Indiana & Wisconsin

There were two interesting elections today, one in Indiana and one in Wisconsin. Republicans turned out Richard Lugar, who had represented Indiana in the U.S. Senate since 1976. Lugar's defeat is an obvious sign that the Tea Party is still a potent political force. State Treasurer Richard Mourdock won 61% of the primary vote, a landslide. Of course if Mourdock loses in November it will be another case of the Republican Party shooting itself in the butt. This certainly puts a new seat in play for the Democrats.

Lugar was eighty and it was probably time for him to retire. He also made the mistake loosening his ties with his constituency. Lugar was declared ineligible to vote in his "home district." He hasn't really lived in Indiana for a long time. He also seemed to regard his Senate seat as something he was entitled to. It's hard to blame him, but those are the things that can be the kiss of death for an incumbent Senator.

I am guessing that Mourdock holds that seat for the Republicans.

The other election was doubly interesting. It was the special primary ahead of the recall election that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is facing next month. Two things stand out. One is that the Union candidate, Kathleen Falk, was flattened by Tom Barrett (35 to 57%). The Unions of course were the major force behind the recall election, hoping to punish Walker for his curbs on public union collective bargaining. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Shrugging off millions of dollars spent by labor groups to defeat him, Tom Barrett walked to victory in Tuesday's Democratic primary and set up a more taxing sprint toward June 5 - a historic recall that will be a rematch of his unsuccessful 2010 race against Gov. Scott Walker.

In the recall primary, The Associated Press called the race for the Milwaukee mayor over former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, showing that more than $4 million doesn't necessarily buy a close race.

It has been frequently noted that the Democrats primary campaign shifted its focus away from union issues to bread and butter economic issues. From the WaPo:

MADISON, Wis. — When Wisconsin Democrats launched their recall drive against Republican Gov. Scott Walker last year, it was all about unions. They wanted Walker to pay with his job for pushing legislation that stripped almost all public workers of nearly all their collective bargaining rights.

More recently, Democrats, buoyed by fresh federal statistics that show Wisconsin's economy is still sputtering badly, have tried to transform the election into a referendum on the governor's failure to put people back to work. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and a group supporting Kathleen Falk, the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination, launched new television ads over the last three days ripping Walker for not creating jobs.

The steam has all gone out of the union kettle.

Powerline noted the other thing that stands out. Despite facing only token opposition in the Republican Primary, almost as many Republicans turned out to vote for Walker as voted for all the Democratic candidates combined (614,000 to 651,000). That suggests that Walker has a strong base of support. Instead of a referendum on Walker's public union reforms, the election will be simply a repeat of the last one. A lot of voters will wonder why it was worth the cost.

I am guessing that Walker survives, probably comfortably.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

In Wisconsin it's a question of whether voters throw out Walker first, or whether Walker is perp-walked out the door. He's a crook. He's done as an effective leader of the state, but the out-of-state ideologues want to prop him up. It's telling that not one of the Republican candidates for President wanted to be photographed with him.

[duggersd]

I read the article and saw there was one comment. I said to myself, self, I bet that is Donald Pay. Sure enough. There is Donald spewing his venom. And Donald does not mention any of the out-of-state ideologues called unions that dumped money into the election?

[Ken Blanchard]

Yes, Dugger, but look at Donald's language. He is preparing himself for more bad news.

[Donald Pay]

If all you look at is the image of the opposition in the initial uprising during February and March of 2011, you would have the impression that the recall is just about collective bargaining issues. While unions were highly visible, they were by no means the only factor in the recall petitioning.

Act 10 had in it a lot of issues besides collective bargaining. And since then, Walker has continued to add to the people who want him out, and the issues that matter. Add to that the John Doe investigation of Walker involving the corrupt way he operated in Milwaukee County, the lack of job growth (in fact job losses) after all his plans were enacted.

The "do over" vibe took on a life of its own, and Barrett gives Democrats a chance to make that argument, rather than having to develop a whole new campaign around a whole new candidate.

People want to read a lot of things into the primary race, but a lot of it is personality and history driven. Barrett led Falk in polling even before he got into the race. Falk is good on issues, but not a particularly exciting candidate. She can actually lose votes with her stump speech. She also had too many people advising her and did not drive home a consistent message. There's no more union town than Madison, yet Barrett won here, partly because Falk quit her County Executive position here, partly because she made enemies in the progressive community over the years.

None of the Democratic candidates went negative, and they met today to unify campaigns.

[Bill Fleming]

I seriously doubt there will be any problem with union solidarity in the Wisconsin recall GOTV effort or at the ballot box.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I am sure you are right. It is perfectly evident, however, that union solidarity is not a significant force among the electorate at large.

[Bill Fleming]

I meant Union solidarity with the Democrat candidate. In a close race, exactly what percentage of the electorate do you consider to be "significant" KB? Most elections are won or lost by about 5-8% of the voters. Sometimes more, but not typically. Union members have a tendancy to vote R more often than the average Democrat under certain circumstances. Don't you think that's significant?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/07/bill-kristol/bill-kristol-says-40-percent-republicans-voted-joh/

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I concede your point. I would only point out that the concerns of the unions are negligible among the voters at large.