After a few too many beers, a shocking call for Walker way earlier than anticipated, and quiet desperation about the future of our nation I was finally able to get some sleep and woke up feeling slightly less hopeless.
I've read a couple articles about the polling, in particular about people's fondness of recalls (or lack thereof) and the belief that misconduct needs to be the reason and created my own theory or two.
Welcome to my first ever diary and please continue below to see if my beliefs are sound, or just the desperate attempt to beat back the despair and frustation that are a progressive's constant partner in politics.
As I was reading the polls I thought back to what started this whole thing and what really increased the protests. Obviously, Scott Walker's goal of breaking the backs of unions was a big deal...but what made it different. Was it because he didn't campaign on it? Was it because it was in Wisconsin?
After a close win last night it looks like the Democrats have taken back the Senate which is a great victory due to creating a check on Walker's power, especially now that he can claim the recall victory as a mandate. Why did the senate recalls go over so well? Obviously some happened earlier which could have to do with increased momentum and also you need less voters to win, but I think it had more to do with the misconduct response in the poll. Much of the outrage was sparked by the refusal of the Republican led Senate and Assembly to follow acceptable procedure. Although Walker may have made the call for some of the behavior, the legislature was the face of flouting grand tradition in Wisconsin. They are the ones who broke open meeting laws, they are the ones who shouted down protestors and created controversy. They are the one who held a secret meeting and broke apart the law to push through the bill. On Walker's orders, yes, but they were the face of much of the procedural "misconduct." I believe that this is truly why the senate recalls were much more productive. It was easier to convince people that misconduct had occurred to overcome their disgust with recalls in general.
The second theory is more my lament that the John Doe probe did not gain focus until the end. I have read on this site that some polls show late deciders broke for Barrett by 30% which did imply momentum was on his side. Those late deciders witnessed two debates, an increase in focus on John Doe and the idea that Walker himself might be facing indictment soon. Hindsight is 20/20 and I don't want to diminish how much Walker hurt Unions and other citizens of Wisconsin but, that is often Democrats battle cry against Republicans (to our credit, it's because it's true) and polls have show this is not the way to win a recall. I do believe that if the John Doe probe had been able to be more front and center earlier things might have turned out differently for our side. The reality is Walker was either involved in a criminal activity or was such a bad manager that 13 of his closest aides were involved in criminal activity and he had no idea which doesn't say much about his ability to effectively manage a state. By it's very nature this Recall was a long time coming but which also means the narrative kept shifting in ways that nobody could control. It started with the assault on public unions and other ways he had screwed the citizens but ended up switching to jobs and eventually, to John Doe. Each of those areas had the ability to shore up both opposition to Walker and support which probably led to the small amount of undecideds by the time the election got underway. Barrett was at a distinct disadvantage right away by this because of his inability to really set the narrative. I think the narrative he would have went with would have been successful because it did focus on Walker's misconduct and bad judgement, but unfortunately by the time that happened too many views were already set in stone.