Does Wisconsin have the most random unique senate duo in the country?

[Cyrusman]

One of their senators is a very liberal Democrat who embraces many progressive ideas and the other is a very conservative Republican. Anyone else find this to be very weird?

I mean in PA, Casey is more conservative than the average democrat and Toomey is more moderate than the average Republican.

Does WI have the most random senate duo?

[Alben Barkley]

WI elections are typically more about a turnout battle than playing to the middle, so it's not TOO weird I guess.

[Roll Roons]

Easily. They probably also have the worst working relationship of any Senate delegation.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It'll lose that title if Vance wins in OH, though.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Yes, but it shouldn't be unexpected in a severely polarized state like Wisconsin with two Senators who keep seeing re-election in favorable years for their parties.

It'll lose that title if when Vance wins in OH, though.

[SWE]

WI elections are typically more about a turnout battle than playing to the middle, so it's not TOO weird I guess.

Yeah, realistically a far right Republican and liberal Democrat is the delegation you'd expect to best represent Wisconsin. It's not a swing state because there's a lot of moderates there, it's a swing state because it's heavily polarized. It would be weird if they weren't ideologically miles apart

[Senator Incitatus]

Toomey is more moderate than the average Republican.

Is this really true?

[Nutmeg]

Toomey is more moderate than the average Republican.

Is this really true?

His vote for impeachment underscores this. It's all relative.

[Senator Incitatus]

Toomey is more moderate than the average Republican.

Is this really true?

His vote for impeachment underscores this. It's all relative.

My impression was that he voted for impeachment precisely because he is an extremist on the issues that he disagrees with Trump on, namely globalization and financial regulation.

[Calthrina950]

Toomey is more moderate than the average Republican.

Is this really true?

His vote for impeachment underscores this. It's all relative.

My impression was that he voted for impeachment precisely because he is an extremist on the issues that he disagrees with Trump on, namely globalization and financial regulation.

Toomey strikes me as a solidly conservative "country club" Republican. The only issue on which he is remotely moderate is gun control.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is what happens when two parties are about evenly matched in a state where everything always comes down to turnout in statewide races and both parties’ bases in the state tend to be very politically and ideologically partisan.  When you look at it that way, it’s not too surprising.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

If Wisconsin is a state that is highly polarized, then why was there a 10% difference in the 2018 Senate vs Governor elections? Why is Wisconsin prone to big swings such as 2008 --> 2012 or 2012 --> 2016. On the county level, the swings between elections are even more extremes; rural's and suburban counties have shifted over 20% between election cycles. The more accurate answer to Wisconsin's ideologically distant senators is not that it's a "turnout game", it's that voters don't vote strictly on ideological lines and are willing to consider other factors. In addition, they were both elected during different years.

Wisconsin is actually one of the more elastic and least polarized states.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

DW-NOMINATE rates Johnson and Toomey as almost identically conservative (Johnson is .620 and 87/100; Toomey is .624 and 89/100).  But it rates Baldwin (-.493; 6/100) as signficantly more liberal than Casey (-.314; 31/100).

[kwabbit]

If Wisconsin is a state that is highly polarized, then why was there a 10% difference in the 2018 Senate vs Governor elections? Why is Wisconsin prone to big swings such as 2008 --> 2012 or 2012 --> 2016. On the county level, the swings between elections are even more extremes; rural's and suburban counties have shifted over 20% between election cycles. The more accurate answer to Wisconsin's ideologically distant senators is not that it's a "turnout game", it's that voters don't vote strictly on ideological lines and are willing to consider other factors. In addition, they were both elected during different years.

Wisconsin is actually one of the more elastic and least polarized states.

Wisconsin being polarized, being a turnout game, etc. is an odd Atlas trope. I think it’s development was: Johnson and Baldwin are polarized -> therefore Wisconsin must be polarized -> therefore Johnson and Baldwin are polarized because Wisconsin is polarized.

Wisconsin is a high turnout, elastic state. It’s not like the Deep South where there are few persuadable voters and it is really about differential turnout. People in Wisconsin are voting anyway, it’s just that they’re open to voting for both parties as long as the candidate is personally appealing.

[ProgressiveModerate]

If Wisconsin is a state that is highly polarized, then why was there a 10% difference in the 2018 Senate vs Governor elections? Why is Wisconsin prone to big swings such as 2008 --> 2012 or 2012 --> 2016. On the county level, the swings between elections are even more extremes; rural's and suburban counties have shifted over 20% between election cycles. The more accurate answer to Wisconsin's ideologically distant senators is not that it's a "turnout game", it's that voters don't vote strictly on ideological lines and are willing to consider other factors. In addition, they were both elected during different years.

Wisconsin is actually one of the more elastic and least polarized states.

Wisconsin being polarized, being a turnout game, etc. is an odd Atlas trope. I think it’s development was: Johnson and Baldwin are polarized -> therefore Wisconsin must be polarized -> therefore Johnson and Baldwin are polarized because Wisconsin is polarized.

Wisconsin is a high turnout, elastic state. It’s not like the Deep South where there are few persuadable voters and it is really about differential turnout. People in Wisconsin are voting anyway, it’s just that they’re open to voting for both parties as long as the candidate is personally appealing.

Places like Madison and Milwaukee proper are extremely polarized while the rest of the state isn't. I think this is why Wisconsin is generally a tossup state but a Dem winning by something like 10-15% is far more reasonable than an R winning by that amount; in order for an R to do that they'd likely need to make inroads in Madison and Milwaukee which just isn't going to be happenning anytime soon.

[Storr]

Currently, yes. But in my heart, no duo will ever match the random uniqueness of the Senate duo North Carolina had from 1999 to 2003: John Edwards and Jesse Helms.

[Cyrusman]

Yes, but it shouldn't be unexpected in a severely polarized state like Wisconsin with two Senators who keep seeing re-election in favorable years for their parties.

It'll lose that title if when Vance wins in OH, though.

I’m not sure how true this is though considering there were many voters who voted for Baldwin in 2018 who are probably voting for Johnson this year. Also plenty of Baldwin 2018 walker 2018 voters too.

[Mr. Smith]

Currently, yes. But in my heart, no duo will ever match the random uniqueness of the Senate duo North Carolina had from 1999 to 2003: John Edwards and Jesse Helms.

Bob Kasten vs Bill Proxmire, also Wisconsin...1981-1989.

Alan Cranston vs Pete Wilson, California...1983-1991

[If my soul was made of stone]

Is it really surprising that the state that gave us both Bob La Follette and Joe McCarthy, both Gaylord Nelson and Scott Walker, both Russ Feingold and Paul Ryan, would do this?

Toomey is more moderate than the average Republican.

Is this really true?

His vote for impeachment underscores this. It's all relative.

My impression was that he voted for impeachment precisely because he is an extremist on the issues that he disagrees with Trump on, namely globalization and financial regulation.

Pepperidge Farm remembers when Toomey was considered a Tea Party extremist who would doom his party up and down any statewide ticket he was on!

[If my soul was made of stone]

If Wisconsin is a state that is highly polarized, then why was there a 10% difference in the 2018 Senate vs Governor elections? Why is Wisconsin prone to big swings such as 2008 --> 2012 or 2012 --> 2016. On the county level, the swings between elections are even more extremes; rural's and suburban counties have shifted over 20% between election cycles. The more accurate answer to Wisconsin's ideologically distant senators is not that it's a "turnout game", it's that voters don't vote strictly on ideological lines and are willing to consider other factors. In addition, they were both elected during different years.

Wisconsin is actually one of the more elastic and least polarized states.

"ELASTICITY" DOES NOT EXIST
DIFFERENT PLACES SWINGING TO DIFFERENT ALIGNMENTS IN DIFFERENT ELECTIONS WITH DIFFERENT TURNOUT DYNAMICS DOESN'T MEAN WISCONSIN IS PEOPLED ENTIRELY BY MUH MODERATE SWING VOTERS
TAMMY BALDWIN HAS CROSSOVER APPEAL BECAUSE OF CONSTITUENT SERVICES AND ADVOCACY FOR IDIOMATICALLY WISCONSIN THINGS

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

If Wisconsin is a state that is highly polarized, then why was there a 10% difference in the 2018 Senate vs Governor elections? Why is Wisconsin prone to big swings such as 2008 --> 2012 or 2012 --> 2016. On the county level, the swings between elections are even more extremes; rural's and suburban counties have shifted over 20% between election cycles. The more accurate answer to Wisconsin's ideologically distant senators is not that it's a "turnout game", it's that voters don't vote strictly on ideological lines and are willing to consider other factors. In addition, they were both elected during different years.

Wisconsin is actually one of the more elastic and least polarized states.

"ELASTICITY" DOES NOT EXIST
DIFFERENT PLACES SWINGING TO DIFFERENT ALIGNMENTS IN DIFFERENT ELECTIONS WITH DIFFERENT TURNOUT DYNAMICS DOESN'T MEAN WISCONSIN IS PEOPLED ENTIRELY BY MUH MODERATE SWING VOTERS
TAMMY BALDWIN HAS CROSSOVER APPEAL BECAUSE OF CONSTITUENT SERVICES AND ADVOCACY FOR IDIOMATICALLY WISCONSIN THINGS

Capslock doesn't make your argument any more valid. Especially when the last sentence just proves my point anyways.

[If my soul was made of stone]

If Wisconsin is a state that is highly polarized, then why was there a 10% difference in the 2018 Senate vs Governor elections? Why is Wisconsin prone to big swings such as 2008 --> 2012 or 2012 --> 2016. On the county level, the swings between elections are even more extremes; rural's and suburban counties have shifted over 20% between election cycles. The more accurate answer to Wisconsin's ideologically distant senators is not that it's a "turnout game", it's that voters don't vote strictly on ideological lines and are willing to consider other factors. In addition, they were both elected during different years.

Wisconsin is actually one of the more elastic and least polarized states.

"ELASTICITY" DOES NOT EXIST
DIFFERENT PLACES SWINGING TO DIFFERENT ALIGNMENTS IN DIFFERENT ELECTIONS WITH DIFFERENT TURNOUT DYNAMICS DOESN'T MEAN WISCONSIN IS PEOPLED ENTIRELY BY MUH MODERATE SWING VOTERS
TAMMY BALDWIN HAS CROSSOVER APPEAL BECAUSE OF CONSTITUENT SERVICES AND ADVOCACY FOR IDIOMATICALLY WISCONSIN THINGS

Capslock doesn't make your argument any more valid. Especially when the last sentence just proves my point anyways.

Then have something I've said before without being a Hysterical Woman:

"Elasticity" is an ivory tower analytics-bro tautology that ignores why places are unusually swingy, which is usually parochialism/retail politics and/or a transient condition created by an intersection of unique factors (both at play here), in favor of treating it as some inherent truism property.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

If Wisconsin is a state that is highly polarized, then why was there a 10% difference in the 2018 Senate vs Governor elections? Why is Wisconsin prone to big swings such as 2008 --> 2012 or 2012 --> 2016. On the county level, the swings between elections are even more extremes; rural's and suburban counties have shifted over 20% between election cycles. The more accurate answer to Wisconsin's ideologically distant senators is not that it's a "turnout game", it's that voters don't vote strictly on ideological lines and are willing to consider other factors. In addition, they were both elected during different years.

Wisconsin is actually one of the more elastic and least polarized states.

"ELASTICITY" DOES NOT EXIST
DIFFERENT PLACES SWINGING TO DIFFERENT ALIGNMENTS IN DIFFERENT ELECTIONS WITH DIFFERENT TURNOUT DYNAMICS DOESN'T MEAN WISCONSIN IS PEOPLED ENTIRELY BY MUH MODERATE SWING VOTERS
TAMMY BALDWIN HAS CROSSOVER APPEAL BECAUSE OF CONSTITUENT SERVICES AND ADVOCACY FOR IDIOMATICALLY WISCONSIN THINGS

Capslock doesn't make your argument any more valid. Especially when the last sentence just proves my point anyways.

Then have something I've said before without being a Hysterical Woman:

"Elasticity" is an ivory tower analytics-bro tautology that ignores why places are unusually swingy, which is usually parochialism/retail politics and/or a transient condition created by an intersection of unique factors (both at play here), in favor of treating it as some inherent truism property.

...So you are just proving my point that voters in Wisconsin are elastic. I said nothing about them voting based on ideology (other than that they don't seem to vote on a strictly ideological/partisan basis), merely that they are willing to vote for candidates of different parties / split the ticket. Do you have any reading comprehension, or are you just parroting talking points from a different discussion?