Everyone agrees because everybody knows (for once, that expression is no exaggeration) that Scott Walker was a lousy presidential candidate. He was a waffling, one-trick hobbyhorse of a union-busting bore. He had acted the dutiful apostle of Koch Brother theology, which earned him establishment pats on the head and a shot at the GOP majors; he even managed one animated speech at a Steve King bughouse conclave in January.
It was that which shot him out of the party's blunderbuss. But underneath, throughout and within, Scott Walker was still a bore.
Being a bore, however, is not always a barrier to nomination success. Jeb Bush, notwithstanding his ailing numbers, is still the class bore most likely to succeed. Poppy Bush wasn't exactly a fireball, either, and one could go back to other Tom Deweys. The trick is to survive — just survive — until the fireballs flame out.
That may not happen for any bore in 2016; rather clear majorities of rank-and-file madness have emerged, and they are keeping the lunatics' flames alive longer than usual. Yet flame out they likely will — despite my earnest hopes otherwise — as establishment ad campaigns and professional ground organizations creep to the fore. It is the first of those two that puzzles, in terms of Scott Walker. Observes Politico's Glenn Thrush:
His stunning fall … illustrated the limits of fundraising in a 2016 [race] that was supposed to be dominated by unregulated campaign spending. Both Walker and former Gov. Rick Perry, who dropped out earlier this month, represent a two-man money-couldn’t-buy-them-love club on the sidelines. Super PACs affiliated with Perry and Walker raised millions in the weeks leading up to their collapses — Walker’s alone banked more than $20 million.
Thrush's third observation utterly defies his first observation. Walker was "banking" tens of millions in super-PAC funds, which "illustrated" anything but the "limits of fundraising" in this race. So outside funding was the least of his problems. It was also the greatest: Walker's super PAC didn't know what in hell it was doing, what it was there for.
It should have aided in his survival; in advertising blitzes it should have pumped him up or punched others down — anything, anything akin to a 1940 R.A.F. air action until the pressure eased. That, Walker's outside money did not do, which helped to lead him to tumbling numbers — and, blockhead that he is, he himself blew through the inside money, which led straight to yesterday.
It was then that Republican "digital media strategist" Liz Mair, a campaign operative sacked by Walker within 24 hours of employment, unloaded on her former boss in a vindictive Twitter burst that, I should think, will make other (potential) employers wary of her services. At any rate, her instructive tweets became one of those instant social media raves, and her tweets weren't wrong in their assessments. Gov. Walker made many mistakes: "Pandering. Flip-flopping" and so on, as Mair put it.
Sounds just like Mitt Romney, does it not? And did he not seize the nomination?
No, Walker's biggest failure — or so I would argue in a rebuttal to Mair — came from his super PAC. It didn't have his back. It had millions which could have been used creatively; instead it just sat on the money — because it was as blockheaded as Scott Walker.