Quick poll of the readership: should Scott Walker run in ’16?

Go/no-go? There’s no denying that he’s got the advantage of demonstrating that he can take a punch from the Left and respond in kind (only harder).  Assuming Scott Walker wins next year: should he go for it?

Moe Lane


  • midwestconservative says:

    Absolutely, though I’m kind of hoping Mike Pence runs though that depends on his record as Governor, I’m also waiting on the Virginia Gubernatorial Election before making any kind of determination. Bob McDonnell would be a decent candidate, though I’d prefer Walker to him. I’d also prefer Walker to Paul Ryan.

  • nighttwister says:

    A million times YES.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368 says:

    Yes, voters should be presented with the best alternatives.

  • Darin_H says:


  • acemarke says:

    Reasonably conservative governor with a track record of success? Absolutely. We can nail down the policy issues later on, but he’s certainly proven himself enough for a shot.

  • Jeff Weimer says:

    I would be quite interested. He fights! And he drives the left absolutely to distraction, all the while not letting them get his goat.

  • Mark_E says:

    I certainly want him in the mix.

  • qixlqatl says:

    He’s exactly the kind of candidate that I would like to have the opportunity to cast my presidential vote for…….. Never. Gonna. Happen.

  • acat says:

    I say this as a Chicago cat, and a Bears (and Cubs and Hawks) fan:
    Yes. Walker should definitely run.
    I will forgive him for rooting for the Packers .. he gets results.

  • DemosthenesVW says:

    Of course he should run. So should Bobby Jindal, and so should Paul Ryan. And for that matter, so should Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bob McDonnell, and Chris Christie. I wouldn’t vote for at least a couple of the names on that list of eight, but hey…we want the best candidate? We need the best contenders, and we need them to wage a fair and friendly battle in a primary process (no caucuses) where we get to ask the questions and run the debates rather than having our mortal enemies do it for us. If those things all happen, I have faith that the electorate will make a good choice.

  • Luke says:

    Depends who else runs. I’m tired of a squish winning just because conservatives split the vote.

  • Brian Swisher says:

    Sure, why not…

  • Spegen says:

    Yes, unlike many on our side at least he fights.

  • antisocial says:

    Absolutely. And Ted Cruz. And Rick Perry. And Rand Paul…

    No Christies and Bushes please.

  • phineasfahrquar says:

    Yes. A successful governor in his second term… why not? Give the people a broad choice among quality candidates.

  • Catseyes says:

    A qualified yes.

  • Wubbies says:

    I would give an unqualified “yes” vote to this poll. I am not from Wisconsin but from what I know about him he is much much better than anything the Republican Establishment has to offer.

  • AOSHQCAC says:

    As someone who religiously followed the recall and updated every poll, ad, opinion piece and movement in the race over at Ace’s site-

    A billion billion billion times yes. How many billions? This many :

  • Finrod says:

    I like Scott Walker, but currently he doesn’t reach my top tier of desired candidates (said list has 3 names on it currently: Condi, Sarah, and Rand). Depending on what happens and what he does between now and then, though, that could change.

    • acat says:

      Rand is impressing me. Condi and Sarah are non-starters – Condi won’t make it through the conservative demolition derby in Iowa, and Sarah is too polarizing.
      That said, the trouble with Rand is he’s a Senator, never been a Governor.
      I would be happy with a [Walker/Jindal]-Rand ticket .. but not a Rand-[Walker/Jindal] one.
      We need someone who knows how to *run things*, not just run his (or her) mouth as the front-man.

      • Luke says:

        My top two are Jindal and Palin.

        Sarah is “polarizing” because she’s from flyover country, she successfully upended a political machine, and she calls a spade a spade.
        I very much WANT that type of polarization.

        • acat says:

          And yet .. Jindal and Walker have both done the same – moreso Walker – but are less polarizing. Further, Walker has more success at it than Palin.
          While I respect what Palin has done, I don’t think she is as capable a politician as Jindal or Walker…. and like it or not, running for 1600 requires a politician.

          • Luke says:

            I’d argue that they’re less polarizing simply because they haven’t yet run on a national ticket. Once they do, they’ll be subjected to much the same. (Especially Jindal.)
            I think she’s a much better politician. She’s done more to set the parameters of the ongoing debate in our country than just about anybody else. (Yes, those objecting to this have demonized her for it.)

          • acat says:

            There’s no denying, Luke, that Palin has a gift for distilling and framing an argument. “Death panels”, “Drill, baby, drill”, the list goes on and on.
            That is, however, only one part of being a politician .. and being gifted in one area is no guarantee of giftedness, or even of competence in other areas. Obama is a gifted orator, and I think we all see how that worked out.
            Further, Alaska is an oddball State, bureaucratically, and a small one in terms of population size. Wisconsin and Louisiana are larger – population-wise – and, in terms of winning 1600, running them is a better test of mettle.
            I do not dislike Sarah .. but if she wants to convince me she can do the job, not just frame debates, she needs to either run for governor of a different State, or run a Federal agency first.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by