Wisconsin Megathread v2: Hagedorn vs. Neubauer

[redjohn]

Really like Roys, but she's not winning against Walker. I'm still strongly supporting Mitchell, but I'm coming to terms with the fact that Evers will likely be the nominee (despite the fact that I only one Democrats who is planning on voting for him; the polls can't all be wrong, right?). He's extremely uninspiring but he doesn't seem gaffe-prone and has the background of being State Superintendent going for him, which will be a good contrast to Walker's anti-education agenda.

If Democrats want the candidate with the best shot at winning, though, it's Mitchell. I worry there's a really good chance Milwaukee craters even further in turnout, and Mitchell will prevent a sizable chunk of that crater, something no other candidate will be able to do.

[Badger]

It seems Evers is holding true and focusing his campaign outside of the big cities. Not one Evers lawn sign in either Madison or MKE where I've passed through. I've seen a lot of Roys and Vinehout signs in the cities  however.

Evers is largely running a public meeting/ad style campaign in the big areas. Is his precense more pronounced elsewhere in the state? I imagine he's big in Western and Northern WI.

Seems to make sense to me, at least anecdotally. I drive through the Madison metro area often, and I haven't seen a single Evers sign. The most common from my experience are Vinehout and McCabe, along with some for Mitchell, and I've only seen 1 for Roys. Haven't seen any signs for anyone else.

Evers also just generally seems like a better fit for rural communities. He's performed well in them in past elections and he can connect well with places that have struggled with education(funding and etc).

Not an expert on the states politics by any means, but that would seem to be a prime geographical basis to beat Walker. Running strong in rural counties that went for Obama, plus relying on just natural disgust for Walker to turn out the vote in Dane and Milwaukee, seems like a reasonable Prospect.

Reading that Milwaukee has poor turnout problems, I'm interested to know whether that's something that requires a good candidate the top of the ticket or if it's more of a structural problem that a good gotv investment could counter?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Why is it so hard for people to realize that Tony Evers is the best candidate Democrats have in this race?

[Badger]

Why is it so hard for people to realize that Tony Evers is the best candidate Democrats have in this race?

Maybe if some of his supporters would lay out arguments why...

[Dr. Arch]

Why is it so hard for people to realize that Tony Evers is the best candidate Democrats have in this race?

Maybe if some of his supporters would lay out arguments why...

1) He has a strong history of electoral success in the state.
2) He's hitting the right notes on all of the critical state issues with a progressive vision.
3) He knows the state well.
4) He's not from the "liberal bastions" that Republicans have worked hard on vilifying recently
5) He's active in national politics and gets involved (he was handing out water bottles to K-12 student protesters during the gun marches).
6) He can work across the aisle when he needs to.
7) He can strengthen down ballot performance for local Democrats.

[Koharu]

It seems Evers is holding true and focusing his campaign outside of the big cities. Not one Evers lawn sign in either Madison or MKE where I've passed through. I've seen a lot of Roys and Vinehout signs in the cities  however.

There's Evers signs on the west side of Madison. Quite a few in Verona, as well as McCabe.

[Koharu]

Evers has the primary in the bag, though I do not think he's the best option to go against Walker in Wisconsin's current climate. I'm afraid of his running against Walker; this state really cannot handle another four years of Walker. I can get into details re: my feelings on Evers if anyone is actually interested, but I feel like I'm the loner here in regards to him, and that's okay.

Anyway, I think this will be interesting:

https://twitter.com/WPR/status/1025184608973803520

As the link says, it can be listened to online if you're out-of-state and interested.

[mcmikk]

It seems Evers is holding true and focusing his campaign outside of the big cities. Not one Evers lawn sign in either Madison or MKE where I've passed through. I've seen a lot of Roys and Vinehout signs in the cities  however.

There's Evers signs on the west side of Madison. Quite a few in Verona, as well as McCabe.

I actually haven't seen a single Evers sign. I drive around the East Side as well as Monona and Cottage Grove frequently. I've only seen McCabe, Vinehout, Mitchell, and Roys. I also saw a few Baldwin and McCabe signs in rural Dane County.

[Wiz in Wis]

It seems Evers is holding true and focusing his campaign outside of the big cities. Not one Evers lawn sign in either Madison or MKE where I've passed through. I've seen a lot of Roys and Vinehout signs in the cities  however.

There's Evers signs on the west side of Madison. Quite a few in Verona, as well as McCabe.

I actually haven't seen a single Evers sign. I drive around the East Side as well as Monona and Cottage Grove frequently. I've only seen McCabe, Vinehout, Mitchell, and Roys. I also saw a few Baldwin and McCabe signs in rural Dane County.

To be fair, yard signs are a pretty useless indicator. If Sauk County were a representative indicator, Vinehout would be winning close to 80% of the vote.

[BBD]

Evers has the primary in the bag, though I do not think he's the best option to go against Walker in Wisconsin's current climate. I'm afraid of his running against Walker; this state really cannot handle another four years of Walker. I can get into details re: my feelings on Evers if anyone is actually interested, but I feel like I'm the loner here in regards to him, and that's okay.

Yes, I'd be very interested to know why you feel that way about Evers. Who do you think is the best option against Walker?

[Blair]

Evers has the primary in the bag, though I do not think he's the best option to go against Walker in Wisconsin's current climate. I'm afraid of his running against Walker; this state really cannot handle another four years of Walker. I can get into details re: my feelings on Evers if anyone is actually interested, but I feel like I'm the loner here in regards to him, and that's okay.

Anyway, I think this will be interesting:

https://twitter.com/WPR/status/1025184608973803520

As the link says, it can be listened to online if you're out-of-state and interested.

Please do.

[Gass3268]

Three State Senators endorsed Evers over the weekend:

https://twitter.com/Tony4WI/status/1025387385868218368

https://twitter.com/Tony4WI/status/1025446461713068032

https://twitter.com/Tony4WI/status/1026144899274629120

[Dr. Arch]

Metric ton of Roys lawnsigns all over Dane. I'm actually impressed.

[mcmikk]

It seems Evers is holding true and focusing his campaign outside of the big cities. Not one Evers lawn sign in either Madison or MKE where I've passed through. I've seen a lot of Roys and Vinehout signs in the cities  however.

There's Evers signs on the west side of Madison. Quite a few in Verona, as well as McCabe.

I actually haven't seen a single Evers sign. I drive around the East Side as well as Monona and Cottage Grove frequently. I've only seen McCabe, Vinehout, Mitchell, and Roys. I also saw a few Baldwin and McCabe signs in rural Dane County.

To be fair, yard signs are a pretty useless indicator. If Sauk County were a representative indicator, Vinehout would be winning close to 80% of the vote.

True.

[redjohn]

Mitchell hitting Milwaukee-area airwaves hard. Not sure whether the final push will be enough to push him past the others, but this race is going to be close. My guess is that Evers wins by a small margin, with Mitchell the runner-up. It all depends on whether Milwaukee flexes some of its muscle, which seems doubtful if one looks at the 2016 general results as well as this spring's election turnout (relative to the rest of the state).

[Dr. Arch]

Mitchell hitting Milwaukee-area airwaves hard. Not sure whether the final push will be enough to push him past the others, but this race is going to be close. My guess is that Evers wins by a small margin, with Mitchell the runner-up. It all depends on whether Milwaukee flexes some of its muscle, which seems doubtful if one looks at the 2016 general results as well as this spring's election turnout (relative to the rest of the state).

My opinion of the MKE area, outside of politics (although, as we can see, the city's residents have gone out of their way to show that they don't really care all that much), is overall very poor. So far, it's been the most disappointing city I've visited.

[libertpaulian]

Mitchell hitting Milwaukee-area airwaves hard. Not sure whether the final push will be enough to push him past the others, but this race is going to be close. My guess is that Evers wins by a small margin, with Mitchell the runner-up. It all depends on whether Milwaukee flexes some of its muscle, which seems doubtful if one looks at the 2016 general results as well as this spring's election turnout (relative to the rest of the state).

My opinion of the MKE area, outside of politics (although, as we can see, the city's residents have gone out of their way to show that they don't really care all that much), is overall very poor. So far, it's been the most disappointing city I've visited.

Milwaukee's problem is that 1) it tries to play second-fiddle to Chicago instead of trying to develop its own niche and identity, and 2) it's followed the same patterns and traits of every post-industrial Midwestern city.

[Dr. Arch]

Mitchell hitting Milwaukee-area airwaves hard. Not sure whether the final push will be enough to push him past the others, but this race is going to be close. My guess is that Evers wins by a small margin, with Mitchell the runner-up. It all depends on whether Milwaukee flexes some of its muscle, which seems doubtful if one looks at the 2016 general results as well as this spring's election turnout (relative to the rest of the state).

My opinion of the MKE area, outside of politics (although, as we can see, the city's residents have gone out of their way to show that they don't really care all that much), is overall very poor. So far, it's been the most disappointing city I've visited.

Milwaukee's problem is that 1) it tries to play second-fiddle to Chicago instead of trying to develop its own niche and identity, and 2) it's followed the same patterns and traits of every post-industrial Midwestern city.

Sounds about right. I couldn't be paid enough to move to a city where mediocrity is, by and large, the modus operandi apparent.

[Gass3268]

Mitchell hitting Milwaukee-area airwaves hard. Not sure whether the final push will be enough to push him past the others, but this race is going to be close. My guess is that Evers wins by a small margin, with Mitchell the runner-up. It all depends on whether Milwaukee flexes some of its muscle, which seems doubtful if one looks at the 2016 general results as well as this spring's election turnout (relative to the rest of the state).

My opinion of the MKE area, outside of politics (although, as we can see, the city's residents have gone out of their way to show that they don't really care all that much), is overall very poor. So far, it's been the most disappointing city I've visited.

Milwaukee's problem is that 1) it tries to play second-fiddle to Chicago instead of trying to develop its own niche and identity, and 2) it's followed the same patterns and traits of every post-industrial Midwestern city.

Sounds about right. I couldn't be paid enough to move to a city where mediocrity is, by and large, the modus operandi apparent.

Milwaukee has a lot of issues, but there is definitely an identity. Summerfest, its beer history and culture, Brewers/Bucks, butter burgers, custard stands, Mr. Baseball, Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, the Milwaukee Art Museum Cream City, etc.

[Koharu]

Oops, sorry for taking so long.

The big issues that I see is this is a state very divided. I grew up in rural Minnesota, and while Minnesota's divide between the Twin Cities and greater MN is different than the urban/rural divide in Wisconsin, I still understand it, much more so than other urban folks seem to, at any rate. So taking that into consideration, Vinehout is a very unique candidate.

Another big consideration is that this state is willing to vote either party, if they feel their needs will be met by that candidate. See all the swinging of the past while.


She is a former dairy farmer who goes deer hunting. This is huge in Wisconsin because one of the scare tactics here is "they're going to take our guns!" even though most Democrats support common sense gun laws, that's easily switched into "taking the guns!" With Vinehout, that argument is a non-starter. In addition, though she is in state government currently, she is still seen as an "outsider," especially because she is not from an urban area and is still very grounded in her background. This is where the urban/rural divide is important. Greater Wisconsin absolutely detests anyone seen as Madisonian. Milwaukee is almost as bad, but still better than a bureaucrat.

This is where Vinehout shines. Of the remaining candidates, she has experience in government, but not the sort that makes her seem like an insider or bureaucrat.

Evers did well in state-wide elections for a very specific role where one wants a very experienced individual. Greater Wisconsin voters are going to be /pissed/ that he decided to jump in partisan politics and they're going to distrust him because he is an experienced bureaucrat. While he may not be from Madison, his lack of connections and ties outside of the more urban areas make it seem like he is just another Madison politicker. He will do well in Madison and Milwaukee, but as Walker's most recent election show, that alone isn't enough, and with Trump stirring up animosity against "the swamp," aka "the establishment," I think Walker will just very narrowly beat Evers.

Mitchell, who I love, if it weren't for voter ID scaring away voters, could possibly turn out enough folks in Milwaukee and Madison to counter the rest of the state, but with voter ID being the way it is, and Trump feeding racists all kinds of cookies, he just won't be able to get enough votes to counter Walker. Racism does him in and it sucks because he's actually who I'd most want in the role.

McCabe, like Vinehout, does have rural appeal, but I just don't think he has enough name recognition or experience to grab the attention of voters. He could do okay, but I honestly can't see him taking the primary over Mitchell or Evers even with a smaller group of candidates.

Anyway, the rural/urban divide is why I think Vinehout is uniquely situated to counter Walker. She appeals to the rural parts of the state and could garner independent votes, or at least votes of moderate folks who are tired of Walker moreso than the other options.

In addition, though she can connect with rural voters, she has the progressive bonafides to appeal to urban voters, too. She also has name recognition because she has sponsored bills that folks in Madison like. I'm not as sure about how she would do in Milwaukee, but I don't see her doing much worse than Evers there against Walker.

Anyway, it all comes down to who can actually challenge Walker, and while I like Evers and love Mitchell, I don't think either of them can be a guaranteed win against Walker. Vinehout is the only one, in my opinion, with enough appeal to the very different sets of voters in the state to actually counter Walker. The only other way to knock him out would be a state-level equivalent of Obama, and there just seems to be a dearth of charismatic Democratic candidates in Wisconsin.

All that said, with how primaries work and his name recognition, I'm pretty sure Evers has the nomination in the bag. I feel a race between him and Walker would be very, very close and he could squeak out a win, but it makes me very uncomfortable and nervous. I would feel much more secure with Vinehout.

[MasterJedi]

Mitchell hitting Milwaukee-area airwaves hard. Not sure whether the final push will be enough to push him past the others, but this race is going to be close. My guess is that Evers wins by a small margin, with Mitchell the runner-up. It all depends on whether Milwaukee flexes some of its muscle, which seems doubtful if one looks at the 2016 general results as well as this spring's election turnout (relative to the rest of the state).

My opinion of the MKE area, outside of politics (although, as we can see, the city's residents have gone out of their way to show that they don't really care all that much), is overall very poor. So far, it's been the most disappointing city I've visited.

Milwaukee's problem is that 1) it tries to play second-fiddle to Chicago instead of trying to develop its own niche and identity, and 2) it's followed the same patterns and traits of every post-industrial Midwestern city.

Milwaukee's problem is the old German roots, it's cheap and people have the "this is Milwaukee we can't do that/have nice things" no matter how much the city is booming and people are trying to help. It's one of the densest cities outside of the big cities in the country, it would be perfect for rail but the WOW counties are actively trying to destroy the city while getting the benefits of it for free. For example a regional transit authority is illegal per state law.

[MasterJedi]

On a second note I suspect Evers will win by at least a 25% margin.

[Scottholes 2.0]

Oops, sorry for taking so long.

The big issues that I see is this is a state very divided. I grew up in rural Minnesota, and while Minnesota's divide between the Twin Cities and greater MN is different than the urban/rural divide in Wisconsin, I still understand it, much more so than other urban folks seem to, at any rate. So taking that into consideration, Vinehout is a very unique candidate.

Another big consideration is that this state is willing to vote either party, if they feel their needs will be met by that candidate. See all the swinging of the past while.


She is a former dairy farmer who goes deer hunting. This is huge in Wisconsin because one of the scare tactics here is "they're going to take our guns!" even though most Democrats support common sense gun laws, that's easily switched into "taking the guns!" With Vinehout, that argument is a non-starter. In addition, though she is in state government currently, she is still seen as an "outsider," especially because she is not from an urban area and is still very grounded in her background. This is where the urban/rural divide is important. Greater Wisconsin absolutely detests anyone seen as Madisonian. Milwaukee is almost as bad, but still better than a bureaucrat.

This is where Vinehout shines. Of the remaining candidates, she has experience in government, but not the sort that makes her seem like an insider or bureaucrat.

Evers did well in state-wide elections for a very specific role where one wants a very experienced individual. Greater Wisconsin voters are going to be /pissed/ that he decided to jump in partisan politics and they're going to distrust him because he is an experienced bureaucrat. While he may not be from Madison, his lack of connections and ties outside of the more urban areas make it seem like he is just another Madison politicker. He will do well in Madison and Milwaukee, but as Walker's most recent election show, that alone isn't enough, and with Trump stirring up animosity against "the swamp," aka "the establishment," I think Walker will just very narrowly beat Evers.

Mitchell, who I love, if it weren't for voter ID scaring away voters, could possibly turn out enough folks in Milwaukee and Madison to counter the rest of the state, but with voter ID being the way it is, and Trump feeding racists all kinds of cookies, he just won't be able to get enough votes to counter Walker. Racism does him in and it sucks because he's actually who I'd most want in the role.

McCabe, like Vinehout, does have rural appeal, but I just don't think he has enough name recognition or experience to grab the attention of voters. He could do okay, but I honestly can't see him taking the primary over Mitchell or Evers even with a smaller group of candidates.

Anyway, the rural/urban divide is why I think Vinehout is uniquely situated to counter Walker. She appeals to the rural parts of the state and could garner independent votes, or at least votes of moderate folks who are tired of Walker moreso than the other options.

In addition, though she can connect with rural voters, she has the progressive bonafides to appeal to urban voters, too. She also has name recognition because she has sponsored bills that folks in Madison like. I'm not as sure about how she would do in Milwaukee, but I don't see her doing much worse than Evers there against Walker.

Anyway, it all comes down to who can actually challenge Walker, and while I like Evers and love Mitchell, I don't think either of them can be a guaranteed win against Walker. Vinehout is the only one, in my opinion, with enough appeal to the very different sets of voters in the state to actually counter Walker. The only other way to knock him out would be a state-level equivalent of Obama, and there just seems to be a dearth of charismatic Democratic candidates in Wisconsin.

All that said, with how primaries work and his name recognition, I'm pretty sure Evers has the nomination in the bag. I feel a race between him and Walker would be very, very close and he could squeak out a win, but it makes me very uncomfortable and nervous. I would feel much more secure with Vinehout.

I think people underrestimate Walker's vulnerability for this election. I don't think Vinehout has a chance against Walker. I was going to vote for McCabe, but Evers seems more experienced and knowledgeable, so I think I'll be voting for him. I dom't umderstand why prople still think Walker has a good chance of winning, even after a Democrat won a statewide race recently and two senate seats have been flipped in heavy Trump districts.

[GlobeSoc]

Mitchell hitting Milwaukee-area airwaves hard. Not sure whether the final push will be enough to push him past the others, but this race is going to be close. My guess is that Evers wins by a small margin, with Mitchell the runner-up. It all depends on whether Milwaukee flexes some of its muscle, which seems doubtful if one looks at the 2016 general results as well as this spring's election turnout (relative to the rest of the state).

My opinion of the MKE area, outside of politics (although, as we can see, the city's residents have gone out of their way to show that they don't really care all that much), is overall very poor. So far, it's been the most disappointing city I've visited.

Milwaukee's problem is that 1) it tries to play second-fiddle to Chicago instead of trying to develop its own niche and identity, and 2) it's followed the same patterns and traits of every post-industrial Midwestern city.

Milwaukee's problem is the old German roots, it's cheap and people have the "this is Milwaukee we can't do that/have nice things" no matter how much the city is booming and people are trying to help. It's one of the densest cities outside of the big cities in the country, it would be perfect for rail but the WOW counties are actively trying to destroy the city while getting the benefits of it for free. For example a regional transit authority is illegal per state law.

weird question, but could a D trifecta allowing a public transit network, followed by Milwaukee making one w/ Kenosha and Racine cause WOW to trend R and the southern+Milwaukee county suburbs to trend D, at least at the local and state levels?

[MasterJedi]

Mitchell hitting Milwaukee-area airwaves hard. Not sure whether the final push will be enough to push him past the others, but this race is going to be close. My guess is that Evers wins by a small margin, with Mitchell the runner-up. It all depends on whether Milwaukee flexes some of its muscle, which seems doubtful if one looks at the 2016 general results as well as this spring's election turnout (relative to the rest of the state).

My opinion of the MKE area, outside of politics (although, as we can see, the city's residents have gone out of their way to show that they don't really care all that much), is overall very poor. So far, it's been the most disappointing city I've visited.

Milwaukee's problem is that 1) it tries to play second-fiddle to Chicago instead of trying to develop its own niche and identity, and 2) it's followed the same patterns and traits of every post-industrial Midwestern city.

Milwaukee's problem is the old German roots, it's cheap and people have the "this is Milwaukee we can't do that/have nice things" no matter how much the city is booming and people are trying to help. It's one of the densest cities outside of the big cities in the country, it would be perfect for rail but the WOW counties are actively trying to destroy the city while getting the benefits of it for free. For example a regional transit authority is illegal per state law.

weird question, but could a D trifecta allowing a public transit network, followed by Milwaukee making one w/ Kenosha and Racine cause WOW to trend R and the southern+Milwaukee county suburbs to trend D, at least at the local and state levels?

With the gerrymander it'll be almost impossible for them to have a D trifecta. Then the problem is that a lot in Madison and outstate if not outright hate are ambivalent to Milwaukee. The biggest goof up was Doyle vetoing a RTS because it wasn't perfect. Milwaukee has a streetcar now, that's what we're going to have to be satisfied with expanding for a long time.