Scott Walker seems boring and mediocre to me

[Matty]

It's easy to win at the state level by being boring and unexciting, as long as you localize the issues (residents are a lot more wonky and knowledgeable about their own state's finances than the nation's). That is Walker's winning formula. It will not win on the national level. You need charisma and emotion and the ability to sell empty platitudes with a rhetorical voice that reaches the heavens, and walker doesn't have that.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, I agree. He's basically Pawlenty/Mitch Daniels/etc. 2.0.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Is there anything really backing up Walker besides "muh blue/swing state winner" and MAYBE "muh anti-progressivism"?

[politicus]

Would Walker being a college dropout be a net negative? There haven't been many (if any?) presidential candidates for a major party without a degree (or officer training) in the last 60 years.

[retromike22]

But he's so SOOTHING!

[Ljube]

College dropout is a net positive. People who care about that aren't going to vote Republican anyway.

Being bland is not so bad. People can relate to him and he can come across as a regular guy, in contrast to 1%-er Hillary.


Weak on foreign policy is negative, so he’s going to have to improve his credentials in that respect.

[pbrower2a]

The Koch syndicate. That may be all that he needs.

[Mehmentum]

I think Walker is overrated on this site.

He has a lot of competition from Christie and Bush to be the establishment candidate, except he's blander than Christie and doesn't have Bush's family name.

That's not to say he can't win, its just he has some significant obstacles to overcome.

[King]

Scott Walker's too dopey looking. Could you honestly look at this face and feel like you're looking at the leader of the free world?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Unions hate him. That's pretty much his entire appeal.

[Lief 🗽]

Unions hate him. That's pretty much his entire appeal.

But unions also hate Christie and Christie is actually charismatic.

[Bigby]

Scott Walker's too dopey looking. Could you honestly look at this face and feel like you're looking at the leader of the free world?

Hey, at least he looks calm.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Scott Walker's too dopey looking. Could you honestly look at this face and feel like you're looking at the leader of the free world?

Hey, at least he looks calm.

Well, for the FOX News crowd that's a negative. They want somebody who froths from the mouth.

[Suburbia]

Boring may be better in 2016. Some people think that Walker is a lightweight.  He didnt seem so on Sunday.

[Rockefeller GOP]

College dropout is a net positive. People who care about that aren't going to vote Republican anyway.

Being bland is not so bad. People can relate to him and he can come across as a regular guy, in contrast to 1%-er Hillary.


Weak on foreign policy is negative, so he’s going to have to improve his credentials in that respect.

This is the most unfounded and elitist post I've seen today.  You paint Republican voters as these uneducated yokels and Democrats as educated and affluent.  Jeez, dude, let's look at some 2014 exit polls:

No High School: 54% Dem, 44% GOP
Some College: 54% GOP, 44% Dem
College Graduate: 54% GOP, 44% Dem
Post-Grad: 53% Dem (Congrats, a bunch of philosophy majors who realized they had to go to law school! )
All College Grads: 50% GOP, 47% Dem
White College Grads: 57% GOP, 43% Dem

Under $30k: 59% Dem, 39% GOP
$30-$50k: 51% Dem, 47% GOP
$50-$100k: 55% GOP, 44% Dem
$100-$200k: 57% GOP, 41% Dem
Over $200k: 57% GOP, 42% Dem

Unmarried: 55% Dem, 42% GOP
Married: 58% GOP, 40% Dem

Not fully employed: 50% GOP, 48% Dem
Full-Time Work: 54% GOP, 44% Dem

Those stats show Republican voters as being more affluent, and the college educated vote going Republican.  When you hold race constant (the GOP has its own problems there), the gap widens.  Do Democrats win the post-grad vote?  Sure.  I'd argue that has to do a lot with your major (think of the majors that almost require post grad education - PoliSci, philosophy, history, education, liberal arts stuff, etc. and then those that really don't like accounting, finance, marketing, engineering, etc.), but even if it's not, Democrats still win the least educated as well.

Basically, your post makes no sense and your reasoning was probably a self-inflated view of your own political leanings.

[Lief 🗽]

hey, screw you, some of us were history majors who realized we had to go to law school

[MurrayBannerman]

I don't understand faulting a guy who realized that the opportunity cost of taking a job offer was better than finishing his degree.

[Deus Naturae]

College dropout is a net positive. People who care about that aren't going to vote Republican anyway.

Being bland is not so bad. People can relate to him and he can come across as a regular guy, in contrast to 1%-er Hillary.


Weak on foreign policy is negative, so he’s going to have to improve his credentials in that respect.

This is the most unfounded and elitist post I've seen today.  You paint Republican voters as these uneducated yokels and Democrats as educated and affluent. 

So...you're offended that he suggested that Republicans wouldn't be snobby enough to vote against someone for not having a college degree?

[dmmidmi]

Unions hate him. That's pretty much his entire appeal.

But unions also hate Christie and Christie is actually charismatic.

Which is why Chris Christie is infinitely more electable than Scott Walker.

[eric82oslo]

Unions hate him. That's pretty much his entire appeal.

But unions also hate Christie and Christie is actually charismatic.

Which is why Chris Christie is infinitely more electable than Scott Walker.

Anyone not seeing this must be mad in my opinion. Even with Bridgegate, Christie is still a trillion times more electable nationally than Walker will ever be. To even ever be considered for the highest, most prestigious job in the world, you first need to adopt a personality. There was a reason why Bob Dole never stood a chance to win the office; he simply had no personality whatsoever. In my opinion, Walker doesn't have any more personality nor charisma than Bob Dole had.

[Brittain33]

I don't know, "boring" could be the Republicans' ace in the hole against Hillary. Anyone who's too high-energy is going to step onto a verbal landmine when running against her otherwise.

[Rockefeller GOP]

College dropout is a net positive. People who care about that aren't going to vote Republican anyway.

Being bland is not so bad. People can relate to him and he can come across as a regular guy, in contrast to 1%-er Hillary.


Weak on foreign policy is negative, so he’s going to have to improve his credentials in that respect.

This is the most unfounded and elitist post I've seen today.  You paint Republican voters as these uneducated yokels and Democrats as educated and affluent. 

So...you're offended that he suggested that Republicans wouldn't be snobby enough to vote against someone for not having a college degree?

Haha, no, he just seemed to be suggesting this class divide between Democratic and Republican voters that doesn't seem to exist, and if it does exist, it's the other way around from what he insinuated.

[Rockefeller GOP]

hey, screw you, some of us were history majors who realized we had to go to law school

Haha, definitely not hating on those folks - some of them are my closest friends.  I'm simply pointing out that maybe that is a more reasonable explanation for voters getting more Republican as their education increases but then sharply turning Democratic after a master's is thrown in.

[Bull Moose Base]

Dole didn't lose because he was boring. The only one who arguably did was Gore, who got more votes than the folksy Bush. Not persuaded personality make a huge difference in the general. Or even the primary. McCain beat Huckabee and Giuliani after all. Walker can win as well.

I'd guess the jump from college degree to graduate degree filters out a lot of people who reject science and evidence-based reasoning, hence Democrats winning them.

[BaconBacon96]

Eh, you aren't wrong. Walker's problem to me is he is too generic and doesn't have an interesting story or much charisma.