Posted on 01/29/2015 5:09:06 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The 2016 Republican nominating season is beginning to move to the next level as events like last weekend’s Iowa Freedom Summit give candidates more opportunities to interact with primary voters in early states. Although Jeb Bush’s announcement late last year that he will explore a candidacy has shaken up the race, the Republicans can hardly be described as closing ranks around the former Florida governor. It remains likely that the Republican primary field will be large, and by most measures, strong, leading to a genuinely competitive primary.
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin is the kind of candidate who can easily be overlooked among more well-known politicians like Mr. Bush or Mitt Romney, or more outspoken candidates such as Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas. Governor Walker, however, should not be ignored so quickly. This nomination, like all presidential nominations, will be won by a candidate who succeeds in three key areas: being ideologically close enough to the primary electorate, positioning him or herself well relative to the other candidates and the other party, and building a successful campaign organization. Mr. Walker is one of the few Republican candidates who may be able to do all three of these things.
Perhaps because he is the governor of a blue-ish state that is not dominated by Republicans, Governor Walker is not seen as a right wing firebrand, who appeals on a visceral level to the party’s extreme and social conservative base like Senator Cruz, while alienating everybody else. Nonetheless, Mr. Walker has very solid conservative credentials. Governor Walker may be too smart to place issues like marriage equality or abortion rights at the center of his campaign, but as governor, he has been opposed to both these things and has sought to legislate accordingly. This will allow him to compete for votes from the Republican Party’s socially conservative base.
On economic issues, Mr. Walker has created a high profile for himself as one of America’s leading opponent of labor unions. He made a name for himself in 2011 by successfully stripping public employee unions in Wisconsin of some of their bargaining rights. By battling public employee unions in such a confrontational manner, Mr. Walker demonstrated, at least to most Republicans, that he was tough and put himself in a good position to win what might be called the Koch brothers primary. While other conservative Republicans can make claims about what they would do as President, Mr. Walker can already point to signing one significant piece of legislation. Moreover, because he defeated a labor led effort to recall him in 2012, and won reelection easily in 2014, Mr. Walker can also claim that he has defeated the Democrats’ vaunted labor machine.
Significantly, while Mr. Walker’s anti-union machinations has helped him with his party’s base, it may not hurt him in a general election very much, leaving room for him to portray himself as a relative moderate. This is largely because not many people who are neither union members themselves or ideologically left on economic issues care very much about labor unions anymore. Being aggressively anti-labor is much less likely to move swing voters in 2016 than, for example, being opposed to environmental legislation or being vehemently anti-marriage equality.
This is a big boon to Mr. Walker’s ability to position himself as an electable candidate without compromising his conservative bona fides. It also helps that Mr. Walker is from Wisconsin, a swing state, rather than from the deep south or a small Republican state. The fact of having won two statewide elections in Wisconsin, a state that has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis, gives Mr. Walker a good argument that he is electable.
Currently, the two other candidates who are most actively seeking to portray themselves as electable and even moderate, compared to most of the field are Mr. Bush and Mr. Romney. Mr. Walker has an advantage over these two party heavyweights because he presents a better Republican matchup against presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Ms. Clinton is, in the context of her party, also a moderate, with a great deal of experience and a strong demographic appeal to key swing voters, like white women. But she is not the most gifted retail politician and can be portrayed, by a deft Republican opponent, as both a figure from the past and part of an unappealing trend of dynastic politics in the U.S. Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Romney (whose father ran for president in 1968), however can plausibly attack Ms. Clinton on either of those grounds.
Mr. Walker is different. At 47, he is much younger than either Ms. Clinton, Mr. Romney or Mr. Bush, and therefore would be better able to highlight the generational difference between the two candidates and position himself as more future-oriented. Additionally, unlike other Republican candidates who are members of his generation like Senators Rubio or Cruz, Governor Walker is not as easily caricatured as an extremist.
Strong positioning and ideological bona fides are helpful to a presidential candidate, but without an experienced, well-funded campaign organization, that candidate will remain at a disadvantage while other better organized and funded candidates surpass him. Mr. Walker will certainly face some challenges in this regard. He does not yet enjoy national name recognition and will have a difficult time keeping up with the fundraising networks of better known candidates. However, Mr. Walker appears to be assiduously building a formidable campaign team; and Republican insiders, of the sort who can be very helpful in primaries, are paying attention.
David Polyansky may not be a household name, even among political insiders, but if you were looking at doing well in the 2016 Iowa caucus, Mr. Polyansky is one of the people you would want by your side. Mr. Polyansky is not only fresh from serving as senior campaign consultant to newly-elected Iowa Senator, and possible rising Republican star, Jodi Ernst, but he also was a senior advisor to Mike Huckabee when he won a surprise victory in the 2008 Iowa caucus.
Mr. Polyansky is now working for Governor Walker. This is evidence both that Mr. Walker is working to build his organization, and that people who represent important organizational components see the Wisconsinite as a viable candidate. As governor of a neighboring state, Mr. Walker will already be in a good position in that all important first caucus. This strategy seems to be already paying dividends as Mr. Walker recently wowed an audience of important Iowa Republicans at the first forum for candidates in that state of 2015.
The Iowa caucus is not tantamount to the Republican nomination; and its importance can be overstated. Previous winners of the Iowa Republican caucus include MikeHuckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012. Neither of them went on to win the Republican nomination, but other winners in Iowa, such as George W. Bush in 2000 and Mr. Dole in 1996, went on to represent to represent their party in the general election. Nonetheless, in a crowded field, doing well in Iowa will be critical. Mr. Walker’s appeal is not limited to Iowa, but it is clear he is putting a lot of emphasis on that first caucus state.
Despite his obvious strengths, Mr. Walker will face major obstacles in his quest for the nomination. He will be running against better fundraisers. Mr. Walker may not appeal beyond what could be his midwestern base, and has not really been yet tested on the national political stage, even if he gets the nomination, 2016 may yet shape up to be a difficult one for the Republicans. All candidates, however, face obstacles of some kind, but Scott Walker also is the unusual candidate who has a compelling ideological story, seeming electability, and an interest in building a campaign organization. That is what is needed to compete for the White House.
Hear, hear!
There are 48 other states to choose from. It doesn't have to be a Texan.
He needs to clear up his position on immigration, at one point he said he said nothing about giving anyone citizenship. This is what we will find out in the debates. He seemed to say something about farms needing laborers too. We’ll have to see. In the end, it may not be that different of a stance as what those who would grant temporary legal residency which sounds like it could become permanent.
He and Wisconsin Republicans have defunded planned parenthood, they’ve closed clinics, he signed the ultra-sound bill as well.
I’ll say what I have in a few threads, whomever is elected, no Republican has won the Presidency without Ohio. So Ohio and other swing-states is important. So, for me, that needs to be dealt with.
Oh, and back to the article, general note, Walker has won THREE, 3 times running for Governor since they tried to recall him. I think the article says he’s won two times.
No, Scott Walker is not an anti-Semite.
oh what a vile insult...
The peanut farmer never had to win a state-wide recall election either.
Why not a Cruz VP candidacy? For VP candidate you want an attack dog, and Cruz can do. Once ensconced as VP, by prior agreement he gets the first SCOTUS judgeship that opens up. Cruz can do, again.
Gee... Let’s have the Democrats choose our candidate!
Furthermore, Scott Walker is no Jew hating megalomaniac, so he can't be compared to Carter.
Is Scott Walker the Republican’s Jimmy Carter?, irish guard wrote:
Hellofa headline. Accuse a conservative of being a republican Jimmy Carter and never bother to mention Carter in the text of the story, nor draw any parallels. What a shitty story. Not your fault the headline of the story is crap.
Many publications have caption and headline writers, was one once myself. Looks like at the NY Observer, the governor and Lincoln Mitchell doesn’t have many friends.
Please tell me you are just posting this and not believing it!
Walker may be a lot of things but a whishy washy pubby he is not.
Right now the left sees him as the one who is most likely to defeat a know-nothing, never done anything, coulda-been such as billary.
The left does this all the time to everyone who could possibly derail their idea of who should be the next leader.
Look at what they did the last two elections! They elected the worst possible person for a job he was never qualified for.
Can Teacher Foe Scott Walker School GOP Presidential Candidates......so 2ndDivisionVet.......what's up with you changing the title?
PLEASE never use the names Scott Walker and Jimmy Carter in the same paragraph....there are certain contageous things you know.
Looks like something like the title of the thread is in the URL:
http://observer.com/2015/01/is-scott-walker-the-republicans-jimmy-carter/
Maybe they changed the headline at the Observer.
In the News/Activism forum, To which I confessed to being a headline and caption writer as one of my assignments while employed at a nationally circulated publication and suggested someone else composed the headline to the opus written by Mitchell of the NY Observer posted by 2nd div vet
on a thread titled Is Scott Walker the Republican’s Jimmy Carter?, irish guard wrote:
Shame on me....I never clicked the link to see the true title of the article.
Can Teacher Foe Scott Walker School GOP Presidential Candidates......so 2ndDivisionVet.......what’s up with you changing the title?
To which I agree; “Splain yourself”
Scott Walker would make a great President for many reasons.
The reason that I want to mention is character.
The man stands up and does what he says he will do. He sticks with it when the going gets tough - really tough.
I heard him speak before, and he comes across as a well-grounded, regular guy - not the kind of egomaniac or phony that is so common in politics.
His demeanor is calm and reasonable - a matter of fact Midwesterner, kind of like a Boy Scout. No sputtering anger or vitriol, no craven posturing. Rather than a happy warrior, he seems like a calm, committed warrior, who doesn’t give up, but doesn’t get nasty about it. So perhaps this reflects more on his temperament rather than character, but his character as well as his temperament have been thoroughly tested. His actions under fire show that the man has backbone.
For VP, traditionally the pick is either to help you get elected, by carrying a certain state, region or demographic; or to help you govern, by filling a gap in experience.
Cheney and Biden were both supposed to strengthen the foreign policy experience of the ticket. Most Governors (and therefor most Presidential candidates) don’t have much of a foreign policy background. Petraeus would have been awesome for this, so they assassinated him politically.
The VP is also President of the Senate, so Cruz could assist the administration in shepherding legislation and budgets, as well as general brainpower. He would also make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.
Picking Jeb Bush as as VP would bring a fundraising and organizational windfall for the campaign, but could sow the seeds for being undercut in his future reform attempts, by bringing lots of Bush folks into the administration. But maybe Walker/Bush wouldn’t sound bad to those used to hearing the name George Herbert Walker Bush.
It will depend on how the public responds to the candidates during the primaries - their stock will rise and fall quite a bit, and with it, their negotiating leverage. VP picks rarely firm up before the end of the primaries.
Successful Governors are historically the most likely to win the candidacy.
That is the dumbest headline I have ever seen. More of a troll than a tease.
One thing to remember is that illegal immigration is not as much of a hot button issue in Wisconsin. There aren’t that many relative to the population, most keep a low profile.
Wisconsin isn’t Texas, Arizona, N.M. or California. I’ve never known immigration to be something anyone used as a voting issue in Wisconsin.
I’ve known Walker for more than 20 years. His first house with Tonette was three blocks from the house I grew up in and he still lives less than a mile away. He may be a polarizing figure, but from experience, I believe he really wants the best for his family, state and nation.
Wisconsin joined in that lawsuit against the amnesty executive order of which I’m glad of. I only said what I did because some people really take issue and I think his view is not, at the least, clear from the articles that are posted. As I said, come the debates and if all of these people are running, we will find out more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.