Wisconsin Assembly Race

[Wiz in Wis]

Hi all!

I just wanted to mention that my mother, Kris Wisnefske, is running as Democrat for Wisconsin's 80th State Assembly seat. I would like this thread to be a discussion about what people are looking for in a state house candidate, and to gather advice and possible help from any Wisconsin Democrats, Greens, etc who are interested. I hope I am posting this in the right place!

http://www.themonroetimes.com/o0906pwi.htm

Thanks for the time and interest!

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Hi all!

I just wanted to mention that my mother, Kris Wisnefske, is running as Democrat for Wisconsin's 80th State Assembly seat. I would like this thread to be a discussion about what people are looking for in a state house candidate, and to gather advice and possible help from any Wisconsin Democrats, Greens, etc who are interested. I hope I am posting this in the right place!

http://www.themonroetimes.com/o0906pwi.htm

Thanks for the time and interest!

Personally, I look for someone who's smart enough not to campaign on the "War in Iraq" while seeking a state legislative race, but seeing as how most serious Democratic challengers seem to work that into their campaigns, I must be the only one.

[AndrewTX]

^ I couldn't agree more! They did that in our House races here in Connecticut, and it was like "Come on! Focus on issues that you can actually work on!"

 BTW, in a House candidate, I'm looking for someone to clean up after me, and make sure that dinner is ready by 6 pm.

[MarkWarner08]

^ I couldn't agree more! They did that in our House races here in Connecticut, and it was like "Come on! Focus on issues that you can actually work on!"

 BTW, in a House candidate, I'm looking for someone to clean up after me, and make sure that dinner is ready by 6 pm.

Uh, didn't the Democrats pick up some GOP state house seats last cycle? Looks like the anti-war message contributed to the "throw the GOP bums out" mentality that helped the D's win in '06.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

^ I couldn't agree more! They did that in our House races here in Connecticut, and it was like "Come on! Focus on issues that you can actually work on!"

 BTW, in a House candidate, I'm looking for someone to clean up after me, and make sure that dinner is ready by 6 pm.

Uh, didn't the Democrats pick up some GOP state house seats last cycle? Looks like the anti-war message contributed to the "throw the GOP bums out" mentality that helped the D's win in '06.

Yes, many State House candidates won on a platform of "I Don't Like President Bush" back in 2006.  A retarded circus monkey could have ran and won on a platform like that last cycle, but I don't want to be represented by a retarded circus monkey, regardless of political affiliation.

[HardRCafé]

How about a baboon?

[Padfoot]

I'd have to agree that the war in Iraq isn't an issue that any candidate for state assembly needs to address.  It's just a cheap and easy way to demonize Republicans and win a few extra votes.  If Democrats want to maintain the gains they are making they're eventually gonna have to stop relying on Iraq finger-pointing and start running on real issues.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If a State Legislative candidate needed to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006 to win, then that's a significant liability moving forward—a clue that they're just not strong enough candidates to win on their own with a set of real issues; that they don't have a strong enough connection with their district to represent it effectively once they get to the state capitol and have to face issues other than Iraq.

It all comes back to a very pointed statement made by a Republican strategist in 1986 following the loss of a lot of Reagan landslide Senate seats (and I paraphrase)—had we known that we had a chance of winning (in 1980), we'd have run better candidates.

Basically, the lot running for re-election in 1986 just wasn't strong enough to win re-election in a neutral (or worse) environment.  We may see some giveback in 2008 and 2010 of state legislative seats just based on the simple sink/swim notion that a certain number of Democrats who won last year simply do not have the credentials or capabilities of serving effectively.

[MarkWarner08]

If a State Legislative candidate needed to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006 to win, then that's a significant liability moving forward—a clue that they're just not strong enough candidates to win on their own with a set of real issues; that they don't have a strong enough connection with their district to represent it effectively once they get to the state capitol and have to face issues other than Iraq.

It all comes back to a very pointed statement made by a Republican strategist in 1986 following the loss of a lot of Reagan landslide Senate seats (and I paraphrase)—had we known that we had a chance of winning (in 1980), we'd have run better candidates.

Basically, the lot running for re-election in 1986 just wasn't strong enough to win re-election in a neutral (or worse) environment.  We may see some giveback in 2008 and 2010 of state legislative seats just based on the simple sink/swim notion that a certain number of Democrats who won last year simply do not have the credentials or capabilities of serving effectively.

Here in Oregon, most of the Democrats who helped us take back the State House ran on local issues and against the repugnant Republican State House Speaker. I'm pretty sure we'll hold most the seats we won.  To give you a flavor of the Democratic freshman class, we have a rancher, a community activist, the founder of one of the nation's fastest growing tech consultancy firms, a Rhode Scholar, and the list goes on. These folks aren't David Funderburks or any of the crappy Republicans senators like Mack Mattingly who won in 1980 and then lost in 1986.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If a State Legislative candidate needed to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006 to win, then that's a significant liability moving forward—a clue that they're just not strong enough candidates to win on their own with a set of real issues; that they don't have a strong enough connection with their district to represent it effectively once they get to the state capitol and have to face issues other than Iraq.

It all comes back to a very pointed statement made by a Republican strategist in 1986 following the loss of a lot of Reagan landslide Senate seats (and I paraphrase)—had we known that we had a chance of winning (in 1980), we'd have run better candidates.

Basically, the lot running for re-election in 1986 just wasn't strong enough to win re-election in a neutral (or worse) environment.  We may see some giveback in 2008 and 2010 of state legislative seats just based on the simple sink/swim notion that a certain number of Democrats who won last year simply do not have the credentials or capabilities of serving effectively.

Here in Oregon, most of the Democrats who helped us take back the State House ran on local issues and against the repugnant Republican State House Speaker. I'm pretty sure we'll hold most the seats we won.  To give you a flavor of the Democratic freshman class, we have a rancher, a community activist, the founder of one of the nation's fastest growing tech consultancy firms, a Rhode Scholar, and the list goes on. These folks aren't David Funderburks or any of the crappy Republicans senators like Mack Mattingly who won in 1980 and then lost in 1986.

I was talking more about places like New Hampshire, where a sizable chunk of the winners were people who stumbled into office without even mounting a serious campaign.  You know how many mother/son- and wife/husband-type legislative teams won last year?

[HardRCafé]

Not to mention Carol "Anyone remember who I'm talking about?" Shea-Porter.

[AndrewTX]

^ I couldn't agree more! They did that in our House races here in Connecticut, and it was like "Come on! Focus on issues that you can actually work on!"

 BTW, in a House candidate, I'm looking for someone to clean up after me, and make sure that dinner is ready by 6 pm.

Uh, didn't the Democrats pick up some GOP state house seats last cycle? Looks like the anti-war message contributed to the "throw the GOP bums out" mentality that helped the D's win in '06.

Yes, many State House candidates won on a platform of "I Don't Like President Bush" back in 2006.  A retarded circus monkey could have ran and won on a platform like that last cycle, but I don't want to be represented by a retarded circus monkey, regardless of political affiliation.

Yup, that's exactly what happened. There were quite a few members in the state House here who opposed the war, yet still got tossed out. I talked to a few people leaving the polls, and they told me "I'm not happy with the way our state is going, so I voted to put the Democrats in power of the state House and Senate for a change"

 Uh.. people, good job. The Democrats have had control of the House and Senate here for like, 16 million years.

[Mr.Phips]

If a State Legislative candidate needed to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006 to win, then that's a significant liability moving forward—a clue that they're just not strong enough candidates to win on their own with a set of real issues; that they don't have a strong enough connection with their district to represent it effectively once they get to the state capitol and have to face issues other than Iraq.

It all comes back to a very pointed statement made by a Republican strategist in 1986 following the loss of a lot of Reagan landslide Senate seats (and I paraphrase)—had we known that we had a chance of winning (in 1980), we'd have run better candidates.

Basically, the lot running for re-election in 1986 just wasn't strong enough to win re-election in a neutral (or worse) environment.  We may see some giveback in 2008 and 2010 of state legislative seats just based on the simple sink/swim notion that a certain number of Democrats who won last year simply do not have the credentials or capabilities of serving effectively.

Here in Oregon, most of the Democrats who helped us take back the State House ran on local issues and against the repugnant Republican State House Speaker. I'm pretty sure we'll hold most the seats we won.  To give you a flavor of the Democratic freshman class, we have a rancher, a community activist, the founder of one of the nation's fastest growing tech consultancy firms, a Rhode Scholar, and the list goes on. These folks aren't David Funderburks or any of the crappy Republicans senators like Mack Mattingly who won in 1980 and then lost in 1986.

I was talking more about places like New Hampshire, where a sizable chunk of the winners were people who stumbled into office without even mounting a serious campaign.  You know how many mother/son- and wife/husband-type legislative teams won last year?

New Hampshire has a different type of legislature.  Being a legislator in New Hampshire is a minimal commitment job and pays about $1000 a year.  There have been college students elected to the New Hampshire legislature.

[Mr.Phips]

If a State Legislative candidate needed to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006 to win, then that's a significant liability moving forward—a clue that they're just not strong enough candidates to win on their own with a set of real issues; that they don't have a strong enough connection with their district to represent it effectively once they get to the state capitol and have to face issues other than Iraq.

It all comes back to a very pointed statement made by a Republican strategist in 1986 following the loss of a lot of Reagan landslide Senate seats (and I paraphrase)—had we known that we had a chance of winning (in 1980), we'd have run better candidates.

Basically, the lot running for re-election in 1986 just wasn't strong enough to win re-election in a neutral (or worse) environment.  We may see some giveback in 2008 and 2010 of state legislative seats just based on the simple sink/swim notion that a certain number of Democrats who won last year simply do not have the credentials or capabilities of serving effectively.

Most of the 1980 Republican Senate incumbents that lost in 1986 lost because 1986 was a bad year for Republicans and most of them barely lost. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If a State Legislative candidate needed to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006 to win, then that's a significant liability moving forward—a clue that they're just not strong enough candidates to win on their own with a set of real issues; that they don't have a strong enough connection with their district to represent it effectively once they get to the state capitol and have to face issues other than Iraq.

It all comes back to a very pointed statement made by a Republican strategist in 1986 following the loss of a lot of Reagan landslide Senate seats (and I paraphrase)—had we known that we had a chance of winning (in 1980), we'd have run better candidates.

Basically, the lot running for re-election in 1986 just wasn't strong enough to win re-election in a neutral (or worse) environment.  We may see some giveback in 2008 and 2010 of state legislative seats just based on the simple sink/swim notion that a certain number of Democrats who won last year simply do not have the credentials or capabilities of serving effectively.

Most of the 1980 Republican Senate incumbents that lost in 1986 lost because 1986 was a bad year for Republicans and most of them barely lost. 

Most of the 1980 Republican Senate winners were absolute nobodies when they won.  Had they had even some real experience prior, those narrow losses would have easily flipped to narrow wins.

[Mr.Phips]

If a State Legislative candidate needed to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006 to win, then that's a significant liability moving forward—a clue that they're just not strong enough candidates to win on their own with a set of real issues; that they don't have a strong enough connection with their district to represent it effectively once they get to the state capitol and have to face issues other than Iraq.

It all comes back to a very pointed statement made by a Republican strategist in 1986 following the loss of a lot of Reagan landslide Senate seats (and I paraphrase)—had we known that we had a chance of winning (in 1980), we'd have run better candidates.

Basically, the lot running for re-election in 1986 just wasn't strong enough to win re-election in a neutral (or worse) environment.  We may see some giveback in 2008 and 2010 of state legislative seats just based on the simple sink/swim notion that a certain number of Democrats who won last year simply do not have the credentials or capabilities of serving effectively.

Most of the 1980 Republican Senate incumbents that lost in 1986 lost because 1986 was a bad year for Republicans and most of them barely lost. 

Most of the 1980 Republican Senate winners were absolute nobodies when they won.  Had they had even some real experience prior, those narrow losses would have easily flipped to narrow wins.

There were several Republicans who lost that year that had a lot of previous experience.  Both Jim Abdnor(SD) and Mark Andrews(ND) were former House members.  Paula Hawkins(FL) was the state Public Service Commissioner.  There were only two losers that year with no experience and they were Mack Mattingly(GA) and Jeremiah Denton(AL).