This was mentioned here the other day, Scott Walker ending his campaign in a rather anti-climactic fashion. Lots of reasons have been cited around the media for his failure, despite a certain number of conservative-leaning voters apparently seeing real presidential material in him. Despite FOX allegedly arranging the requirements for the debate to favor Walker, he still somehow managed to succumb to mediocrity in no time, and snatch defeat from the jaws of... well, what initially looked like a good run. And it wasn't so long ago that he made that "awesome speech" in Des Moines (according to the GOP base, anyway), and people believed he had a real shot at the presidency.
On the other hand, a curious overview of Walker's major gaffes for the last few months shows an insecure, inexperienced, shy, and overall, "un-presidential" guy who still obviously has a lot to learn about running a campaign. I mean, I'm sure he's a good guy with his political principles and convictions, but yeah. Basically, he managed to turn himself into a walking gaffe, not knowing when to take a stance and when to refrain from doing so, thus hurting his campaign beyond repair, and aggravating both donors and the base. Curiously, as one columnist argued, the end of Walker's bid might be putting the presumed power of super-PACs in question. Or his case could just be an exception. That yet remains to be seen.
Anyway; what's your take on Scott Walker's fiasco? Why did he fail? And what could other candidates learn from that? And which of his rivals is going to benefit the most from his dropping out? (You know, they're now going to circle what remains of his staff like sharks, and try to bite pieces off of it). And... I know it's too early for that but... would he do considerably better if he runs in 2020?
* title is taken from a MSNBC article on the subject
Ps. "Molotov"!? WTFLOL?!