WI-SEN 2022 Megathread: Who stole my cheese?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-calls-for-turning-social-security-medicare-into-discretionary-spending-programs/article_5d9457a6-fd52-5c7f-9dfb-37cc0466a1c9.html

I really doubt the elderly in Wisconsin would like this at all, this is an absolutely toxic position to take.  

Attacking entitlements before an election can be a death sentence.

Did Johnson hold different positions in 2010 and 2016?

For sure not helpful, I just remain skeptical whether this unseats him in an environment like this is probably going to be.

But what is that environment though? People need to stop assuming this is going to be some automatic red wave when this year seems incredibly evident that a lot of these races are going to be more contextual and situational than overarching.

Well, 2016 was still kind of neutral year and RoJo went on winning regardless by a few points, contrary to polls. For sure I'm not in the "muh 2016 and 2020 polls were off" camp, though fundamentals tend to favor him. Even if we assume 2022 will only be a red ripple or somewhat neutral. Biden just barely won WI and even Walker, in the 2018 blue wave, still came very close. And Barnes, as much as I'd like to see him winning, is not exactly as strong as Fetterman for example.

Just don't want to get my hopes up early. Definitely would enjoy to see Johnson losing. He's a horrible senator.

I get that. Johnson has incumbency going for him which is powerful. It just really feels as if people are incredibly overestimating him as a candidate, even in a harder year for Ds.

Part of the reason why is the disappointment of 2016 where Feingold lost against Johnson despite the polls and it wasn't even a nailbiter. Johnson overperformed Trump in terms of margin, although Trump's good performance in WI definitely did help Johnson in 2016.

[Xing]

https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-calls-for-turning-social-security-medicare-into-discretionary-spending-programs/article_5d9457a6-fd52-5c7f-9dfb-37cc0466a1c9.html

I really doubt the elderly in Wisconsin would like this at all, this is an absolutely toxic position to take.  

Attacking entitlements before an election can be a death sentence.

Did Johnson hold different positions in 2010 and 2016?

For sure not helpful, I just remain skeptical whether this unseats him in an environment like this is probably going to be.

But what is that environment though? People need to stop assuming this is going to be some automatic red wave when this year seems incredibly evident that a lot of these races are going to be more contextual and situational than overarching.

Well, 2016 was still kind of neutral year and RoJo went on winning regardless by a few points, contrary to polls. For sure I'm not in the "muh 2016 and 2020 polls were off" camp, though fundamentals tend to favor him. Even if we assume 2022 will only be a red ripple or somewhat neutral. Biden just barely won WI and even Walker, in the 2018 blue wave, still came very close. And Barnes, as much as I'd like to see him winning, is not exactly as strong as Fetterman for example.

Just don't want to get my hopes up early. Definitely would enjoy to see Johnson losing. He's a horrible senator.

I get that. Johnson has incumbency going for him which is powerful. It just really feels as if people are incredibly overestimating him as a candidate, even in a harder year for Ds.

Part of the reason why is the disappointment of 2016 where Feingold lost against Johnson despite the polls and it wasn't even a nailbiter. Johnson overperformed Trump in terms of margin, although Trump's good performance in WI definitely did help Johnson in 2016.

Yes, definitely. While I would still say Johnson is clearly favored by analyzing this race objectively, the 2016 result was easily the most disappointing, crushing Senate race I’ve seen in my lifetime. Even if polls consistently showed Barnes up by 5, I would not get my hopes up again. I’d much rather overestimate Johnson and end up with egg on my face than to be optimistic about the possibility of Johnson losing only for him to win again.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-calls-for-turning-social-security-medicare-into-discretionary-spending-programs/article_5d9457a6-fd52-5c7f-9dfb-37cc0466a1c9.html

I really doubt the elderly in Wisconsin would like this at all, this is an absolutely toxic position to take.  

Attacking entitlements before an election can be a death sentence.

Did Johnson hold different positions in 2010 and 2016?

For sure not helpful, I just remain skeptical whether this unseats him in an environment like this is probably going to be.

But what is that environment though? People need to stop assuming this is going to be some automatic red wave when this year seems incredibly evident that a lot of these races are going to be more contextual and situational than overarching.

Well, 2016 was still kind of neutral year and RoJo went on winning regardless by a few points, contrary to polls. For sure I'm not in the "muh 2016 and 2020 polls were off" camp, though fundamentals tend to favor him. Even if we assume 2022 will only be a red ripple or somewhat neutral. Biden just barely won WI and even Walker, in the 2018 blue wave, still came very close. And Barnes, as much as I'd like to see him winning, is not exactly as strong as Fetterman for example.

Just don't want to get my hopes up early. Definitely would enjoy to see Johnson losing. He's a horrible senator.

I get that. Johnson has incumbency going for him which is powerful. It just really feels as if people are incredibly overestimating him as a candidate, even in a harder year for Ds.

Part of the reason why is the disappointment of 2016 where Feingold lost against Johnson despite the polls and it wasn't even a nailbiter. Johnson overperformed Trump in terms of margin, although Trump's good performance in WI definitely did help Johnson in 2016.

Yes, definitely. While I would still say Johnson is clearly favored by analyzing this race objectively, the 2016 result was easily the most disappointing, crushing Senate race I’ve seen in my lifetime. Even if polls consistently showed Barnes up by 5, I would not get my hopes up again. I’d much rather overestimate Johnson and end up with egg on my face than to be optimistic about the possibility of Johnson losing only for him to win again.

Hey! That's my exact philosophy towards most things in life!

I should sue you for impersonating me!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Johnson is not favored there is no poll that shows him up substantially on Barnes eventhough Atlas users claim he is

Atlas users makeup polls that Johnson is up 10 pts and he only won by 3

[Xing]

https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-calls-for-turning-social-security-medicare-into-discretionary-spending-programs/article_5d9457a6-fd52-5c7f-9dfb-37cc0466a1c9.html

I really doubt the elderly in Wisconsin would like this at all, this is an absolutely toxic position to take.  

Attacking entitlements before an election can be a death sentence.

Did Johnson hold different positions in 2010 and 2016?

For sure not helpful, I just remain skeptical whether this unseats him in an environment like this is probably going to be.

But what is that environment though? People need to stop assuming this is going to be some automatic red wave when this year seems incredibly evident that a lot of these races are going to be more contextual and situational than overarching.

Well, 2016 was still kind of neutral year and RoJo went on winning regardless by a few points, contrary to polls. For sure I'm not in the "muh 2016 and 2020 polls were off" camp, though fundamentals tend to favor him. Even if we assume 2022 will only be a red ripple or somewhat neutral. Biden just barely won WI and even Walker, in the 2018 blue wave, still came very close. And Barnes, as much as I'd like to see him winning, is not exactly as strong as Fetterman for example.

Just don't want to get my hopes up early. Definitely would enjoy to see Johnson losing. He's a horrible senator.

I get that. Johnson has incumbency going for him which is powerful. It just really feels as if people are incredibly overestimating him as a candidate, even in a harder year for Ds.

Part of the reason why is the disappointment of 2016 where Feingold lost against Johnson despite the polls and it wasn't even a nailbiter. Johnson overperformed Trump in terms of margin, although Trump's good performance in WI definitely did help Johnson in 2016.

Yes, definitely. While I would still say Johnson is clearly favored by analyzing this race objectively, the 2016 result was easily the most disappointing, crushing Senate race I’ve seen in my lifetime. Even if polls consistently showed Barnes up by 5, I would not get my hopes up again. I’d much rather overestimate Johnson and end up with egg on my face than to be optimistic about the possibility of Johnson losing only for him to win again.

Hey! That's my exact philosophy towards most things in life!

I should sue you for impersonating me!

Sorry, I’ll be sure to add a footnote next time.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-calls-for-turning-social-security-medicare-into-discretionary-spending-programs/article_5d9457a6-fd52-5c7f-9dfb-37cc0466a1c9.html

I really doubt the elderly in Wisconsin would like this at all, this is an absolutely toxic position to take.  

Attacking entitlements before an election can be a death sentence.

Did Johnson hold different positions in 2010 and 2016?

For sure not helpful, I just remain skeptical whether this unseats him in an environment like this is probably going to be.

But what is that environment though? People need to stop assuming this is going to be some automatic red wave when this year seems incredibly evident that a lot of these races are going to be more contextual and situational than overarching.

Well, 2016 was still kind of neutral year and RoJo went on winning regardless by a few points, contrary to polls. For sure I'm not in the "muh 2016 and 2020 polls were off" camp, though fundamentals tend to favor him. Even if we assume 2022 will only be a red ripple or somewhat neutral. Biden just barely won WI and even Walker, in the 2018 blue wave, still came very close. And Barnes, as much as I'd like to see him winning, is not exactly as strong as Fetterman for example.

Just don't want to get my hopes up early. Definitely would enjoy to see Johnson losing. He's a horrible senator.

I get that. Johnson has incumbency going for him which is powerful. It just really feels as if people are incredibly overestimating him as a candidate, even in a harder year for Ds.

Part of the reason why is the disappointment of 2016 where Feingold lost against Johnson despite the polls and it wasn't even a nailbiter. Johnson overperformed Trump in terms of margin, although Trump's good performance in WI definitely did help Johnson in 2016.

Yes, definitely. While I would still say Johnson is clearly favored by analyzing this race objectively, the 2016 result was easily the most disappointing, crushing Senate race I’ve seen in my lifetime. Even if polls consistently showed Barnes up by 5, I would not get my hopes up again. I’d much rather overestimate Johnson and end up with egg on my face than to be optimistic about the possibility of Johnson losing only for him to win again.

Hey! That's my exact philosophy towards most things in life!

I should sue you for impersonating me!

Sorry, I’ll be sure to add a footnote next time.

Hehehe, I appreciate that, but it's all good.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Just looking online at their campaign ads and websites the sense I get is Johnson is running a more negative campaign, attacking Biden for inflation while Barnes campaign seems to be one of optimism and hope. Ig it isn't that much of a suprise but there is a real difference in vibes between Johnson and Barnes ads, and there's a case that both strategies have their own positives and negatives.

Furthermore, Johnson really seems to be focusing on the economy in his ads which is smart and not falling into the side traps of social issues of election fraud that some Rs have, especially since those are things he can be attacked for being extreme on.

A smart move on Barnes campaign's part is actually showing him at a lot of these farms in factory in a way that comes across as genuine, at least to me. I think one issue in Wisconsin is a lot of former or current rural Dem voters feel the Dem party is becoming too urban-centric, focusing on social issues and only benefitting cities. This is especially true in WI where a lot of rural areas really have a distain for Milwaukee and Madison.

[Joblow]

What will be Barnes worst county in the primary?

[walleye26]

What will be Barnes worst county in the primary?

Hard to know since all his opponents dropped out. But I would guess a county north of highway 29 (Green Bay to Menominee).

[Sir Mohamed]

According to Wikipedia, Barnes won the primary with 78% of the vote.

https://twitter.com/TheOtherMandela/status/1557181083577454593

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/1557423464025395200

[Gass3268]

What will be Barnes worst county in the primary?

Looks like Douglas County. Barnes got 61.5% there.

[windjammer]

Honestly,
Is Mandela Barnes a strong candidate or not at all?

[SnowLabrador]

Honestly,
Is Mandela Barnes a strong candidate or not at all?

He seems like a decent candidate to me, but he'll have a hard time winning in this environment. A shame, too, Johnson sucks.

[Ferguson97]

Honestly,
Is Mandela Barnes a strong candidate or not at all?

He's pretty much a generic Dem with higher-than-average name ID running against an unpopular incumbent in a state that was basically tied 2 years ago. Decide for yourself if you think this makes him a strong candidate in this environment.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Honestly,
Is Mandela Barnes a strong candidate or not at all?

He seems like a decent candidate to me, but he'll have a hard time winning in this environment. A shame, too, Johnson sucks.

Lol the last MQK poll had Barnes leading 46/44 and Evers leading 48/40

You keep saying the same thing MQK is doing another poll 8/18 and it's gonna be Barnes 47/43 and Evers 49/45

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D's would of had a much tougher time winning this seat back if Kleefisch won it's all on MSNBC Sen Elect Barnes, Sen Elect Fetterman it's a 303 map scenario anyways but Ryan, Beasley and Demings are over performing it's a 52/45 Senate right now with OH, FL and NC up in the air

That AZ poll proves it's a 303 map without Biden Approvals whomever wins NM or Maricopa county wins the whole Election and we won Maricopa Kelly isn't up 14 but he is up 51/46 clearing 50 percent

[MT Treasurer]

Honestly,
Is Mandela Barnes a strong candidate or not at all?

WI Republicans are (understandably) very confident that they can paint him as way too liberal for the state and as a rubber stamp for Biden. Here’s a very good analysis of this race which goes into some detail about the likely trajectory of the GE campaign and also sheds some light on why Ron Johnson is actually a very difficult candidate to run against despite being "controversial" (and arguably precisely because of that, which is something many on the left do not comprehend) -

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/crazy-isnt-enough-democrats-scrutinize-ron-johnsons-every-move-effort-rcna42165

This part stood out to me -

As for Johnson’s often controversial comments, Republicans shrug off most of them as utterances that outrage only Democrats and the media. Several Wisconsin operatives with knowledge of the political tracking cited focus groups with would-be voters that found a consistent response to a controversial statement the senator had made: Johnson must be doing something right if he’s ticking off that many people.

Triggering the libs can actually be an asset, who would have thought. The problem with their strategy is that running against Johnson's 'extremism' ("Crazy isn’t enough") does little to undermine the perception of him as an outsider-businessman who instead of having gone Washington is still fighting the worst excesses of Washington/the federal government and tells it like it is — someone who you can always trust to tell the truth and to fight for you. He reminds me a lot of Jon Tester in how he consistently manages to make people forget that he has been part of that same Washington for more than a decade.

The general vibe I’m getting from this article (and the race in general) suggests a far more favorable outlook for Republicans than seems to be the current consensus on this forum. In fact, I still think this race is quite an uphill battle for Democrats. However, the good news for them is that they don’t need this race for a majority.

[wbrocks67]

Honestly,
Is Mandela Barnes a strong candidate or not at all?

WI Republicans are (understandably) very confident that they can paint him as way too liberal for the state and as a rubber stamp for Biden. Here’s a very good analysis of this race which goes into some detail about the likely trajectory of the GE campaign and also sheds some light on why Ron Johnson is actually a very difficult candidate to run against despite being "controversial" (and arguably precisely because of that, which is something many on the left do not comprehend) -

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/crazy-isnt-enough-democrats-scrutinize-ron-johnsons-every-move-effort-rcna42165

This part stood out to me -

As for Johnson’s often controversial comments, Republicans shrug off most of them as utterances that outrage only Democrats and the media. Several Wisconsin operatives with knowledge of the political tracking cited focus groups with would-be voters that found a consistent response to a controversial statement the senator had made: Johnson must be doing something right if he’s ticking off that many people.

Triggering the libs can actually be an asset, who would have thought. The problem with their strategy is that running against Johnson's 'extremism' ("Crazy isn’t enough") does little to undermine the perception of him as an outsider-businessman who instead of having gone Washington is still fighting the worst excesses of Washington/the federal government and tells it like it is — someone who you can always trust to tell the truth and to fight for you. He reminds me a lot of Jon Tester in how he consistently manages to make people forget that he has been part of that same Washington for more than a decade.

The general vibe I’m getting from this article (and the race in general) suggests a far more favorable outlook for Republicans than seems to be the current consensus on this forum. In fact, I still think this race is quite an uphill battle for Democrats. However, the good news for them is that they don’t need this race for a majority.

Now sis, come on now. That is not Ron Johnson and you know it. This man literally just endorsed ending Medicare and SS.

He is the worst the Swamp has to offer. This is just straight up fantasy.

[coloradocowboi]

Honestly,
Is Mandela Barnes a strong candidate or not at all?

WI Republicans are (understandably) very confident that they can paint him as way too liberal for the state and as a rubber stamp for Biden. Here’s a very good analysis of this race which goes into some detail about the likely trajectory of the GE campaign and also sheds some light on why Ron Johnson is actually a very difficult candidate to run against despite being "controversial" (and arguably precisely because of that, which is something many on the left do not comprehend) -

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/crazy-isnt-enough-democrats-scrutinize-ron-johnsons-every-move-effort-rcna42165

This part stood out to me -

As for Johnson’s often controversial comments, Republicans shrug off most of them as utterances that outrage only Democrats and the media. Several Wisconsin operatives with knowledge of the political tracking cited focus groups with would-be voters that found a consistent response to a controversial statement the senator had made: Johnson must be doing something right if he’s ticking off that many people.

Triggering the libs can actually be an asset, who would have thought. The problem with their strategy is that running against Johnson's 'extremism' ("Crazy isn’t enough") does little to undermine the perception of him as an outsider-businessman who instead of having gone Washington is still fighting the worst excesses of Washington/the federal government and tells it like it is — someone who you can always trust to tell the truth and to fight for you. He reminds me a lot of Jon Tester in how he consistently manages to make people forget that he has been part of that same Washington for more than a decade.

The general vibe I’m getting from this article (and the race in general) suggests a far more favorable outlook for Republicans than seems to be the current consensus on this forum. In fact, I still think this race is quite an uphill battle for Democrats. However, the good news for them is that they don’t need this race for a majority.

Now sis, come on now. That is not Ron Johnson and you know it. This man literally just endorsed ending Medicare and SS.

He is the worst the Swamp has to offer. This is just straight up fantasy.

Yeah it’s not like Ron Johnson is only controversial because of some s*** he said. Is privatizing Medicare going to be perceived by seniors as “owning the libs?” I don’t think so

[Xing]

The fact that “triggering” a large percentage of one’s own constituents that they’re supposed to be representing and working for is a very damning indictment on American politics and society as a whole. Would it be a good thing for teachers to “trigger” a lot of their students? Or for doctors to “trigger” their patients? This isn’t new, though, as we’ve known this for a while, and more than half of the country seems completely fine with this, sadly.

And of course the perception of Johnson as an “outsider businessman fighting against the excesses of Washington” is pure fantasy. People like him have benefitted by far the most from our institutions and economic system. It doesn’t matter to people if it’s fantasy, though, since it’s such a fun narrative to parrot, and they’re happy to continue repeating it (along with others like Trump being an “outsider populist”), in the hopes that everyone will forget that it’s a lie. And if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because fundamentally changing society isn’t important at all, or at best, is secondary to the aforementioned “triggering the libs.”

And I don’t think many here deny that Johnson is favored. Over 90% of predictions have him winning and the aggregate rating is Lean R. I’m quite about Barnes’s chances, though I maintain that he’s not a bad candidate, and on the off-chance the president environment actually does end up better than expected for Democrats, his strategy of visiting more of the state outside of Madison and Milwaukee and running a more positive campaign could pay off. As I said before, though, not going to get my hopes up much.

[MT Treasurer]

The fact that “triggering” a large percentage of one’s own constituents that they’re supposed to be representing and working for is a very damning indictment on American politics and society as a whole. Would it be a good thing for teachers to “trigger” a lot of their students? Or for doctors to “trigger” their patients? This isn’t new, though, as we’ve known this for a while, and more than half of the country seems completely fine with this, sadly.

Pretty obvious that I used the term somewhat ironically to comment on what the participants in those focus groups said. Besides, I don’t think this is so much about Johnson trying to "trigger" his own constituents as it is about taking the fight to a disingenuous media, out-of-state liberals, and out-of-touch D.C. Democrats. This kind of persona would be a lot less appealing if there wasn’t already a perception that liberals had a monopoly on the major institutions in the country and Republicans had a long history of giving in to the other side instead of actually fighting back for their base. All I’m saying is that Johnson (unlike Oz, Walker, etc.) actually knows how to tap into this sentiment.

The point wasn’t to cheerlead for Johnson but to help explain much of his appeal to Republican and a large number of independent voters (and to point out why being "controversial" isn’t always a liability). The irony is that these social security comments would hurt a more polished Republican more than Johnson because they’d stand out more in the case of the former. With Johnson, it’s always the same pattern of controversial comment -> even more media outrage -> even more liberal donations -> even more Democratic attack ads. At some point, you run the risk of voters no longer caring what exactly the latest controversial comment was (again, note the focus group observations). What exactly does digging up every controversial comment he’s ever made or every controversial vote he’s ever cast achieve? Does it really undermine the incumbent's brand? Does it really make him look less trustworthy?

It’s not easy to think like a swing/undecided voter when you’re not actually one yourself, but it’s not hard to imagine why voters might think that Johnson means it and someone like Oz doesn’t. Trust (no matter how misplaced) is a very powerful thing.

[Xing]

The fact that “triggering” a large percentage of one’s own constituents that they’re supposed to be representing and working for is a very damning indictment on American politics and society as a whole. Would it be a good thing for teachers to “trigger” a lot of their students? Or for doctors to “trigger” their patients? This isn’t new, though, as we’ve known this for a while, and more than half of the country seems completely fine with this, sadly.

Pretty obvious that I used the term somewhat ironically to comment on what the participants in those focus groups said. Besides, I don’t think this is so much about Johnson trying to "trigger" his own constituents as it is about taking the fight to a disingenuous media, out-of-state liberals, and out-of-touch D.C. Democrats. This kind of persona would be a lot less appealing if there wasn’t already a perception that liberals had a monopoly on the major institutions in the country and Republicans had a long history of giving in to the other side instead of actually fighting back for their base. All I’m saying is that Johnson (unlike Oz, Walker, etc.) actually knows how to tap into this sentiment.

The point wasn’t to cheerlead for Johnson but to help explain much of his appeal to Republican and a large number of independent voters (and to point out why being "controversial" isn’t always a liability). The irony is that these social security comments would hurt a more polished Republican more than Johnson because they’d stand out more in the case of the former. With Johnson, it’s always the same pattern of controversial comment -> even more media outrage -> even more liberal donations -> even more Democratic attack ads. At some point, you run the risk of voters no longer caring what exactly the latest controversial comment was (again, note the focus group observations). What exactly does digging up every controversial comment he’s ever made or every controversial vote he’s ever cast achieve? Does it really undermine the incumbent's brand? Does it really make him look less trustworthy?

It’s not easy to think like a swing/undecided voter when you’re not actually one yourself, but it’s not hard to imagine why voters might think that Johnson means it and someone like Oz doesn’t. Trust (no matter how misplaced) is a very powerful thing.

I’m not saying that the idea that him “triggering liberals” helps him or at least doesn’t hurt him much is inaccurate, simply that it’s unfortunate. There are plenty of places, people, and realities that conservatives and swing voters are “out of touch” with, and that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing if they’re triggered (though I’ll admit some on the left will disagree with me here.) In an ideal world, Johnson, or any Senator for that matter, would be rewarded for legislation and actually accomplishing something, not “pissing off the other side.” Again, I realize that this often cuts both ways, and I’m not saying it’s any better if a left-wing Democrat benefits purely for making conservatives angry.

[henster]

https://host2.adimpact.com/admo/viewer/2d7c9a36-8132-467d-8aab-77346e40ffc6

This ad of Barnes praising the squad and talking about driver license for illegal immigrants is why I always thought he was longshot against Johnson. This is a Bernie acolyte running in a state Biden barely won. Johnson will make this race a referendum on Barnes and he will win in the end.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://host2.adimpact.com/admo/viewer/2d7c9a36-8132-467d-8aab-77346e40ffc6

This ad of Barnes praising the squad and talking about driver license for illegal immigrants is why I always thought he was longshot against Johnson. This is a Bernie acolyte running in a state Biden barely won. Johnson will make this race a referendum on Barnes and he will win in the end.

Lol the last MQK poll had Barnes up 46/44 Johnson only won by 3 pts this is the same WI Tammy Baldwin won, it's not Lean R it's a Tossup 3 pts is not Lean R that's why Cook has it as Tossup

What poll has Johnson ahead by 10 pts, none, Vance isn't even up 10

D's rooting for Johnson, Lol

We're in much better position to beat Johnson without Kleefisch with Michels