There has been a lot of discussion surrounding Scott Walker's win in Wisconsin. Most of the political cognoscenti have argued that his convincing victory constitutes a triumph for conservatives and a monumental defeat for public sector unions. However, this interpretation of the results is fallacious. In fact, Walker's win signifies a victory for the public sector unions. This idea is counterintuitive and not reported in the media.
1. Barrett did not discuss collective bargaining and union rights during the campaign.
It is important to note that Barrett did not run his campaign centered on a platform on union rights. Instead, he chose (particularly in the later months) to focus on his vision and other parts of Walker, not Wisconsin Act 10 and Walker's reforms to the structure of government, which included collective bargaining restrictions. He mentioned how he was not the choice of the unions in the primary and repeatably pointed out that Kathleen Falk, his primary choice, was. He also mentioned how he would be a "tough negotiator" with unions. My theory is this: if he had talked more about the union rights, he may have won more votes. Remember, the recall was originally about union rights!
2. Union turnout in the election increased. Union households comprised a greater percentage of the electorate than they did in 2010.
Explain to me this simple questions: how could organized labor be losing strength is they increased the number of voters brought to the polls? Answer: they are not losing strength.
3. Other governors now fear restricting collective bargaining privileges because of the threat of recall.
While Walker won, he had to campaign, raise extra, money, and had to deal with the hassle and fear of losing office. This will discourage other governors from following in his footsteps because of the distraction it took away from his agenda and the time it took to run a race. The media has reported this may embolden conservative governors; I think the recall as a whole does the opposite.
4. He only needed four more points to win, even after being outspent enormously.
Walker won by 7 points, 53% to 46%. However, Barrett would not have needed 7% to win. Instead, he would need 4% and a little to tie the win 50.001% to 49.999. This analysis indicates that despite being heavily outspent, he kept it relatively close (a 4 point margin).
4:21 PM PT: Update: I wanted to add that it is important that we, as progressives, fight back against the narrative started by Fox/conservative media conglomerates. Please spread the word and tell your friends.