Free For All Guv's Race in Wisconsin

Two term Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) announced last week that he would not seek a third term, throwing wide open next year's race for the Badger State's top office (for a decent rundown see here). Doyle had been a consistent vote getter statewide, winning three terms as Attorney General and then two as Governor. Under normal circumstances, Doyle would have been virtually assured a third term (Wisconsin does not have term limits). However, with the worsening economy, Doyle's approval has cratered over the past year, with his numbers now hovering somewhere in the low 30's. With his announcement, several candidates have already announced, several more may be expected to jump in, and I'll venture that a few probably should.

Prior to this announcement, the two Republicans in the race were Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and former Wisconsin House member (1st District) Mark Neumann. Walker has been twice elected in Milwaukee County and was a candidate for the GOP governor's nomination last time around in 2006. However, midway through the race Walker dropped out (after some prodding by national GOP higher ups) to give then House member Mark Green (8th District) clear sailing to the party nod. Green went on to lose to Doyle handily (53%-45%) in a year Wisconsin moved solidly to the Democratic side (Green's House seat went blue to Rep. Steve Kagen). Neumann also has statewide ballot experience. After capturing the 1st District House seat in the 1994 GOP landslide, Neumann sought to take down Sen. Russ Feingold in 1998. Aided by Feingold's questionable campaign strategy (refusing national party money and abiding by the limits of the yet to pass McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill), Neumann almost scored an upset, losing by only 3 points. Both Walker and Neumann are fiscal and social conservatives. Of the two, Neumann is probably more to the extremes, especially because he hasn't been forced to govern and take pragmatic stances like Walker has as the head of Wisconsin's largest county.

On the Democratic side, things are just starting to shake out. First in the race is the current Lieutenant Governor, Barbara Lawton. While Lawton's first elected experience came with the number two spot under Doyle, she hails from a part of the state that is, in my mind, the most fascinating for Dems' chances--Green Bay and the upper Fox River Valley (see this post from last year's cycle).

The next Democrat that people are watching is 3rd District Congressman Ron Kind. The 3rd District is made up of the mostly rural western part of the state (see this older post for some background). The Blue Dog Kind has held the seat since replacing GOP moderate Steve Gunderson back in 1996. Given that the Democratic nominee will have to grapple with the state's economic downturn and no doubt have to demonstrate some fiscal bona fides, Kind is an intriguing potential candidate.

Third up, and yet to declare, is Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk. Falk has two things in her favor. First, she hails from the vote rich and most reliably Democratic part of the state--Madison. Dane County consistently has the state's highest turnout levels and, in a close primary or general, this could prove crucial. Second, she has run statewide before, losing to Doyle in the 2002 Democratic primary for governor. In a three way race, along with then Milwaukee congressman and now Mayor, Falk garnered 27% of the vote.

Which brings us to Barrett. Barrett has gotten a lot of unwanted attention, given the circumstances, over the past week, after being beaten outside the Wisconsin State Fair. Upon leaving with his family, Barrett came across a domestic disturbance and, in the process of calling the police and trying to separate the parties, ended up losing a few teeth, fracturing his hand, and requiring plastic surgery to close up some nasty cuts. Rachel Maddow profiled the episode the other day, speculating that this may gain Barrett some sympathy, and potentially votes, should he again seek the Governor's mansion. While Barrett hails from the largest city and county in the state, this may--ironically-work against him (and Walker too). Historically, Wisconsin voters have not elected their Governor from Milwaukee. One needs to go back to Civil War era elections to find the last time this happened. The big city / out state dynamic that I wrote about a while back has held quite well in Wisconsin.

One candidate that I would watch closely is 1st District Congressman Paul Ryan. While Ryan begged off the question of whether he was interested in the race, the clearly ambitious (many think he will run for the Senate soon) Ryan should, in my view, consider entering. The Republican candidate should, all things being equal, be at an advantage next year. While Ryan has risen quickly up the GOP ranks in the House--he now sits as the ranking member on the Budget Committee--his prospects of being a member of the majority party any time soon (and thus having any tangible policy influence) are dim given the size of the Democratic majority. Thus, for a wonkish, yet charismatic, politician like Ryan, the Governor's mansion would seem to be an attractive destination.

The wild card in all of this is how the Wisconsin political landscape will look 15 months from now. Should the economy improve the current GOP advantage could vaporize. While Wisconsin is always considered a classic swing state, recent elections have seen it move further to the Democratic side. A GOP presidential candidate hasn't won the state since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Democrats have won the past two governor's races and the past 7 Senate races. In the last two cycles the Democrats have captured both houses of the state legislature and have gained one U.S. House seat. Obama romped through Wisconsin, winning the state by 14 points. Thus, both parties have reason to be optimistic. The result will hopefully be (for political junkies at least) a multi-candidate Battle Royale.

Philadelphia

We're now starting to get some ward level results for Philadelphia. Since the exit polling started coming out, the correlation between race and support for Obama/Clinton has intensified. I'm not the first one to present the contrast shown above, but I thought I'd put my two cents in. If you look at the city of Philadelphia, broken down by race, you see a pretty solid linkage between race and vote choice. This is a dynamic similar to what we saw in Ohio seven weeks ago and its a trend that's gotten Obama supporters extremely nervous. Further complicating this is the fact that the upscale suburbs that I thought would do well for Obama were much more evenly split.

So how do we explain this?? There seem to be a couple of explanations--perhaps in combination--that can give us some answers. The first explanation would be that, yes, white working class voters won't vote for a black candidate. The "Pennsyltucky" or Appalachian phenomenon is used to bolster this argument. As I've been mulling this data and these maps, my mind keeps going back to the state I'm most familiar with and would seem to act as a counterfactual--Wisconsin. While not Appalachian, Wisconsin is certainly filled with white ethnics and working class voters. Yet it went overwhelmingly to Obama. Not only did he win where one thought he would--Milwaukee and Madison--but he won by large margins statewide.

Now either Wisconsin is an outlier or we need to look for other explanations. Two come immediately to mind. The first is political. In both Pennsylvania and Ohio Senator Clinton had powerful and popular governors--and their respective machines and GOTV operations--on her side. John and I have already speculated that this might explain Clinton's success in the Philly suburbs. In Wisconsin, Governor Jim Doyle is an Obama supporter. The second explanation brings race back in but speaks more to the calendar of the Democratic race. Wisconsin voted before the Reverend Wright controversy erupted. Thus, Badger state voters were looking at an Obama who hadn't had much of his shine rubbed off. Wisconsin voted after Obama had run off an impressive streak of consecutive wins in Virginia, Maryland, Washington, and elsewhere. In other words, momentum was on his side and states were voting in a compacted schedule, thus minimizing the chance that any attack on Obama could metastasize. By the time Ohio, and especially Pennsylvania came around, he had not only been subject to much greater scrutiny but would have to spend weeks on these issues as they dogged his campaign. Thus, white voters may be perfectly willing to vote for a black candidate as long as they haven't been thinking about race beforehand. When that issue becomes activated, Obama fares worse.

How Similar are Milwaukee and Cleveland???

Coming out of Tuesday's primary in Ohio, I was somewhat surprised that while Obama won Cleveland, his numbers weren't as high as I would have thought. As a Wisconsin native, I've always viewed Milwaukee and Cleveland as, in many ways, sister cities. Therefore, I figured they'd vote the same. They're roughly the same size rust belt metropolises with a history of heavy manufacturing, ethnic based neighborhoods and politics, and a not too pleasant legacy of segregation and racial strife. To be more specific, I've dug up some demographic statistics, as well as the voting data from the Wisconsin and Ohio primaries.

I should note first off that I haven't been able to find the final vote tally for the city of Cleveland yet. Also, for the city of Milwaukee, the best I've been able to find, apart from the overall city totals (89,899 Obama to 34,462 Clinton) is the above map produced by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. So I've decided to go out a level and look at Milwaukee county and Cuyahoga county (essentially the 10th and 11th congressional districts). What we see are two very, very similar metropolitan areas.

While Cuyahoga County is larger (1.4 million vs. 915 thousand), in all other respects these two counties are almost identical. Milwaukee county is 66% white, 25% African American, and 9% Hispanic (Milwaukee city is 44% white, 40% African American, 15% Hispanic). Cuyahoga is 67% white, 27% African American, and 3% Hispanic (Cleveland city is 42% white, 51% African American, 7% Hispanic). The median household income in both counties is $39,000/year. Milwaukee county's poverty rate is a bit higher at 18.5% versus 13% in Cuyahoga.

In the Wisconsin primary, Obama won Milwaukee county 64% to 35% for Clinton. So, going into the primary, what might we have expected?? Given that Clinton was polling ahead of Obama among voters making less than $50,000/year, we might not have expected much advantage to Clinton given the parity of the two counties in terms of median income. In fact, the county's lower poverty rate might have actually been a net benefit to Obama. Cuyahoga county is slightly more African American than Milwaukee, which should have helped Obama, especially within the city of Cleveland.

How did Cuyahoga county go?? While Obama won, his numbers were much smaller than he saw a few weeks earlier in Milwaukee. The final vote was 53% Obama to 46% Clinton. So what happened? There are a number of workable explanations that I'm sure will be fleshed out over the coming weeks. First, given Clinton's success statewide, there was obviously some spillover effect within Cuyahoga county and the city of Cleveland. Just compare the county by county maps of both states to see this. A second hypothesis would by the role that race may have played. The Milwaukee city map above shows that Clinton did indeed win a few wards in the city of Milwaukee, namely on the Polish and German dominated south side. John highlighted a few days ago how this dynamic may have played out in Cleveland, especially with Dennis Kucinich facing a tough primary (which would drive up turnout). Indeed, Clinton won in Kucinich's district. Again using the county by county data, Obama did much better in the overwhelmingly white counties in outer Wisconsin (he won the vast majority of them) than he did in Ohio (he lost the vast majority). Looking at this more historically (see earlier posts), George Wallace did much better in Cleveland than he did in Milwaukee in 1968, so maybe there's some faint remnances of this dynamic still at work. A third hypothesis would be the attention each candidate paid to these states. In the compressed schedule between the Potomac Primaries and Wisconsin, Obama was much more visible and active in Wisconsin than Clinton was. He spent much more money and was on the air to a greater extent. A final explanation might be the role of local leaders and their advocacy for each candidate. In Milwaukee, Obama had the support and network of both Governor Jim Doyle and Congresswoman Gwen Moore. In Ohio, it was Clinton with the advantage, having the endorsement of Governor Ted Strickland and Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (11th district).

Anyhow, there is a lot of work yet to be done examining these numbers but this offers a jumping off point. It shows, though, that we can't assume all cities--even those that look very similar on the surface--are going to behave the same. There will be other factors at work.