Democrats expect to win control of Wisconsin State Senate

[BrainGlutton]

HuffPo reports:

WASHINGTON -- Despite polls showing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) maintaining a narrow lead in his bid to fend off a recall challenge Tuesday, national Democrats said they remain confident the party will come out on top during the election.

Michael Sargeant, head of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, a national group focused on electing Democrats to state legislative seats, told HuffPost he is confident that Democrats can win the one state Senate seat they need to grab control of the chamber. Sargeant said polling data shows three of the four Senate recall races within the margin of error. "It is likely we'll pick up one seat," he said.

In addition to statewide recalls for governor and lieutenant governor, voters in four Wisconsin Senate districts have recall races of their own. Democrats said they have the strongest chance of defeating either Sen. Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls) or Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), or picking up a vacant Wausau area seat. Democrats are fielding former Rep. Kristin Dexter against Moulton and former Sen. John Lehman against Wanggaard. Democratic Rep. Donna Seidel and Republican Rep. Jerry Petrowski are facing off for the open state senate seat.

However:

If Democrats retake the Senate with Walker remaining in the governor's mansion, the victory may be hollow. The state legislature has adjourned for the year and the Senate cannot return to Madison without the consent of the Republican-controlled Assembly, unless the governor calls them back. Half of the Senate faces voters in November. Democrats have said winning the majority in June can help with momentum for the November race.

[davidm]

Let's hope they take the Senate, because if Walker is indicted and removed from office, this is who will become Governor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2S5bAm37UU

[Oakminster]

Let's hope they do not take the Senate, and the defeat drives a stake through the heart of the progressive movement.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Let's hope they do not take the Senate, and the defeat drives a stake through the heart of the progressive movement.

Yes indeed. Let's have the Koch's buy elections. Fascism for all!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Let's hope they do not take the Senate, and the defeat drives a stake through the heart of the progressive movement.

Is this because you believe a one-party system is superior, or because you see a viable alternative to progressives as the loyal opposition to conservatives?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Let's hope they do not take the Senate, and the defeat drives a stake through the heart of the progressive movement.

I don't like the metaphor. I think we learned (or at least I did) that Republicans in charge without a check or balance do not produce as optimal results as I had hoped for (at least on the national stage).

But if we're borrowing metaphors from the world of the supernatural, I don't think vampire is the right one. (Although I admit that the "sucking the life out of" aspect matches the effect progressives have on business quite nicely).

Instead, I would offer "casting out a demon." Defanging public sector unions, and driving a wedge between union demands and the rest of the progressive platform, without obliterating the progressive platform in its entirety, strikes me as a good thing.

(Ha! Strikes - get it? Ah, I slay myself.)

[furt]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

.. and the defeat drives a stake through the heart of the progressive movement.

Step back, take a deep breath, and ask yourself if this the guy you want to be.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by furt

Step back, take a deep breath, and ask yourself if this the guy you want to be.

An appropriate response to the non-OP. Hurray for our side, is all I'm seeing.

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes indeed. Let's have the Koch's buy elections. Fascism for all!

I cannot tell you how many times I've read this line on HuffPo, Daily Kos or any other of the left leaning blogs/websites. If money buys elections, then why isn't Meg Whitman governor of California? If money buys elections, then surely you can agree that Obama bought himself the 2008 election?

(Rhetorical questions, of course.)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

I cannot tell you how many times I've read this line on HuffPo, Daily Kos or any other of the left leaning blogs/websites. If money buys elections, then why isn't Meg Whitman governor of California? If money buys elections, then surely you can agree that Obama bought himself the 2008 election?

(Rhetorical questions, of course.)

Good point. Please make sure that any money imbalances which favor the Republican candidate are submitted to the Democrats in future, so as to ensure future republican victories. I'm sure you'd be happy with that, since money doesn't influence victory, and so would I.

[furt]

Originally Posted by John Mace

An appropriate response to the non-OP. Hurray for our side, is all I'm seeing.

Maybe so; I didn't read the OP, so my bad.

I'm just doing my morning news roundup, and getting tired of the wild extreme reactions on both sides.

Which probably means I need to think about where I get my morning news roundup.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Is this because you believe a one-party system is superior, or because you see a viable alternative to progressives as the loyal opposition to conservatives?

I value a more moderate approach to solving problems. Progressives are too far left, just as the Tea Party is too far right. My ideal candidate would support getting our fiscal house in order while also supporting civil liberties and smaller government.

I also get more than a little annoyed with the ridiculously over the top progressive cheerleading/conservative bashing that is pretty much a constant around this place. So I fire back from time to time.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

My ideal candidate would support getting our fiscal house in order while also supporting civil liberties and smaller government.

Can you with any precision explain why the typical current Democrat or the hypothetical progressive isn't your ideal candidate? What you ask for is what they are.

[mkecane]

It may mean "nothing" since the Senate is out of session, but at least Walker can't call a special session in the next few months (not sure he would, as everyone may just want to not risk things for Obama/Romney). Here are the 16 senators up for election in Nov.

Name	District	Party
Robert Cowles	2	Republican
Lena Taylor	4	Democratic
Spencer Coggs	6	Democratic
Alberta Darling	8	Republican
Sheila Harsdorf	10	Republican
Jim Holperin	12	Democratic
Luther Olsen	14	Republican
Mark Miller	16	Democratic
Jessica King	18	Democratic
Glenn Grothman	20	Republican
Robert Wirch	22	Democratic
Julie Lassa	24	Democratic
Fred Risser	26	Democratic
Mary Lazich	28	Republican
Dave Hansen	30	Democratic
Jennifer Shilling	32	Democratic

The ones I bolded are those I'm guessing are safe, either for the candidate or the party. Others may be safe, but I don't know the district very well. So, that would be 3 potential changes for Republicans, and 4 potential changes for the Democrats. Shilling and King both beat incumbents last year in recall elections, so they may be safe, too. Wirch survived a recall last year with 57%, so I'd think he's probably safe, too. So, that leaves 4 possible toss-ups, I guess.

ETA: Wow, Risser has been in the Senate since '62, and he's 85 years old. Is he retiring? I have to figure that's a very safe seat for the Democrats. I changed the bolding to reflect that his seat is probably safe.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Can you with any precision explain why the typical current Democrat or the hypothetical progressive isn't your ideal candidate? What you ask for is what they are.

Typical Democrats/progressives want to punish success and redistribute wealth. I oppose the Death Tax, and support the Second Amendment. That pretty much eliminates many Dems from consideration as my candidate of choice.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Let's hope they do not take the Senate, and the defeat drives a stake through the heart of the progressive movement.

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes indeed. Let's have the Koch's buy elections. Fascism for all!

Why do you hate America? Let's give the Kochs the elections for FREE! Having all that money is PROOF that they're right about everything. There's no need to punish them by making them spend it.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But if we're borrowing metaphors from the world of the supernatural, I don't think vampire is the right one. (Although I admit that the "sucking the life out of" aspect matches the effect progressives have on business quite nicely).

Instead, I would offer "casting out a demon." Defanging public sector unions, and driving a wedge between union demands and the rest of the progressive platform, without obliterating the progressive platform in its entirety, strikes me as a good thing.

(Ha! Strikes - get it? Ah, I slay myself.)

I saw what you did there.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

An appropriate response to the non-OP. Hurray for our side, is all I'm seeing.

And how is this highly relevant news about the election everybody's talking about this week a "non-OP"? The Elections forum is more or less a GD spinoff, but I'm pretty sure the rule about posing a question for debate in the OP does not carry over. It is enough to post an elections-related subject worthy of discussion, which this clearly is.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

I cannot tell you how many times I've read this line on HuffPo, Daily Kos or any other of the left leaning blogs/websites. If money buys elections, then why isn't Meg Whitman governor of California? If money buys elections, then surely you can agree that Obama bought himself the 2008 election?

(Rhetorical questions, of course.)

Money doesn't buy elections on a 1 to 1 basis, it sways elections.

What you aren't seeing, is that money pushes marginal elections. No amount of money will unseat Pilosi. Her district is too safe. But money can sway close elections.

But because of the typical conservative inability to parse nuance, you assume that since money can't buy every election, hoo-rah, let the spigots flow!


Penicillin can't cure all illnesses, that doesn't mean it isn't a potent tool that gives us an advantage.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Typical Democrats/progressives want to punish success and redistribute wealth. I oppose the Death Tax, and support the Second Amendment. That pretty much eliminates many Dems from consideration as my candidate of choice.

Every once in a while a particularly juvenile response highlights posters with little substance to contribute.

A legitimate question is asked, yet the response hovers around the level of Glen Beck. "Punish success" is particularly sophomoric, yet the poster's slavish adherence to such inanities suggests it's particularly successful. The rest is, well, an embarrassment. But I guess FoxNation can't be the only place to post.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Every once in a while a particularly juvenile response highlights posters with little substance to contribute.

A legitimate question is asked, yet the response hovers around the level of Glen Beck. "Punish success" is particularly sophomoric, yet the poster's slavish adherence to such inanities suggests it's particularly successful. The rest is, well, an embarrassment. But I guess FoxNation can't be the only place to post.

Just because you do not like the answer does not make it invalid. And way to go with the lame ass attempt to tie me to Beck and Fox News. Be sure to clean that broad brush thoroughly. I'm sure you'll want to paint with it again sometime.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Just because you do not like the answer does not make it invalid. And way to go with the lame ass attempt to tie me to Beck and Fox News. Be sure to clean that broad brush thoroughly. I'm sure you'll want to paint with it again sometime.

Uh, you believe there is a death tax. I'm pretty sure that's invalid.

Unless you mean the inheritance tax, which is a tax when money changes hands. Just like when you get your paycheck. Never mind that it's lower.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Just because you do not like the answer does not make it invalid. And way to go with the lame ass attempt to tie me to Beck and Fox News. Be sure to clean that broad brush thoroughly. I'm sure you'll want to paint with it again sometime.

It's not the answer I don't like per se, it's the utter lack of substance or thought. Or maybe it's the overuse of made-up cliches. Maybe it's the demonstrable lack of substance. To write such nonsense and then use 'broad brush' in a post is pretty much the essence of what I said.

I apologize for tying you to Fox news. I'm sure you came up with such pithy ideas as a death tax or that Democrats secretly want to steal your guns all on your own. It's just a coincidence that such ridiculous talking points are also prominently pushed by the media arm of the republican party. Since your analytical abilities hover so close to theirs to the point of unintentional and coincidental mimicry, perhaps you should contact them for writing assignments.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Uh, you believe there is a death tax. I'm pretty sure that's invalid.

Unless you mean the inheritance tax, which is a tax when money changes hands. Just like when you get your paycheck. Never mind that it's lower.

Yes, but what about the relentless push by Democrats to overturn the Second Amendment and confiscate all privately owned guns? You can't say he doesn't have a point there. It's right there in the Democratic party platform somewhere, isn't it?

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Uh, you believe there is a death tax. I'm pretty sure that's invalid.

Unless you mean the inheritance tax, which is a tax when money changes hands. Just like when you get your paycheck. Never mind that it's lower.

Obviously I use the derisive term "death tax" to refer to what you cal the "inheritance tax" and is also called an "estate tax". But yay for your pedantic nitpickery without a substantive point.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Typical Democrats/progressives want to punish success and redistribute wealth. I oppose the Death Tax, and support the Second Amendment. That pretty much eliminates many Dems from consideration as my candidate of choice.

You're confusing typical Democrats with fantasy boogeymen Democrats.

If you do have integrity, I would suggest you actually examine these issues. If you want to be a strong partisan voter with a false veneer of independent thinking, that's a different matter altogether.

Additionally: Didn't Reagan require an income tax? Didn't Bush I and Bush II? What is the income tax if not a redistribution of wealth? Do you favor a society with no taxes?

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

It's not the answer I don't like per se, it's the utter lack of substance or thought. Or maybe it's the overuse of made-up cliches. Maybe it's the demonstrable lack of substance. To write such nonsense and then use 'broad brush' in a post is pretty much the essence of what I said.

I apologize for tying you to Fox news. I'm sure you came up with such pithy ideas as a death tax or that Democrats secretly want to steal your guns all on your own. It's just a coincidence that such ridiculous talking points are also prominently pushed by the media arm of the republican party. Since your analytical abilities hover so close to theirs to the point of unintentional and coincidental mimicry, perhaps you should contact them for writing assignments.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Obviously I use the derisive term "death tax" to refer to what you cal the "inheritance tax" and is also called an "estate tax". But yay for your pedantic nitpickery without a substantive point.

It's not pedantic nitpickery. Words have meaning. "death tax" is a phrase crafted by Republican pollsters specifically intended to cast the estate tax in a bad light. It's a misuse of language in order to derail any intelligent debate on the issue.

It's not a tax on death. What is the dollar value of death? It's a tax on an estate, something that actually can be valued.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Obviously I use the derisive term "death tax" to refer to what you cal the "inheritance tax" and is also called an "estate tax". But yay for your pedantic nitpickery without a substantive point.

No, I'm saying you don't understand it. You have a cartoon version of it, presumably with some greedy obese liberal sealing money from crying children, playing through your head.

If you pay Johnny Inheritor to landscape your lawn he's taxed on that money. Why shouldn't he get taxed if you give him your stuff?

Also, are you even aware that the first five million isn't taxed?

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Obviously I use the derisive term "death tax" to refer to what you cal the "inheritance tax" and is also called an "estate tax". But yay for your pedantic nitpickery without a substantive point.

Ah, self mockery. Now it all makes sense, in an Andy Kaufman sort of way.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Yes, but what about the relentless push by Democrats to overturn the Second Amendment and confiscate all privately owned guns? You can't say he doesn't have a point there. It's right there in the Democratic party platform somewhere, isn't it?

Shhh! Ixnay on the econdsay amendmentay epealray.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

No, I'm saying you don't understand it. You have a cartoon version of it, presumably with some greedy obese liberal sealing money from crying children, playing through your head.

So you're psychic now?

Also, are you even aware that the first five million isn't taxed?

It is quite likely that I know more about tax law than you ever will.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Obviously I use the derisive term "death tax" to refer to what you cal the "inheritance tax" and is also called an "estate tax". But yay for your pedantic nitpickery without a substantive point.

So person A works hard and earns a million dollars. He's taxed on it. Person B has a rich relative die and a million dollars falls in his lap. Why is it unjust to tax him on it?

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

So person A works hard and earns a million dollars. He's taxed on it. Person B has a rich relative die and a million dollars falls in his lap. Why is it unjust to tax him on it?

Go learn how the death tax actually works, and come back with an intelligent question. Maybe I'll answer it.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

So you're psychic now?

No, I just assume you're honestly communicating your opinions.

It is quite likely that I know more about tax law than you ever will.

I doubt it. Since you think that being taxed when money changes hands is an evil plot or in any way unusual.

Death Taxes are an argument designed to sway uneducated people. If you know a lot about tax law, shame on you for believing it, and double shame for repeating it.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Go learn how the death tax actually works, and come back with an intelligent question. Maybe I'll answer it.

Shove your condescending attitude up your ass. Why, in principle, should people who inherit money get to do so tax free?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Go learn how the death tax actually works, and come back with an intelligent question. Maybe I'll answer it.

You're avoiding the question. Why not answer it with all your tax knowledge?

Because you know deep down that this issue is full of shit?

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Obviously I use the derisive term "death tax" to refer to what you cal the "inheritance tax" and is also called an "estate tax". But yay for your pedantic nitpickery without a substantive point.

Nonsense; the point is quite substantive. When someone refers to "the Zionist entity" rather than "Israel" or to "the War of Northern Aggression" rather than "the Civil War", it is possible to make reliable inferences about his political biases. The same applies here.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Go learn how the death tax actually works, and come back with an intelligent question. Maybe I'll answer it.

Well, then -- we'll raise the sum to something above five million dollars, so that an estate tax would actually be applicable. Answer the question.

[Oakminster]

nm

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

nm

Yes, that is the easier thing to do.

[BrainGlutton]

Boy, this got hijacked fast! And inheritance tax is not even a state issue in Wisconsin, AFAIK.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Boy, this got hijacked fast! And inheritance tax is not even a state issue in Wisconsin, AFAIK.

I regret participating in a hijack. Perhaps Oakminster will make a new thread to debate what he terms the "death tax".

[Lobohan]

I blame myself. Sorry, the Deth Taxxxxx™ issues is so vapidly stupid it sets me off.

[Rhythmdvl]

I blame Lobohan.

It's the American Way.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I saw what you did there.

I may change my location to "Sunnydale, CA."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Money doesn't buy elections on a 1 to 1 basis, it sways elections.

I can think of no better rebuttal than the words of a wise but under-appreciated analyst, who said:

If there was ever an election that wasn't bought, this was it. The story of Walker and the Democratic opposition have been nearly the entirety of the news since his first budget (yeah, WI is THAT boring a state). Almost no one here is ignorant of the people or the issues involved. What happened is that the people of Wisconsin decided that Walker's actions, even if they disagreed with them, did not merit the extraordinary process of removing him from office before his normal term.

I generally agree with that. I did not sign the recall petition. I did vote against Walker yesterday, because I decided to treat the election like any other and I voted Democrat because I favor their policies. Many people also voted as they would in a "normal" election -- which is one reason Walker won -- as he also won the 2010 election against the same opponent under normal circumstances. Another reason he won, which I think the exit polls bear out, is that many people voted for Walker over process issues, not policy ones. IOW, they didn't think it was fair or reasonable to prematurely throw him out of office for governing, even bad governing, over policy disputes and not any specific malfeasance.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I can think of no better rebuttal than the words of a wise but under-appreciated analyst, who said:

I'm not sure how you think that rebuts what I said there.

If I point to a specific person smoking without cancer, does that rebut that smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Not to mention that that was an opinion.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Shove your condescending attitude up your ass.

This is abusive and doesn't belong in this forum. I'm giving you a formal warning and instructing everybody else to cool it - and take the estate tax discussion to a separate thread, preferrably in Great Debates.

[NDP]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

I cannot tell you how many times I've read this line on HuffPo, Daily Kos or any other of the left leaning blogs/websites. If money buys elections, then why isn't Meg Whitman governor of California? If money buys elections, then surely you can agree that Obama bought himself the 2008 election?

(Rhetorical questions, of course.)

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Good point. Please make sure that any money imbalances which favor the Republican candidate are submitted to the Democrats in future, so as to ensure future republican victories. I'm sure you'd be happy with that, since money doesn't influence victory, and so would I.

This is getting off-topic but probably the most pernicious effect of having one side pour an unlimited amount of money into an election is that it drives up the overall cost of campaigning and ultimately deters qualified people--both liberals and conservatives--from running. Over the last 20 years, the cost of seeking office was risen so much that fund-raising is an activity that consumes more and more of a candidate's or incumbent office-holder's time. Most people find the constant scrounging for dollars to be a tedious activity that, in many instances, gives the appearance of unseemliness. One of the bad results of the Citizens United decision is that it removed many of the weak restraints against excessive monetary contributions thereby making campaign fund-raising even more of a 24/7/365 job and discouraging many potential office-holders who don't want to prostitute themselves to a big backer or backers.