focus too much on the scum of your opposition. It's a slower method to be honorable and competent, but like "slow food" it provides better nutrition and sustainability.

- skahn

June 6, 2012 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alec states, " How much did money matter? A ton. Tallies showed Walker and his allies outspending the Democratic side by a 3-1 margin on the airwaves." Colm O’Comartun, Executive Director, Democratic Governors Association, states, "Despite our side getting outspent nearly 10-to-1 by Walker and his right-wing allies," 06/06/12 Katrina vanden Heuval states, "Make no mistake — Walker knows his recall has the potential to be a resounding progressive victory. That’s why he’s raised $31 million to stay in office, compared with $4 million raised by his opponent." (7.75 to 1) Washington Post: According to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, more than $63.5 million has been spent by candidates and independent groups on the recall to date, making it the state’s most expensive election. A little more than half of that amount – about $34.5 million – is composed of contributions to the two candidates, with Walker taking the majority ($30.5 million compared to Barrett’s $4 million). The remaining $30 million or so in expenditures has been made by outside organizations, according to the independent tracking group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. And the bulk of that $30 million is spending by GOP-aligned groups on behalf of Walker. The tea party group Americans for Prosperity has spent more than $10 million on the race. And the Republican Governors Association has spent nearly that amount. Republicans are by no means ceding the ground game to Democrats; $1.5 million of the RGA’s outlays in the race have been on a get-out-the-vote effort in the run-up to Tuesday, Politico reported. The Citizens United money can defeat "boots on the ground." The Huffington Post's Luke Johnson declares: "Wisconsin State Senate Control Appears To Shift To Democrats." New Democratic State Senate Majority Leader appeals for funds. Does anyone really know how much money was spent on Walker's campaign? "A ton." Wisconsin Profile: political instability, deadlocked state government, weak labor movement makes a good showing. Needs to do more.

- LawrenceGulotta

June 6, 2012 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone care to speculate if a California-style recall election would have helped the pro-recall forces? That is, if there had been no primary for the replacement; just a referendum as to whether or not to retain Walker and an election for who would replace him if he is recalled.

- sighthnd

June 6, 2012 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Claris: that a portion of your salary can be automatically deducted for union dues even if you don't want it. At first blush, this seems very unfair and many people I used to work with complained about it. Not to make any claim about your position about that notion, but I think an explanation for automatic deduction of union dues might be worthwhile. All workers, whether they join the union or not, derive most of the benefits from having the union. While there are some activities, like representing members in labor disputes with management, that can be restricted to members only, much of what the union does cannot be held back from those who do not pay dues. Thus, in order to prevent freeloading, it is necessary to force all who can benefit from the union's activities to pay to support it.

- sighthnd

June 6, 2012 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was a public employee for a decade. I thought myself incredibly lucky to be employed during two economic downturns, during which time friends often struggled or feared they would soon be struggling. I never worked in a job though where my retirement benefits were guaranteed, although the medical benefits were quite sweet. I hope that when dealing with the public I was as good as I thought I was in remembering that these people paid my salary. I am not anti-public employee, and I am not anti-union. The leadership of public employee unions who do not see the handwriting on the wall when it comes to guaranteed requirement benefits though are leading their members off of a cliff. When the percentage of government budgets going to pay retirees goes into double digits, and taxpayers cannot dream of such guarantees, something will give.

- SFergessen

June 6, 2012 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One would hope that workers would, instead of attacking those with decent unions, attack bad bosses instead. Workers ALL need unions and we all need better retirement and health benefits not to mention some damn jobs. However we've gotten into an anti-worker loop. Hourly wages have diminished and there is now underway a legal attack on the ACA, promises to get rid of it, to tax the poor, the shred what's left of our meager safety nets, along with an astonishing degree of misinformation, such as the claim that ACA amounts to "putting us all into nationalized health care" as I read in a comment on another blog yesterday. I think I'm gonna scream.

- Sophia

June 6, 2012 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sighthnd: Thanks for the explanation. You are correct in what you say. This is what I was alluding to when I said "benefits." I just didn't want to go into an explanation, but perhaps it was necessary. My point: everyone benefits but they couldn't if there wasn't enough dues money to keep the union viable. And those who complained about fair share were missing the big picture: they liked the standards that had been achieved (through the work of the union) but they didn't want to pay for it. As sighthnd points out, there is no way to exclude them from receiving the effects of these efforts.

- Claris

June 6, 2012 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close