The Georgia Senate campaign has recently been impacted by two significant stories.
When the two became pregnant while dating in 2009, the Daily Beast first claimed that Walker had paid for the woman’s abortion. Walker fiercely rejected the claim, stating that it was a “defamatory fabrication,” and AWN has not independently corroborated the claims. Throughout the election campaign, Walker has been outspoken about his opposition to abortion.
Following Walker’s rejections of her original claim, the anonymous woman who claims Walker paid for her abortion also happens to be the mother of one of his children, according to an article published by The Daily Beast on Wednesday. The woman reportedly gave proof that she is the mother of one of his children, but The Daily Beast did not specify how. Walker has refuted the most recent report, and AWN has not independently verified that information.
Following the first Daily Beast piece, Christian Walker, a conservative online influencer, tweeted a number of times claiming that Walker was anything from a perfect father.
Christian Walker remarked, “I don’t care about someone who has a poor background and takes responsibility. But how dare you pretend to be some kind of’moral, Christian, honest man’ by lying to people?
Walker told his son, “I LOVE my son no matter what,” in response. Tuesday morning, Christian Walker also shared a video on Twitter in which he declared himself finished with his father’s “lying.”
The election between Republican Rep. Scott Walker and Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, which is widely regarded as one of the most crucial (and tight) Senate races in the nation, is now deeply questionable as a result of the first claims and his son’s remarks.
So what comes next?
It’s difficult to say, mostly because of the post-Donald Trump world we now inhabit.
In circumstances like this, the candidate would ordinarily conduct some form of interview, frequently with a reputable media organisation. Walker went down for two interviews with Fox News after the news of the event broke.
Currently, the candidate’s campaign must handle numerous tasks at once:
1) Make an effort to reassure supporters and voters that everything is being overblown and that the campaign is still firmly focused on what needs to be done to win.
2) Make sure that Walker’s complete denial of the abortion claim can be made to stick and that no more shoes are about to drop.
But just in case you forgot, these are not regular times.
A few weeks before the 2016 presidential election, a tape from “Access Hollywood” surfaced that showed Trump boasting about sexual assault and using obscene and coarse language about women. Republican officials at the time discussed his withdrawal from the campaign or outright disowning his candidacy both openly and in secret.
Neither occurred. The entire episode was disregarded by Trump as “locker room talk,” and he went on to defeat Hillary Clinton. Which is a startling turn of events even in hindsight.
It is unclear if Trump fundamentally changed the norms governing political scandals in 2016 or if he is merely the extremely unusual exception to this still-applicable rule.
After the Walker news emerged earlier this week, Walker campaign manager Scott Paradise made a speech to his team in which he alluded to the “Access Hollywood” episode. According to a source familiar with the comments, Paradise claimed that Trump “still made it to the White House.” (Paradise denied drawing that comparison via Twitter.)
Republicans are currently banding together behind Walker.
Trump stated in a statement on Tuesday that “Herschel Walker is being slandered and mistreated by the Fake News Media and, obviously, the Democrats.” They are attempting to destroy a man who, like he did in his past as an athlete, has actual greatness in his future.
Steven Law, the head of Senate Leadership Fund, a significant GOP super PAC that focuses on Senate elections, stated, “Full speed ahead in Georgia.”
In some ways, the Republican Party was forced to back Walker. A seat they need need for a majority would almost surely be lost if they dropped him as their candidate at this moment, when there are less than five weeks until the midterm elections. It represents the best of realpolitik.
Of course, history suggests that the support Walker presently enjoys might soon evaporate if additional claims are revealed or if Walker appears to be so wounded that he can no longer win.
Walker’s controversy serves as a very intriguing test case for how campaigns will handle controversies and how voters will react to them in the post-Trump world. Can Walker simply carry on with his campaign as usual? Or does he require a detailed strategy to guarantee his candidacy?
