Wisconsin Megathread

[mcmikk]

Well well well....turns out Scott Walker's Foxconn boondoggle will now cost $4.5 billion (up from $3 billion). Bye bye Walker

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's hope. This deal is so unbelievably trash and I hope it brings Walker down so we can get a liberal in there that isn't gonna give away 4 billion dollars to a foreign corporation. We won't even break even on this investment for several decades at best.

[Former Kentuckian]

Well well well....turns out Scott Walker's Foxconn boondoggle will now cost $4.5 billion (up from $3 billion). Bye bye Walker

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Walker is such an idiot

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Well well well....turns out Scott Walker's Foxconn boondoggle will now cost $4.5 billion (up from $3 billion). Bye bye Walker

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Walker is such an idiot

Hopefully he loses reelection.

[Virginiá]

Well well well....turns out Scott Walker's Foxconn boondoggle will now cost $4.5 billion (up from $3 billion). Bye bye Walker

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Walker is such an idiot

From the party of fiscal responsibility, my dudes.

[mcmikk]

Well well well....turns out Scott Walker's Foxconn boondoggle will now cost $4.5 billion (up from $3 billion). Bye bye Walker

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Walker is such an idiot

From the party of fiscal responsibility, my dudes.

[Dr. Arch]

Well well well....turns out Scott Walker's Foxconn boondoggle will now cost $4.5 billion (up from $3 billion). Bye bye Walker

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Walker is such an idiot

From the party of fiscal responsibility, my dudes.

[MasterJedi]

Walker has been saying there's no money for the roads and has been begging the feds for billions to help, but they "found" $100 million more for road expansion by Foxconn. So likely more bonds and deferring interest, yay. -_-


Also, Soglin needs to GTFO.

[Wiz in Wis]

Since i live in the district next to SD 10, I have been hearing radio ads for the republican primary. pretty typical stuff other than Zimmerman has been running attack ads against Jarchow for not being 100% loyal to walker. i do see that Jarchow has locked up most of the endorsements from current and former elected officials including the third HD Rep in SD 10.

What's so interesting about SD 10, exactly?

There is a special election? that's about it. Seeing how democrats have been improving in specials nationwide it may be interesting to watch.

This is actually in the NW corner of the state, near Minneapolis-St Paul. I do think that it's possible, though not likely, that this seat could flip. It's closest analogue in my mind is GA-06.

[henster]

WI Dems should really run on investing in rural infastructure and schools. Walker has won by using rural resentment pitting urban vs. rural while not actually doing anything for rural communities.

[mcmikk]

WI Dems should really run on investing in rural infastructure and schools. Walker has won by using rural resentment pitting urban vs. rural while not actually doing anything for rural communities.

This, with particular focus on the large strip of Obama-Trump counties in Western Wisconsin.

[mcmikk]

WI Dems should really run on investing in rural infastructure and schools. Walker has won by using rural resentment pitting urban vs. rural while not actually doing anything for rural communities.

This, with particular focus on the large strip of Obama-Trump counties in Western Wisconsin.

Evers/Vinehout ticket needs to be in the works, like, yesterday.

[Badger]

Well well well....turns out Scott Walker's Foxconn boondoggle will now cost $4.5 billion (up from $3 billion). Bye bye Walker

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Walker is such an idiot

From the party of fiscal responsibility, my dudes.

[Gass3268]

Soglin is probably going to enter the race next week, in the meantime he and Walker have gotten into a twitter battle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MT Treasurer]

I know this isn't a thread for discussing the Senate race, but thoughts on this?

Mostly hype/hot air IMO, but kinda odd how much conservative groups are spending here.

[Virginiá]

I know this isn't a thread for discussing the Senate race, but thoughts on this?

Mostly hype/hot air IMO, but kinda odd how much conservative groups are spending here.

Not much evidence that a few million in ads 10-11 months out from the election will have even a small impact on the result. They are just lighting money on fire. No one is going to remember any of this a month from now, let alone in November.

[IceSpear]

I know this isn't a thread for discussing the Senate race, but thoughts on this?

Mostly hype/hot air IMO, but kinda odd how much conservative groups are spending here.

Not much evidence that a few million in ads 10-11 months out from the election will have even a small impact on the result. They are just lighting money on fire. No one is going to remember any of this a month from now, let alone in November.

Early ads did pretty well at destroying the popularity of Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan, etc. in 2014.

[Former Kentuckian]

I know this isn't a thread for discussing the Senate race, but thoughts on this?

Mostly hype/hot air IMO, but kinda odd how much conservative groups are spending here.

Not much evidence that a few million in ads 10-11 months out from the election will have even a small impact on the result. They are just lighting money on fire. No one is going to remember any of this a month from now, let alone in November.

Early ads did pretty well at destroying the popularity of Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan, etc. in 2014.

2014 was a Democratic midterm, though. Baldwin is facing a much better environment than all of those candidates.

[Virginiá]

Early ads did pretty well at destroying the popularity of Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan, etc. in 2014.

Is there actual evidence that was the (or a major) reason for their defeat, or was it just the case that there were early ads, and it so happened that the race tightened later on, and they lost, so people just assumed it was because of the ads? Looking at the NC polls from 2014, Hagan's weakening in October through election day seems more consistent with an intensifying election where voters started making their minds up. Otherwise not much else seemed to change.

I don't think I've seen a single study that showed political ads really have much impact at all, at least on high-profile races, and when they do, it is short-term only, and wears off within a couple weeks. I used to put a lot more stock into them, but over the past 2 years, it has been really hard to find a very clear-cut instance where they played a notable part.

[Pollster]

Early ads did pretty well at destroying the popularity of Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan, etc. in 2014.

Is there actual evidence that was the (or a major) reason for their defeat, or was it just the case that there were early ads, and it so happened that the race tightened later on, and they lost, so people just assumed it was because of the ads? Looking at the NC polls from 2014, Hagan's weakening in October through election day seems more consistent with an intensifying election where voters started making their minds up. Otherwise not much else seemed to change.

I don't think I've seen a single study that showed political ads really have much impact at all, at least on high-profile races, and when they do, it is short-term only, and wears off within a couple weeks. I used to put a lot more stock into them, but over the past 2 years, it has been really hard to find a very clear-cut instance where they played a notable part.

Ads are often much more effective in primary races, where party polarization plays less of a factor and voters are more easily won over on persuasion, with exceptions.

Good, positive ads can put a candidate on the map. In Kander's race last year we saw a major bump after the gun ad went up. This effect is usually seen with positive ads for candidates with low name recognition. If a campaign for an established candidate releases a strong ad (positive or negative), the goal is usually to generate favorable headlines and media coverage, such as HRC's 2008 phone call ad or her 2016 "children are listening" ad.

Attack ads - if they're good - have generally the same intended effect, but to weaken candidates with low name recognition instead of boost them. Occasionally a good attack ad can also drag down what we call a "known unknown" - a candidate with high name recognition but who has baggage or other vulnerabilities of some kind that the electorate at-large is unaware of or not thinking/hearing about. Mitt Romney deployed this tactic effectively against Newt Gingrich in Iowa 2012.

Bad ads can backfire on a candidate, but as you noted this effect often wears off in due time. Timing is important though, as Liddy Dole learned in 2008.

[IceSpear]

Early ads did pretty well at destroying the popularity of Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan, etc. in 2014.

Is there actual evidence that was the (or a major) reason for their defeat, or was it just the case that there were early ads, and it so happened that the race tightened later on, and they lost, so people just assumed it was because of the ads? Looking at the NC polls from 2014, Hagan's weakening in October through election day seems more consistent with an intensifying election where voters started making their minds up. Otherwise not much else seemed to change.

I don't think I've seen a single study that showed political ads really have much impact at all, at least on high-profile races, and when they do, it is short-term only, and wears off within a couple weeks. I used to put a lot more stock into them, but over the past 2 years, it has been really hard to find a very clear-cut instance where they played a notable part.

Well, before the ads they had high approval ratings, and after the ads they had horrible approval ratings. Of course, that could've been due to external events as well, like the political environment worsening for the Democrats, the Obamacare website malfunctioning, etc. I was actually referring to the early attack ads that softened up their approvals, not the mid-late 2014 ads once the campaign season heated up. The damage had already been done by then.

It makes sense to test the waters and see if Baldwin can be softened up considering she lacks a strong personal brand, Walker is seen as the favorite to be re-elected, and it's not like the GOP is lacking in Koch money.

[Mike Thick]

Vukmir probably has a ton of fundraising connections from her time at ALEC. The fact that Nicholson is clearly a very ambitious guy can't hurt either -- people want to get a foot in the door with him just like they did with Greitens and Cotton.

[Gass3268]

An old poll taken for the rightwing Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce by the rightwing leaning Tarrance Group:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dr. Arch]

An old poll taken for the rightwing Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce by the rightwing leaning Tarrance Group:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's deep underwater in Wisconsin, more than it seems. As you can see by Baldwin's and Walker's numbers, Wisconsin is heavily polarized and normal disapprovals and approvals are in single digits in one way or another. To be near 60% disapproval in Wisconsin (regardless of party) means that you're dead meat.

[IceSpear]

Early ads did pretty well at destroying the popularity of Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan, etc. in 2014.

Is there actual evidence that was the (or a major) reason for their defeat, or was it just the case that there were early ads, and it so happened that the race tightened later on, and they lost, so people just assumed it was because of the ads? Looking at the NC polls from 2014, Hagan's weakening in October through election day seems more consistent with an intensifying election where voters started making their minds up. Otherwise not much else seemed to change.

I don't think I've seen a single study that showed political ads really have much impact at all, at least on high-profile races, and when they do, it is short-term only, and wears off within a couple weeks. I used to put a lot more stock into them, but over the past 2 years, it has been really hard to find a very clear-cut instance where they played a notable part.

Well, before the ads they had high approval ratings, and after the ads they had horrible approval ratings. Of course, that could've been due to external events as well, like the political environment worsening for the Democrats, the Obamacare website malfunctioning, etc. I was actually referring to the early attack ads that softened up their approvals, not the mid-late 2014 ads once the campaign season heated up. The damage had already been done by then.

It makes sense to test the waters and see if Baldwin can be softened up considering she lacks a strong personal brand, Walker is seen as the favorite to be re-elected, and it's not like the GOP is lacking in Koch money.

Is there a reason Walker is favored given his low approvals and the national environment? Is it his war chest and a split D field? Those alone don’t sound compelling enough IMO

Probably that plus him winning 3 times and Wisconsin swinging to the right. Plus muh incumbency of course.

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.