On Wisconsin

Wisconsin has become the center of the national debate on public unions.  Republicans took over the state (which has a history of progressivism) and after a tremendous struggle passed legislation that the union saw as a direct attack.  So angry citizens scheduled the biggest recall election ever. (On both sides--Dems left the state to avoid a vote on the bill.)

Last night they voted in six Republican districts.  They're all swing districts that voted for Republican Governor Walker in 2010 but also for Obama in 2008. Unions, as you'd expect, poured in millions. (And I'm sure that all the people who were outraged by Citizens United and the use of money by powerful groups to change election results are protesting, though I haven't noticed anything.)

It looks like the Dems took back two of six seats--one short of the number needed to regain the Senate (and two Dems fighting to hold their seats in next week's recalls).  Only one race was really close--District 18, where the Dem won 51%-49%.  Did the union campaign make the difference?  Certainly possible.  The other seat the Repubs lost was probably a goner, being in the most liberal district of the six.

So is two a good or bad showing for the unions?  On one level, it's an utter failure. The Dems didn't take back the Senate despite this being the front lines in their fight.  If you can't convince people in Wisconsin to save the unions, you're in trouble.

On the other hand, they did gain two seats.  Isn't that at least a positive trend? Yes, in an off-year election, getting out the vote is important and you'd think the unions with their money and power would have the best chance possible.  But it doesn't matter how you count it, losing seats is bad for the party in charge. It's at least something the Repubs should be worrying about in 2012.  But I suppose if the economy remains weak, a lot of people who might otherwise be sympathetic to unions will figure they're not the ones who need extra help.