A Taste of Schadenfreude Dipped In The Finest Cheddar (Update)

(Updated see below)

The only shocking thing about Scott Walker dropping out tonight from the Republican 2016 Race To Trump is the timing.  Could have sworn the guy would at least try to last until Iowa made it official he wasn't winning.

We're talking about a candidate who started off with a lot of press coverage and cheerleading by the media elites and news channels.  Someone working with a double-digit percentage in the polls near equal to the Establishment front-runner in Jeb! Bush in around March to July.  Someone with an inside line to the deepest pockets in the SuperPAC environments with the Koch Brothers, who had a solid chance to ride free money all the way to Cleveland (even if he was losing).

We're talking about a candidate now who polls somewhere UNDER one percent and was reportedly having problems getting even the Koch Brothers to return his calls.

Part of me is wondering, by the way, if all this Citizens United super-funding isn't working the way people feared it would.  Or are we looking at the wrong numbers...?

Anyway.  Why did Walker fall?

Part of it was that Walker didn't deserve to be ranked so high in the first place.  Kind of like an overrated college football team like the 2007 Michigan Wolverines getting their ass stomped by Appalachian State.

Walker was loved by the punditry.  The likes of Bill Kristol sang his praises.  Larry Sabato's blog ranked him at the top of their candidates for awhile.  A lot of it had to do with how Walker fit their need for an "outsider" candidate - which Governors can be - who was still experienced as an elected official - again, which Governors can be.  Walker won a contested governorship in a Purple state (one that voted twice for Obama and can vote Democratic as well as Republican on how the state's fortunes are going), survived a recall effort that boosted his prestige among the Republican insiders, and fit the desired profile of a Midwestern "straight-talker" that the East Coast elites want in a boyfriend uh President.

However, as the pundits fell in love with Walker's resume, none of them really did the research on the guy to determine if he could win over, you know, the actual voters outside of his own comfort zone.

We're learning now about a weakness regarding Governor candidates in this particular Presidential election cycle.  Most of them benefited from winning Governorships in states and situations that were too easy for Republicans to win.

Let Jeb!? Bush be an example.  He may have won office in Florida in 1998 and 2002, but this was when the state was solidly conservative and likely to vote Republican in local elections no matter who or what was on the ballot.  When he ran a genuine contest against a popular and effective Democrat like Lawton Chiles in 1994, Jeb lost.  Winning in 1998 on the second try was such a gimme that he'd have had to actively campaign against himself to lose: not because he was popular but because Democrats just don't show up for the damn non-Presidential cycles.  We're talking about a state of Florida that freaking voted a goddamn MEDICARE FRAUD into the governor's seat.  Twice.  /headdesk

Okay, I digress.

Thing is, these "popular" governor figures that the Republican-leading media elites think are winners are only doing so in places where it'd have to take real effort to actually lose.  Governors in solid Red states - especially in the Deep South - benefit from skewed turnouts and enough voter support for the party line rather than any actual love by said voters.  Governors from Solid Red States like Louisiana (Hi, Bobby!) and Texas (Hi, Rick!), or Traditional Republican States like Ohio (Hi, Kasich!), or Purple-Toss Up States that they're catching on a rebound from a bad Democratic relationship like Joisey (Hi, Christie!) are finding to their horror that a laid-back campaign style in "safe" states that focus on limited issues does not translate to a more intense campaign style nationwide that requires more extreme pandering to the party base than they even expect at a state level.

And I'm not even mentioning the likes of Gilmore and Pataki who aren't even earning a percent of a percent worth caring about.

These Governors exist in a comfort zone - a bubble of their own at the state capitals - where they get their egos boosted into thinking "oh yeah, I'm good enough to win Florida/Wisconsin/Ohio/Texas/Louisina" that it makes them a winner nationwide.  Getting ego-stroked on the Fox Not-News channel by a punditry eager to find another "star" like Reagan to attach their fortunes to doesn't help.

When you look at how the Governor candidates for the Democrats are doing - Martin O'Malley is polling as bad as Walker was (which is close to zero), and about nobody is talking about Jim Webb or Lincoln Chafee - the same seems to go for them.

This isn't because it's a weak cycle for Governors.  That type of candidate tends to fare well running for President (I count off the top of my head about sixteen Presidents with governor experience).

This is because the candidates that are Governors from our modern political system are weak.  Benefiting from a polarized partisan environment that doesn't teach them such things as genuine office management, attention to details on the issues, and ability to connect with voters.  Those things used to matter at the state level to get voter turnout and good Governors.  Today...

Well today, we're seeing the quality of these Governors when they get outside their comfort zone.  It ain't pretty.

As another thought, the question with Walker departing is "wow, who benefits?"  Considering how few voters Walker is giving up, that part is moot.  What is up for grabs is the media attention from the GOP-friendly pundits: now that their horse is out of the race, which one are they betting on now?

What's really at stake - which remaining Establishment candidate in Jeb?, Rubio, Christie or Kasich can beat the Trump Anti-Establishment momentum - is still so.  Because the polling for Jeb* and Rubio and Christie and Kasich combined cannot put a dent in Trump right now.

Oh, and for Jeb no longer having an ! emphasizing his enthusiasm, until he can actually stump on the road with that level of oomph, he doesn't deserve an exclamation mark for his musical aspirations.

In the meantime, enjoy the schadenfreude.

P.S. It's incredible how the United Kingdom could come up with a single news cycle that could temporarily knock Trump off the news headlines for even a day.  But I guess something like having your Prime Minister get accused of oh I can't even write it here, it's too NSFW even for me would do it.  THAT, my friends, is how you serve the schadenfreude...

UPDATE: Digby's take on Walker's collapse in Salon this morning conveys exactly the problem the Republicans have with their punditry.  This constant desire to resurrect a new Reagan, a Rust Belt Midwestern figure whose genetic code hails from the blue-collar middle class of the mythic 1950s.  Even though that legend about Reagan - an Illinois-born actor whose ideology bore more relation to the West Coast conservatism - wasn't real to begin with.  As Digby notes:

...But while it’s true that the modern electoral map is very daunting for the GOP, they seem peculiarly fixated on this (Great Lakes/Midwest) region. Walker took the early lead in the Midwestern savior race, but for months people were also talking up Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and Indiana Governor Mike Pence as similarly excellent choices to lead the GOP out of the wilderness...

The sad fact is that Walker has been the most overrated politician in the country based largely upon the Republicans’ quixotic desire to find a leader who can put a respectable face on its increasingly disreputable base — and the media’s odd willingness to not believe what their eyes were telling them: that Walker was a terrible candidate. Like Pawlenty and Thompson before him, he may have looked good on a Power Point presentation, but in reality he showed few signs of life on the debate stage or on the stump...

And as Digby notes, the Republican elites still have a chance to indulge in this fetish: Kasich out of Ohio is still on the dead pool of non-Trump candidates.

More UPDATE: Gawker's All The Dumb Pundits Who Thought Scott Walker Could Be President

Update to the UPDATE: Going back and re-reading my own analysis of what Walker would be like as a nominee, even I bought into the myth of him being a potentially effective candidate.  I considered he'd be vulnerable on scandal charges, but I honestly thought Walker could appeal to the base as he had been polling near-even or above Jeb? before Trump entered the equation as a serious force.

GOP Crazy August 30 2015 Edition: Now Our Watch Begins

In the "Yes, Republicans Are Not Thinking Things Through" Dept., we've got this little thing about wall-building that the Far Right anti-immigrant nativist crowd thinks will solve all ills.

As though building a massive 1,500-mile-long border wall between the U.S. and Mexico will stop immigrants from even trying to enter.  Like previous walls were ever effective?  Ask the Chinese how effective the Great Wall (12,000 MILES!) was stopping the Mongol hordes (answer: not that well).  Ask the French if that Maginot Line ever worked out (nope).  Ask the Soviets if that Berlin Wall was good for anything other than incredible graffiti art on the Western side of it.

Build a 50-foot-tall wall and you're pretty much creating a market for 51-foot ladders (two-packs, one for each side to climb up and climb down).  That and a burgeoning tunnel industry.

And now, in order to match the "Trump's Wall" insanity of the 2015 round of GOP primaries, Scott Walker - desperate to fix falling numbers and regain a top spot in the polls - is pushing the nativist agenda to another conclusion: that we need to enforce the U.S. border with CANADA to stop the dreaded Canuck threat from the north, eh?

...Republicans typically take a tough approach on securing the southern border, but few have said a wall should also be built along the U.S.-Canada border.
Walker reasoned that it's about much more than building a wall, arguing, "It starts with securing the homeland."
"It wasn't just about building a wall and securing our borders," he said. "It was also about making sure our intelligence community has the ability for counterterrorism and the ability to go after the infrastructure they need to protect us."

Well, the Canada-United States border is the longest international border between two nations in the world at 5,500 miles long give or take a few meters in that evil metric system.  It's also one of the least-defended, as the United States and Canada have not been at war with each other since the 1870s.  I think.

Granted, Michael Moore - that librul! - has covered this idea before.  We've been inundated with Canadians for generations, with them taking our acting and singing jobs from us (damn us, KIRK IS CANADIAN!) at an alarming rate...

Still, when you consider what it is Walker is actually asking out of us, he's asking for Americans to build a massive ice wall designed to protect us from that most insidious threat from the North:

White Walkers.

Walker vs. Walkers.  Who would win?

To be honest, I doubt the Republican Party would carry through on ANY wall-building project for one simple reason.

Such a project would represent a massive government jobs program.  Even if they sub-contract it out to vendor corporations, such massive construction jobs thousands of miles long and with additional fortifications and barracks for security staff would cost into the hundreds of billions of dollars (just for Trump's Wall to the South).  Given that the Canadian border is three times longer...  Both walls would be a huge expense.  And while the Republicans are eager to waste billions on war, any project of this size would bring up the unavoidable question of who (taxes) would pay (taxes on the middle class and poor) for it (not the rich who will always get their tax cuts).

Predicting Character: The Wreckage of Scott Walker

It's a bit anti-climatic after all of the other names having jumped in, but Scott Walker made it official today.  To David Graham at The Atlantic, who's been tracking all of this on his Cheat Sheet:

In some ways, he seems like the perfect candidate for the 2016 field. He’s made his name battling unions and enacting conservative policies in Wisconsin, making him a darling of movement conservatives and Tea Partiers alike. His promise is that he can take that brand of effective nuts-and-bolts leadership and labor-busting national. (There’s a reason the AFL-CIO greeted his entry with disgust.) As a scrappy politician who clawed his way up through the ranks despite not having a college degree, he doesn’t come across as a moderate dynasty candidate like Jeb Bush. And as an executive who won three elections in four years, thanks to an unsuccessful recall attempt, he can sidestep the charges of youthful inexperience that have dogged Rubio. He is also reported to be the top choice—or a top choice—of the Koch brothers and their network of donors, who plan to spend nearly $1 billion this cycle.

Graham's take on Walker's chances are solid but unknown: he's considered a known quantity in Wisconsin but there's no idea how he'll play on a national stage.

I would beg to differ.

Walker can play well to the Republican voting base at the least.  And he's already proven he can convince enough Wisconsin voters to vote him back into the Governor's office, despite years of opponents howling and years of his own record of dubious actions.

Regarding Walker's biography, the key points are his college years and his governing years.  He attended Marquette and was politically active, running for student offices... but his major campaign for student president was messy and potentially law-breaking (although nothing came of it), and Walker soon left college without graduating (his critics say he was kicked out, but his story of leaving due to poor grades and better job opportunities does pan out).

As for his governing style, as both County Manager for Milwaukee County and as Governor of Wisconsin, he has developed a reputation for Uncompromising tactics.  He's also one for dismantling existing programs and trying to farm them out to private firms with little success or savings, a common trend among modern Republicans.

His not being known on the national stage as well as the other front runners (cough Jeb! and Trump cough) can be something of a boon: he can avoid his state record often enough to convince enough low-information voters he's more middle-of-the-road than other Republican candidates.  At least until it's too late.

With regards to how I'd state his biography clip here, trying to follow the rules Professor Barber set for determining Presidential Character:

Scott Walker - Governor, Wisconsin
Positives: Won election in a solidly Blue state multiple times - including a recall effort - demonstrating survival skill to a GOP voting base that would respect it.  Can govern.  Does not have the "crazy" credentials of other Republican front-runners, meaning he can pose as "moderate" when need be (like the general election).  Compared to the other big-name governors on the list - Jindal, Christie - Walker is a success story (although not by much).  Far Right Republicans will love his Union-busting record.  Among the major names, Walker is the one most likely to overcome front-runner Jeb Bush: Walker can well present a similar resume as Jeb's and NOT suffer the questioning - "Dynasticism?  Will he rule much like his failed brother W.?" - Jeb will likely get as a Bush.
Negatives: Does not have as strong a record running Wisconsin as he would present to the nation: there are already signs his economic and education policies are hurting.  Has little international skill sets, putting him at a disadvantage on foreign policy issues.  His biggest enemy - the Unions he's busted - may be weakened but they can still organize, and against him they will go all out.  He's still a key figure in an ongoing John Doe investigation that has already indicted various figures in Walker's administration/circle of allies, and has a troubling history of violating campaign laws (going all the way back to his college days).  Considering how hands-on Walker is with his campaigns, this is a serious weakness.
Chances: Walker has remarkably good odds (for the moment).  He has both solid ties to deep-pocket financiers like the Kochs, as well as a knack for appealing to average voters in his state (which might translate well at the national level).  As noted in his Positives, Walker has a remarkable advantage over Jeb Bush: he's not the brother of George W. Bush nor the son of Bush the Elder, which means he's not going to spend a lot of time defending his family's failures in the White House.  Of the top three "serious" candidates for the GOP - himself, Jeb, Rubio - Walker has the fewest hurdles to clear.  It's just that Walker has that John Doe investigation into campaign violations that's still on hold but due to get back to work, and with his history of self-managing his campaigns Walker can well face criminal charges any day now.
Character Chart: I will keep re-stating the obvious.  The modern Republican platforms of God, Guns, and Tax Cuts are so reactionary and self-serving that pretty much every possible candidate is going to trend Active-Negative.  Whatever Congenial trait Walker deploys is purely a feint: Like Huckabee, Walker's Aw-Shucks persona is just for show.  Walker's track record - pushing a defined political agenda without compromise, sticking to partisan talking points, expressing disdain for political offices he openly covets - does not point to someone with a Positive world-view of effective government.

To be honest, Walker scares me as much as any of the other 12 14 16 candidates on the Republican primary ticket.  What really worries me is that he's been able to sell himself as a winner and as a "reasonable" political figure at the state level when his office record shows nothing of the kind.  He can just as easily campaign like that to the average American voters just like he did in Wisconsin...