Talk Elections

Link to come soon.

Thompson 49, Baldwin 41.

Can they put out some numbers for the primary? This seat is Likely R only if Thompson wins the nomination.

Done and done.

Thompson 34, Neumann 16, Hovde 14, Fitzgerald 10 and 25% undecided.

Undecided seems a bit high to say the least, but otherwise looking good.

Entered. (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2012/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=55102012620181)

Well, still good news for Obama.

     Thompson is actually running this time? It's amazing to see Wisconsin's elected officials trend Republican so rapidly.

I think Hovde will be the nominee.

Thompson's primary numbers don't look great. He ha nearly statewide recognition yet only at 34% support with 25% still undecided. Add in the fact that almost all of the outside money is going to go to his challengers, this primary is going to be close. 

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/


Link as promised.

It's quite amusing to see liberals ignore the Marquette poll, just like they did last time in predicting a close race for the Wisconsin recall! Talk about not learning from mistakes.....

No endorsement from Scott Walker, although he unleashes this devastating tidbit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77424.html#ixzz1yNX0HoQY

Walker stopped short of calling Republicans the favorite to pick up the Democratic seat. But he upbraided Baldwin for carrying “some of the most liberal policies in the country.”
“I just think that they would be, in many ways, horribly out of whack with where the majority of people are in the state of Wisconsin,” he said, referring to Baldwin.

What else would you expect him to say? You act like that's some big special announcement.

He's certainly not going to say anything favorable about her.

Thompson could swing Republican in the Presidential race due to Thompsons coattails.

I can't think of any example of coattails working that way.

I think it helps Republicans across the board when the party fields good candidates. It may boost GOP turnout in the state, which in turn would help Romney.

There is little to no evidence to support down ballot races effecting the top of the ballot, but I guess this is supposed to be something new that will happen with Thompson. He's not leading because of straight ticket Republican voters, some of his voters will be voting for Obama.

On a side note, Mike Castle had good numbers for the general, but he didn't make it there. Thompson's opposition is far more credible than O'Donnell and a split electorate may or may not save him.

It will very likely save him.  The very-Conservatives who want to find an alternative to Tommy won't unite on 1 of the other 3 unless something crazy happens.  Neumann and Hovde have the deep pockets, but Fitzgerald might be the must acceptable to everyone.  Two of 3 would basically have to get out of the primary and endorse the remaining one  ...not happening, Hovde looks to be as stubborn as we know Neumann is to see this through to the end.  

Baldwin goes through the effort to poll....the GOP primary.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98564788/WI-Sen-Feldman-Group-for-Tammy-Baldwin-June-2012



Lol. I guess she found she was losing badly to Thompson, at least, and silenced that part of the poll.

She certainly wants to run against the guy who called her a Commie. :rolleyes:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/234349-wisconsin-senate-candidate-calls-rep-tammy-baldwin-a-communist

Haha? Isn't that the line they used against Scott Walker? Divisive politics?

There is about as much evidence to support reverse coattails as there is to support the notion that the unpopularity of someone not even on the ballot can affect the Presidential race (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148625.msg3189321#msg3189321) -  nothing or close to nothing.   If coattails are overrated, reverse coattails are even more so.

You should know a lot about divisive politics as you attempt it on a daily basis here.

Based on the Scott Walker example the people of Wiscsonsin prefer divisive politics to Dane County. I wonder how crying about divisive politics is supposed to work this time.

Except that wasn't the point I was trying to make...

Well, the article in question was certainly not about me. I am just a humble private sector citizen and am certainly not capable of something as spectacular as divisive politics.

You're very good at contradicting yourself without starting a new sentence or even needing to incorporate punctuation of any kind.

I think we'll be the judges of that.

I don't think it's wise politically, but is anything incorrect in that statement? Hint: the answer is no. 

Somehow I doubt Tammy Baldwin's philosophy has its roots in Marxism, unless we're defining 'roots' so extensively as to imply that Hovde's philosophy would have comparable routes in the comte de Maistre. Hint: American leftism has historically emphasized coopting the interests of people who would otherwise be Marxists into a left-liberal or tepidly social-democratic policy program.

well yea, by "roots" I think you can ignore some elements and focus on others.  For instance: Redistribution-ism and class warfare are common to both Marxism and Tammy Baldwin.   

I think Hovde has a decent chance to beat Thompson in the primary. A recent internal shows a close race, with Hovde only slightly behind. And there's still 1 month to go. If Hovde wins, this race is much more competetive for Baldwin.

If Hovde wins the primary, than he will dump something like 10-to-15-to-20 million in the general race, which is 2.5(?) months long.  It might be closer in some ways, but that kind of move erases a lot of flaws.  Neumann would probably dump in up to 10 million.       

There are a lot of things "common to both" Nazism and this Hovde fellow's ideology. Is it fair to say he has his roots in Nazism? No, of course not.

Except you have zero examples and obviously Baldwin would be much closer to a Nazi than Hovde.  Baldwin has acknowledged her far left positions publicly for many years.  You could argue the 'roots' are in European socialism, but that is splitting hairs in a casual conversation-- which allows slight exaggerations in definitions.  It is easier to say Marxist, than it is to say European style-quasi socialist-with a few democrat party traditions.  From a traditional American's perspective their isn't a gigantic or important difference there.             

Obviously.

I shouldn't respond, but yes obviously (to someone that knows what they're talking about anyway).  Most people know shockingly little about the progressive movement, Nazis or both.  FYI, I didn't say the worst aspects of Nazism, which is all most people know about and thus associate with every aspect.  The movements are cousins of the same era without question.  Rivals for the same turf often hate each other (sometimes they cooperate).  The American left was the friend of German socialists until German interests conflicted with the British and than finally the Russian socialists.  Coincidentally their is mountains of hard evidence supporting this in Madison, Wisconsin (Tammy Baldwins hometown).  Tammy Baldwin is a self proclaimed progressive.  Whether you like it or not, progressives are much much closer to National Socialism than a free market conservative (which can't get much farther away).  Perhaps consult the horseshoe theory or a scientific political spectrum

() 
Hovde is probably near Ronald Reagan (his dad served in his administration) and Baldwin is probably somewhere near FDR.  ...hmm "obviously, LOL."     

     Note: 2-D political diagrams mean little, especially in reference to a third-way ideology such as fascism.

Well, I'm convinced!

They aren't everything, but cross referencing 10 different axis combinations definitely has value.

     They generally oversimplify reality by ignoring motivations for supporting policy positions. I remember one question on the Political Matrix test that asked about views on immigrations. This one stuck out to me in particular because it was unique in affecting both the economic & social axes. Opposing immigration made one more right-wing in both and supporting it made one more left-wing in both.

     Problem is, motivations can be far more complicated. You might oppose immigration because you're a protectionist, which is economically leftist (though it was a big business position in the 1800s). On the other hand, you might support legal immigration as a pretext to a push for unrestricted free trade, which would probably be seen as a right-wing point of view.

     Point being, the traditional 2-D political tests make assumptions about why people support the positions that they do. These assumptions largely make sense for typical American voters, but fail miserably when applied to ideologies outside of the mainstream, such as fascism.

The idea that to the 'traditional American' the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Anglo-American-style tepid social democracy isn't 'gigantic or important' is one of the worst things I've ever heard about American politics and public life.

The democrat party is influenced by Marxism.  It tries to co-opt it into the American democratic tradition.  There's obvious problems with that.  Traditional Americans see the influence and call it what it is.  ...This isn't exactly rocket science, you're just really defensive and paranoid about it.

On the gay front, it is a huge political advantage. 
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309527/pretending-be-gay-now-actual-campaign-strategy-christian-schneider   
   

This is clearly not true. In many countries, Democratic Party wouldn't be even a left-wing party.

Well, perhaps in a Democratic primary. In the general election in 2010 in Dane County it was quite obviously a disadvantage.

Anyone who thinks the Democratic Party or American liberalism has ideological roots in Marxism is an ignorant, full stop.

you clearly don't know much world history. Both parties are essentially "classical liberalism" with the main difference being on how it should be carried out. Obviously guys like Chris Dodd or Max Baucus are supporters and beneficiaries of the capital system as they have plenty of connections to the business world.

LOL.  I hesitate to play the college degree card, even though you're baiting me into it. 


The influence of Marx on democrats is undeniable.  Some more than others.  Stop trying to make that statement into something else and than call me stupid for telling a blatantly obvious truth. 

Well, I'm not American so I'm maybe forgetting something, but for me, it's pretty clear that Democratic Party has no influence from Marxism. Even IIRC, some of the most anti-communist people during the Cold War were Democracts (Larry McDonald, Scoop Jackson).

As a Cuban-American whose parents knew real communism, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on Democrats being Marx-influenced.

I'll take the bait on this one.  My great-grandfather was murdered by communists.   

The Democratic Party has about as much influence from Marxism as the Republican Party has from Nazism.

Both are ridiculously childish claims.

The Democratic Party is closer to some of the center-right parties (more economically liberal, though) in Europe than it is any Marxist Party anywhere.

This guy is the main influence of the Democratic Party in terms of economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

I try to stay away from it, but democrats are playing with fire and I won't let people pretend they aren't.  For instance, tell me how Obama's concept of "fairness" isn't influenced by Marx.  Are say French Socialists influenced by Marx?    

well if you insist then whatever I say is fair game. I could easily argue that the GOP is descended from Billy James Hargis and Fred Schwarz (both of which I doubt you've heard of).

anti-communists? from before my time.  I could see your argument applied to the Reagan administration perhaps. 

This thread serves as a very good reminder that Atlas is an internet forum.

So Marx is the first man to introduce the concept of "fairness?"  More importantly, anyone who believes in it is automatically a Marxist?  Yeah, okay.

Your outlook on politics is extremely narrow.

Maybe read a little bit about American political history "before your time" and then come back to us.

Sorry about your great-grandfather, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. Fairness is not a Marxist idea, not even if you're claiming that you mean "redistribution" by it.

And calling Obama a Marxist is incredibly ignorant, as he has done nothing that Marxists actually do. He's not even very leftist.

You guys offer nothing but ad hominem attacks and than call me "narrow, ignorant, and uninformed."  The hypocrisy and the projection is sad.  Maybe use facts or intelligent thoughts next time.  Thanks. 

I didn't call you ignorant nor uninformed. I was just curious about your arguments about the Marxism influences over the Democratic Party (because, sorry, I don't see them).

Don't blame us.  The way that you connect liberal ideas to Marxist ideas is completely absurd.  I suggest you study a bit more on these things before you make such atrocious claims.  Perhaps even read some of Marx's writings if it helps you see the difference.

Maybe AN can talk to us about the ground situation rather than this Marxism debate.

debate the issue here if you have any actual thoughts about it. 

Is the Democrat Party influenced by Marx?
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156203.0

RR, I'll post an update soon. 

Neumann (via the national club for growth) goes after Thompson and Hovde
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4LFYBPuEoE

Baldwin attacks (via Emily's list) Thompson and Hovde
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ_EkcYXxyg&feature=player_embedded

Thompson continues his road sign themed commercials with a Harley-Davidson. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t0v4M2sUA4&feature=plcp

Fitz finally got some(not much) exposure going this week. 


My take is that it's clear Neumann and Hovde are fighting for the same votes.  Thompson has a base of support "pinned down", but he will have a hard time getting over 50% in the primary.  Fitz's only shot is a Santorum in Iowa like rise as the only remaining alternative.  Baldwin is afraid of Thompson (no shock), but she is also afraid of Hovde's money.  So, Neumann and Baldwin are becoming strange bedfellows.  Thompson still likely gets out of the primary as long as it stays crowded.     

Here's a summery of a lot of things from the paper. 
http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/wisconsin/162423746.htm

Good news, since this could well be 51.

Keep in mind that democrats ALWAYS close well in WI and that the race ends up being tighter than it may appear by polls that previously favored Republicans. Kerry actually won an upset there in 2004 after trailing in WI the entire summer/fall and both democrats almost pulled it out in the 2010 midterms.

hmm, I see your point, but:
1) no democrat has ever closed well against Thompson
2) the two dems lost by 3.5 (off the top of my head) points in 2010 and Feingold was a 3 term Senator.
3) ...Thompson may get incumbent like advantages without the disadvantages. 
3A) He has tremendous good will and name ID built up 
3B) He hasn't been in office doing anything unpopular
3C) The only people unhappy with him that he needs to vote for him are simply more/different conservative than he is.  He is a conservative not a moderate.   
3D) I predict almost all of his detractors on his right will back him after the primary.  It is a healthy decent they are expressing.   
4) Walker won by 7 points in 2012.  Thompson is better than 50/50 to beat that.