Why we think Scott Walker will win re-election by a fairly large margin. Hint: it has to do with union support for his policies !!

Slate Magazine argues against the notion that Wisconsin has significance beyond this election.  Turns out,  the only people on earth who believe that Wisconsin is not a bellwether at some level,  are Socialist Democrats . . . . . . . . . . . and Slate Magazine.
We are told (by the Socialist elites) that Wisconsin is a solid “blue” state,  having voted for the Democrat presidential offering in every election since the time of Ronald Reagan.  In 2008,  the state voted for Obama by a margin of 14 points,  one of the highest in the nation.    What our Blue buds fail to tell you is this:  in 2000,  Alvin Gore won Wisconsin by just 5,500 votes out of nearly 3 million.  And,  in 2004,  the traitor,  John Kerry,  won the state by 11,000 votes.  With these two elections in mind,  one can see why I would argue that the Obama election was an anomaly.   

Again,  he won the state by 14 percent, in 2008.  But, in the very next election,  2010,  the Republican,  Scott Walker,  won the gubernatorial election by 5%,  a 19 point turn-around in the voting pattern within the state.  Amazing.  Not only did Walker win,  but both state houses of congress flipped to Republican and the well known and very popular Russ Feingold,  lost his Senatorial bid after 18 years serving as Wisconsin Senator in Washington.  

Probably the single most surprising result of the Walker reforms,  is the fact that since unions dues are now a voluntary affair between the union and its individual members,  54% of the second largest union in the state have quit.  That’s more than 33,000 people.  This is why 34% of all union families within the State of Wisconsin,  support the Walker reforms.  

 One simply cannot look these stats without admitting to the significance of this particular election recall.  Will it (the state) continue the current voting pattern into the national election cycle?

Indeed,  Wisconsin is so important on a national level,  that Barack Obama has refused to campaign for the state union’s recall of Walker, nor toured the state conducting fund raisers.   Obviously,  he fears being attached to a failing circumstance.   In fact,  over the past three days,  Obama flew to neighboring states  (Illinois and Michigan) but ignored Wisconsin  -  a state he had to fly over to get to his several fund raisers . . . . . . . . . something Wisconsin Democrat will remember come November. The issue, then,  will be this:  if Obama refused to help Wisconsin Democrats in the recall,  how many will stay at home when he needs them,   come November?  

Conclusion:  Wisconsin just might be the second most important election,  this year.  It brings 10 electoral votes to the national election, and great momentum for the party winning the Walker recall. 

The opposing view [in part] from Slate Magazine.  

Kind as it is of Wisconsin to offer itself as a bellwether for the benefit of Beltway political hacks, the favor should be declined. The Walker recall is important for plenty of reasons, but its value as a predictor of the national outcome in November is pretty much nil. First, let’s count the ways in which the Wisconsin recall is most similar to the presidential election: 1) It’s an election. 2) A Republican is running against a Democrat. 3) A few of the same national PACs are pouring money into it, and a few of the same state-level organizers are involved. (This, by the way, was the point Wasserman-Schultz was attempting to make when she put her foot in her mouth.)
Now for a few ways in which it’s different: 1) It’s a recall. 2) It’s happening in June. 3) The incumbent is a Republican. 4) Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is running. 5) A significant number of states (49 by my count) will not be participating. 6) Need I go on?
Drawing inferences about a national election on the basis of a state election is almost always tenuous, but it’s particularly so in the case of a gubernatorial recall, where the main issue is not the U.S. economy, health care, or national security, but the character and specific track record of the individual in office.