There’s been a lot of sparring back and forth here on Blogging Blue and elsewhere about which of the candidates is the best choice to lead Wisconsin out of the darkness. This decision will be based on a variety of criteria. Let me be blunt. Any one of these candidates, regardless of the micro differences between them would be a better Governor of Wisconsin than Scott Walker. To me, that means whichever one of them has the best chance of winning is the candidate we should all support. Period.
Electability is just one issue for Democratic primary voters, but it will be play a role May 8. It’s a bigger part of Barrett’s message than Falk’s, but it’s important for her to counter, given the desire among Democrats to unseat Walker.
Since electability arguments are about perception, Barrett appears to have an advantage on this score. His parade of endorsements from Democratic officials helps. And ironically enough, he could also be helped among some Democratic voters by what Republicans say and do between now and May 8.
Personally, I think the only candidate in the race now who can beat Walker is his old nemesis Tom Barrett. This would not be the case had Russ Feingold decided to run. But he didn’t. Lest I be acused of damning Tom Barrett with faint praise, I really do believe he would be a good governor. And I say this as someone who believes that the best Governor would be Kathleen Vinehout. But that’s not the point. The point is that the worst choice is Scott Walker. Therefore, my support lies with the person most likely to defeat Scott Walker.
At a time like this, with so much at stake for the future of our state, we must embrace the words of Voltaire:
Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.
– or –
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Tom Barrett may not be perfect, but he’s good enough to win.
Sorry I do not get what makes him the most electable. i do admire that his supporters are pushing that so hard and playing on the fears of the electorate but it is not based on any fact based reality.
Jeff, you know I love you, but you’re not thinking straight.
On the question of the tightness of the polls between the two:
Barrett is less unpopular than Falk. Why is that?
It’s certainly not over, but when I look forward to the short campaign against Walker, IMVHO, Barrett has the best chance of winning. But in the end, it’s just an opinion.
Yeah, and it’s important to note that progressives/liberals/Democrats alone won’t win the gubernatorial recall election; it’s going to take a significant number of independents voting for the Democratic candidate in order to beat Walker.
I’ll bet there will be a few card-carrying Republicans voting against Walker. Anything from “he’s just too extreme” to “he failed and now he must die” will do.
Instead of the old “us and them”, why not do “us and him“?
It’s the normal curve. The vast majority live on that big hump in the middle. If we agree Walker represents the extreme right of the spectrum, an election between him and someone representing the extreme left would split the curve perfectly in two, resulting in a tie. Of course the curve is not perfectly normal, and the candidates are not true extremes, but you get my point. Any candidate that is closer to the center on our side of the curve than Walker is to the center from his side will peel off more votes from near-center righties. And by your own admission, Barrett is more moderate than Falk. Thus — more electable.
I am so upset with Russ Feingold. He had the chance to actually do something about the little people vs the big money issue, with the whole nation watching. There will never be another chance like this in history to stick it to the man but instead he sat it out. I will not be returning to his Progressives United website, let alone donate my hard earned money again.
Ditto, but I understand his disgust with the state Democratic party. I’m not surprised he’s sitting on his hands now.
I’m grateful that Feingold served the public in a way that left us better off for his service. I don’t begrudge him for walking away at a time of his choosing, or for any lawful pursuit he wants to try in private life.
Lisa you have your chance to “stick it to the man” every election year. Yeah see we have a thing called regular terms of election where elected officials and their challengers get to make their case for another term or replace the other person. No need to go through all the trouble of calling an election whenever you feel like it. November comes soon enough. Have a great day and give Russ a break!
Then we have this awesome process called “the recall” which was put in place 100 years ago because then, like now, our politicians were completely owned by special interests. This gives citizens the option of terminating their tenure in office “with extreme prejudice….”
🙂
Of the four Dems, I think Vinehout would be the best governor (although not perfect). It’s possible that not being from Madison or Milwaukee enhances her statewide electability. Having been a dairy farmer gives her serious Wisconsin cred. Having been one of the Fab 14 gives her movement cred. I just wish people knew her better, that she had better name recognition. First time in my life I’ve ever wished that an election season wasn’t so short.
I know, right?
Mary Ray Worley, the problem for me with Vinehout is (a) electability; no, she does not have time for Milwaukee and Madison to get to know her, and (b) her votes against women’s rights, which would mean that many in Milwaukee and Madison would not want to get to know her.
And women, of course, are ‘way more than the majority of Dem and Independent voters. Vinehout can’t win it.
I’ve been doing my best to help people get to know her and have specifically addressed the issues involving Vinehout and women in my post on Blue Cheddar.
I give you credit for addressing those issues — but her attempt to address them fails, and she has failed women (and good men) across the state with her actions. Her attempt to address them also reveals a shortsightedness in her ability to anticipate the consequences of her actions, and that further concerns me as a sign of lack of legislative maturity. And the attempt to claim that the law would have exceeded the state constitution? Nope, that is not so, according to the analysis that was provided to legislators, so she must not have read it — and she is alone in the Dems in saying so, and a lot of them are lawyers who know how to read a legal analysis.
Bottom line: She sided with right-wingers on women’s reproductive rights, and her reasons for doing so are even more worrisome. She is not ready, and with the work ahead to undo laws by Walker and the Fitzgeralds, we need a governor with greater legislative experience — and one who always has voted for women’s rights.
Two other candidates have no legislative experience, with no record of votes on rights.
That leaves one candidate whose legislative record on these issues and others is excellent.
I know all about this electability thing – not sure that I believe it though. Plus, is Mayor Barrett going to be much better than what is currently there? He’s saying the right things, but his actions from the past would indicate that he really isn’t that much of a friend of labor.
Here’s what I hope: I hope that all the grassroots action that has happened in Wisconsin in the last 14 months means that we’re no longer doing politics as usual. We have succeeded in changing the game. Many people are participating and paying attention way more than they did before Walker dropped his bomb on us.
Also, because the primary season is so very, very short, it’s just possible that many will vote against Walker as much or more than they vote for one of the Democratic candidates. Many of us have stated repeatedly that any of the four Dem candidates would be a vast improvement over Walker. For those reasons, it’s just possible that any one of them could win.
Some may think that that’s probably not the case in rural and small-town Wisconsin, but we never could have collected so many signatures on the recall petitions if many folks in rural and small-town Wisconsin weren’t behind the recall.
The game has changed. There is no poll nearly as significant as those nearly 1 million signatures. Truly, anything could happen.
Barrett tends to be too moderate for me, personally, but that’s not necessarily here or there in terms of what has motivated me to comment here. What I do wonder though is if we accept it as true that Barrett plays better with independents, is that offset by his potentially lesser ability to energize the base, due to his more moderate positions? I don’t have the answer to that question, but simply raise it for discussion. For purposes of transparency, I’m supporting Falk in the primary and have blogged about that in a guest post here – but I will strongly support whoever comes out on top of the primary.
I’m not sure the base is going to sit back and let Walker continue his term just because Barrett is too moderate for them. Independents might see Falk as a mirror image of Walker (catering to the left instead of the right) and either sit out or go with the “evil they know”. I think there are a lot of people who signed petitions who would like a moderate as governor. Moderate should not be a bad word in politics. It doesn’t have to mean indecisive. The polarization in government has been nothing but a disaster for the state and country. That doesn’t change if a radical leftist replaces a radical rightist.
I don’t believe Falk is a radical leftist. I think she governs more moderately than people realize, but perception is all that matters in getting elected. Polls really do seem to suggest she has a problem with the independents. This whole gubernatorial primary reminds me of the republican presidential primary. The candidates the base likes the most have the least chance to unseat the incumbent in the general. Hopefully whoever comes out of the primary isn’t damaged to the point of being unable to beat Walker.
I don’t buy into an “electability” argument too often, because I think if a candidate is good, electability is something that can be overcome. I certainly think Vinehout is electable if she was the candidate with this in mind. And too often “electability” leads to milquetoasts like John Kerry who don’t come strong enough to counter the thuggery in the GOP and make bystanders pay attention.
But a bigger problem is “UNelectability”, and that’s what I think hurts Falk more. That stupid pledge to veto the budget is an albatross around her neck to a lot of voters, both in the primary and the general election, and it means more has to be overcome for a lot of casual observers. That’s the bigger issue I see.
And the biggest person that should be considered unelectable an unacceptable is Scott Walker, and so yes, that has to be considered. But I also argue it shouldn’t be OVERconsidered, which too many political types do.
To go off of Mary’s point- my thought on how to handle a Gov. Barrett to make sure he doesn’t cave on union rights is to forcefully support him if he is the nominee, then LEAN ON HIM HARD once he gets in, with the clear message of “If you don’t do what we want, we’ll bolt in 2014.” Tom’s a good and smart guy, and he’d do the right thing as a result. But we sure won’t know that if some people whine and bitch and he loses to Walker as a result, now will we?
“Good enough to win” — well there’s a resounding endorsement! What happened to all your holier than thou attitude about standing on principle? So let me get this straight, you are going to replace a governor for Act 10 with a guy who used Act 10 to balance the city budget, thus proving the governor right that such a tool would work. How can you possibly defend that?
As for the comments above about the campaign being too short. You’ve got be kidding! After over a year of your whining, crying, screaming, and irrational behavior, this needs to be over. But I am guessing even after this unnecessary election, you won’t stop with your sour grapes.
The principal is to do the right thing, not to die trying. It’s better to compromise for a sure-win placeholder candidate than gamble for a 50% chance of things getting much worse indefinitely.
Just saw Vinehout speak. She sort of turned the ‘electability’ argument on its head and argued that she was the candidate who get the farmer and Up North votes that often swing elections. Not sure I agree, but the point is interesting, and I DO agree that the Hwy 29 corridor and independent, ‘clean government/wise spending’ voters are a key group to get.
So let me see if I have this straight: Falk was with the 2011 Restore Democracy and Recall Walker movement every step of the way. She stood with us in the snow. She showed up at rallies throughout the state and supported Democratic Party candidates during the 2011 recall elections. She was there when the recall papers were filed and worked hard during the petition gathering phase.
She jumped into the governor’s race early and swiftly consolidated labor support, speaking out boldly for workers rights, women’s rights, the importance of education, student loan reform, job creation while maintaining a sensible environmental policy and basic fairness. She’s a smart and capable administrator. She doesn’t shy away from a tough fight but also knows how to bring diverse groups together.
Barrett stayed home in Milwaukee, read the entrails of a chicken, played it safe, consulted the usual Democratic party oracles and finally announced. He is therefore “electable.”
Un-huh.
The Republicans know that Kathleen Falk can beat Scott Walker. If you don’t believe it, look at the ads they’ve been running on TV.
I’m voting for Falk on May 8 and look forward to calling her Governor after June 5.
Barrett was there many times, but he did have this job called “mayor” back in the biggest city in the state.
Falk lives in Madison and didn’t have a job to do, because she quit halfway through her term. Why? To be able to not have to cope with Walker’s cuts, as Barrett had to do?
I think that one thing the Barrett Campaign has done is joined late and came in and changed the narrative to him being the only “electable” candidate. I know the recent poll suggests that, but the last poll that came out said the exact opposite.
Falk has a very progressive, yet far from radical left, record. Incredibly better record than Walker has ever had and she is 1000 times smarter.
I personally think that the Walker campaign is using reverse psychology in running ads attacking Barrett. I think they really want to run against Barrett again because they kicked his ass once. They know, and its proven from the last elections, that having scott walkers name attached to you is toxic so if they pretend they are scared of barrett the left is going to flock to him. Unfortunately so far they have.
Sorry Jeff, but there were plenty of people worried about Falk’s ability to get elected prior to Barrett jumping into the contest. That’s one of the reasons so many of us wanted Feingold to run (and a lot of people who were looking to Barca as well, I suspect). It’s not about how good an administrator she is, she seems to be an excellent chief executive. It’s about her skill as a candidate. I’ve seen her on TV and heard her on the radio a number of times and it is difficult to listen to. All the more so because I really want to like her. I want her to inspire me to go tell people how great she’ll be as the next governor, but that’s just not how she is.
I don’t know that Barrett really is any more electable than Falk. To me, neither one has a better than 50/50 shot at beating Walker. Unless he gets indicted. That money Walker has hoarded is a big obstacle to overcome.
They “kicked his ass?”
Jeff, you make it sound like Barrett lost by twenty points to Walker.
Further, I’d argue that if voters knew then what they know now, Barrett would have won easily.
In a state that slightly leans left walker won by 5 points. Thats a pretty solid win.
In a state that slightly leans left walker won by 5 points. Thats a pretty solid win.
I agree that if voters know who he is he loses to an empty beer can, but he has 100 million dollars to make sure people do not know who he is.
Jeff- And Russ Feingold lost to (mo)Ron Johnson by nearly 5 points, what you point? Does anyone not think that Russ would wipe the floor with that fool knowing what we know now, and with all of us decent people voting this time instead of bitching and looking at our navels? And why wouldn’t this be even more so now that the rest of the state knows what Walker’s all about?
Your arguments for Falk keep getting further and further away from what is reality. She has no chance as long as you make up context-free things like this, because it goes to something that makes her much less electable- the perception that Kathy has always been in this for herself and her ability to get power, instead of supporting the recall movement because it’s the right thing to do.
And yes, that’s the perception that’s out there, and she and her supporters have done nothing but help that perception the last 2 months. That’s why she’s very close to slipping out of sight in this race.
These Unions have $3 million invested in Kathleen Falk already. They have a 14 point Falk deficit to Tom Barrett to show for it. The election is two weeks from Tuesday. All the spending in the world isn’t going to close that gap and they know it. With that money absolutely wasted, what other choice do they have than to coast to the primary and then throw their support behind Barrett. But will they,Falk was seen as the anti-Walker. The unions perceive Barrett as “not as bad as Walker.”
I hope he is indicted before the recall. Why wait until after, no matter what the result. The voters have the right to know just how big a crook he is…although half of us already know. And it makes me laugh when Democrats say at this point it would be too politically charged to indict him before the election. If the shoe was on the other foot does anyone doubt that that he’d be in prison a long time ago?
FWIW, Dan Bice has a piece this morning that explores some of these issues.
and this
Maybe that’s the thing about Falk that’s turning grassroots folks away–the big money, pre-planned extravaganza that glibly presents Falk as the Democratic presumptive nominee. It makes sense. After all the recall has as much to do with the slick big money backers of Walker as it does with Walker himself.
“To top it off, Walker then said on a Milwaukee radio show what many Democrats and Republicans have concluded: Falk is clearly the weaker of the two top Democrats.”
If anyone thinks that Scott Walker would go on a radio show andsay that Kathleen Falk is the weakest candidate because he wants a fair fight against our best is seriously mistaken. Walker is not believed on anything he says by the left and he says this and everyone jumps up and believes him?
Walker calling Falk the weakest candidate makes my point.
The defense rests. No further witnesses your Honor!
If I recall, Walker went on the radio and said he’d prefer a race against Kathleen Falk because she was the weakest candidate; he didn’t say he’d prefer to face Barrett.
If you’re going to “rest your case,” at least try to present the best possible argument first.
That is my case if walker is saying she is the weakest….that means she is the strongest. Walker is a horrendous Gov but a political machine. Of course he wants to run against Barrett.