Thanks for being upfront with your predictions and recognizing you were wrong (in a great way). More pundits should follow your lead, it would lead to a much healthier discourse.
Sucks that Johnson looks like he will squeak out a victory. But ecstatic that WI seems to have avoided the state government super majority and the veto is intact. Can we get an extra emphasis on ending gerrymandering the next time we have the trifecta? It's killing us in Wisconsin and it clearly shows in the House.
I wish someone could explain to me why the Democrats cleared the field for Mandela Barnes to face the very vulnerable Ron Johnson. He always struck me as such a weak candidate. Was the rest of the Democratic field in the primary really that terrible?
I posed this question in a thread a couple days ago and never got a good answer. I was likewise baffled at the time. To be fair, Barnes had a sizable lead over the other candidates [1], so even if they hadn't dropped, he probably still would have won. Still, Larsy was trending up, so it wasn't a sure thing. (And WI has a history of electing Democrats connected to the Bucks ---- see Herb Kohl.)
So a further question is why Barnes was so far ahead. It may just be a case of progressives backing progressives without considering the overall electorate. If so, ugh. That said, it's not like the alternatives had a lot going for them either. I wish that Ron Kind had decided to run.
To be honest, most of the big democratic candidates seemed kind of childish:
“Let me get this straight,” said Irene Lin, campaign manager for Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson, another Democratic candidate for Senate. “One candidate took an illegal property tax deduction; another didn’t pay any state taxes for two years; and now we learn the lieutenant governor didn’t bother to file income taxes.” [1]
"Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes stormed out of an interview with FOX6 News on Wednesday, June 19 after being asked about his unpaid property taxes. Barnes called stories about his delinquent tax bill ridiculous." [2]
Nelson seemed like the least shitshow. My take is that he was too far to the left, but he somehow keeps getting reelected in a red part of WI, so maybe he knows something I don't.
I wonder if the DNC or the progressives are learning the right lessons here as well. Rubio/Kemp/DeSanctis/Johnson races have a common theme. As Matt's been saying for a while, it's probably strategically more sound to tag closer to the middle, but look at all the news saying how this is GOP's loss or whatever. They still took the house, Biden's still stuck at 42. This woke labelling really works with the electorate, fairly or not.
In the context of losing Wisconsin by 1 point money (and what you do with it) is/could be definitely everything lol. Barnes and the Dems were significantly outspent on the air in September.
Who's to say they couldn't have found themselves another 26000 voters with better/different spending?
Also suggesting that Barnes and McGrath were in even remotely similar situations is ludicrous lol.
Matt was really good in emphasizing on Twitter and the chat how the unilateral disarmament by the Democrats in this regard may very well cost them the House. The good government part of me doesn't like it, but someone in the Election Day thread mentioned the possibility of large Democratic controlled states pulling a 2003 Texas redistricting plan of their own, and they absolutely have to consider it.
Ohio's redistricting has had me pissed off for two years now.
The courts here ruled FIVE TIMES that Republicans had gerrymandered their maps and violated the anti-gerrymandering rule that the voters approved in 2014, and ordered them to draw new maps. But because Republicans repeatedly slow-walked that process, missing due dates only to submit illegally gerrymandered maps again, they ran out the clock and got to temporarily put their illegal maps into effect for two years, at which point they'll have to be passed again. The one Republican justice on the Ohio courts who sided with the Democrats to give them the majority was term-limited as of this year, so now she's been replaced by a Republican justice who, in two years, will assuredly OK the illegal maps next time they go to court.
They win. There were- and will be- no consequences to flagrantly violating the law, the court, and the will of the voters. It infuriates me every time I think about it and makes me want to leave this state. We did pretty well though, all things considered (I'm bummed about Tim Ryan, but OH-1 flipped! Goodbye Chabot!) but if this is how well we did with the deck stacked against us, we should have done even better.
I think the "legislatures just ignoring compliance with law" is a much bigger deal then we realize. The biggest focus is obviously certifying elections (and wouldn't be surprised if there are some shenanigans in the PA or AZ legislatures). But the Ohio one is especially dangerous. I'm thinking too about too about a place like MO that passed $15 minimum wage and legislature for awhile just ignored it (looks like it's finally happening but it's taking much longer than it should).
One thing this whole Trump nightmare has highlighted to me is that if you have the means or legal ability, you don't actually have to win court cases to get your way. You just need to gum up the works to such a degree that you basically win anyway. See Trump with his taxes. I honestly think it's the secret sauce to his ability to stay out of jail. Our courts are so dysfunctional, if you have the money, you can appeal, appeal again and just delay outcomes for so long that people give up (or just accept derisory settlements). I think the Ohio example is a scary indication that this "lesson" can applied in all sorts of situations.
In Seattle, we have a bike trail that's been on hold for 20 years because a few business owners along the route with deep pockets have managed to tie the project up endlessly in court. Every few years, a judge issues a ruling against them that's supposed to be final, and they always manage to find a "what about this" technicality to start the hearing process all over again and hold the project up for another few years.
We effectively have a policy that allows anyone willing to spend a few million dollars a year on lawyers to delay any bike trail they don't like indefinitely, without needing to actually win a single legal argument. Meanwhile, the city's taxpayers have already spent far more money on lawyers fighting this than the actual construction cost. It is very frustrating.
I would love to see NY state gerrymander our national congressional districts and have truly representative state-level districts. Best of both worlds for good governance and national fairness
The last parting gift of Andrew Cuomo. The state judges who "smacked down" the gerrymander were appointed by Cuomo in conjunction with a pretty gross alliance with the GOP members of the state legislature (the scandals and his general personality sort of covered up the fact that he was garbage on the merits as a governor).
The real problem, I think was the voters who approved the anti-gerrymandering amendment to the state constitution in the first place.
By taking the moral high ground, Democrats have effectively made suckers of themselves, by forcing their party to fight redistricting battles with one hand tied behind their back. Republicans, on the other hand, they never vote for stuff like this because they don't care about the moral high ground. The red states will just gerrymander with impunity.
The good news though, is that the tossup NY districts Democrats lost there are still very winnable districts, and could easily flip back in 2024 or 2026 under different electoral circumstances.
Little disclosure. I'm married to someone who has worked both in Long Island politics and NY politics and has a decent amount of inside info about local and state governments here. The "slimy and unscrupulous" vibe is underselling it.
The supreme court race in WI will really decide that one, I think, if Democrats can eke out what should be a winnable race. But of course in the longer term Gerrymandering delenda est.
Matt notes that because the Republicans firmly control Florida they could pass "reasonable" abortion legislation (though many equally Republican states have not followed the same path).
If any of our Florida experts can weigh in, I'd like to know if you think DeSantis will reopen the abortion issue and pursue more restrictive legislation now. How will abortion play in a Trump-DeSantis battle? The base can't be happy with the 15 week period allowing abortion -- you know, permitting almost 95% of abortions -- and Trump can attack him on that, with his winning, er, trump card of "three Supreme Court justices."
I'm no expert, but this Florida voter thinks there is zero chance DeSantis goes to that issue again. To the extent Trump has any policy view at all (which I think is very little), we all know Trump is pro-abortion. Abortion isn't a motivating force for his supporters -- an extreme dislike of the Progressive wing of the Democratic party is their motivating force.
Herschel Walker is very decidedly "pro abortion" and has come out in favor of full abortion bans. It's said a lot but needs to be emphasized; people like Trump or Walker or other Americans of means will find ways to get an abortion. They most certainly did prior to Roe and will do so again if there is a national abortion ban. Point is, plenty of GOP politicians will come out for banning of all abortions knowing that they or someone they know will still find a way to get it if needed.
As much grip as Trump has on the GOP, I think you're underestimating the pressure him (or DeSantis) would have from the base to run on a national abortion ban. It's basically the numero uno issue of the Christian conservative base. It's like health care for the Democrats in 2020. Every candidate had to come out with some sort of plan to continue to expand health care access. You didn't need to sign on to M4A, but to not have anything to say on the topic would have been politically toxic.
I don't think the "Trump is pro-abortion" argument carries any weight whatsoever with Republicans. If any dare bring it up, all he has to do is raise three fingers and point to the Supreme Court.
Whether or not abortion is a motivating force for his supporters, it sure as heck is for lots and lots of Republican primary voters.
I'm way out of my league trying to predict or advise campaign strategy. But I won't let that stop me!
I think DeSantis should ignore Trump and his inevitable childish insults and run a campaign relentlessly focused on his performance in Florida over the past 4 years. Let others make the comparisons, but keep his talking points to Florida's economy and COVID experience. Run a primary campaign against the Democratic record and not against Trump. His conservative / bonafides are well-established in Republican circles already.
I agree. I think he should try rope-a-dope, and let Trump flail. The more the crazy wing loses, the weaker Trump looks. I think he took a beating this week.
John, I think that would be a great strategy on Earth 2.0 with a totally different Republican primary voter base. On Earth 1.0 where Republican primary voters are more like the audience at WWE events, they'll be salivating to watch a knockdown drag-out fight where the candidate with the best insults and the one who doesn't stagger and fall at the most vicious attacks will be the one left standing at the end.
I think DeSantis's best angle might be "pandemic life in Florida mostly kept on as normal, while the US as a whole (under Trump's leadership) was chaos"
Whether or not any of that is really true or really up to either leader.
DeSantis's problem is that he is totally without charisma and Trump, to our nation's woe, has plenty. In such a race, records won't matter (except possibly abortion, where DeSantis is vulnerable).
If I were DeSantis, I would throw caution to the wind and adopt the Lord Nelson dictum: "Never mind the maneuvers, just go straight at them." DeSantis should say "Trump is a doddering old fool who forces unelectable sycophants on our party, and I'm a smarter version of Trump, so it's time to put this old fart out to pasture." Who knows, maybe that show of testosterone against the Trump God-King might actually work!
I wonder if there's space for a sacrificial hatchet-man to lob the first volley here. Let DeSantis appear to be above the fray and focused on the future rather than stupid 2020 shouting. Of course you run the risk of being starved of media attention, because we know what drives clicks.
An ideal candidate might be a non-fat Chris Christie.
DeSantis needs campaign against Trump like an underdog takes on a juggernaut in a boxing match or a football game: hit Trump hard and fast early, letting Trump know this will be long, brutal fight and DeSantis isn't messing around.
This just isn't true. Florida's age-adjusted deaths from COVID (and all-cause mortality if you are one of those who doubt the reported numbers) are in the top half of the country. Not exceptional, but not bad either. Meanwhile, our quality of life during the pandemic was much better and the economy has performed exceptionally well. And we continue to pick up population from other states.
I don’t think COVID discourse is relevant anymore. I think when most people hear about COVID now they just stop listening and want to move on. For this reason, I don’t think this will be a salient topic for Ds or Rs in 2024.
I thought the Theil wing was all about undermining democracy because voters tend to divert money to themselves in the form of domestic spending programs (thereby reducing the wealth of people like him, and interfering with the invisible hand). Are you sure you're not thinking of the Steve Bannon wing?
I'm as glad as anyone that the kookiest wing of the GOP has had a bad night. But I think you're being naive if you think more kooks won't start showing up to Congress (there are already way more kooks than in 2011 which is why I'm scared to death of the debt ceiling). Most House districts are uncompetitive. Which means an R candidate has much more to lose from a Primary then general. Expect to see a lot more MTG types winning primaries and generals (Even if you lose some voters, you will by 15% instead of say 25%). Also, without Dobbs, seems likely the lunatics who ran in NH and AZ would have won (know AZ is now down counting votes, but seems to be leaning Kelly's direction).
Also, seems Trump will announce his candidacy very soon (I suspect that Ross Douthat column today bigging up Ron DeSantis is going to age like a rotting banana). As Matt pointed out, Trumpism without Trump is a real liability, but there does seem to be a small but significant number of working-class voters who will be motivated to vote by Trump himself. If anything, he has a stronger case as to why GOP needs him in 2024. As long as Trump is a viable political candidate, the lunatic wing of the GOP is ascendent by virtue of the fact that Trump himself is nuts or very possibly senile (that John Swan interview where he talks about passing a basic cognitive test still begs the question...why was he given a basic cognitive test?)
I think it will be a little entertaining to watch Cruz and Vance and Hawley posture to be the most populist anti-elitist members who are also really proud of their elite credentials. Of the three I find Vance the least nauseating but they all turn my stomach.
Probably not many will agree with me on this, but, I actually find Cruz the least nauseating of those three. He's so awkward and cringe it's almost awe-inducing, which perhaps makes him a bit less scary to me. I doubt he gets near the White House. Vance speaks the MAGA language more convincingly (I mean, he more or less wrote one of MAGA's foundational texts, didn't he?), and I suspect is a greater danger to the Republic; Fifty Yard Dash Hawley is simply beneath contempt.
Agree that he is pathetic and unlikely to get near the presidency, but any respect I might have ever been able to muster was crushed for good when he didn't pivot on the electors on Jan 6 after the Capitol was breached but instead stayed in a pissing war with Hawley and I feel contempt for them both because they both know better and choose this path.
I strongly dislike Vance but I do think that, if the cynical MAGAs-of-convenience cynically sidle back toward (what used to be) the mainstream Republican party, that would be a very good thing for everyone.
It now looks like Boebert is going to eke out a win, unfortunately. But, maybe with the race this close, Democrats will pour some money into it in 2024, and perhaps take her out then.
I am thrilled with the outcome of the election. It was a repudiation of the Trump wing of the Republican Party and a win for regular Republicans. Seeing DeSantis, Rubio, Kemp and Abbot win with ease while the wackos -- Masters, Oz, Lake, Mastriano, et al -- lost badly is an encouraging sign. Trump's recent comments about DeSantis had either no effect or a positive effect -- DeSantis won by 20 points and improved on his performance 4 years ago.
It also reduces the chance of a Trump comeback. The GOP doesn't have to be as afraid of him as they have been. I've long held that he only won because the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016. She is the only candidate he could be beaten.
I’m more DeSantis-curious after seeing this result, because obviously with those margins he’s succeeding at least partially by persuasion. Still will vote Dem in 2024 and don’t love the gratuitous triggering of libs, but it’s encouraging he is ok with winning soft Dems and doesn’t hate 50% of the country (just 30% or so? Not ideal but better than Trump and probably no worse than the Warren wing of the Democratic Party)
Yeah, I wouldn't vote for him (I might consider it if Dems lose their shit and nominate someone like Bernie or Warren or AOC in '24, but I don't think that will happen), but DeSantis seems like a relatively normal Republican with very strong political instincts (though he's lacking in charisma). I'm sure he'd do lots of things I don't like, but I don't think a DeSantis White House would be the end of the world, and I am often irritated by progressives who act like it would be.
Matt sort of sidled up to this point, but I think the narrative that the Democratic Party of Florida is a huge disaster isn’t really the correct lens to view the political situation through; instead, it’s more a case of the GOP is in charge, they’re running the state well, why would the voters kick them out?
It's a fun time to see various interest groups take victory laps and/or assign blame without a whole lot of evidence either way, but I think this election shows the whole "LOCAL POLITICS ARE DEAD, EVERYTHING IS NATIONAL!!1!!1" narrative has been proven to be a bit overblown. We've got a lot of results driven by local/regional issues and beliefs!
As I (a random big city normcore lib) see it, the following things are objectively true:
- The appetite for Trumpist candidates is limited to the most conservative districts in America, and Republicans need a better plan for swing districts. As someone who was involuntarily subjected to completely unhinged ads from Hung Cao on the local sports radio station, this is a good thing.
- In the areas where crime is a tangible concern, it hurt dems / progressives. It probably cost them 2-3 seats in NY, and the pro-criminal candidates are losing in San Francisco.
- Crime as a general specter / vibes issue in other places flopped.
- Illegal immigration as a swing voter issue flopped.
- Dems running as centrists in conservative places did exceedingly well. Dems would do well to embrace Laura Kelly / Jared Golden / Sharice Davids thought when defending majorities.
- Seriously its weird we don't hear more in the national press about the dems crushing fundamentals in the heartland. I'd like to hear more about their secret sauce!
- I think Biden's leadership on pro labor issues has been dramatically underated in important industrial states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Dems should talk about labor victories more!
- This Republican led house with a razor thin majority trying to corral all the kooks and weirdos is going to be genuinely hysterical.
Dems didn't do well universally across the heartland, the Iowa Democratic Party had a disastrous election beyond the GOP's wildest dreams. 40-year Democratic incumbents who were considered unbeatable, and often run uncontested, lost the AG and treasurer races, and it looks like the state auditor will barely hold on against an opponent who got no GOP support (the GOP's preferred candidate lost the primary).
A good post, but i'll continue to take issue with "In the areas where crime is a tangible concern" line of thinking. I agree with the idea that Democrats ignoring or not doing enough about the very real crime rise in places like SF and NYC is a problem. But it is objectively, statistically not true that crime is worse in NYC or SF. As has been pointed out many times NYC is actually still a relatively safe city.
I mean wow, talk about a clear unimpeachable example of the power of right-wing media to drive narratives even among people who don't imbibe much right-wing media.
As a DC resident, where we're on pace for 200+ murders for the 3rd consecutive year after getting as low as 88 back in 2012. I'm exhausted by leading progressives trying to tell me crime is a racist republican fever dream. Car Jackings are up something like 400% in DC over the last few years and yet progressive leaders steadfastly pretend that this isn't happening, and in cities with similar issues, failing to address the issues will hurt dem electeds (not in DC, obviously).
NYC is extremely safe comparatively, as is SF, but it doesn't mean crime hasn't gotten worse there, which people notice and feel. Robberies are up 31% YoY in 2022 in NYC. Felony assaults are up 15%. SF is a little different because its property crime and the visceral effects of the city's refusal to address homelessness rather than violent crime, but both cities definitely feel more lawless than they did a decade ago.
Telling me that crime is worse in Oklahoma doesn't make me feel any better, nor does it register with suburbanites who saw someone jerking off on a subway platform the last time they went to a Mets game.
I do NOT think crime is a racist fever dream. But keeping prospective on an actual problem is much more likely to result in policies that actually address the problem. Or more accurately address the problem in a way to be least damaging to society.
I'll give another example to show where I'm coming from on the crime issue. Deficits matter again as Matt has noted. There is an actual case that small tax increases and small cuts to spending have some validity. However, there are voices out there saying that deficits (and the debt) are so unimaginably huge and are going to drive us to bankruptcy and therefore require giant cuts to medicate, Medicaid and social security based on the idea we are somehow going bankrupt. The former from Matt seems reasonable and true. The latter is an overreaction that would lead to an unimaginably damaging policy outcome based on said overreaction.
I'm not sure what to make of that NYC data, but that article still states that a) crime went up 7.5% in 2021 and b) minor crime (which still matters IMO) is up 13% this year. So even if the 37% figure is overblown or not trustworthy, I think it stands to reason that crime is increasing in NYC, and probably to a substantial extent.
It is true that NYC remains relatively safe; I think the crime surge of the past 2-3 years has brought the crime rate back to mid-2000s levels. Hardly the bad old days. But I think there is a difference between evaluating crime from a personal point of view and from a public policy point of view. If someone asked me "should I be afraid to go to NYC now?" I'd say no, you shouldn't be afraid, that is completely ridiculous. It's even still pretty safe to walk around most of the city late at night (I walked around NYC late at night all the time in the mid-2000s and it was fine). But that doesn't mean that the crime increase isn't real or noticeable, or that it hasn't had a meaningful negative impact on quality-of-life in the city.
I am opposed to fearmongering about crime, as I am opposed to fearmongering about all sorts of other that are kinda abstract, but scary (covid, terrorism, mass shootings). But - like covid, terrorism, and mass shootings - that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously. And I do think there is a tendency on the left to dismiss the idea that crime should be a concern at all.
Edit: After reading some of your other comments, I suspect we mostly agree on this. I'll leave my comment here for others who are following along.
You’re right to note the difference between how we view crime from a public policy point of view vs how people personally view crime Point well taken. I do think though that how people personally view crime is influenced by things like…the Democratic mayor of NYC making wildly exaggerated statements about crime. I’m not expecting any objective reporting from NYPost or Fox but the mayor? Ugh!
I do want to highlight the terrorism reference as I think it’s relevant. I should state up front that 9/11 happened my freshman year of college. It’s not a stretch to say 9/11, war on terror and war in Iraq are foundational aspects of my politics. My point is I saw our country make a horrendous miscalculation and blunder into a war, in part as overreaction to a very real tragedy. Not sure you’ll find very many people who disagree with the idea that taking out Taliban and hunting for and taking out Bin Laden was a good thing (staying to try to prop up a wildly corrupt government on the other hand was almost certainly a mistake. Biden recognized this apparently as early as 2010 if reports are to be believed). But Afghanistan was not enough. Hunting for Bin Laden was not enough. We had to make the world safe for democracy. Or more likely. Afghanistan didn’t satisfy our need for vengeance nearly enough. (Always thought Team America got at a lot more fundamental truths about what drove the war on terror and invasion of Iraq than hundreds if not thousands of think pieces). So we blundered into a “dumb war” as a wise man predicted in 2003. This reacting to a very real and horrid crime and then overreacting to said crime and blundering into terrible policy is something I’d like to avoid*.
* Ironically enough, John Kerry was likely a 100% right when he said in 04 that terrorism needs to be thought of as a law enforcement issue and not a military one. And he was hammered for it. Ironic as he as his fundamental point was a call for more funding of law enforcement. calling essentially for more law enforcement.
Looks like you and I are around the same age - I was a senior in high school when 9/11 happened, and all of that stuff was foundational to me, too. In some ways, I'm still an aughts-era liberal.
I'll add that growing up on Staten Island, 9/11 had a *big* impact on the community; everyone (including me) knew someone who died in the attacks, and you would still see "Never Forget 9/11" decals on cars as late as 2006 or 2007.
And yeah. All of that was a mistake. It even seemed that way to me at the time, and I was kid! And I was a kid who actually knew people who were deeply affected by it - it was not some distant tragedy to me. I distinctly remember John Kerry saying that in 2004 and thinking he was right.
When I was younger, I thought someday the hyperbole would subside. Now that I'm on the brink of middle-age, I realize that hyperbole is the way of things in politics (and the left has taken it up, too!) and I try to adjust my expectations accordingly, and mostly tune it out.
That crime is even worse some place else is not any compensation to voters who know their city has got significantly more dangerous and unpleasant to live in. Trying to flannel that they have worse crime in another place, so, what? Count your lucky stars? Is the kind of thinking that hurts Dems.
Trends matter, so NYC voters should be concerned with crime. But I'd actually argue that right-wing media still matters in the sense that suburban voters in red states don't think their (objectively quite dangerous) cities are any worse than NYC. It's just that the specific right-wing media problem here is its unwillingness to report on anything that would reflect negatively on the GOP, rather than its accurate-ish scaremongering on urban crime in blue states.
Democrats should fix this by funding the police and then bragging that their cities are safer than red state equivalents because they funded their police (NYPD is super well funded compared to most/all red state city PDs, for example!).
I suspect the word "crime" also serves for many voters as a stand-in for a sense of decay and disunity and unease that is maybe best represented by the visibly-homeless.
See his trip to Moscow in 2017. It will never not baffle me that Democrats didn't run ads showing that large portions of the GOP spent July 4th in Moscow wining and dining with Putin (including RonJon). I'm one of the many Dems who hopes to reclaim the Patriotism mantle. Both for moral and political reasons. Talk about a perfect way to make inroads.
Some are saying Luria (Dem incumbent) lost in Virginia to the R challenger because she served on the Jan. 6 committee and was vocal about accountability for the insurrection. So MAGA may still be relevant in some swing districts.
I think Luria was in trouble no matter what, but she drew easily the most "serious" or "normal" challenger in Virginia compared to Cao or Vega. She might have very well lost to a MAGA loon, but had they replicated Kiggans in the Nova Exurbs, they pick up at least one and maybe two seats. This isn't to say Kiggans is good (she's not), or moderate (she's not), but she at least tried to be vague about her extremism instead or running expressly as a loon like Cao and Vega did.
RonJon seemed liked he want to play this election on hard mode. He could have just hit on crime and inflation and won easily. Instead he proposed all sorts of major changes to entitlements and went partial qAnon.
Thanks for being upfront with your predictions and recognizing you were wrong (in a great way). More pundits should follow your lead, it would lead to a much healthier discourse.
Sucks that Johnson looks like he will squeak out a victory. But ecstatic that WI seems to have avoided the state government super majority and the veto is intact. Can we get an extra emphasis on ending gerrymandering the next time we have the trifecta? It's killing us in Wisconsin and it clearly shows in the House.
I wish someone could explain to me why the Democrats cleared the field for Mandela Barnes to face the very vulnerable Ron Johnson. He always struck me as such a weak candidate. Was the rest of the Democratic field in the primary really that terrible?
I posed this question in a thread a couple days ago and never got a good answer. I was likewise baffled at the time. To be fair, Barnes had a sizable lead over the other candidates [1], so even if they hadn't dropped, he probably still would have won. Still, Larsy was trending up, so it wasn't a sure thing. (And WI has a history of electing Democrats connected to the Bucks ---- see Herb Kohl.)
So a further question is why Barnes was so far ahead. It may just be a case of progressives backing progressives without considering the overall electorate. If so, ugh. That said, it's not like the alternatives had a lot going for them either. I wish that Ron Kind had decided to run.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Wisconsin#Polling
To be honest, most of the big democratic candidates seemed kind of childish:
“Let me get this straight,” said Irene Lin, campaign manager for Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson, another Democratic candidate for Senate. “One candidate took an illegal property tax deduction; another didn’t pay any state taxes for two years; and now we learn the lieutenant governor didn’t bother to file income taxes.” [1]
"Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes stormed out of an interview with FOX6 News on Wednesday, June 19 after being asked about his unpaid property taxes. Barnes called stories about his delinquent tax bill ridiculous." [2]
See also [3].
[1]https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-elections-milwaukee-senate-elections-72125713bfdc295bd3cc80b74462b66d
[2] https://www.fox6now.com/news/lt-gov-mandela-barnes-walks-out-on-interview-after-unpaid-property-tax-question
[3] https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/17/mandela-barnes-says-check-mail-pay-delinquent-property-taxes/1482122001/
Nelson seemed like the least shitshow. My take is that he was too far to the left, but he somehow keeps getting reelected in a red part of WI, so maybe he knows something I don't.
I wonder if the DNC or the progressives are learning the right lessons here as well. Rubio/Kemp/DeSanctis/Johnson races have a common theme. As Matt's been saying for a while, it's probably strategically more sound to tag closer to the middle, but look at all the news saying how this is GOP's loss or whatever. They still took the house, Biden's still stuck at 42. This woke labelling really works with the electorate, fairly or not.
The issue is that they cleared the field and then didn't back him financially lol.
In the context of losing Wisconsin by 1 point money (and what you do with it) is/could be definitely everything lol. Barnes and the Dems were significantly outspent on the air in September.
Who's to say they couldn't have found themselves another 26000 voters with better/different spending?
Also suggesting that Barnes and McGrath were in even remotely similar situations is ludicrous lol.
Matt was really good in emphasizing on Twitter and the chat how the unilateral disarmament by the Democrats in this regard may very well cost them the House. The good government part of me doesn't like it, but someone in the Election Day thread mentioned the possibility of large Democratic controlled states pulling a 2003 Texas redistricting plan of their own, and they absolutely have to consider it.
Ohio's redistricting has had me pissed off for two years now.
The courts here ruled FIVE TIMES that Republicans had gerrymandered their maps and violated the anti-gerrymandering rule that the voters approved in 2014, and ordered them to draw new maps. But because Republicans repeatedly slow-walked that process, missing due dates only to submit illegally gerrymandered maps again, they ran out the clock and got to temporarily put their illegal maps into effect for two years, at which point they'll have to be passed again. The one Republican justice on the Ohio courts who sided with the Democrats to give them the majority was term-limited as of this year, so now she's been replaced by a Republican justice who, in two years, will assuredly OK the illegal maps next time they go to court.
They win. There were- and will be- no consequences to flagrantly violating the law, the court, and the will of the voters. It infuriates me every time I think about it and makes me want to leave this state. We did pretty well though, all things considered (I'm bummed about Tim Ryan, but OH-1 flipped! Goodbye Chabot!) but if this is how well we did with the deck stacked against us, we should have done even better.
I think the "legislatures just ignoring compliance with law" is a much bigger deal then we realize. The biggest focus is obviously certifying elections (and wouldn't be surprised if there are some shenanigans in the PA or AZ legislatures). But the Ohio one is especially dangerous. I'm thinking too about too about a place like MO that passed $15 minimum wage and legislature for awhile just ignored it (looks like it's finally happening but it's taking much longer than it should).
One thing this whole Trump nightmare has highlighted to me is that if you have the means or legal ability, you don't actually have to win court cases to get your way. You just need to gum up the works to such a degree that you basically win anyway. See Trump with his taxes. I honestly think it's the secret sauce to his ability to stay out of jail. Our courts are so dysfunctional, if you have the money, you can appeal, appeal again and just delay outcomes for so long that people give up (or just accept derisory settlements). I think the Ohio example is a scary indication that this "lesson" can applied in all sorts of situations.
It's not just presidents and legislatures.
In Seattle, we have a bike trail that's been on hold for 20 years because a few business owners along the route with deep pockets have managed to tie the project up endlessly in court. Every few years, a judge issues a ruling against them that's supposed to be final, and they always manage to find a "what about this" technicality to start the hearing process all over again and hold the project up for another few years.
We effectively have a policy that allows anyone willing to spend a few million dollars a year on lawyers to delay any bike trail they don't like indefinitely, without needing to actually win a single legal argument. Meanwhile, the city's taxpayers have already spent far more money on lawyers fighting this than the actual construction cost. It is very frustrating.
I would love to see NY state gerrymander our national congressional districts and have truly representative state-level districts. Best of both worlds for good governance and national fairness
The last parting gift of Andrew Cuomo. The state judges who "smacked down" the gerrymander were appointed by Cuomo in conjunction with a pretty gross alliance with the GOP members of the state legislature (the scandals and his general personality sort of covered up the fact that he was garbage on the merits as a governor).
The real problem, I think was the voters who approved the anti-gerrymandering amendment to the state constitution in the first place.
By taking the moral high ground, Democrats have effectively made suckers of themselves, by forcing their party to fight redistricting battles with one hand tied behind their back. Republicans, on the other hand, they never vote for stuff like this because they don't care about the moral high ground. The red states will just gerrymander with impunity.
The good news though, is that the tossup NY districts Democrats lost there are still very winnable districts, and could easily flip back in 2024 or 2026 under different electoral circumstances.
Little disclosure. I'm married to someone who has worked both in Long Island politics and NY politics and has a decent amount of inside info about local and state governments here. The "slimy and unscrupulous" vibe is underselling it.
The supreme court race in WI will really decide that one, I think, if Democrats can eke out what should be a winnable race. But of course in the longer term Gerrymandering delenda est.
Helluva night, bring on the Trump v Desantis fight next year. Bringing the popcorn.
If Boebert ends up losing I think we’ve seen the beginning of the end of the q wing.
Matt notes that because the Republicans firmly control Florida they could pass "reasonable" abortion legislation (though many equally Republican states have not followed the same path).
If any of our Florida experts can weigh in, I'd like to know if you think DeSantis will reopen the abortion issue and pursue more restrictive legislation now. How will abortion play in a Trump-DeSantis battle? The base can't be happy with the 15 week period allowing abortion -- you know, permitting almost 95% of abortions -- and Trump can attack him on that, with his winning, er, trump card of "three Supreme Court justices."
I'm no expert, but this Florida voter thinks there is zero chance DeSantis goes to that issue again. To the extent Trump has any policy view at all (which I think is very little), we all know Trump is pro-abortion. Abortion isn't a motivating force for his supporters -- an extreme dislike of the Progressive wing of the Democratic party is their motivating force.
Herschel Walker is very decidedly "pro abortion" and has come out in favor of full abortion bans. It's said a lot but needs to be emphasized; people like Trump or Walker or other Americans of means will find ways to get an abortion. They most certainly did prior to Roe and will do so again if there is a national abortion ban. Point is, plenty of GOP politicians will come out for banning of all abortions knowing that they or someone they know will still find a way to get it if needed.
As much grip as Trump has on the GOP, I think you're underestimating the pressure him (or DeSantis) would have from the base to run on a national abortion ban. It's basically the numero uno issue of the Christian conservative base. It's like health care for the Democrats in 2020. Every candidate had to come out with some sort of plan to continue to expand health care access. You didn't need to sign on to M4A, but to not have anything to say on the topic would have been politically toxic.
I don't think the "Trump is pro-abortion" argument carries any weight whatsoever with Republicans. If any dare bring it up, all he has to do is raise three fingers and point to the Supreme Court.
Whether or not abortion is a motivating force for his supporters, it sure as heck is for lots and lots of Republican primary voters.
I'm way out of my league trying to predict or advise campaign strategy. But I won't let that stop me!
I think DeSantis should ignore Trump and his inevitable childish insults and run a campaign relentlessly focused on his performance in Florida over the past 4 years. Let others make the comparisons, but keep his talking points to Florida's economy and COVID experience. Run a primary campaign against the Democratic record and not against Trump. His conservative / bonafides are well-established in Republican circles already.
I agree. I think he should try rope-a-dope, and let Trump flail. The more the crazy wing loses, the weaker Trump looks. I think he took a beating this week.
John, I think that would be a great strategy on Earth 2.0 with a totally different Republican primary voter base. On Earth 1.0 where Republican primary voters are more like the audience at WWE events, they'll be salivating to watch a knockdown drag-out fight where the candidate with the best insults and the one who doesn't stagger and fall at the most vicious attacks will be the one left standing at the end.
I think DeSantis's best angle might be "pandemic life in Florida mostly kept on as normal, while the US as a whole (under Trump's leadership) was chaos"
Whether or not any of that is really true or really up to either leader.
DeSantis's problem is that he is totally without charisma and Trump, to our nation's woe, has plenty. In such a race, records won't matter (except possibly abortion, where DeSantis is vulnerable).
If I were DeSantis, I would throw caution to the wind and adopt the Lord Nelson dictum: "Never mind the maneuvers, just go straight at them." DeSantis should say "Trump is a doddering old fool who forces unelectable sycophants on our party, and I'm a smarter version of Trump, so it's time to put this old fart out to pasture." Who knows, maybe that show of testosterone against the Trump God-King might actually work!
I wonder if there's space for a sacrificial hatchet-man to lob the first volley here. Let DeSantis appear to be above the fray and focused on the future rather than stupid 2020 shouting. Of course you run the risk of being starved of media attention, because we know what drives clicks.
An ideal candidate might be a non-fat Chris Christie.
DeSantis needs campaign against Trump like an underdog takes on a juggernaut in a boxing match or a football game: hit Trump hard and fast early, letting Trump know this will be long, brutal fight and DeSantis isn't messing around.
This just isn't true. Florida's age-adjusted deaths from COVID (and all-cause mortality if you are one of those who doubt the reported numbers) are in the top half of the country. Not exceptional, but not bad either. Meanwhile, our quality of life during the pandemic was much better and the economy has performed exceptionally well. And we continue to pick up population from other states.
I don’t think COVID discourse is relevant anymore. I think when most people hear about COVID now they just stop listening and want to move on. For this reason, I don’t think this will be a salient topic for Ds or Rs in 2024.
My hope is that this is ineffective because covid will be so far in the rearviewmirror that no one will care about it in politics anymore.
I don't see it. Apart from Operation Warp Speed (and is *that* a vulnerability for Trump?) what angle of attack on Trump would DeSantis have?
In a primary? "Couldn't control CDC/Fauci"
So what used to be considered a normal Republican!
I thought the Theil wing was all about undermining democracy because voters tend to divert money to themselves in the form of domestic spending programs (thereby reducing the wealth of people like him, and interfering with the invisible hand). Are you sure you're not thinking of the Steve Bannon wing?
I'm as glad as anyone that the kookiest wing of the GOP has had a bad night. But I think you're being naive if you think more kooks won't start showing up to Congress (there are already way more kooks than in 2011 which is why I'm scared to death of the debt ceiling). Most House districts are uncompetitive. Which means an R candidate has much more to lose from a Primary then general. Expect to see a lot more MTG types winning primaries and generals (Even if you lose some voters, you will by 15% instead of say 25%). Also, without Dobbs, seems likely the lunatics who ran in NH and AZ would have won (know AZ is now down counting votes, but seems to be leaning Kelly's direction).
Also, seems Trump will announce his candidacy very soon (I suspect that Ross Douthat column today bigging up Ron DeSantis is going to age like a rotting banana). As Matt pointed out, Trumpism without Trump is a real liability, but there does seem to be a small but significant number of working-class voters who will be motivated to vote by Trump himself. If anything, he has a stronger case as to why GOP needs him in 2024. As long as Trump is a viable political candidate, the lunatic wing of the GOP is ascendent by virtue of the fact that Trump himself is nuts or very possibly senile (that John Swan interview where he talks about passing a basic cognitive test still begs the question...why was he given a basic cognitive test?)
As of 6:30 pm EST, Boebart is at 49.99%, down by 62 votes. Insane.
Just to clarify, it's not confirmed that Boebert has lost.
Unfortunately Vance didn't go down with them, but hey, at least you get to keep commenting this week!
I think it will be a little entertaining to watch Cruz and Vance and Hawley posture to be the most populist anti-elitist members who are also really proud of their elite credentials. Of the three I find Vance the least nauseating but they all turn my stomach.
Probably not many will agree with me on this, but, I actually find Cruz the least nauseating of those three. He's so awkward and cringe it's almost awe-inducing, which perhaps makes him a bit less scary to me. I doubt he gets near the White House. Vance speaks the MAGA language more convincingly (I mean, he more or less wrote one of MAGA's foundational texts, didn't he?), and I suspect is a greater danger to the Republic; Fifty Yard Dash Hawley is simply beneath contempt.
Agree that he is pathetic and unlikely to get near the presidency, but any respect I might have ever been able to muster was crushed for good when he didn't pivot on the electors on Jan 6 after the Capitol was breached but instead stayed in a pissing war with Hawley and I feel contempt for them both because they both know better and choose this path.
“Putin curious Rs.” That’s a phrase deserving wider recognition
Not all of them. Rand Paul easily won, I think.
He's an opportunist, If sanity becomes popular he'll be sane with he best of them.
Unfortunately, Vance gets 6 years to walk away from MAGA and become something else, as the winds change.
I strongly dislike Vance but I do think that, if the cynical MAGAs-of-convenience cynically sidle back toward (what used to be) the mainstream Republican party, that would be a very good thing for everyone.
If he could just revert back to what he was 6 years ago, I'd be (almost) ok with it.
They are America's worst fanfiction community. Surely there are other fanfic communities eager to rise up and take their place?
They had years of warning this time; if they couldn't "secure" the elections by now, that's on them!
counting is still happening and senate control (technically also House control) still up in the air DO NOT JINX IT !
It now looks like Boebert is going to eke out a win, unfortunately. But, maybe with the race this close, Democrats will pour some money into it in 2024, and perhaps take her out then.
I am thrilled with the outcome of the election. It was a repudiation of the Trump wing of the Republican Party and a win for regular Republicans. Seeing DeSantis, Rubio, Kemp and Abbot win with ease while the wackos -- Masters, Oz, Lake, Mastriano, et al -- lost badly is an encouraging sign. Trump's recent comments about DeSantis had either no effect or a positive effect -- DeSantis won by 20 points and improved on his performance 4 years ago.
It also reduces the chance of a Trump comeback. The GOP doesn't have to be as afraid of him as they have been. I've long held that he only won because the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016. She is the only candidate he could be beaten.
I’m more DeSantis-curious after seeing this result, because obviously with those margins he’s succeeding at least partially by persuasion. Still will vote Dem in 2024 and don’t love the gratuitous triggering of libs, but it’s encouraging he is ok with winning soft Dems and doesn’t hate 50% of the country (just 30% or so? Not ideal but better than Trump and probably no worse than the Warren wing of the Democratic Party)
Yeah, I wouldn't vote for him (I might consider it if Dems lose their shit and nominate someone like Bernie or Warren or AOC in '24, but I don't think that will happen), but DeSantis seems like a relatively normal Republican with very strong political instincts (though he's lacking in charisma). I'm sure he'd do lots of things I don't like, but I don't think a DeSantis White House would be the end of the world, and I am often irritated by progressives who act like it would be.
Matt sort of sidled up to this point, but I think the narrative that the Democratic Party of Florida is a huge disaster isn’t really the correct lens to view the political situation through; instead, it’s more a case of the GOP is in charge, they’re running the state well, why would the voters kick them out?
It's a fun time to see various interest groups take victory laps and/or assign blame without a whole lot of evidence either way, but I think this election shows the whole "LOCAL POLITICS ARE DEAD, EVERYTHING IS NATIONAL!!1!!1" narrative has been proven to be a bit overblown. We've got a lot of results driven by local/regional issues and beliefs!
As I (a random big city normcore lib) see it, the following things are objectively true:
- The appetite for Trumpist candidates is limited to the most conservative districts in America, and Republicans need a better plan for swing districts. As someone who was involuntarily subjected to completely unhinged ads from Hung Cao on the local sports radio station, this is a good thing.
- In the areas where crime is a tangible concern, it hurt dems / progressives. It probably cost them 2-3 seats in NY, and the pro-criminal candidates are losing in San Francisco.
- Crime as a general specter / vibes issue in other places flopped.
- Illegal immigration as a swing voter issue flopped.
- Dems running as centrists in conservative places did exceedingly well. Dems would do well to embrace Laura Kelly / Jared Golden / Sharice Davids thought when defending majorities.
- Seriously its weird we don't hear more in the national press about the dems crushing fundamentals in the heartland. I'd like to hear more about their secret sauce!
- I think Biden's leadership on pro labor issues has been dramatically underated in important industrial states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Dems should talk about labor victories more!
- This Republican led house with a razor thin majority trying to corral all the kooks and weirdos is going to be genuinely hysterical.
Dems didn't do well universally across the heartland, the Iowa Democratic Party had a disastrous election beyond the GOP's wildest dreams. 40-year Democratic incumbents who were considered unbeatable, and often run uncontested, lost the AG and treasurer races, and it looks like the state auditor will barely hold on against an opponent who got no GOP support (the GOP's preferred candidate lost the primary).
A good post, but i'll continue to take issue with "In the areas where crime is a tangible concern" line of thinking. I agree with the idea that Democrats ignoring or not doing enough about the very real crime rise in places like SF and NYC is a problem. But it is objectively, statistically not true that crime is worse in NYC or SF. As has been pointed out many times NYC is actually still a relatively safe city.
I mean wow, talk about a clear unimpeachable example of the power of right-wing media to drive narratives even among people who don't imbibe much right-wing media.
As a DC resident, where we're on pace for 200+ murders for the 3rd consecutive year after getting as low as 88 back in 2012. I'm exhausted by leading progressives trying to tell me crime is a racist republican fever dream. Car Jackings are up something like 400% in DC over the last few years and yet progressive leaders steadfastly pretend that this isn't happening, and in cities with similar issues, failing to address the issues will hurt dem electeds (not in DC, obviously).
NYC is extremely safe comparatively, as is SF, but it doesn't mean crime hasn't gotten worse there, which people notice and feel. Robberies are up 31% YoY in 2022 in NYC. Felony assaults are up 15%. SF is a little different because its property crime and the visceral effects of the city's refusal to address homelessness rather than violent crime, but both cities definitely feel more lawless than they did a decade ago.
Telling me that crime is worse in Oklahoma doesn't make me feel any better, nor does it register with suburbanites who saw someone jerking off on a subway platform the last time they went to a Mets game.
I do NOT think crime is a racist fever dream. But keeping prospective on an actual problem is much more likely to result in policies that actually address the problem. Or more accurately address the problem in a way to be least damaging to society.
I'll give another example to show where I'm coming from on the crime issue. Deficits matter again as Matt has noted. There is an actual case that small tax increases and small cuts to spending have some validity. However, there are voices out there saying that deficits (and the debt) are so unimaginably huge and are going to drive us to bankruptcy and therefore require giant cuts to medicate, Medicaid and social security based on the idea we are somehow going bankrupt. The former from Matt seems reasonable and true. The latter is an overreaction that would lead to an unimaginably damaging policy outcome based on said overreaction.
Also, it should really be pointed out that data about crime in NYC seems literally unbelievable. Don't believe me, please read. https://jabberwocking.com/the-crime-surge-in-new-york-city-is-beyond-belief-literally/
I'm not sure what to make of that NYC data, but that article still states that a) crime went up 7.5% in 2021 and b) minor crime (which still matters IMO) is up 13% this year. So even if the 37% figure is overblown or not trustworthy, I think it stands to reason that crime is increasing in NYC, and probably to a substantial extent.
It is true that NYC remains relatively safe; I think the crime surge of the past 2-3 years has brought the crime rate back to mid-2000s levels. Hardly the bad old days. But I think there is a difference between evaluating crime from a personal point of view and from a public policy point of view. If someone asked me "should I be afraid to go to NYC now?" I'd say no, you shouldn't be afraid, that is completely ridiculous. It's even still pretty safe to walk around most of the city late at night (I walked around NYC late at night all the time in the mid-2000s and it was fine). But that doesn't mean that the crime increase isn't real or noticeable, or that it hasn't had a meaningful negative impact on quality-of-life in the city.
I am opposed to fearmongering about crime, as I am opposed to fearmongering about all sorts of other that are kinda abstract, but scary (covid, terrorism, mass shootings). But - like covid, terrorism, and mass shootings - that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously. And I do think there is a tendency on the left to dismiss the idea that crime should be a concern at all.
Edit: After reading some of your other comments, I suspect we mostly agree on this. I'll leave my comment here for others who are following along.
You’re right to note the difference between how we view crime from a public policy point of view vs how people personally view crime Point well taken. I do think though that how people personally view crime is influenced by things like…the Democratic mayor of NYC making wildly exaggerated statements about crime. I’m not expecting any objective reporting from NYPost or Fox but the mayor? Ugh!
I do want to highlight the terrorism reference as I think it’s relevant. I should state up front that 9/11 happened my freshman year of college. It’s not a stretch to say 9/11, war on terror and war in Iraq are foundational aspects of my politics. My point is I saw our country make a horrendous miscalculation and blunder into a war, in part as overreaction to a very real tragedy. Not sure you’ll find very many people who disagree with the idea that taking out Taliban and hunting for and taking out Bin Laden was a good thing (staying to try to prop up a wildly corrupt government on the other hand was almost certainly a mistake. Biden recognized this apparently as early as 2010 if reports are to be believed). But Afghanistan was not enough. Hunting for Bin Laden was not enough. We had to make the world safe for democracy. Or more likely. Afghanistan didn’t satisfy our need for vengeance nearly enough. (Always thought Team America got at a lot more fundamental truths about what drove the war on terror and invasion of Iraq than hundreds if not thousands of think pieces). So we blundered into a “dumb war” as a wise man predicted in 2003. This reacting to a very real and horrid crime and then overreacting to said crime and blundering into terrible policy is something I’d like to avoid*.
* Ironically enough, John Kerry was likely a 100% right when he said in 04 that terrorism needs to be thought of as a law enforcement issue and not a military one. And he was hammered for it. Ironic as he as his fundamental point was a call for more funding of law enforcement. calling essentially for more law enforcement.
Looks like you and I are around the same age - I was a senior in high school when 9/11 happened, and all of that stuff was foundational to me, too. In some ways, I'm still an aughts-era liberal.
I'll add that growing up on Staten Island, 9/11 had a *big* impact on the community; everyone (including me) knew someone who died in the attacks, and you would still see "Never Forget 9/11" decals on cars as late as 2006 or 2007.
And yeah. All of that was a mistake. It even seemed that way to me at the time, and I was kid! And I was a kid who actually knew people who were deeply affected by it - it was not some distant tragedy to me. I distinctly remember John Kerry saying that in 2004 and thinking he was right.
When I was younger, I thought someday the hyperbole would subside. Now that I'm on the brink of middle-age, I realize that hyperbole is the way of things in politics (and the left has taken it up, too!) and I try to adjust my expectations accordingly, and mostly tune it out.
That crime is even worse some place else is not any compensation to voters who know their city has got significantly more dangerous and unpleasant to live in. Trying to flannel that they have worse crime in another place, so, what? Count your lucky stars? Is the kind of thinking that hurts Dems.
I half agree with both of these comments.
Trends matter, so NYC voters should be concerned with crime. But I'd actually argue that right-wing media still matters in the sense that suburban voters in red states don't think their (objectively quite dangerous) cities are any worse than NYC. It's just that the specific right-wing media problem here is its unwillingness to report on anything that would reflect negatively on the GOP, rather than its accurate-ish scaremongering on urban crime in blue states.
Democrats should fix this by funding the police and then bragging that their cities are safer than red state equivalents because they funded their police (NYPD is super well funded compared to most/all red state city PDs, for example!).
I suspect the word "crime" also serves for many voters as a stand-in for a sense of decay and disunity and unease that is maybe best represented by the visibly-homeless.
Yes, I've been using "urban disorder" rather than "crime."
The looting matters more to voters than the shootings, if the shootings are happening in poor neighborhoods they don't live in.
Bingo. You actually expressed my own sentiments a lot better than I did.
Telling voters that their concerns are misplaced or misguided is, at best, done with extraordinary nuance if your goal is to actually win elections.
I do think crime vibes are almost wholly responsible for keeping RonJohn in the Senate.
I think it was 538 who pointed out even CNN rated a claim that Barnes was for defunding the police as basically true.
RonJohn has zero familiarity with the word "embarrassment."
See his trip to Moscow in 2017. It will never not baffle me that Democrats didn't run ads showing that large portions of the GOP spent July 4th in Moscow wining and dining with Putin (including RonJon). I'm one of the many Dems who hopes to reclaim the Patriotism mantle. Both for moral and political reasons. Talk about a perfect way to make inroads.
Yep. A lot of Wisconsin voters consume Chicago media, too, which adds fuel to the fire.
What Chicago media are Wisconsinites consuming? This is news to me as someone who lived there for almost 20 years.
Some are saying Luria (Dem incumbent) lost in Virginia to the R challenger because she served on the Jan. 6 committee and was vocal about accountability for the insurrection. So MAGA may still be relevant in some swing districts.
I think Luria was in trouble no matter what, but she drew easily the most "serious" or "normal" challenger in Virginia compared to Cao or Vega. She might have very well lost to a MAGA loon, but had they replicated Kiggans in the Nova Exurbs, they pick up at least one and maybe two seats. This isn't to say Kiggans is good (she's not), or moderate (she's not), but she at least tried to be vague about her extremism instead or running expressly as a loon like Cao and Vega did.
RonJon seemed liked he want to play this election on hard mode. He could have just hit on crime and inflation and won easily. Instead he proposed all sorts of major changes to entitlements and went partial qAnon.
Agree on all. As to your point about illegal immigration: I wonder if the issue has just lost salience after years and years of kvetching about it?
Yeah I think voters probably realize that re illegal immigration, it simply makes not an iota of difference who happens to be in charge.