Slate Magazine argues against the notion that Wisconsin has
significance beyond this election. Turns
out, the only people on earth who believe
that Wisconsin is not a bellwether at some level, are Socialist Democrats . . . . . . . . . . .
and Slate Magazine.
We are told (by the Socialist elites) that Wisconsin is a
solid “blue” state, having voted for the
Democrat presidential offering in every election since the time of Ronald
Reagan. In 2008, the state voted for Obama by a margin of 14
points, one of the highest in the nation. What our Blue buds fail to tell you is
this: in 2000, Alvin Gore won Wisconsin by just 5,500 votes out
of nearly 3 million. And, in 2004,
the traitor, John Kerry, won the state by 11,000 votes. With these two elections in mind, one can see why I would argue that the Obama
election was an anomaly.
Again, he won the
state by 14 percent, in 2008. But, in
the very next election, 2010, the Republican, Scott Walker,
won the gubernatorial election by 5%,
a 19 point turn-around in the voting pattern within the state. Amazing.
Not only did Walker win, but both
state houses of congress flipped to Republican and the well known and very
popular Russ Feingold, lost his
Senatorial bid after 18 years serving as Wisconsin Senator in Washington. One simply cannot look these stats without
admitting to the significance of this particular election recall. Will it (the state) continue the current
voting pattern into the national election cycle?
Indeed, Wisconsin is
so important on a national level, that
Barack Obama has refused to campaign for the state union’s recall of Walker,
nor toured the state conducting fund raisers. Obviously,
he fears being attached to a failing circumstance. In
fact, over the past three days, Obama flew to neighboring states (Illinois and Michigan) but ignored
Wisconsin - a state he had to fly over to get to his
several fund raisers . . . . . . . . . something Wisconsin Democrat will
remember come November. The issue, then, will be this: if Obama refused to help Wisconsin Democrats in the recall, how many will stay at home when he needs them, come November?
Conclusion: Wisconsin
just might be the second most important election, this year.
It brings 10 electoral votes to the national election, and great
momentum for the party winning the Walker recall.
_________________________
The opposing view [in part] from Slate Magazine.
Kind as it is of Wisconsin to offer itself as a bellwether
for the benefit of Beltway political hacks, the favor should be declined. The
Walker recall is important for plenty of reasons, but its value as a predictor
of the national outcome in November is pretty much nil. First, let’s count
the ways in which the Wisconsin recall is most similar to the presidential election: 1)
It’s an election. 2) A Republican is running against a Democrat. 3) A
few of the same national PACs are pouring money into it, and a few of the same
state-level organizers are involved. (This, by the way, was the point Wasserman-Schultz
was attempting to make when she put her foot in her mouth.)
Now for a few ways in which it’s different: 1) It’s a
recall. 2) It’s happening in June. 3) The incumbent is a Republican.
4) Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is running. 5) A significant
number of states (49 by my count) will not be participating. 6) Need I go
on?
Drawing inferences about a national election on the basis of
a state election is almost always tenuous, but it’s particularly so in the case
of a gubernatorial recall, where the main issue is not the U.S. economy, health
care, or national security, but the character and specific track record of the
individual in office.
Yes, a bellweather. Obama crushes Romney in all exit polls.
ReplyDeleteRight (!!) and all those exist polls had the recall "close," or a "dead heat." Instead, it was an old fashion butt kicking.
ReplyDelete