Wisconsin Megathread v3: GOP in MASSIVE DISARRAY

[Pollster]

Pro-choice... checks notes.... Menomonee Falls?

https://twitter.com/srl/status/1643279110536396802?s=20

Menomonee Falls is also a key region in the State Senate special election.

[Pollster]

make wisconsin great again

[Pollster]

Wikler will go down as one of the greatest state party chairs in the post-Jim Crow era - what he has built in this state is something to behold.

[Pollster]

Hearing today that, much moreso than in the Obama 2008 afterglow and subsequent Walker years, the state Dems seem to understand their opposition a lot better now and want to implement as much structural protection against a repeat of the 2010's as possible rather than just prioritizing winning elections. There's talk about a big push to get a redistricting commission modeled after Michigan's passed and ideally enshrined in the state constitution, as well as constitutional protections for the roles and duties of row officers.

[Pollster]

Kelly is an awful candidate who lost by over 10 in 2020 under the backdrop of the Democratic Presidential Primary, and lost by 10 again this year under the backdrop of abortion. Maybe the main problem is that he’s just a horrific candidate.

I would advise against people extrapolating too much from this result for this reason.

If this was an isolated incident, I'd probably agree with you, but it just isn't. Republicans have consistently underperformed in general elections after 2020. This is part of a systemic issue with the GOP.

Because we run candidates who suck at raising money and former losers, yes.

Dorow would have sadly still probably have lost, but in no universe would she have collapsed in WOW or as many deep red counties like Kelly did. She would have atleast tried campaigning. And if she was the nominee, then Knodl would have won comfortably

Knodl was the establishment choice who beat a disaster candidate handily in the primary, fundraised solidly, and ran a competent campaign. He had some extreme right-wing reactionary views but nothing more disqualifying than anything Ron Johnson has ever said. In a high-turnout race like this he should have had no problem at all and his barely skating by is probably the biggest flashing warning sign for the Wisconsin Republicans out of the many we saw last night.

[Pollster]

Maybe Kelly losing by double digits also dragged Knodl down? Similarly to how Dixon and Mastriano losing by double digits dragged down multiple congressional candidates?

The disaster candidate would have lost by 6-7.

Maybe, and that's something we'll never be able to really know, but given the lack of a major disparity in candidate quality and spending (I read somewhere that Knodl actually outspent Sinykin, though haven't seen that anywhere else) and the strong turnout (generally the higher turnout gets, the closer a constituency will vote to its baseline partisanship barring said major disparity in candidate quality and spending) I can't honestly say this feels likely. Even if non-regular election turnout does lean Dem now, Knodl at parity/with a narrow spending advantage really had no business doing worse than Michels at a steep deficit.

[Pollster]

It is also important to remember that as constituencies get smaller the further down the ballot you go, the less votes are required to actually win. A Democrat winning a Trump +7 state assembly seat requires a significantly smaller investment than a Trump +7 Congressional district.

I recall reading somewhere that parties have been more likely to win upsets and overperform in state legislative races where the districts are small like New England and the midwest/great plains than in places where state legislative districts can rival or even surpass the population sizes of Congressional districts like California, Texas, and Florida.

[Pollster]

so what are the chances of a veto override of the sham restricting bill the Assembly passed?

Nil.  It takes 2/3 of each house to override, and Republicans don't have that in the Assembly.

Three voted with the Republicans though on the amendments and there are rumors they are trying to get other members to support it.

I can understand a Democratic rep voting to pass it for parochial reasons/personal political considerations, but voting to override the Democratic Governor's veto on this of all issues would certainly be a career-ender - there's just no way the Democratic base in this particular state after the monumental Supreme Court flip forgives that.

[Pollster]

Republicans have gone from coping to full-blown fascism now.

It's crazy that this is even possible, but in the past 10 years, Republicans have transformed (= rigged) Wisconsin districts to produce a 70% Republican state legislature - in a state that usually votes 50-50.

Now do Nevada

This is not the Nevada megathread. You must be confused.

What that user means is that if we were to complain about WI's political geography naturally favoring Republicans, we should also mention NV's political geography naturally favoring Democrats.

If the Nevada Republicans want to do something about their geographic disadvantages, they are more than welcome to put in the work Wisconsin Democrats have (i.e. complete foundational reboot, relentless organization and voter engagement, perfect message discipline, stellar candidate recruitment, picking their battles strategically) to get themselves in such a strong position to address it.

I'm being cheeky but the Wisconsin Democrats really are an incredible blueprint for state parties that underperform their statewide potential all throughout the country.

[Pollster]

Impeachment not only would have failed but would have generated enormous negative media coverage, driven Democratic fundraising and local candidate recruitment, and probably sparked well-organized recall campaigns in key legislative seats. All that considered, it's remarkable and sort of funny that the ostensibly "nonpartisan" former justices were the ones who had to sound the alarm on it.

[Pollster]

Apparently Vos qualified his statement by saying that impeachment is still on the table if she votes to overturn the maps, which (unless I'm misunderstanding Wisconsin's judicial process) feels like it would be a massive own-goal since it would put the legislature's Republicans in the position of having to vote on it with the knowledge that their districts will be redrawn regardless.

[Pollster]

There are good reasons for dems to not challenge the congressional map this cycle.

1)
There is not that much to gain. The congressional maps are not that gerrymandered. Voter distribution in the state is bad for dems.
Under most maps there will be one seat gain for dems.

2)
They have to defend their one seat majority in 2025. Too many controversial high-profile rulings and you risk a backlash. A recent example for that would be NC where dems lost their majority on the supreme court in 2022.

3)
There is a real risk that SCOTUS overturns the ruling and says that state courts have very limited authority to overturn congressional maps.
SCOTUS was close to doing that in the NC case, before republicans took back the majority on the NC SC.

There are plenty of good reasons they shouldn't challenge the Congressional map this cycle. None of these are one of them.

1) A one-seat gain (it would probably be two) is 20% of the way to the House majority.

2) This is loser mentality. Power begets power - not using it when you have it is silly. There is no such thing as a permanent majority (the Republicans' dominance here in the 2010's meeting a relatively sudden end in the 2020's is a perfect encapsulation of this) and the best thing you can do is always to maximize your interests when the numbers are in your favor.

3) The Supreme Court will not do this because it would harm Republicans just as much if not more than Democrats.

[Pollster]

They will not however invalidate the 2022 results.

https://twitter.com/jrrosswrites/status/1738302758929723434?s=46

This aspect could actually go to SCOTUS as electing only half of the Senate under the new map and leaving the other half elected under the old would result in some people being double-represented and others having none.