Why did Scott Walker do so poorly in the primaries?

[CT27]

I thought Scott Walker would have done better in the GOP primaries:
-He won the governor's office in a blue leaning state
-Seems fairly conservative
-Survived a recall
-Tough on unions

Note I'm not saying I agree with his policies...just that he seemed like the kind of politician more GOP primary voters would have gone towards.

Why do you think he failed?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because he's actually a dud who's gotten lucky electorally.

[Penelope]

Good candidate on paper. =/= Good candidate.

[Dr. Arch]

Because he's actually a dud who's gotten lucky electorally.

[ElectionsGuy]

Because he was not prepared for how much of an onslaught running for national office was going to give him. Constant gaffes and boring debate performances repeating talking points is not the way to run for president.

Because he's actually a dud who's gotten lucky electorally.

Him winning re-election is not luck.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because he was not prepared for how much of an onslaught running for national office was going to give him. Constant gaffes and boring debate performances repeating talking points is not the way to run for president.

Because he's actually a dud who's gotten lucky electorally.

Him winning re-election is not luck.

Actually it was. He was elected in GOP wave years by pretty underwhelming margins and survived recall off the back of an Obama-backing electorate and an opposition that overplayed its hand.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

He ran a poor campaign, favoring a Federal Marriage Amendment (at this point most Republicans just wanted to move on to other issues),  a possible wall with Canada among other things.  

[Figueira]

Because he was not prepared for how much of an onslaught running for national office was going to give him. Constant gaffes and boring debate performances repeating talking points is not the way to run for president.

Because he's actually a dud who's gotten lucky electorally.

Him winning re-election is not luck.

He had bad opponents and Wisconsin is a Lean R state in non-Presidential elections, among other reasons.

You're right on the first bit, though.

[ElectionsGuy]

Because he was not prepared for how much of an onslaught running for national office was going to give him. Constant gaffes and boring debate performances repeating talking points is not the way to run for president.

Because he's actually a dud who's gotten lucky electorally.

Him winning re-election is not luck.

Actually it was. He was elected in GOP wave years by pretty underwhelming margins and survived recall off the back of an Obama-backing electorate and an opposition that overplayed its hand.

Not it wasn't. He won a recall facing stiff opposition by 7 points at the same time as the exit polls showed Obama winning the state in November.

Many polls have also showed Walker's and Obama's approval ratings both slightly positive in the state from 2011-2014.

[Maxwell]

Because he was not prepared for how much of an onslaught running for national office was going to give him. Constant gaffes and boring debate performances repeating talking points is not the way to run for president.

Because he's actually a dud who's gotten lucky electorally.

Him winning re-election is not luck.

eh - he swamped his opponents financially with outside money. When outside money isnt much of a factor, like in Presidential Primaries where the things that matters most is coverage, Walker is a flop.

[Cruzcrew]

He didn't have the personality to dominate and the debates really killed him

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Scott Walker is the ideal candidate for Wisconsin Republicans, who hate unions (especially teachers unions) and hate taxes.  Because of this, he's managed to completely polarize politics in the state (more than they already were) and energize the base.  The protests at the Capitol and the recall effort gave Republicans something to rally around.

Wisconsin politics are damaged beyond repair.  51% of the state have managed to hijack the government and destroy education (both K-12 and university) and workers' rights.  I used to live in Wisconsin.  I came to Indiana when my wife started her PhD studies.  Since she wants to teach, we will never be returning to the Badger State.  Sad.

But just because Walker does well in the very specific political environment of Wisconsin does not mean he's ready for prime time.

[Mr. Smith]

Taking three positions on immigration certainly doesn't help.

[Vosem]

He didn't. He dropped out before they began and didn't contest them.

Why did his support collapse before the drop-out? His campaign was mismanaged, giving contradictory and sometimes ludicrous answers to policy questions; his support was heterogeneous, since he didn't definitively belong to any particular wing of the party, and was therefore lost easily. He also didn't have the personality to dominate the debates, and so when Trump entered he was simply forgotten.

While it's important to study his collapse, it's just as interesting to ask why he started off so strong. Taking "leading 5 or more national polls" as a standard, starting with the kickoff in January 2015 only 4 different candidates ever held the national lead in the Republican primaries -- Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson. Bush and Trump benefited from having famous names and had high name recognition from the start of their campaigns, but it's less instantly obvious why Walker and Carson were doing so well at certain points.

[VPH]

He was this cycle's Tim Pawlenty. Purplish state governor, seemingly strong conservative credentials, seen as a party unifier, peaked early, everybody realized they were boring, support tanked.

[IceSpear]

Too boring. Republican primary voters wanted more pizzazz after McCain/Romney.

[OwlRhetoric]

I like the Pawlenty analogy. Basically too low energy like Jeb, not as much money, but he did have the good sense not to get into fights with Trump where he'd wind up castrated on national TV. Jebby and Rubio played a game of bantz they were not equipped to handle, and paid the price.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Because he's actually a dud who's gotten lucky electorally.

[Blair]

It seemed that he was running a very expensive campaign, and a poor one at that. He was always expected to do very well in Iowa, with his whole 'average joe' routine. Clearly wasn't prepared for the national stage- hence his gaffes about ' building a wall with Canada'.

It seems that a combination of pissy donors/weak campaign staff lead to a cycle where he did badly in polls/donors threaten to pull out/bad debate/donors pull out/has no money left.

The biggest irony in the Super-PAC age is that people like Jeb, Perry and Walker have actually used very scaled down campaigns- which have then suddenly ran out of money (as Jeb did in South Carolina)

[LLR]

Because he's boring and he was the wrong candidate for the Year of Trump

[Mehmentum]

He proved himself to be a poor campaigner, made too many gaffes,  showed weakness in foreign policy, came off as flat in a debate and ended up being overshadowed.  Overall, he was massively over-hyped, and just not prepared for the national stage.

He also, ironically, handled his campaign's budget terribly.  He raised a ton and spent like he would always have gangbusters fundraising.  Then, when his campaign faltered, he ran out of money.  If he had been more fiscally responsible, he could have hunkered down (like McCain 2008) and tried to regain traction (which would have been viable, given his regional strength in Iowa).

[Mister Mets]

He spent money badly, wasn't a great debater in a primary in which that was the only way to stand out, and made a decision to avoid criticizing other candidates when that ended up being the main method of getting media coverage.

[MasterJedi]

Poor money control. Spent like a drunken sailor. Still has millions of debt left, he's back home asking for donations to pay it off.

[Xing]

He was a paper tiger. Everyone assumed that he had a to be a juggernaut because THREE TIMES IN FOUR YEARS!!!11!! He actually turned out to be a gaffe machine, not very bright or knowledgeable about... well, anything, and he really didn't attract anyone's attention in the debates. Can't say I'm complaining.

[Wiz in Wis]

Because Tom Barrett and Mary Burke