Democrats expect to win control of Wisconsin State Senate

HuffPo reports:

However:

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

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! :rolleyes:

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 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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I saw what you did there.

:dubious: 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.

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.

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.

:frowning: