In the permanent campaign of today’s brass knuckle politics, it means a happy day for Republicans and a downbeat day for Democrats.
But even if you only care about winning the next heavyweight contest, Wisconsin is a poor guide to future performance in November.
No question, Scott Walker’s win is a personal triumph. But it hardly makes his signature policies a template for conservatives across the country. In fact, Walker lost his claim to be a Reaganesque model for governors the moment the recall went ahead.
How’s that? In Walker’s case, the result of the recall marks the end of his old style of governing: he almost certainly managed to lose control of the state senate, which means the days are over when he could railroad through highly partisan legislation.
That change was already telegraphed by the style of his recall campaign. He hardly campaigned as a union-buster. In fact, his issues list starts with the jobs recovery in Wisconsin (led by manufacturing), continues with education reform, and goes on to the healthcare safety net that is Medicaid.
Any conservative governor considering a similar path now knows they run the serious risk of confronting a determined and organized opposition that costs tens of millions of dollars to defeat. Even if you can raise that kind of money from the Koch brothers and other super-wealthy ideologues, you’re still going to turn yourself into a divisive figure in a way that imperils the rest of your agenda.
And to what end? Labor unions are indeed more powerful in the public sector than their private counterparts. But that isn’t saying very much. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership represents close to 12 per cent of all workers, compared to 20 per cent in 1983, two years after Reagan took on the air traffic controllers. The decline in union membership since the post-war period has been unstoppable.
Public sector unions represent a lopsided 37 per cent of workers compared to about 7 per cent in the private sector. So Walker’s battle with those unions is indeed targeted at the labor movement’s last remaining sector of relative strength.
But let’s be honest: the biggest threat to public sector unions isn’t Walker or the Koch brothers or even Karl Rove, in their Ahab-style quest for the Great White Whale of a permanent majority. It’s the prospect of several years of budget cuts that are thinning out the ranks of teachers, first responders and government functionaries across the country – and much of Europe too, for that matter.
Unions remain a vital part of the Democratic coalition, and a vital source of protection for workers. But Barack Obama could never have won in 2008 by leaning heavily on the unions alone. His coalition was far broader and needs to remain broad if he is to win re-election this year.
That in part helps to explain why the Obama campaign can also take some comfort from the recall results. When exit polls give your candidate a 7-point margin over Mitt Romney, including a lead on the central question of the economy, that comfort is no small consolation.
Wisconsin showed that GOP voters remain organized and enthusiastic about voting, even if some of that fire has died since 2010.
But they have a presidential candidate in November whose message hardly tracks with Walker’s issues list. Romney’s approach to manufacturing jobs is muddied by his desire for Detroit to go bankrupt. His approach to education is to cut – and possibly eliminate or merge – the department of education. And his approach to healthcare is to avoid any discussion of his signature achievement in Massachusetts.
Obama’s exit poll numbers in Wisconsin points to a broader trend: the rebound in manufacturing means the rust belt states and districts are not likely to be the battlegrounds that matter in November. If you want to find those, you have to drive a long way from union strongholds. States like Virginia and North Carolina, not Wisconsin and Michigan, will surely decide 2012 and the president’s fate.
Richard Wolffe is an MSNBC Political Analyst, beloved NOWist, and author of Renegade: The Making of a President



Every liberal in your station was saying that a win by Walker would embolden other Republican Governors and Maddow, Schultz, Wagner, O'Donnell and Matthews were saying that this election would define the November election and how unions would be treated in the future. In addition to Walker winning, the cities of San Jose and San Diego passed stricter union restriction ballots then Wisconsin. Please do not spin things when you loose. Have the fortitude to admit when you are wrong and move on.
So your side was wrong when Obama was overwhelmingly elected and then chose to question whether he has a birth certificate (supported by a majority of Republicans before he officially, and regretfully, released it), and have since called him a Kenyan, Socialist, destroyer of America, etc. etc. So what was it by the people you mentioned above that they said that was misleading or "wrong"? It is their honest opinion of what happened and will happen. There is no spin there. I think you've confused yourself and need to learn definitions better. And by the way, it's "than Wisconsin" and not "then Wisconsin". See? Our education system is failing us and we need more funding for teachers, etc. Or, have some fortitude to admit when you're an idiot and move on.
When you don't earn from your mistakes, you repeat them. The Dems, in bringing in Ed "Middle Class" Schultz and Bill "Kill the New Deal" Clinton near the end made a CLEAR statement that this was exclusively about those still fortunate enough to have steady jobs AND be in the middle class. The post-middle class was pointedly, repeatedly shut out, in a state that has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Dems didn't want the votes of the poor. Again.
Ed Schultz is exactly right when he points to union households and voters (Republicans) voting against their own interests. Why? I saw some Republican talking head on CNN last night talking about all the free media the protests in Wis had when they first came about months ago. Well what is Fox News?! And that of course is a large part of the answer as to why people are voting against their own interests. They are being fed false and misleading information and falling in the trap of Fox, which is to pit one middle-class or poor American against the other, instead of us all banding together and forcing the elite to pay the majority and pay back a little of what America has given them! Stop voting against your own economic interests, people!
Fox and MSNBC both spin their opinions. Both political parties spin. For you to only accuse one side of doing is not very realistic. When you loose admit it and try to change it, spinning only make you look whinny.
MSNBC is a lefty leaning network, I have never said otherwise. But MSNBC does not willingly and purposely LIE to it's viewers as Fox does. We can look to example after example of Hannity, O'Reilly, their morning show, whatever program you like on Fox, and see a large history of lies and misinformation. I'll stay whinny, you stay ignorant.
If you believe that, I go a piece of land that I would like to sell you. Both stations do whatever is needed to get their point across. Their goal is not to inform but to increase their viewership, that is how they get advertisers. If any of their presenters loose ratings, they are gone. Whatever they tell you should fact check and you will find that most of the time they do not lie but instead they withhold facts that would allow to make an educated decision. They take thing out of context and interrupt guest that they not agree with.
You really do need to go back to school for grammar lessons. But I partly agree with you that you should fact check certain positions, which you might find questionable. So to you I would say, there is this thing called Google. I know how to use it - do you? Just Google "majority republicans believe obama" or any other combo you wish and you will see how misinformed your side is. Who is propagating that information? Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, and many others who you hero worship. It's fear bating and doing so very often with lies and misinformation. MSNBC certainly reports from a lefty perspective, but again, they don't lie and misinform their viewers. If so, you're welcome to share examples.
Thank you for the grammar comments. If you Google any television personality about whether they lie or not, you will find each side thinks the other one lies. You are entitled to your opinion, but not the facts.
Well that is your opinion, you have not provided any facts. I have ... 51% of Republicans believe Obama is not a citizen. Who propagates that misinformation and lie ... Fox News and your other buddies. That's a fact.
Union fees seem like an easy debate to overcome. Why not simply give the example of a lawyer. Would you ever go to court without a lawyer? No. Why? Because that lawyer is much better at defending you than you are. He or she will ensure that you get as much compensation and justice coming to you that you deserve. Do you have to pay the lawyer? Yes. But the fee is an investment and minimal compared to what you're given in return. A union is the same thing. A union fights for your rights and fights to get you as much compensation (pay, benefits, etc.) as they can ... for you. You can't do well on the stock exchange without first paying into it, you can't win the lottery without first buying a ticket ... it's the same for any investment. Why isn't this argument presented more often by the left or unions?