Walker wins thanks to divided union households

(AP photo)

If you want to read various analyses and punditry about the Wisconsin recall vote, you could spend the next 12 hours online.

Beyond all the partisan arguments about what Gov. Scott Walker’s win means and how much damage the margin of victory inflicted on President Obama’s chances in Wisconsin in November, it seems that Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post pinpointed the most important outcome.

Voters from union households turned out in droves for Tuesday’s recall election in Wisconsin, but “the strength of the union vote was limited, perhaps decisively, by a divide between union members and those who simply live in union households,” Cillizza wrote in his column.

Exit polls show union voters supported Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett by a 71 to 29 percent margin over Walker. But voters who live with a union worker -- but are not themselves card-carrying members -- supported Barrett by a much narrower margin: 51 percent to 48 percent. Walker won voters with no such union ties by about 20 points.

So, Walker, branded nationwide as an anti-labor, union-busting Republican, nearly split the union household vote. In Wisconsin, a blue state with a proud progressive heritage. That’s astounding.

And that’s clearly a big problem for the Democratic Party. Now, the Dems not only have to woo union workers, they have to worry that the card-carrying member’s vote will be cancelled out by the person’s spouse.

There are numerous reasons why Wisconsin voters sided with Walker – including a basic dislike of the recall system – but Democratic strategists will need to dig deep to determine what sparked all those divided households that voted two different ways.

Early on election night, the increased turnout from union households was seen as a potential game-changer for Barrett. By the end of the night, Cillizza noted, that conventional wisdom was shattered as it became clear that Walker’s victory came in large part thanks to people who live with those same union members who derided Walker’s governance.