Scott Walker, the “frontrunner” in the Republican gubernatorial race, is sounding less and less like a frontrunner and more and more like a candidate who sees the election slipping away from him:
Republican Scott Walker claims Democrat Tom Barrett is trying to “hijack” the Republican primary.
Walker is telling supporters he’s under attack from all sides and to not look past Tuesday’s primary.
Walker is also traveling the state and at an afternoon rally in Fond du Lac, told supporters that Barrett and the Democrats are trying to influence the Republican primary by attacking Walker trying to knock him out of the race.”People like Jim Doyle and Tom Barrett don’t want us taking over the government,” Walker said.
Perhaps I’m not as knowledgeable about campaigns as I’d like to think, but statement about being under attack from all sides doesn’t sound like something a front runner in an election says. To be honest, statements like these from Walker may end up being the excuse he uses if he loses on September 14, because instead of taking responsibility for running a terrible campaign, Walker will instead look to blame others, because he strikes me as being utterly incapable of taking any responsibility for himself.
What is Scott Paterick up to? He’s the third Publican gubernatorial candidate and has been crisscrossing the state and running radio ads. What do we do when the other Scott wins?
I haven’t heard much out of Scott Paterick.
the last polls I saw have Executive Walker and Mr. Neuman neck and neck at 48 and 47 points respectively…I think Exec Walker is running a bit scared because he has lost the momementum.
I hear that there’s polling floating around showing Neumann with a slight lead over Walker, hence Walker’s shift into victim mode, complete with negative attacks on Neumann.
If those numbers are accurate, it’s got the makings for a very interesting Tuesday.
Agreed that this turn from Walker is…well it fits right in with the way he’s run his campaign so far, which despite the tremendously early start, has just been very poorly run. I have to remember that I’m not a typical voter – but for me, it should be 24/7 focus on the finances.
If it’s really going to be close, I hope crossover voters don’t make the difference.
I don’t really think there will be much in the way of crossover voting. I know Republicans are talking a lot about this grand conspiracy on the part of Democrats to sabotage the election for Walker, but I think that’s a concerted effort on the part of Republicans to try and deflect blame off of Scott Walker if he does happen to lose on the 14th.
democrats, progressive, libertarians, “tea partiers”, communists, green party all are able to vote for whoever they want to. I dont get why the republicans have such a hard time understanding democracy. The thing to be careful of is the old saying”be careful what you wish for.” In 1980 many thought of Reagan as a B movie intllectual lightweight actor and hoped he would get the repub nomination, they had no idea that he could actually win an election or the damage he could cause.
It’s not a grand conspiracy – it has happened & will continue to happen. The only question is to what extent – and whether it ever is enough to make a difference.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that while some crossover may occur, I just don’t see it happening on a large scale, and certainly not as part of a concerted effort.
This is a pretty interesting email I received, regarding this topic!
http://wi.rlc.org/2010/09/operatives-mislead-members/
I find it amazing that the republicans are already blaming walkers loss on the democrats. Each person gets ONE vote who cares who they vote for? Whoever wins the general election for Governor will GOVERN EVERY ONE IN Wisconsin.
Maybe so, but why should someone who doesn’t belong to a party get to choose that party’s nominee?
what if you dont belong to a party? i would rather have the people of the state decide the nominee than Reince Priebus tell us who its going to be.
If you don’t belong to a party, then you should not have any say in choosing who that party selects as their nominee. I don’t understand why it’s such a difficult concept to grasp.
It’s no different than saying I should get to vote in Minnesota’s governor’s race…or really it’s exactly like saying I should get to vote for the board of directors for say AARP or other organiations’ (that I don’t belong to). Free association means a right to self-governance too – to make decisions on such things as what candidate runs in your name based on how your criteria and not being forced to pick someone who non-members decide.