Why President Obama didn't get involved in Wisconsin: He's smart

[Freddie Stubbs]

From the beginning, the recall was doomed to failure.

The only time that a governor was recently recalled was Gray Davis of California in 2003. Davis was widely unpopular with voters. Walker was unpopular with Democratic voters, but not with voters as a whole.

Wisconsin Democrats assumed that since they didn't like Walker, most voters felt the same.

Democrats in DC like President Obama were smart enough to see this, and did not encourage WI Democrats to go down this path. Rather than throw money and political capital at this futile effort, they did the bare minimum.

[nanabugg]

1. +1,000,000! nt

[CTyankee]

2. There is obviously truth to that. It's what happened.

I'm wondering what will happen if this thing shakes out to affecting the non-union, non-Dem voters during the remainder of Walker's term (if he escapes criminal charges/certain conviction). Walker might resign if things get hotter against him in the criminal investigation. Of course, his Lt. Gov. would then take over and (doubtless) continue his agenda. The next shot for a progressive getting in would then be in the next election.

[upaloopa]

3. Davis was elected by the voters. Enron caused blackouts and raised the price of electricity and

Davis was blamed even though he tried to prevent the manipulation by Enron.

The recall was started by Issa and was a right wing attempt to put a hard right Governor in Sacramento.

It failed in that the got Arnold instead of the person they wanted.

[Nye Bevan]

4. This reminds me of how many DUers argued that Obama was right to not endorse gay marriage.

They said it was a vote loser, it's more important for him to be re-elected, etc. Of course what they were missing is the President's ability to move and shape public opinion, which I sometimes think even Obama himself underestimates. I think we are seeing that effect now that the President has come aboard on marriage equality, and I think he could have made a real difference in Wisconsin.

[joeybee12]

6. I agree...

I do think unseating Walker was an uphill battle, but by not getting involved Obama has shown--yet again--he has no fight in him. We're doomed in November because of that.

[leftynyc]

31. The man who beat

the Clinton machine has no fight in him? Seriously? Perhaps there is a difference between being a candidate and a President who actually has to govern. Nah - must be something more sinister.

[sendero]

42. He didn't beat "the Clinton machine".

.... he beat Hillary Clinton who, despite your beliefs, is hated on the right and not particularly loved on in significant portions of the left. In other words, she had a LOT of baggage.

I'm not sure I agree with the OP at all. This seems typical of Obama, if it is not a sure thing, he's out. What kind of leadership is that? Did the OP ever think that his involvement could have enabled a win in a close race?

There are two sides here, and as I said, Obama only wants sure things, he is not willing to put it on the line and fight, ever. Y'all might think this is a good thing, I do not.

[Pisces]

43. Yes, like killing Osama was a sure thing?? Your post is ridiculous. It's called not losing political

capitol in an election year. Or inspiring any republicans that would vote with unions to go the other direction just because Obama was involved. Obama Derangement Syndrome is a real disease that strikes many even on this board.

[sendero]

45. Killing Osama is fine.

.... but it did nothing and I MEAN NOTHING to help the average American. And while I'm at it, just who did he fight with over this? It was a private decision made by him upon advice from his people. He FOUGHT no one.

Taking a risk is not the same thing as fighting. Just so you know.

[leftynyc]

44. The entire Democratic establishment was

behind Hillary Clinton (full disclosure - was, am now and will always be a big fan of Hillary - she got my vote for Senator and in the NY primary for 2008). It was truly stunning to watch her get beat but the minute she suspended her campaign I was all in for Pres Obama. I never did understand those wars on this board at the time. They were practically the same candidate. Those who feel let down by Pres Obama not being more liberal were not paying attention during the campaign.

[sendero]

46. HRC...

..... is certainly no more liberal on economic matters than Obama, but there is a difference in that if she believed in something she would go to the mat for it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. He is a lightning rod and may have made things worse

[Nye Bevan]

8. He is a highly gifted, charismatic and persuasive politician

who I really believe could have made a difference.

I think you underestimate him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. How effective was he in influencing the 2010 midterm elections?

[jeff47]

19. The difference is Obama showed up in WI in 2010. It didn't help then.

So why would it help now?

[Nye Bevan]

21. How do you know it didn't help?

How do you know what the result would have been if he had not shown up?

[jeff47]

23. Uh....because we know the result of the 2010 election?

Polling showed he failed to provide a bump for the candidates he supported. They then lost in November.

[Gman]

5. There's a general rule in politics

That you don't get involved in down-ballot races. Obama was very smart to follow it.

[GeorgeGist]

9. I don't believe that Obama is bold enough to win re-election.

If true, smarts are irrelevant.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. He is leading in every current poll

[magical thyme]

10. if Obama wants revolution, direct confrontation is not how he would go for it

Obama is not a revolutionary. I don't know if he wants to be transformational or not. And if he does, I don't know what his true vision is.

But if he wants transformation, he will have already planted the seeds for it in his first administration and will not fight hard for it until the second.

Because he has demonstrated that his is cautious and strategic in his thinking. He looks at upside and downside, and favors choices that limit the downside.

Wisconsin dems chose to make the recall a battleground, not Obama. It was just not part of his long-term strategy, and he does think and act long term.

[mmonk]

11. It was political calculation.

Time will show whether it was the right one. There is logic in it. There is also logic in the Truman style. He could have spelled out the issues and the movement that has created our present do nothing Congress and helped people connect the dots. Higher risk but higher reward.

[wendylaroux]

12. ANYTHING Pres. Obama supports

will be fought even harder against by the repugs. They have the money/power to crush anything.

[earthside]

13. Yesterday it was 'On Wisconsin!' ....

... today it's 'To hell with Wisconsin!'

The quick turnabout here at DU is a wonder behold.

But to the question: Why President Obama didn't get involved in Wisconsin?

Because he is what he is -- he is 'no drama Obama'; he is the "can't we all just get along" president; he is the 'offer your final position first negotiator'.

If the national Democrats and the Democratic Governors Association had actually engaged in Wisconsin, then they would have had pro-recall ads on the air as long as Walker had -- since last November -- then the Democratic nominee for governor probably would have won.

However, the thing that should most concern Democrats and Obama supporters (besides the 'Citizens United' BIG money that is going to wash over us) is the aloof, restrained and somewhat incoherent message I am beginning to see out of the Obama campaign.

The Wisconsin results are going to be a heavy demoralizing blow for many progressive activists -- I know this won't be popular to say, but Pres. Obama's reelection chances did take a hit and the Repuglican propaganda machine got a big injection of 'enthusiasm' juice because of this fiasco.

And now saying that the recall effort was doomed from the beginning and that the recall was a mistake and that it just doesn't matter is burying your head in the sand.

[Arkana]

14. I disagree. I think with the right candidate, like Russ Feingold or Peter Barca,

that the recall could have succeeded.

[frazzled]

40. Russ Feingold was not elected by Wisconsin voters less than two years ago

He lost to a right-wing Republican.

What makes you think everyone in WI is progressive? It's a state with a population of 5.7 million. There are 229,000 people in Madison.

[Marrah_G]

16. For once I would love to be able to vote for someone who would just do the right thing

And do it just because it was the right thing to do.

Sadly, I doubt that day will ever come.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. It didn't work.

The recall failed and the media is treating it as a referendum on Obama.

[jeff47]

18. No, he didn't get involved because he got involved in 2010.

His involvement didn't help in 2010. There's little reason to think it would help during the recall.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. It says a lot about a candidate who favors political expediency over doing what's right.

See the escalation of the lost war in Afghanistan for previous example.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. This was an example political expediency over political stupidity

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Will Obama say that? "I think it's stupid to support Democrats running for office."

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. No, but his actions say that

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. They certainly say he's an ambitious centrist politician.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. And that has worked out pretty well for him

[Bake]

27. So our Prez is merely a political calculator?

Wow. What a statesman.

Or not.

I usually support Pres. Obama to the hilt. But today I am angry and disappointed. He calculated that this fight was a loser, so he cut Wisconsin loose. Way to go.

Bake

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. He didn't get to where he is without a certain amount Realpolitik

[Robb]

30. Wait, wait, wait...

I usually support Pres. Obama to the hilt. But today I am angry and disappointed. He calculated that this fight was a loser, so he cut Wisconsin loose. Way to go.

What's your definition of supporting the President "to the hilt"?

[Bake]

33. That was in August 2011. This is June.

Since then, I've made peace with my previous concerns and have been pretty vocal about my support for the President's re-election here. You had to go back almost a year to dig up the "Caver in Chief" posts. Nice job.

But you ignored all the more recent stuff. Try being honest next time.

Bake

[polichick]

38. Remember Rev. Wright and Van Jones...

The president is a politician - cutting people loose comes naturally.

[Happydayz]

32. Once again folks, you can't have it both ways

Obama campaigned heavily for Martha Coakley and other dems in 2010, but when she lost to Scott Brown, it was hailed as a referendum on Obama. Dems were disappointed and rethugs rejoiced. Why can't dems like Gore, Biden and Clinton etc campaign for these local dems. The president shouldn't involve himself in a local election, especially during a presidential election year. It look bad and media will tie him to the loser, that's not a good look during an election year. Especially, when majority of WI voters, didn't even want a recall. Also, maybe some these dem candidates just suck and aren't good at campaigning for themselves. Oh never mind, its more convenient to just blame Obama for their failures.smh

[Bake]

34. Martha Coakley was a HORRIBLE candidate!

And THAT is why we lost that seat!

Bake

[Happydayz]

36. Maybe, but the same thing could be said of Tom Barrett

and other dems who lose. If Obama were to lose in Nov(perish the thought) I would expect full blame to be at the feet of Obama. Because I believe many would blame his endorsement of gay marriage, rethug obstructionist, the Krotch brother etc. No, full blame goes to whoever lost the damn election. That's why its asinine for folks to blame President Obama for Tom Barrett's loss.

[Bake]

39. You may well be right, and if so, good point.

But as bad as Coakley? I rather doubt it. But I must admit that I don't know a whole lot about Barrett.



Bake

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. He wasn't the only Democrat to lose

Ever hear of a guy named Russ Feingold?

[Logical]

35. Lol, you must be able to redict the future! What a joke!

[inwiththenew]

37. He saw the writing on the wall

He knew that this thing was going to go down in flames whether he got behind it or not. No sense in exposing himself to an embarrassment that the repukes would run with in an election year. You've got to know when to hold and know when to fold.