Despite much Republican fanfare over Gov. Scott Walker’s triumph
in the Wisconsin recall, this election is not a harbinger for the
2012 presidential election. The recall results also do not portend
public union denunciation. The evidence for such conclusions can be
found in CNN’s
exit poll results. Instead, the recall election presages public
union reform throughout the country. 

Some have misinterpreted Walker’s recall survival as an
indication that the tides have turned against Obama and the
Democrats. In 2008, Obama carried the potential swing state by 14
percentage points. Some conclude that a majority vote for Walker
indicates a permanent shift of voters from the Democrats to the
Republicans. However, exit poll data demonstrate this is not the
case.

While a majority of Wisconsin voters opted to keep their
governor in office, a majority also intend to cast their ballots
for Barack Obama in November. This should not come as a surprise.

Marquette and Reason-Rupe
polls of Wisconsin voters conducted in May demonstrated both Walker
and Obama capturing majority vote simultaneously.  This means
that a share of Obama voters are also Walker voters, indicating
that not all Walker voters are partisan Republicans. For instance,
about a quarter of Walker voters approve of
President Obama’s job performance and 16 percent plan to vote
for him. Political independents also
split in favor of Walker, 54 percent to Barrett’s 45 percent,
but this does not necessarily mean they will do the same for
Romney.

Some may hold up the Wisconsin results as a public denunciation
of public employees and their unions. But this is counter to the
evidence in the
CNN exit poll of Wisconsin voters. Instead, a majority of
Tuesday’s voters have a positive view of public employees while
also voting to keep Scott Walker. Indeed, 51 percent of Wisconsin
voters on Tuesday had a favorable opinion of government unions.
Nearly a quarter of those favorable to unions cast their ballot for
Walker. Although attitudes toward unions certainly played a role in
vote choice, it was not the single driver.

While others
contend the recall election was not prescient of the general
election, they say it was nonetheless about Walker as governor and
not about collective bargaining. This misses the crucial point of
Tuesday’s results—it was about withstanding the political
consequences of reforming public unions. Unions instigated the
Walker recall in part to restore their previous collective
bargaining power, but also to demonstrate that a governor cannot
“roll
over” public unions without dire political consequences. Yet
Walker did withstand the recall, suggesting the public is willing
to accept reforms to public unions and not necessarily throw out
leaders who attempt to reform them.

Wisconsin’s Impact on November

Although the Wisconsin recall election does not portend Obama
voters swinging toward the Republican Party in November, the recall
may still have an effect on the presidential election.

Walker’s survival demonstrates to governors throughout the
country that it is politically feasible for a governor to reform
public sector unions. Currently, Republicans control legislatures
and governorships in 24 states. The Wall Street Journal

cites Americans for Tax Reform’ Grover Norquist, who says that
perhaps half of these states will pursue similar reforms within the
next year.

If Wisconsin is any indicator, public union reforms tend to
decrease union membership (because membership becomes optional and
the unions have less negotiating power). For instance, Wisconsin
has
observed one-third or more of its public union membership
decline.

As
reported in The Wall Street Journal, the Center for
Responsible Politics (CRP) finds Democratic candidates to be
recipients of about 90 percent of union campaign spending.
Moreover, CRP reports public unions are one of the biggest sources
of donations to candidates behind Hollywood, Wall Street, and the
insurance industry. If more governors enact public union reform,
fewer individuals will join and pay dues. And with less membership
dues filling their coffers, unions will have less money to spend on
Democratic candidates. So far in the 2012 election, public unions
have donated $4.7 million to congressional candidates. The PACs of
the three largest public-sector unions have raised as much as $23.4
million so far to be donated directly to candidates, to pay for
advertising, and other election activities.

Consequently, reforming public unions may have an indirect
effect by reducing union campaign spending for Democratic
candidates. Yet if this were to occur, union membership dues and
campaign spending would decline over time, not necessarily before
November of this year.

The other potential impact on the presidential election is the
grassroots networks established in the recall. In 2008, Obama won
Wisconsin by 14 percentage points. However, the GOP has since
invested a great deal with voter research and grassroots
mobilization strategies for the recall which could be
re-implemented in the fall. Had it not been for the recall,
Republicans would likely not have invested so much in this
potential swing state. This may explain why Washington Democrats
were
reluctant for the recall to occur this year, and had suggested
to Wisconsin Democrats that they wait until after the presidential
election.

It is also possible that Obama’s lack of involvement in the
Wisconsin recall may dampen Wisconsin Democrats’ resolve to
mobilize voters on Obama’s behalf come November. Rather than
campaigning alongside Milwaukee Mayer Tom Barrett, the president
merely
tweeted his support for Barrett’s candidacy.

The Wisconsin recall election is
not symbolic of a future Romney success in the state. Instead,
it represents the likely future of public sector workers. Tuesday’s
results may
embolden governors to reform public unions in their own
states.

Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation
where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research
project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.