Wisconsin voters and Walker's presidential prospects

[IceSpear]

When most of us look at elections, we tend to be focused on just the percentages. But if you look in terms of raw votes, you can sometimes be shocked at what you find. For example, in Vermont, where Scott Milne almost upset Peter Shumlin in a race nobody thought was competitive, Milne actually received 5,000 less votes than Romney got in 2012, even though Romney lost the state 67-31. Pretty crazy.

Now, how is this relevant to Walker? In both 2010 and 2014, Walker actually got less raw votes than John McCain did in 2008, even as he was losing the state to Obama 56-42.

McCain 2008: 1,262,393
Walker 2014: 1,259,021
Walker 2010: 1,128,941

However, it's worth noting in the recall he did outperform John McCain, getting 1,335,585 (though still less than the 1,407,966 Romney got).

Is it just me, or does this make Walker look a lot less formidable? I still think he'd be a strong candidate, but this certainly puts things in a different light. In addition, I have to wonder how many Obama/Walker/Walker/Obama/Baldwin/Walker voters there actually are. I'm assuming it's not many, and that Democratic voters simply just don't turn out in off years, a problem replicated across the entire country.

[Stockdale for Veep]

I'm clearly biased, but unless the election is held under favorable GOP conditions, Walker is not going to beat Clinton here.

[BaconBacon96]

What this proves is that the current Democratic coalition simply does not perform at midterms.

[Ljube]

What this proves is that the current Democratic coalition only performs when Obama is on the ballot.

[Mehmentum]

What this proves is that the current Democratic coalition only performs when Obama is on the ballot.

The current Democratic coalition performed in 2006.

It also worked for McAuliffe in the 2013 Virginia Governor's race.

[Ljube]

What this proves is that the current Democratic coalition only performs when Obama is on the ballot.

The current Democratic coalition performed in 2006.

It also worked for McAuliffe in the 2013 Virginia Governor's race.

The Democratic coalition of 2006 wasn't the current/Obama Democratic coalition. Youth were 12%, blacks were 10% and Hispanics were 8%. Women were 51%.

So it was not the Obama coalition. It was a backlash against a very unpopular incumbent president:

VOTED TODAY TO...

Support Bush (22%)
Oppose Bush (36%)
Bush Not a Factor (39%)    


About Virginia in 2013, I don't know. I think Virginia is too far gone for Republicans, same as Georgia for Democrats.

[Ljube]

I'm clearly biased, but unless the election is held under favorable GOP conditions, Walker is not going to beat Clinton here.

Here's a question for you. If Walker doesn't win in 2016, when do you think a Wisconsinite will ever again be in a position to win the presidential election? So, why not take this unique opportunity and vote for him?

If you are still biased and won't vote for Walker even in light of such strong argument, imagine what other Wisconsinites will do when looking at a ballot with Walker's name on it. Surely, at least some 10% of his opponents will back him simply counting on him doing something for Wisconsin.

[pbrower2a]

The question is whether Walker would do things to deliver the electoral votes of Wisconsin through some legislative chicanery. Here is his optimum:

Base the electoral vote on a winner-take-all basis on Congressional districts, so that if the Republican wins five districts by 51-49 margins and loses three by  70-30 margins, Wisconsin could go nearly 55-45 for the Democrat and still give ten electoral votes to the Republican.

It's not fair. It's just what the Governor's string-pullers want. Whether the US Supreme Court would stand for something that so distorts the popular vote is in doubt.

[Ljube]

The question is whether Walker would do things to deliver the electoral votes of Wisconsin through some legislative chicanery. Here is his optimum:

Base the electoral vote on a winner-take-all basis on Congressional districts, so that if the Republican wins five districts by 51-49 margins and loses three by  70-30 margins, Wisconsin could go nearly 55-45 for the Democrat and still give ten electoral votes to the Republican.

It's not fair. It's just what the Governor's string-pullers want. Whether the US Supreme Court would stand for something that so distorts the popular vote is in doubt.

Now that you mention this, let's do it in Michigan!

[pbrower2a]

The question is whether Walker would do things to deliver the electoral votes of Wisconsin through some legislative chicanery. Here is his optimum:

Base the electoral vote on a winner-take-all basis on Congressional districts, so that if the Republican wins five districts by 51-49 margins and loses three by  70-30 margins, Wisconsin could go nearly 55-45 for the Democrat and still give ten electoral votes to the Republican.

It's not fair. It's just what the Governor's string-pullers want. Whether the US Supreme Court would stand for something that so distorts the popular vote is in doubt.

Now that you mention this, let's do it in Michigan!

(Sorry. I missed the joke. Did I lose my sense of humor on November 5?

[Ljube]

The question is whether Walker would do things to deliver the electoral votes of Wisconsin through some legislative chicanery. Here is his optimum:

Base the electoral vote on a winner-take-all basis on Congressional districts, so that if the Republican wins five districts by 51-49 margins and loses three by  70-30 margins, Wisconsin could go nearly 55-45 for the Democrat and still give ten electoral votes to the Republican.

It's not fair. It's just what the Governor's string-pullers want. Whether the US Supreme Court would stand for something that so distorts the popular vote is in doubt.

Now that you mention this, let's do it in Michigan!

Since you endorse undemocratic government, why don't you move to where it already exists?

Russia has one of the richest cultures in the world.
Chinese women are beautiful. 

I was joking, of course.
I don't see any of that happening. Ever.
And I would most definitely be against it.

[pbrower2a]

(post deleted due to repetition)

[Stockdale for Veep]

I'm clearly biased, but unless the election is held under favorable GOP conditions, Walker is not going to beat Clinton here.

Here's a question for you. If Walker doesn't win in 2016, when do you think a Wisconsinite will ever again be in a position to win the presidential election? So, why not take this unique opportunity and vote for him?

If you are still biased and won't vote for Walker even in light of such strong argument, imagine what other Wisconsinites will do when looking at a ballot with Walker's name on it. Surely, at least some 10% of his opponents will back him simply counting on him doing something for Wisconsin.

He is so polarizing here that that argument will not make a dent, look how Ryan moved the dial here. 500k Obama voters didn't show up this year. 80% of them will vote in '16, game over.

[Ljube]

I'm clearly biased, but unless the election is held under favorable GOP conditions, Walker is not going to beat Clinton here.

Here's a question for you. If Walker doesn't win in 2016, when do you think a Wisconsinite will ever again be in a position to win the presidential election? So, why not take this unique opportunity and vote for him?

If you are still biased and won't vote for Walker even in light of such strong argument, imagine what other Wisconsinites will do when looking at a ballot with Walker's name on it. Surely, at least some 10% of his opponents will back him simply counting on him doing something for Wisconsin.

He is so polarizing here that that argument will not make a dent, look how Ryan moved the dial here. 500k Obama voters didn't show up this year. 80% of them will vote in '16, game over.

Why would they vote in 2016? Why didn't they vote in 2014?