Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But he said in an interview this week that any “serious” candidate for the Republican presidential nomination has to join the race by the middle of this year. Although Walker stopped short of declaring his candidacy, he sounded like a politician who has decided to run.
It appears he's not quite yet at the stage of Jeb Bush, who is a virtual certainty to run, but Walker is definitely leaning towards 'yes.'
I could easily see him becoming the nominee. He's popular among the conservative base. Limbaugh loves him. But Walker doesn't have the image of being a bomb-thrower as some others on the right. He won in traditionally Democratic Wisconsin (52.8-46.1 for Obama over Romney). He proved his ability as a tactician and leader, in taking on public sector union interests.
I see the problem of public sector unions as a great problem of our time that doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. Public sector unions have greatly damaged both our education system and our criminal justice (police) system.
As late as 1959 George Meany of the AFL-CIO said "It is impossible to bargain collectively with government." Now over half of union members are government workers. By pouring money into politics, the public sector unions ensure that the very politicians who negotiate their contracts are beholden to them. It's essentially a kickback scheme.
We have an anti-tax activist in my state who often runs ballot measures. His ideas have proven popular, but he is always outspent anywhere from 10-1 to 80-1 in campaign spending. The bulk of the money opposing him always comes from public sector unions. This has transformed our politics in the last 40 years, and has a lot to do with the unending growth of government. And as Mia Love says, when government gets bigger, individuals get smaller.
At the risk of stirring the pot, Walker's appeal among conservatives seems rooted in two facts: i.) he won multiple elections in a historically blue state; and ii.) he took on organized labor and prevailed. The former is certainly relevant with respect to Walker's potential as a presidential candidate. However, in the case of the latter, is Act 10 a significant achievement by its own merits, or simply as a feel-good tribal victory? Because Wisconsin isn't Illinois or Kansas -- its public pensions are among the best-funded in the nation, and have been for more than a decade. Walker's reforms, consequently, won't mean a great deal to the future of his state.
Which leaves the Governor's economic record, which has remained subpar in terms of job creation, income growth, GDP expansion, etc. Additionally, the state of Wisconsin is facing a sizable deficit despite the improved national economy.
So my suggestion is this: ditch Walker in favor of Ohio Governor John Kasich. Ohio has seen much more dramatic economic improvement, and the state budget is currently in the black. Kasich, moreover, was reelected in a landslide (+30%), is far less controversial than Walker (no serious ethics allegations), and is a more polished public speaker to boot. Lastly, the country has grown so polarized it's not hard to imagine a state rejecting a ticket led by one of its natives (Paul Ryan's presence made no difference in Wisconsin in 2012). So a closer (and more valuable) state, like Ohio, is probably a better bet.
His purpose in the race would be not to win, but to shoot down the others, while embarrassing himself on a grand stage where he doesn't belong. This simpleton should stay confined to Wisconsin.
At the risk of stirring the pot, Walker's appeal among conservatives seems rooted in two facts: i.) he won multiple elections in a historically blue state; and ii.) he took on organized labor and prevailed. The former is certainly relevant with respect to Walker's potential as a presidential candidate. However, in the case of the latter, is Act 10 a significant achievement by its own merits, or simply as a feel-good tribal victory? Because Wisconsin isn't Illinois or Kansas -- its public pensions are among the best-funded in the nation, and have been for more than a decade. Walker's reforms, consequently, won't mean a great deal to the future of his state.
Which leaves the Governor's economic record, which has remained subpar in terms of job creation, income growth, GDP expansion, etc. Additionally, the state of Wisconsin is facing a sizable deficit despite the improved national economy.
So my suggestion is this: ditch Walker in favor of Ohio Governor John Kasich. Ohio has seen much more dramatic economic improvement, and the state budget is currently in the black. Kasich, moreover, was reelected in a landslide (+30%), is far less controversial than Walker (no serious ethics allegations), and is a more polished public speaker to boot. Lastly, the country has grown so polarized it's not hard to imagine a state rejecting a ticket led by one of its natives (Paul Ryan's presence made no difference in Wisconsin in 2012). So a closer (and more valuable) state, like Ohio, is probably a better bet.
I think that Walker's been a great governor, but I don't think that he can be elected president because his zero charisma unfortunately makes a big difference with many idiot voters who care about image. Walker certainly has a strong chance to win the nomination, however, because he is the only candidate who can unite the far-right and center-right wings of the party.
Kasich has also been a great governor, but he unfortunately would get nowhere in a GOP primary. And if Bush or Christie (or even Walker, for that matter) is the GOP nominee, I believe that the party is favored to win OH in 2016. (The state leans slightly Republican at the presidential level, Obama's 2012 margin of victory in that state was less than what many polls predicted, and I think that Romney would have won OH had he not been opposed to the auto bailout.) Therefore, I think that Walker would be the ideal choice for VP, because he could help Bush or Christie carry WI (and the less liberal IA). (Regarding your point about Ryan being unable to make much of a difference in WI, all I have to say is that Ryan represents a Congressional District that is only 1/8 of the entire state, so it was unrealistic to assume that he could bring WI into the GOP column. On the other hand, Walker has won three statewide elections in WI.)
I think that Walker's been a great governor, but I don't think that he can be elected president because his zero charisma unfortunately makes a big difference with many idiot voters who care about image. Walker certainly has a strong chance to win the nomination, however, because he is the only candidate who can unite the far-right and center-right wings of the party.
Romney was also the Republican governor of a state for more blue than WI, and look what happened to him. It's absolutely true on the level of personal appeal he doesn't to much to improve Republican chances in the POTUS. He's just another milquetoast Republican who won't appeal much to minorities, women, or young voters. Then again, who do they really have with broad appeal? Maybe Christi and Jeb (though that's probably a stretch), but I don't see any prominent contenders who'll be generate much enthusiasm beyond the base.
Romney was also the Republican governor of a state for more blue than WI, and look what happened to him. It's absolutely true on the level of personal appeal he doesn't to much to improve Republican chances in the POTUS. He's just another milquetoast Republican who won't appeal much to minorities, women, or young voters. Then again, who do they really have with broad appeal? Maybe Christi and Jeb (though that's probably a stretch), but I don't see any prominent contenders who'll be generate much enthusiasm beyond the base.
Hillary also has zero charisma, as much as partisan Democrats don't want to admit it. How exactly will she appeal to minorities or young voters beyond how any other cookie-cutter Democrat could? And women aren't monolithic, so it is foolish to assume an Obama effect with them. Furthermore, polls at this time showing her far ahead of her GOP competiton are almost meaningless. (And for that matter, so are polls showing Bush ahead of the GOP field.) These early polls always reward those with the highest name recognition. That is why Hillary and Giuliani were at the top of their primary polls back in January 2007.
Hillary also has zero charisma, as much as partisan Democrats don't want to admit it. How exactly will she appeal to minorities or young voters beyond how any other cookie-cutter Democrat could? And women aren't monolithic, so it is foolish to assume an Obama effect with them. Furthermore, polls at this time showing her far ahead of her GOP competiton are almost meaningless. (And for that matter, so are polls showing Bush ahead of the GOP field.) These early polls always reward those with the highest name recognition. That is why Hillary and Giuliani were at the top of their primary polls back in January 2007.
For the umpteenth time, she has name recognition, and Democrats can get away with a personally bland candidate because demographics are so strongly in their favor. Early polls show her to be an overwhelming favorite: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race
All Walker has to do is change his first name to Johnny and he will win low information voters in a landslide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
