Don't Let The Media Spin Away Scott Walker's Victory

Congratulations to Scott Walker for a decisive recall election victory!

Here we are on the day after the recall election and as the dust settles, the media tornadoes are kicking it up again. The liberal media truly seemed prepared for this. They were making claims and publishing headlines well before the polls even opened. It's as if they knew Walker would win (pretty much every poll confirmed this), and they were ready with the follow-up spin. As expected, they now highlight and broadcast a hot-button issue and one that played an important roll in this election: campaign finance.

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/politics/wisconsin-recall-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

          - "Unions pointed to Walker supporters' outspending his opponents by a more than 7-1 margin, 70% of it from outside the state."

From The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/scott-walker-recall-election-results_n_1572532.html

          - "Republicans poured $45.6 million into the election and Democrats spent $17.9 million. The cash disparity was even greater when comparing what the two campaigns raised, without factoring in all the outside cash: Walker had a nearly eight-to-one advantage."

These are just a few arguments being made. Regardless, don't let the liberal media spin this victory away from Scott Walker, and certainly don't let them point to the money spent as being the main cause. 

Let's look at the results (click image for pop-up view): 

Source: Wikipedia

Some key data points stand out: 

- Voter turnout increased almost 16% from 2010.
- Walker's vote total increased by 17.9% while Barrett's increased by 15.34%.
- Walker's percent of total votes earned increased by 1.67% while Barrett's decreased by 0.54%. 
- Out of the 344,771 new votes cast, Walker picked up 58.63% while Barrett picked up 44.68%. 

Now the big question is: WHY?

The left is already pointing to the money raised and spent by the Walker campaign. I think this is a fundamentally flawed argument for a couple reasons: 

1 - The main reason: According to CNN exit polls aired during their election coverage last night, 88% of voters made their mind up before May. Only 5% of voters made their decision in May, 4% picked within the last week, and 3% picked their candidate on the day of the election. What does this mean? Well, considering most campaign spending, get-out-the-vote initiatives, and efforts of the like were conducted in the last week, most of it seemed moot. Voters had, for the most part, decided who they were voting for regardless of the money that was spent. Either way, let's do some math:

- We will assume the 4% that picked last week does not include (though I think it does, but we will let it go), the 3% that picked on election day. This is a total of 7% of voters who decided within a week of the election. 7% of the vote (2,503,745) is 175,262 voters. Let's now assume (because, as the left claims, heavy campaign spending pulled these voters to Walker) that a whopping 70% of these "decided within the last week" voters voted last night for Walker and only 30% voted for Barrett. If we flip the numbers (let's make that 175,262 have a 70% vote rate for Barrett and only a 30% vote rate for Walker instead), Walker would still have won 50.4% to 49.1% (1,260,971 to 1,228,442). The numbers don't lie. 

2 - The smaller but still significant reasons: 

A. Walker ran a campaign in 2010 and told the people what he would do. He did what he said he would do, and many people respect that in a politician.
B. Wisconsin is in better shape financially under Walker.
C. Unemployment in WI has improved, and it has done so at a rate that is equal to or slightly better than the US average.
D. 36% of voters who were in a union STILL VOTED FOR WALKER. Liberal pundit Paul Begala equated this to "the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders."

All these points paint a compelling case for why Walker won. It truly appears that money did not play a roll in this election as much as the left likes to claim it did. I do want to point out another fact as well: no one stopped the left from raising and spending campaign money. No one. They could have done it if they wanted to. They didn't. It was probably a smart, calculated move, too. Even though the left claims elections are "bankrolled by Wall Street and GOP billionaires," Obama and the democrats have taken more donations from Wall Street than the GOP, and for every Sheldon Adelson out there on the right exists a George Soros (and hundreds of Hollywood types, too) on the left. But yes, I think this was a calculated move. Why would anyone pour money and resources into a race where there wasn't a single poll showing Barrett would win? Even the liberal polling company PPP had Walker besting Barrett by 3 in the finals days up to the election. To not raise and spend more money was actually a smart move by the democrats. 

Lastly, I find it odd that liberals complain about the spending in this election when their president claims he will have a billion dollar campaign and is currently out-raising Mitt Romney nearly 7 to 1. Ohh, I get it! It's okay to have $15 million celebrity dinners and $40k per plate fundraisers (6 in one day) when it helps your guy, but if the other side plays the same game, it's a crime, huh? I see the left's logic now . Okay, I'm being facetious, but yes, in all honesty, to complain about the financing in this campaign, in my opinion, is silly. I think Obama didn't step foot in Wisconsin for a reason: he knew campaign finance would be an issue, he knew his horse was going to lose, democrats were discouraged from spending gobs of money, and between now and November, his campaign will have to play the exact same game. He didn't want to be associated with a group that is railing against campaign finance when he himself would be playing the game. I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.