WI-SEN 2022 Megathread: Who stole my cheese?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Xing]

Any guesses for the poll, since predicting polls is the most Atlas thing ever? I’m thinking Barnes +3. Doesn’t mean much, though the October poll is worth paying some attention to, even if it’s not necessarily going to nail the actual result.

[Xing]

https://twitter.com/natashakorecki/status/1559994114862710785

This was his strategy in 2016 as well. Barnes needs to define him as a wealthy Washington insider and frame himself as the one who is in touch with voters before Johnson can flip the script and argue that he’s the one who can “bring change to Washington”, despite being a two-term Senator who would love more “business as usual.”

[Xing]

Please tell me Barnes will put this in his ads. The case that Johnson doesn’t care about working class people shouldn’t be a hard one to make.

[Xing]

he is a competent and smart dude

I am being completely serious here: What has he said/done to make you think this? I honestly don't get this view.

It might just be the 2016 PTSD talking, but I don’t want to underestimate Johnson again.

[Xing]

My question is where does Barnes make up ground from Biden? I'm sure Johnson does worse in Waukesha county than his 69% in 2016 but I still think he does better than Trump's 59% in 2020. The driftless is rapidly trending away from Democrats, and Barnes isn't the best candidate to appeal there. That leaves us with Dane which he probably does well there but will it be enough ? There is Milwaukee but he will have to do better than Biden there. The Milwaukee metro isn't very big actually - it is comparable to Pittsburgh.

I could see Barnes doing slightly better than Biden in Driftless (though worse than Feingold) for the simple fact that trends at the statewide level lag a bit behind presidential trends. It’s the same reason why I’d expect Johnson to do better than Trump in the WOW counties. He could also do marginally better in some rural parts of the state. Overall, a lot is going to come down to turnout, though.

And while yes, rural WI voting like rural PA would be terrible news for Democrats, Waukesha and Ozaukee voting like suburbs in other states would be awful for Republicans, though these aren’t things we can expect to happen for certain, since each state is unique.

[Xing]

He’s not trying to lose, he’s appealing to his base. The question is whether or not his base is enough. If it’s a Republican-leaning year, it very likely will be. If it’s more of a neutral year, this strategy is definitely a gamble.

[Xing]

He’s not trying to lose, he’s appealing to his base. The question is whether or not his base is enough. If it’s a Republican-leaning year, it very likely will be. If it’s more of a neutral year, this strategy is definitely a gamble.

This is a terrible take, a sizeable portion of even the GOP is okay with same sex marriage. This is not a "base" issue. Not to mention, this is totally against all Democrats and easily a majority of Independents. People trying to spin this is just delusional.

By saying his “base”, I mean the most stalwart Republicans, some of whom might not be the most reliable voters.

[Xing]

https://twitter.com/MikeBradleyMKE/status/1569484045809258496

This was pretty much inevitable, and it's telling that Barnes is put in a very different category of "candidate quality" than, for example, Fetterman, and isn't considered "in touch" despite having a working class background and spending a good amount of time in rural Wisconsin. The issue for Barnes is that, unfortunately, he does have to be careful if he decides to respond directly to this or call it out, since he could easily be painted in a negative way if any response of his is deemed "aggressive."

[Xing]

Bummer that Barnes couldn't pull it off, but I don't think it's fair to call him a terrible candidate, given the closeness of the race in a relatively neutral year, against an (unfortunately) good campaigner. The fact that he came close and Evers won by several points does bode decently well for Baldwin.