Posted on 04/23/2015 6:59:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It's early in the Republican presidential primary process, but at this point former Florida governor Jeb Bush is a slight favorite. However, the latest CNN/ORC poll indicates that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is closing in on Bush. In a large GOP field that features archconservatives and outright crazies, Walker is the most disturbing because his stock-in-trade is mobilizing the resentment of working-class white voters.
According to the CNN/ORC poll, the ranking of Republican presidential candidates is Jeb Bush (17 percent), Scott Walker (12 percent), Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (11 percent), Florida Senator Marco Rubio (11 percent), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (9 percent), Texas Senator Ted Cruz (7 percent), followed by surgeon Ben Carson (4 percent) and New Jersey Chris Christie (4 percent). Pollster Nate Silver observed that most of these candidates have approval ratings that are "net-negative," unfavorability ratings greater than favorable. Scott Walker is an exception -- his favorability ratings nearly match his unfavorable -- perhaps because he has the lowest name recognition of the major candidates.
Who is Scott Walker? At this point in the competition for the Republican nomination, voters know about as much about Walker as they did about George W. Bush before he won in 2000.
Writing in Mother Jones magazine, political blogger Kevin Drum argued that Scott Walker would be the 2016 Republican nominee because he is the one candidate that could unify the various factions of the GOP: "Scott Walker" has a record of governance. His persona is generally adult. He doesn't say crazy stuff. Relatively speaking, he's attractive to moderates. But at the same time, the tea partiers love him too."
Barack Obama's presidential campaign took off after his famous 2007 Iowa speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner. Scott Walker's prospects have heightened after his January 24,2015, speech at the Iowa Freedom summit.
In that address, Walker positioned himself as the champion of "commonsense conservative reform." He bragged of defeating "big government special interests" to be twice-elected governor in a traditionally Democratic state and attributed this to his willingness to "go big and bold."
In his Iowa speech, Walker worried about the future of the US; expressed concern that America won't be as great in the future as it was when he was growing up. His twisted explanation for this (alleged) decline was an expression of classic Reagan-era conservative logic: Washington is controlled by big government special interests, taxes are too high ("It's the people's money not the government's money"), and too many Americans are content to "be dependent upon the government." Walker said he wants to build an economy that works "everywhere not just in Washington" and be a leader "who stands with our allies against terrorism." Predictably he's pro-life and anti Obamacare. He's muddied his stance on global climate change but his Wisconsin record is virulently anti-environment. On immigration he's recently shifted his position to the far right.
As a result of his Iowa speech, Scott Walker is ahead in the early polling among Iowa Republicans. In New Hampshire Walker and Jeb Bush are in a virtual tie (Walker has 17.6 percent Republican support and Bush 18 percent).
Many observers believe that Walker is a puppet controlled by the notorious Koch brothers. Walker's core message is targeted to harness the resentment of working-class white voters. It's based on the typical conservative lies often promulgated in campaigns funded by the Koch brothers.
The substantial economic gains of the last seven years haven't been shared by all Americans; rather than blame the rich and powerful, Scott Walker blames Washington. And, by implication, he blames the least fortunate Americans, those who need government assistance. This is classic Reagan rhetoric but with a sharp edge that denigrates the poor and America's racial minorities.
Recently, The New York Times contrasted the campaign strategies of Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Both are conservative, but Bush has an inclusive message: "He is telling Republicans, in effect, that they must accept a changing country: that the path to the presidency will be found through appealing to voters who may not look like them." On the other hand, Scott Walker has an adversarial message: "The Party's way forward" lies in demonstrating toughness in the face of intense opposition from the left and mobilizing those who are already inclined to support conservatism."
In the 2012 presidential contest, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney with 51 percent of the vote. Obama carried women and racial minorities; Romney carried men and white voters. Most tellingly, Romney carried white women.
Scott Walker's 2016 strategy is simple: He will seek to defeat Hillary Clinton by mobilizing the resentment of working-class white voters, male and female. Walker will take his adversarial message to swing states such as Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin; and hope to mobilize a massive turnout by angry white voters. Walker is dangerous.
Anyone but Bush or Hillary!
No kidding.
Whereas the Democrats would NEVER EVER EVER try and mobilize resentment (literally choking on the /s here)
I understand.
: )
Well, played.
Article should have had a barf alert for the slant. “Outright crazies” indeed. I’d say an outright crazy wrote this article.
You could put Ann Heiser Bush on the list and she would poll about the same. She might even be a head of the rest, especially if she hopped to it and started pouring it on. OTOH, if she were to win, we would become a sadder Budweiser nation.
Berkeley sends a message to the Storm Troopers.
“Take out Walker, we need Bush as the GOP Candidate!”
The racist bastards who wrote the hit piece on Walker don’t believe there can be non whites in the working class.
Why shouldn’t whites be angry? They are constantly called racists and homophobes and blamed for everything bad. They are nothing more than walking ATMs to molest by race hustling bureaucrats.
I think, in 2012, that Michelle Bachman was “dangerous” as well.
They always let us know whom they fear.
You’re right and the Left knows it.
Did he write anything to support who the archconservatives and crazies are?
You are so right. Hillary makes me barf. Margaret always made me stand a little bit straighter and taller. I actually am being pretty serious about that. The respect I had for Thatcher probably can’t be matched. Sarah Palin is awesome but I think because I am closer to her age it’s hard for me to have the same feeling that I did with Thatcher who was much older than I was.
Have a great day!!!
My favorite quote of Mrs. Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money”.
Hope the sun is shining where you are!
>> White Angry Males...
What if they’re born that way?
Replace "disturbing" with "dangerous". As in dangerous to the rat parties' chances of retaining the office.
Sounds EXACTLY what libs said about Reagan, they made the that same complaint for Decades.
Maybe we have a winner here.
But will the Buckeye’s vote for him?
I lived in Northern Ireland when both Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were elected. I voted for Reagan...absentee. I watched the returns on both elections. Didn’t get to sleep the night of Reagan’s first election. Will never forget either of these great conservative leaders!
May we soon have another here in this country...our country!
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.