What the Wisconsin Recall Election Means

Governor Walker of Wisconsin became the first governor in U.S. History to survive a recall election last night.  By a margin of 53% to 46%, a margin almost identical to the margin of the 2010 gubernatorial contest between the same two candidates, Governor Walker retained his office as Governor.  This may have been a local statewide election in Wisconsin, but does is it a preview of things to come in the November general election?

According to today’s Morning Bell (1), “…reformers who come armed with the strength of their convictions can carry the day–even against mobs, labor unions, Hollywood, the media, academia, and everything else the left throws up these days. All reformers need to do is lead.”  Many believe this is a message to those unhappy with the current direction of our country that if they remain committed to their convictions and do not waiver, they can defeat Obama, regain control of the Senate, and gain a greater majority in the House.  It also leads many to believe that Labor Unions may talk big but are actually a paper tiger when it comes to winning elections. 

However, some also see this as only a local election that tells us little about how the electorate will vote as a whole in November.  Exit polling showed that “Just 27% said recall elections are appropriate for any reason (and Barrett won those folks, 90%-9%). By comparison, 60% said that recalls are legitimate only for official misconduct (and Walker won them, 68%-31%), while another 10% said recalls are never appropriate (and Walker won here, 94%-5%). Bottom line: Walker benefited greatly from the fact that many Wisconsin voters didn’t think the premise of last night’s recall was legitimate.” (2). 

In 2006, a war weary electorate upset with out of control spending gave control of the House and Senate back to the Democrats for the first time since 1994.  They then elected Barak Obama President believing that his message of hope and change was what the country needed.  However, after 3 ½ years in office, there is change but not the change the electorate was looking for.  Obamacare was forced down the country’s throat, the economy continues to falter, and cuts in the military have them feeling unsafe in the dangerous world that came to our doorstep on 9/11. 

In 2010, upset with the direction the democrats were taking the country in, the electorate returned control of the House to the Republicans and made gains in the Senate that took away the filibuster proof control the democrats had in the Senate.  Many believe that if groups like the tea party can continue to make their voices heard, the momentum of 2010 will carry forward to 2012.  In my opinion, the results in Wisconsin show that the electorate still dislikes the Obama version of change.  However, the electorate is fickle and can change as they did in 2006 and 2010.  Conservative and tea party groups need to keep up their grassroots efforts to ensure a massive turnout of conservative voters in the 2012 election.  The Wisconsin election showed that this strategy can be successful. 

Now, I need to know what you think.

1. Brownfield, Mike. Morning bell: A historic win for reform in Wisconsin. The Foundry. [Online] The Heritage Network, June 6, 2012. [Cited: June 6, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/06/morning-bell-a-historic-win-for-reform-in-wisconsin/.

2. Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, Brooke Brower. First thoujghts: Walker wins and labor loses. First Read. [Online] MSNBC, June 6, 2012. [Cited: June 6, 2012.] http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12084891-first-thoughts-walker-wins-and-labor-loses?lite?ocid=twitter.