August 10, 2001
Tony,
Enjoyed the article. I think you made some very good points, but ignored some realities and were off on other points.
One questionable assumption is that all three other candidates (i.e. Barrett, Doyle and George) will likely raise more money than Falk??? If Falk cannot raise more than Gary George in a primary, then she is in trouble.
Two, the alleged Feingold Factor? I can understand why any politico might suspect that Jim Doyle's campaign will go negative (with his move already to prevent the transfer of Barrett's federal funds and having hatchet-man Bill Christofferson as a campaign "consultant"). Tom Barrett on the other hand has never run a negative campaign and it is not in his nature. Furthermore, knowing the outcome of the '92 U.S. Senate battle, why would Doyle and Barrett seek to relive history unless they are in deep trouble in this race...and then why wouldn't the target of attack be Falk as opposed to one another? p.s. Barrett wouldn't dare attack Falk because it is first not in his nature, but second because she is the future wife of his best friend, Rep. Peter Bock.
Three, your questionable assumption that suburban soccer moms will flock to Falk and dismiss Barrett or Doyle. I believe that women candidates do a little better with women voters, but do not know if this translates in a race where the woman candidate is less obscure and may have more difficulty getting her message out (translation: a lot of Falk's campaign is predicated on her ability to raise enough bucks to stay competitive). The so-called suburban soccer moms are not necessarily viewed as "progressives" as Falk will attempt to cast herself. This group is generally more open to Democratic centrists (i.e. New Dems) like Bill Clinton who advocate a role for government intervention, but are willing to talk about core family and family values issues, with a sizable number in the G.O.P. camp. Falk deserves credit for the single mom thing, but a family man with 4 attractive young kids under 8 years of age (i.e., Barrett) may have some appeal to this group of women if he packages this correctly.
Four, that Falk is left with a big advantage in Dane County??
Five, that Ron Kind is not even considered in your equation. I realize that he is not in the race currently and may not get in at all, but Falk's entrance should do nothing but increase his likelihood for running. Should he enter, the race gets even tighter and this increases Falk's chances while potentially hurting the two proclaimed front-runners.
Now for your strong points:
Kudos for being one of the first to call Doyle a moderate, which I believe he is.
Kudos for at least pointing out that Falk has a lot of "if's" to master to pull this off.
Kudos for a great point or two on the "activist" factor. One point missed, however, in the straw poll at the state convention is that Tom Barrett wowed a lot of delegates because he is a very genuine guy and a much more interesting speaker and person than the akward Jim Doyle. This is very evident when the two men are on the some stage together. Don't dismiss that many delegates came in willing to vote for Doyle despite having lukewarm feelings toward him and were charmed by Barrett.
Emily's list and the Baldwin factor are good points as well. Remember, however, that Baldwin didn't necessarily run away with her most recent election (which I am aware entails more than Dane County). Depending on how the enlarged Congressional districts are redrawn, Baldwin may be in trouble herself.
Just a few thoughts. Jim B.
Mr. Jim B.:
Thank you very much for your response. My assumption about Gary George was/is that he already has lots of money built up in his "war chest" from previous campaigns, but I know I may not be accurate about that.
Here's how Doyle and Barrett might go negative: Doyle decides to go after Barrett's congressional voting record, and finds that Barrett once voted in a way that could be interpreted as "anti" something (e.g. breast cancer research, farm subsidies, public safety, etc.). We then have the Al Gore, Bill Bradley phenomenon all over again, with a "nice guy" like Bradley reduced to calling Gore a liar. Let's face it, Tom Barrett has not had many tough challenges since his first campaign, so when he does get hit hard by a formidable opponent like Doyle, he may decide to go after him.
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond--I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
-Tony
Tony,
George had about the same amount of money as Falk did in the most recent reporting period. He is seen as the weakest of the four Dem candidates and will draw token dollars from those not wanting to alienate a future vote in the Senate. Gary is bright and articulate, but has a checkered past with shadey financial dealings which would come out if he were to ever move forward as a viable candidate for this office. Furthermore, his inability to strike a cord with Dem voters when running against a much weaker candidate in Ed Garvey hurts him now. It makes him appear as one of these prennial candidates who always jump on the ballot but cannot be taken seriously. He'd have a better chance running against Kleczka for a Milw. Congressional seat.
I will say that the situation you draw with Barrett and Doyle is certainly plausible. I additionally like your comparison of the Gore/Bradley race with Doyle/Barrett (and have used it myself). What I've argued is that Doyle like Gore is a little stiff, traditionally a little more moderate, not comfortable with himself, but has the name recognition and party apparatus advantages. Barrett, like Bradley, enters the race as more liberal, more interesting and a nice guy. He is likable enough and is formidable enough that he still has ability to raise money and challenge despite not having an initial statewide list of supporters to tap into or wide name recognition.
When, however, has Tom Barrett run in a hotly contested race??
His first Congressional primary did not necessarily have the strongest candidates... Marc Marotta (a young law graduate whose only namesake was as a forward for Marquette University men's basketball after they became mediocre, County Supervisor Terrance Pitts (with a much smaller black community base in the 5th in '92 than now and low black voter turnout in primaries, Pitts was lucky to place a distant second), Judge Fred Kessler (little base outside of Milwaukee's East side). There were one or two others who I cannot even remember and thus were not important.
As a state Rep and State Senator, Barrett represented almost 40% of the Congressional district he was running for. Besides, he hadn't been married before that time and was a doors champion (and thus well known and liked in his base). He was the only credible candidate for this seat.
When has Tom ever had a competitive race? He once ran and lost against Tom Meaux. He also ran a primary against Shirly Krug when he first won his senate seat. I was too young to follow politics at that point to know what Shirly did in that race, but I can tell you that as of late, she is about the least active candidate around for getting out and knocking on voters doors (I am told that even early on she was never a door hound). Tom was a doors champ!!
If you want some true insite into this race, look at Tom Barrett's past campaigns and see how he has run (given that you are from Oshkosh you may not be familiar with this). Tom has almost always run non-issues campaigns ('92 Congressional primary was a partial exception to this). This means that he relied on campaigns where he knocked on a lot of doors, but when he met voters he would talk not about himself or his platform (which I don't think he ever emphasized), but about the people he was with. The meet Mrs. Jones at the door and talk about her beautiful flower garden and how long she has lived in the area, etc. campaign. This is the "Mr. Nice Guy" Campaign. People voted for Tom because he was personable and seemed like such a nice guy.
Fast forward to today and look at what Tom has done in his gubinatoral campaign. See what issues (stem cell research and great lakes water) he has touched on since running. Look at the intro letter he has sent out and on his campaign web site where he asks you to share in his vision. What vision is that?? His campaign message so far is that he "is not one of the liberals from Madison that keeps losing," and that "he is a breath of fresh air." The "I am fresh and a person who can win campaign." Awfully weak stuff if you ask me (and this coming from a Barrett Booster). In the mean time, each of the other candidates have sought to stake out important issues...George pushed the environment (probably his weakest area in relation to the others), Falk jumped all over kids, and Doyle has sought to stake out a position with each of these, but also the economy and taxes.
Where does it leave Barrett?? Can an issue-less candidate win a hotly contested state-wide race?? You cannot go around and talk to a million and three-quarters people about their flowers.
Jim,
Thank you for your insights, especially about Tom Barrett. I want to focus on your last paragraph:
"Fast forward to today and look at what Tom has done in his gubinatoral campaign. See what issues (stem cell research and great lakes water) he has touched on since running. Look at the intro letter he has sent out and on his campaign web site where he asks you to share in his vision. What vision is that?? His campaign message so far is that he "is not one of the liberals from Madison that keeps losing," and that "he is a breath of fresh air." The "I am fresh and a person who can win campaign." Awfully weak stuff if you ask me (and this coming from a Barrett Booster). In the mean time, each of the other candidates have sought to stake out important issues...George pushed the environment (probably his weakest area in relation to the others), Falk jumped all over kids, and Doyle has sought to stake out a position with each of these, but also the economy and taxes. Where does it leave Barrett?? Can an issue-less candidate win a hotly contested state-wide race?? You cannot go around and talk to a million and three-quarters people about their flowers."
I think you are right on target about what each of the candidates has so far tried to articulate as issues. To tell you the truth, I have so far been impressed only by Gary George. Perhaps because he has been effectively banished from the Democratic caucus at least since his public battle with Chuck Chvala several years ago, he seems to be the only candidate talking about how the state Democratic Party has become as bad as the GOP in its willingness to sell-out to the highest bidder, and he also seems to be the only candidate saying that we need a complete overhaul of the way business is currently getting done in Madison. I realize that Gary's checkered past does not make him the most credible messenger of such ideas, but I must give him credit for at least stating what in my opinion are some obvious truths about the political environment in 2001.
My own opinion, which I know is not shared by the people running the state Democratic Party or by the campaigns of the major candidates, is that the only way for the Dems to win in 2002 is to try to turn the election into a referendum on the Thompson years. To do that will mean to take the time to _educate_ the voters about the complete decay of democracy and progressivism in the state during those years, especially as regards the way the legislature now does its budgeting.
What will more likely happen, and why I think a lightweight like Scott McCallum stands a good chance of winning, is that the Democrats will fight to see who can sound more "Tommy-lite." Already, we have Doyle saying things like "I want to get Wisconsin out of the top _5_ in taxes" (to counter McCallum's call to get us out of the top 10), we have Falk saying that she's progressive but "practical" or "pragmatic" (what does that mean?), and even George tends to try to present himself as a moderate when he says the Party can't nominate another "Dane County liberal."
The only "moderate" Democrat who could beat McCallum is a Herb Kohl, who could finance the effort himself. Ed Garvey did much better in the last election against Thompson than either Chuck Chvala or Tom Loftus in Tommy's previous re-election efforts. Garvey did that in spite of the fact that the Democratic Party never did really get behind him (remember how he basically had to invite himself to the convention in 98?). Some might say that Garvey did better than Chvala or Loftus because the voters were starting to get a bit tired of Tommy after three terms, but I don't agree with that. I think Garvey ran an unapologetic and unabashedly progressive campaign, and I think that helped spark some excitement at the grassroots. Who knows what would have happened if the Democrats had gotten behind Garvey earlier and with more enthusiasm? The party establishment will get behind a Tommy-lite "moderate," but in my opinion that is a blueprint for looking at 4 more years of McCallum.
You say of Barrett, "Can an issue-less candidate win a hotly contested state-wide race?? You cannot go around and talk to a million and three-quarters people about their flowers." Well . . . is it really issues that win campaigns in the long run? There are some "serious" voters out there who weigh the issues and decide on a candidate accordingly, but are they the norm? For better or worse (probably worse), we are in the age of "image politics," and the Barrett camp may have made a calculated decision to emphasize their guy's "pleasant" image above his issue stands. Even in Feingold's 1992 campaign, voters were less taken with what he actually stood for and more impressed with the fact that he appeared to be an energetic "listener" willing to traverse the whole state to talk to people and find out their problems.
All the best,
-Tony