I don't need to tell anyone reading this how bitter a disappointment last year's recall result was. After the disappointment came reflection: we lost because the timing wasn't right, we lost because Tom Barrett was an uninspiring candidate, we lost because of Walker's bottomless pockets, we lost because there was only four weeks for Barrett to campaign directly against Walker, we lost because it was a recall and people don't like recalls.
It certainly would have been nice to have a Presidential turnout of Democratic voters to cast ballots for Governor as well (not that it was actually possible to control the timing that precisely). There's no question that pro-Walker forces' 3:1 spending advantage helped; that Walker's own campaign having a 8:1 advantage over Barrett's helped him present himself directly to camera more than a little frequently. Being in a position to one-sidedly blanket the airwaves for the previous 6 months to tell everyone that the recall provisions enshrined in our state constitution weren't the Wisconsin way of doing things certainly didn't hurt Walker's chances.
Those seem quite qualitative things: they made a difference, but just how big a difference is unclear. Some clarity perhaps on one of these after the fold...
Recall exit polling unsuprisingly tells us that Walker walked away with the 10% of voters for whom "recalls are never appropriate" and built a commanding margin of victory from another 60% who consider that recalls should only be for cases of misconduct. Pretty convincing that the fact it was a recall helped save Walker's bacon.
But what if it weren't a recall?
Everything else is the same: Walker gets 6 months of unanswered TV spots; he gets a massive cash advantage; he faces a 4 week campaign from Tom Barrett. Only this time the election is in November 2014.
An interlude about mortality
If you look at national census tables and weight by turnout, it appears that about 1.5% of voters die each and every year while teenagers turn 18 and net immigration happens. This inexorable turnover of the voting population favors Democrats in the long run as there's a strong anticorrelation between age and Democratic voting.
If you look at the 2012 Presidential exit polls, Obama won the 18-29 age group by 23 points and lost the over 65's by 12 points, a difference of 35 points. But in 2010 Barrett won the 18-29's by just 10 and lost the over 65's by 12, a difference of 22 points. In 2012 he won the 18-29's by 4 points and lost the over 64's by 12, a difference of just 16 points.
While the effect is still there, voter turnover by mortality isn't going to help Democrats in Wisconsin nearly as quickly as it does nationwide. Mortality in Wisconsin roughly amounts to replacing 10% of the Walker+12 over 64's with 10% of the Barrett+4 18-29's each year. That's about a 0.3% Democratic shift per year, or about 0.7% by the time of the 2014 elections.
An interlude about migration
In 2011, about 105,000 Wisconsinites moved out. That's about 1.8% of the population each year.
Who stayed at home?
Barrett received 1,004,303 votes in 2010. In the 19 months from then until the recall election, about 25,000 died and about 25,000 moved out of state. But we know from the exit polls that 34% of 2012 recall voters voted for him in 2010. That's 34% of 2,516,065 or 850,000.
The difference is 100,000. That's how many of Barrett's 2010 voters stayed away from polling places on June 5th, 2012. These people are normally diehard Dems: after all, they showed up in the 2010 midterms to vote for Barrett in a Republican wave year.
Who flipped their votes?
Of Barrett's 850,000 diehard Dem voters from 2010 who did vote in the recall, 6% (50,000) flipped and voted for Walker. It's hard to imagine that such diehard Dems would ever vote for a Republican, let alone one who'd blazed Walker's trail. So that's roughly how many voted against the recall with their ballots rather than their passivity.
Putting it all together
In the recall Walker received 1,335,585 votes to Barrett's 1,164,480. Because it was a recall, Walker received 50,000 more votes than he otherwise would have and Barrett 150,000 less. If it hadn't been a recall election, Walker would have had 1,285,585 votes to Barrett's 1,314,480 and lost by 1%. Demographic turnover adds reinforces that.
So if in 2014 Walker can spend as much as he wants to; if the Democratic candidate is massively outspent; if the candidate gets just 4 weeks to campaign as the nominee; if Walker gets to put ads on the air for 6 months without answer; if the candidate has the same inspirational power as Tom Barrett - actually is Tom Barrett; if the only change is that it's a regular election and not a recall, then Walker would lose by two points.
At least three of those other factors from the recall election won't be the case in 2014. Despite losing, Barrett drew over 300,000 new voters in 2012. Walker is in the middle of clumsily trying to walk back his #1 campaign promise of both elections and we will be lucky if he meets half of it by election time (but that's another diary).
And that is why Walker is no shoo-in next year.