Which Democrat should run against Ron Johnson?

[IceSpear]

I'm a Republican, so I want Gwen Moore to run since she will lose.

Didn't you guys say the same thing about Tammy Baldwin? The popular former governor was supposed to be a shoo in against the far left Madison liberal lesbian...

[Del Tachi]

Ron Kind will be elected to the Senate in 2016, mark my words!

[TDAS04]

Feingold

[TJ in Oregon]

Wasn't Feingold himself basically from Madison? Or has the state moved so far to the right now that simply being from Madison will kill you?

Feingold was effectively from Madison. Being from Madison alone won't kill the Democrat's statewide chances but it won't help, especially given the sort of things necessary to get on top in the Madison area Democratic Party. Someone like Feingold would be more immune to that problem because he's been apart from Madison local politics for a long enough time that it wouldn't apply to him. For instance, Paul Soglin would be an atrocious statewide candidate even though he's popular in Madison.

To answer the question, they should run Kind. He's far and away their best candidate and head-and-shoulders ahead of the other options here.

[DS0816]

Honestly I like Marc Pocan the most out of all them. Ron Kind is exactly the kind of bland, nothing-too-daring, "I'm a moderate!" candidate that Democrats need to get away from.


I'd also throw Senate Minorty Leader Jennifer Shilling in as a possibility.

So they should run another Madison liberal?

Liberal … yes.

Madison … doesn't matter.

It does to the rest of the state.

Elections do not require a winning candidate 100 percent of the votes cast.

It matters to the people up north that make up the scant swing voters left in this state after the last couple cycles.

You seem under the impression that Republicans routinely carry the state of Wisconsin in presidential election years.

They haven't done that since Ronald Reagan's 49-state re-election in 1984.

Every year since 1976, for which Wisconsin had a scheduled U.S. Senate election, saw the state carry for the same political party at both the presidential and senatorial levels.

The only Republican victory was with Bob Kasten's Republican pickup, when he unseated Gaylord Nelson, in 1980. That was a likewise Republican pickup of the state by Ronald Reagan. And that year was also a majority-control pickup of the U.S. Senate for the Republicans.

All other applicable cycles were Democratic outcomes on both counts: 1976 (Jimmy Carter, Democratic pickup; William Proxmire); 1988 (Michael Dukakis, Democratic pickup; Herb Kohl's first-term victory); 1992 (Bill Clinton; Russ Feingold, Democratic pickup winner who unseated Bob Kasten, with his first-term victory); 2000 (Al Gore; Herb Kohl); 2004 (John Kerry; Russ Feingold); and 2012 (Barack Obama; Tammy Baldwin, with her first-term victory).

State of Wisconsin did not have U.S. Senate elections with these presidential elections: 1984, 1996, and 2008.

If this pattern continues, Republicans will not hold the U.S. Senate seat (with or without incumbent Ron Johnson), with Election 2016, unless they also win a Republican pickup of Wisconsin at the presidential level.

[TJ in Oregon]

That logic completely discounts the fact that the candidate the Democrats nominate actually matters, which it does. If they nominate someone like Soglin, he'll underperform the Democratic presidential numbers and if they nominate someone like Kind he'll win even if the Republicans carry Wisconsin in the presidential election. Just because there hasn't been a ticket split in a long time doesn't mean we never will. People split their tickets in tons of races; president and senate are not somehow immune. In fact even in 2012 while the overall margins were similar, there was a substantial difference between the geography of the Presidential and Senate races in Wisconsin. Thompson had some residual base in the southwest but was particularly unpopular up north. He still lost. Walker won in non-presidential elections in part because of lower turnout in MKE, this is true. But he also won because he swept the rural areas up north, which the Republicans haven't been able to do against Obama in a presidential election. Can Ron Johnson do that? Personally I doubt it. But of course it matters who his opponent is.

[Vosem]

The thing is, DS, you have a total of one example of a race with an incumbent Republican running (1992), and it's an example that's twenty years stale.

[DS0816]

The thing is, DS, you have a total of one example of a race with an incumbent Republican running (1992), and it's an example that's twenty years stale.

I've addressed the topic before with an example of this post from Dec. 15, 2013:

@ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=183905.msg3979488#msg3979488

Since 1972, every presidential election in which North Carolina also had a scheduled U.S. Senate election resulted in the same party having carried in the state at both the presidential and senatorial levels.

1972: Richard Nixon (R, re-elected) and Jesse Helms (R, pickup, Open)
1976: Jimmy Carter (D, pickup, who unseated Gerald Ford) and NOT APPLICABLE
1980: Ronald Reagan (R, pickup, who unseated Jimmy Carter) and John Porter East (R, pickup, who unseated Robert Burren Morgan)
1984: Ronald Reagan (R, re-elected) and Jesse Helms (R, re-elected)
1988: George Bush (R, hold of Open) and NOT APPLICABLE
1992: George Bush (R, state hold but was unseated by Bill Clinton) and Lauch Faircloth (R, pickup, who unseated Terry Sanford)
1996: Bob Dole (R) and Jesse Helms (R, re-elected)
2000: George W. Bush (R, pickup of Open, in a state hold) and NOT APPLICABLE
2004: George W. Bush (R, re-elected) and Richard Burr (R, pickup of Open)
2008: Barack Obama (D, pickup of Open) and Kay Hagan (D, pickup, who unseated Elizabeth Dole)
2012: Mitt Romney (R, pickup) and NOT APPLICABLE


Since 1976, every presidential election in which Wisconsin also had a scheduled U.S. Senate election resulted in the same party having carried in the state at both the presidential and senatorial levels.

1976: Jimmy Carter (D, pickup, who unseated Gerald Ford) and William Proxmire (D, re-elected)
1980: Ronald Reagan (R, pickup, who unseated Jimmy Carter) and Bob Kasten (R, pickup, who unseated Gaylord Nelson)
1984: Ronald Reagan (R, re-elected) and NOT APPLICABLE
1988: Michael Dukakis (D, pickup) and Herb Kohl (D, hold of seat of retiring William Proxmire)
1992: Bill Clinton (D, elected with having unseated George Bush) and Russ Feingold (D, pickup, who unseated Bob Kasten)
1996: Bill Clinton (D, re-elected) and NOT APPLICABLE
2000: Al Gore (D) and Herb Kohl (D, re-elected)
2004: John Kerry (D) and Russ Feingold (D, re-elected)
2008: Barack Obama (D, pickup, Open) and NOT APPLICABLE
2012: Barack Obama (D, re-elected) and Tammy Baldwin (D, hold of seat of retiring Herb Kohl)


Since 1992, every presidential election in which Ohio also had a scheduled U.S. Senate election resulted in the same party having carried in the state at both the presidential and senatorial levels.

1992: Bill Clinton (D, pickup, who unseated George Bush) and John Glenn (D, re-elected)
1996: Bill Clinton (D, re-elected) and NOT APPLICABLE
2000: George W. Bush (R, pickup, Open) and Mike DeWine (R, re-elected)
2004: George W. Bush (R, re-elected) and George Voinovich (R, re-elected)
2008: Barack Obama (D, pickup, Open) and NOT APPLICABLE
2012: Barack Obama (D-re-elected) and Sherrod Brown (D, re-elected)




I will be keeping this in mind for Election 2016.

Let's keep in mind voting patterns of carried states, for a given party, ending up in the column for the same party at both the presidential and senatorial levels with the last three presidential elections of 2004, 2008, and 2012.

In 2004, the following states carried for different parties (President; U.S. Senate)
1. Arkansas (George W. Bush, R; Blanche Lincoln, D)
2. Colorado (George W. Bush, R; Ken Salazar, D, pickup)
3. Indiana (George W. Bush, R; Evan Bayh, D)
4. Nevada (George W. Bush, R; Harry Reid, D)
5. New Hampshire (John Kerry, D, pickup; Judd Gregg, R)
6. North Dakota (George W. Bush, R; Byron Dorgan, D)
7. Pennsylvania (John Kerry, D; Arlen Specter, R)

Match (same-party carriage): 27 of 34 states
Percentage (same-party carriage): 79.41 percent

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004

In 2008, the following states carried for different parties (President; U.S. Senate)
1. Alaska (John McCain, R; Mark Begich, D, pickup)
2. Arkansas (John McCain, R; Mark Pryor, D)
3. Louisiana (John McCain, R; Mary Landrieu, D)
4. Maine (Barack Obama, D; Susan Collins, R)
5. Montana (John McCain, R; Max Baucus, D)
6. South Dakota (John McCain, R; Tim Johnson, D)
7. West Virginia (John McCain, R; Jay Rockefeller, D)

Match (same-party carriage): 26 of 33 states (regularly scheduled)
Match (same-party carriage): 28 of 35 states (two states with Special elections)
Percentage (same-party carriage; regularly scheduled): 78.78 percent
Percentage (same-party carriage; “Specials” included): 80.00 percent

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008


In 2012, the following states carried for different parties (President; U.S. Senate)
1. Indiana (Mitt Romney, R, pickup; Joe Donnelly, D, pickup)
2. Missouri (Mitt Romney, R; Claire McCaskill, D)
3. Montana (Mitt Romney, R; Jon Tester, D)
4. Nevada (Barack Obama, D; Dean Heller, R)
5. North Dakota (Mitt Romney, R; Heidi Heitkamp, D)
6. West Virginia (Mitt Romney, R; Joe Manchin, D)

Match (same-party carriage): 27 of 33 states (regularly scheduled)
Percentage (same-party carriage; regularly scheduled): 81.81 percent

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012


So, there's a pattern here where voters are carrying for the same party at both presidential and senatorial levels. This was mentioned, not this explicitly at about the 2 minute 40 second mark, by Matt Dowd on ABC News' 2012 election-night coverage. @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsyTh1NhRE

[IceSpear]

Unlike in say, PA and IL, there's absolutely no reason why a Democratic voter for president would cross over and vote for Johnson. In fact, it's the opposite. R president voters would be more likely to cross over, particularly if Feingold runs. So Johnson's best hope is the Republican nominee carrying Wisconsin and dragging him over the finish line. A pretty tall order.

[Vosem]

So, DS, let's take a look at the presidential elections 2004-2012; specifically at incumbents running for reelection in states voting the opposite party for President. There were seven such figures in 2004; 6/7 were reelected (all but Tom Daschle). In 2008, there were eleven such Senators; 6/11 were reelected. In 2012, there were six Senators like this; 5/6 were reelected. Clearly, when you are an incumbent running in such a state, while no guarantee you're clearly favored for reelection.

Or we can stop cherry-picking data to show what we want it to, and just say that Johnson is, while too far to the right to ever be comfortably entrenched in Wisconsin, is a skilled campaigner and fundraiser and while it is unclear who his opponent will be, he will have a competitive race.

Unlike in say, PA and IL, there's absolutely no reason why a Democratic voter for president would cross over and vote for Johnson. In fact, it's the opposite. R president voters would be more likely to cross over, particularly if Feingold runs. So Johnson's best hope is the Republican nominee carrying Wisconsin and dragging him over the finish line. A pretty tall order.

This is absolutely impossible to say without foreknowledge of who Johnson's opponent is. If Johnson can paint him sufficiently negatively, there's no reason he can't peel off folks voting Democratic for President. (I also hesitate to call Wisconsin anything better than Leans D at the national level; it is slightly to the left of the nation, but they have a very popular Republican state government, and it's even possible an R-WI will be the presidential nominee. They may also differentiate between voting Republican for President and for a 'local' Republican like Johnson or Walker).

[DS0816]

Unlike in say, PA and IL, there's absolutely no reason why a Democratic voter for president would cross over and vote for Johnson. In fact, it's the opposite. R president voters would be more likely to cross over, particularly if Feingold runs. So Johnson's best hope is the Republican nominee carrying Wisconsin and dragging him over the finish line. A pretty tall order.

Illinois hasn't elected a Republican, to the U.S. Senate, in a presidential year won by the Democratic nominee since 1940. Illinois hasn't elected a Republican, to the U.S. Senate, in a presidential year won by the Republican nominee since Richard Nixon's 49-state re-election in 1972. (Nixon, of course, carried the state of Illinois.) The Republicans who have since won elections to the U.S. Senate have done so only in midterm election years.

Pennsylvania has been the one slow to come around. The example, of course, is with Rick Santorum having won a second-term re-election in 2000 as Al Gore carried, for the presidency, the state of Pennsylvania. Arlen Specter, while still in the Republican Party, won his last election in the presidential year of 2004 as John Kerry carried, for the presidency, the state of Pennsylvania.

[DS0816]

So, DS, let’s take a look at the presidential elections 2004-2012; specifically at incumbents running for reelection in states voting the opposite party for President. There were seven such figures in 2004; 6/7 were reelected (all but Tom Daschle). In 2008, there were eleven such Senators; 6/11 were reelected. In 2012, there were six Senators like this; 5/6 were reelected. Clearly, when you are an incumbent running in such a state, while no guarantee you’re clearly favored for reelection.

Or we can stop cherry-picking data to show what we want it to, and just say that Johnson is, while too far to the right to ever be comfortably entrenched in Wisconsin, is a skilled campaigner and fundraiser and while it is unclear who his opponent will be, he will have a competitive race.

Unlike in say, PA and IL, there’s absolutely no reason why a Democratic voter for president would cross over and vote for Johnson. In fact, it’s the opposite. R president voters would be more likely to cross over, particularly if Feingold runs. So Johnson’s best hope is the Republican nominee carrying Wisconsin and dragging him over the finish line. A pretty tall order.

This is absolutely impossible to say without foreknowledge of who Johnson’s opponent is. If Johnson can paint him sufficiently negatively, there’s no reason he can’t peel off folks voting Democratic for President. (I also hesitate to call Wisconsin anything better than Leans D at the national level; it is slightly to the left of the nation, but they have a very popular Republican state government, and it’s even possible an R-WI will be the presidential nominee. They may also differentiate between voting Republican for President and for a ‘local’ Republican like Johnson or Walker).

I’ve mentioned here that the last three presidential election years [2004, 2008, 2012], with select states’ scheduled U.S. Senate seats, have seen approximately [80] percent of those states carry for the same political party at both the presidential and senatorial levels.

Refer to this:

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016

Here is the map:

Vosem: You are welcomed and encouraged to tell us which six or seven states will carry differently at the presidential and senatorial levels with Election 2016.

[Nhoj]

Wasn't Feingold himself basically from Madison? Or has the state moved so far to the right now that simply being from Madison will kill you?

Considering we elected a lesbian from Madison 2 years ago. I am gonna say no.

[Vosem]

Vosem: You are welcomed and encouraged to tell us which six or seven states will carry differently at the presidential and senatorial levels with Election 2016.

I've no idea (though I suspect it will be to the benefit of incumbent Senators), and the fact that you are asking this question indicates that you missed my point entirely. My point being that data from past Senate elections can be manipulated in such a way as to make many different outcomes seem very likely. The correlation between presidential and Senate elections in the past does not actually tell us very much at all about the Senate election in Wisconsin in 2016.

[ShadowRocket]

It'd be cool to Feingold make a comeback, but it'll probably be Kind.