Democrats take seats in Wisconsin : Both Sides Claim Victory

[Nansurium]

Normally safe? I am quite sure that at least one of those districts is normally quite blue and voted for Obama in 2008. Not a big loss if you ask me. And this is Wisconsin we are talking about. It's not exactly the centre for Conservative thought

[Farnhamia]

And if that's true and the Republicans are given their heads to slash and burn government spending, you're going to look back on this year and weep for the good old days.

I think we all will. Because cutting student loans will cause a lot of problems...

I can see kids in the 2050s saying, "Tell us again, Grand-dad, what it was like when anybody could go to college. Did you really spend four years just reading books and learning things?"

[Aionia Epitychia]

This is a victory for the right and indicative of what is coming in 2012.

God, I hope you're right.

I would most definitely disagree. It sends a very strong message that the GOP cannot run over the middle and lower classes. Just because the Dems only won 2 of the 6 seats tonight means nothing when you consider the fact that 2 of the 4 seats won by Republicans were expected, and 1 had a margin of victory of 51% to 49%. Wisconsinites are still very divided, and the more moderate someone appears to be (insert Democrats here), the better their chances of winning increase. The moderates are ducking for cover right now, as both sides are throwing political bombs at each other until someone breaks and caves in (which has historically been the Democrats, until the WI 14 led by Erpenbach marched out and sent a message). This allows a moderate candidate like Schultz to gain recognition as a breath of fresh air.

While conservatives point to the "original intentions" of the Founding Fathers, they forget one thing: that Washington (in his Farewell Address) warned of polarization and stressed a disgust for partisan rancor in politics. If a lawmaker jumps the party line on a different issue, it should not be worthy of a breaking news telecast like it is today. Plus, if one throws out the ridiculously large amounts of money that the GOP uses to brainwash people into believeing their policies, the people of WI geniunely detest the Walker agenda.

So conservatives, guardians of their own revisionist history, have failed to realize that while Democrats try to broker deals for the sole purposes of sanity and keeping the government afloat, are doing the opposite of what they try to hold themselves up to.

[Greater Cabinda]

Normally safe? I am quite sure that at least one of those districts is normally quite blue and voted for Obama in 2008. Not a big loss if you ask me. And this is Wisconsin we are talking about. It's not exactly the centre for Conservative thought

That's not true. It went narrowly for Obama in '08 but had been held by Republicans in the state senate for a while.

[Shrillland]

And if that's true and the Republicans are given their heads to slash and burn government spending, you're going to look back on this year and weep for the good old days.

I think we all will. Because cutting student loans will cause a lot of problems...

Somehow I think their next targets in Wisconsin will be Moral Issues, not Student Loans. Since they(The GOP/TP) have dropped to a Majority of 1 in the Senate, and 1 who would side with the Democrats on Labour Issues, they have to choose a field where they can get him to agree with them.

[Greater Cabinda]

I think we all will. Because cutting student loans will cause a lot of problems...

Somehow I think their next targets in Wisconsin will be Moral Issues, not Student Loans. Since the(The GOP/TP) have dropped to a Majority of 1 in the Senate, and 1 who would side with the Democrats on Labour Issues, they have to choose a field where they can get him to agree with them.

I'm talking about Republicans getting total control of all three branches of the federal government. It would be bad.

[Grave_n_idle]

While I'm pretty sure conservative pundits are going to take this and run with it, I'm pretty sure they're forgetting the simple fact that people were pissed enough to get 2 Republicans out of power (which, because one Republican in the State Senate is opposed to Walker's policies, means that his policies will be blocked until the recall elections for Governor in January). This is an undoubted victory for the progressive movement as a whole. We've managed to oust 2 politicians for their policies. That's a first.

"While I'm pretty sure conservative pundits are going to take this and run with it"? Looks as if you, on the liberal side, can't wait to put your own spin on this.

"We've managed to oust 2 politicians for their policies," .

Ultra rare recall, thus a referendum on policy (as opposed to 2010, which Republican CLAIMED was a referendum on policy, recalls on policy definitely ARE a referendum on policy), and Republican lost two seats.

If all the seats had gone Democrat, turn-out would probably have been lower in the actual election cycle - this split is bad news for Republicans, and about the best result long term Democrat strategists could have hoped for.

[Greater Cabinda]

God, I hope you're right.

I would most definitely disagree. It sends a very strong message that the GOP cannot run over the middle and lower classes. Just because the Dems only won 2 of the 6 seats tonight means nothing when you consider the fact that 2 of the 4 seats won by Republicans were expected, and 1 had a margin of victory of 51% to 49%. Wisconsinites are still very divided, and the more moderate someone appears to be (insert Democrats here), the better their chances of winning increase. The moderates are ducking for cover right now, as both sides are throwing political bombs at each other until someone breaks and caves in (which has historically been the Democrats, until the WI 14 led by Erpenbach marched out and sent a message). This allows a moderate candidate like Schultz to gain recognition as a breath of fresh air.

While conservatives point to the "original intentions" of the Founding Fathers, they forget one thing: that Washington (in his Farewell Address) warned of polarization and stressed a disgust for partisan rancor in politics. If a lawmaker jumps the party line on a different issue, it should not be worthy of a breaking news telecast like it is today. Plus, if one throws out the ridiculously large amounts of money that the GOP uses to brainwash people into believeing their policies, the people of WI geniunely detest the Walker agenda.

So conservatives, guardians of their own revisionist history, have failed to realize that while Democrats try to broker deals for the sole purposes of sanity and keeping the government afloat, are doing the opposite of what they try to hold themselves up to.

Walker's fucked in January.

[AiliailiA]

Losing two out of every six seats they currently hold. Yep, that's the House to the Democrats.

You're gonna get crushed.

^ Pipe Dream.

If Wisconsin is a test case for the Federal Election (which is silly, but grant it for a moment) then why would you be confident?

It's sort of similar, in that issue is budget cuts.

Losing two out of six seats in the House would lose the Republicans a majority, and the Dems only have to break even in the Senate to hold a majority. Plus you don't have a decent candidate for President ... well, you do but Huntsman will get knocked out by your crazy right wing.

It's a long way to the 2012 election but the way it looks now: you're gonna get crushed.

You know, about half of the people are for raising taxes federally. Less than 20% approve the Tea Party, about the same think that budget-cuts-only is the way to reduce the deficit. Your lot (by which I mean the right-wing of the GOP, whether you call yourself Tea or not) are pretty unpopular now and if the recession comes back on you're screwed. If recovery happens, you're screwed pretty bad too.

[Shrillland]

Somehow I think their next targets in Wisconsin will be Moral Issues, not Student Loans. Since the(The GOP/TP) have dropped to a Majority of 1 in the Senate, and 1 who would side with the Democrats on Labour Issues, they have to choose a field where they can get him to agree with them.

I'm talking about Republicans getting total control of all three branches of the federal government. It would be bad.

It would be yes. And at the moment I can't predict either way how this is going to go. I have a feeling however this will be 1992 all over again with a Liberal third-party Candidate, which would be a total disaster, as many Progressives(including myself if they were strong enough) would vote for said third-party candidate.

[Nansurium]

And if that's true and the Republicans are given their heads to slash and burn government spending, you're going to look back on this year and weep for the good old days.

I think we all will. Because cutting student loans will cause a lot of problems...

So what is your alternative? I am genuinely interested in what you would have us do in the present situation.

[Demigueris]

Between any nation and their youth there is a sacred trust. It goes something like this: society at large ignores the hell out of youth, marginalizes them, and blames children for the failings of the generation that raised them. There are no multi-billion dollar PR campaigns to get youth into office. There are no representatives who identify their views. For them to vote, or not vote is the same because either way they will be largely ignored except as PR material.

On the other hand, youth expect when they grow up they will be afforded a place in society. And unlike say, some 50 year old baby-boomer whiners who have never before had to deal with a society that didn't bend over backwards to kiss their ass, when youth are sufficiently marginalized they don't waste their time complaining to people that won't listen or simply ignore them. They will tear your shit apart.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201189165143946889.html

Seriously, the issues of increasing wealth disparity require address because frankly, if it continues getting worse and remain unaddressed, governments can and will be toppled. As populations increase and developing countries increasingly stake their own claim on strategic resources that are increasingly difficult to access expect to see a lot more anti-government, anti-wealthy protests of increasing intensity.

[Alien Space Bats]

The Republicans should be concerned about these returns for four reason:

• These were all seats the Republicans won in 2008, an election in which Barack Obama won Wisconsin by a healthy margin at the top of the ticket; in general, Democrats did better in each district than was the case back in 2008, suggesting (together with the other recent elections in the State, in which Democrats outperformed historical averages) that the GOP has been greatly weakened since its historic success of last fall.
  
  The importance of that fact? In recent years, Wisconsin has been something of a swing State, and it has an open U.S. Senate seat in play in November of 2012; unless the Republicans can turn things around, they are looking at losing the State to President Obama and missing a chance to make a crucial pickup in the U.S. Senate. Worse, between now and then we're likely to see a second wave of recall elections, including the one to remove Gov. Scott Walker from his job. As things stand today, Walker faces an uphill battle to avoid getting sacked next year.
  
  
• Republicans spent huge amounts of money on these races, yet didn't get the kind of performance one might expect from such insane spending; Democrats countered with organization and hustle on the ground, and came away far better.
  
  The importance of that fact? The Republicans are counting on a combination of unlimited spending in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and attacks on union funding through automatic payroll deduction to give themselves a huge spending advantage. If that spending advantage doesn't go as far as they had hoped, they're going to be in trouble.
  
  
• Republicans now hold only a one seat majority in the Wisconsin Senate, and unless they win one of the two remaining recalls (in Democratic districts), they are going to have to try and govern with just that majority.
  
  The importance of that fact? State Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) has frequently and openly disagreed with Gov. Walker and the State GOP; more importantly, he voted against stripping Wisconsin public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights. Schultz has a long history of moderate voting and bipartisan legislation; the fact that he is not the swing vote in the Wisconsin Senate means that the Republicans no longer have the run of the place.
  
  
• For the second time in a row, we saw funny returns from Waukesha County, whose GOP County Clerk, Kathy Nickolaus (with her noted incompetence/disdain for proper voting procedure), has been a lightning rod for controversy. There will be an investigation of things in her neck of the woods.
  
  The importance of this fact? The GOP had better hope to Hell there's no monkey business in Waukesha. Because it there's any sign of fire to go along with all the smoke, the ruckus we saw last February will be nothing compared to the uproar that will follow, in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Coming into a general election year, the national Party does not need anything that smells at all like Hurricance Chad, because nothing will mobilize Democrats and spur them into action like the suggestion that Republicans are buggering vote counts to win.

On the whole, this wasn't the slam-dunk I had hoped, but it indicates that Democrats have gained strength as a consequence of Scott Walker's union-busting efforts; it also makes things look better for 2012.

Of course, if this had been a slam-dunk, the GOP might have been prompted to change course, so in a way this is better: They will spin this among themselves as a victory and continue to steam forward, full speed ahead and icebergs be damned.

[Greater Cabinda]

^ Pipe Dream.

If Wisconsin is a test case for the Federal Election (which is silly, but grant it for a moment) then why would you be confident?

It's sort of similar, in that issue is budget cuts.

Losing two out of six seats in the House would lose the Republicans a majority, and the Dems only have to break even in the Senate to hold a majority. Plus you don't have a decent candidate for President ... well, you do but Huntsman will get knocked out by your crazy right wing.

It's a long way to the 2012 election but the way it looks now: you're gonna get crushed.

You know, about half of the people are for raising taxes federally. Less than 20% approve the Tea Party, about the same think that budget-cuts-only is the way to reduce the deficit. Your lot (by which I mean the right-wing of the GOP, whether you call yourself Tea or not) are pretty unpopular now and if the recession comes back on you're screwed. If recovery happens, you're screwed pretty bad too.

64% support tax increases on the wealthy.
80% oppose the Ryan plan for medicare.

Sauce

[Shrillland]

I would most definitely disagree. It sends a very strong message that the GOP cannot run over the middle and lower classes. Just because the Dems only won 2 of the 6 seats tonight means nothing when you consider the fact that 2 of the 4 seats won by Republicans were expected, and 1 had a margin of victory of 51% to 49%. Wisconsinites are still very divided, and the more moderate someone appears to be (insert Democrats here), the better their chances of winning increase. The moderates are ducking for cover right now, as both sides are throwing political bombs at each other until someone breaks and caves in (which has historically been the Democrats, until the WI 14 led by Erpenbach marched out and sent a message). This allows a moderate candidate like Schultz to gain recognition as a breath of fresh air.

While conservatives point to the "original intentions" of the Founding Fathers, they forget one thing: that Washington (in his Farewell Address) warned of polarization and stressed a disgust for partisan rancor in politics. If a lawmaker jumps the party line on a different issue, it should not be worthy of a breaking news telecast like it is today. Plus, if one throws out the ridiculously large amounts of money that the GOP uses to brainwash people into believeing their policies, the people of WI geniunely detest the Walker agenda.

So conservatives, guardians of their own revisionist history, have failed to realize that while Democrats try to broker deals for the sole purposes of sanity and keeping the government afloat, are doing the opposite of what they try to hold themselves up to.

Walker's fucked in January.

Possibly if the Momentum's maintained. The Wisconsin Democratic Chairman's hinting at having the recall somewhat staggered so it'll happen on Election Day, which would be big trouble for Walker.

[Aionia Epitychia]

I think we all will. Because cutting student loans will cause a lot of problems...

So what is your alternative? I am genuinely interested in what you would have us do in the present situation.

The alternative is to not oppress the middle and lower classes with corporate greed!

[AiliailiA]

Between any nation and their youth there is a sacred trust. It goes something like this: society at large ignores the hell out of youth, marginalizes them, and blames children for the failings of the generation that raised them. There are no multi-billion dollar PR campaigns to get youth into office. There are no representatives who identify their views. For them to vote, or not vote is the same because either way they will be largely ignored except as PR material.

On the other hand, youth expect when they grow up they will be afforded a place in society. And unlike say, some 50 year old baby-boomer whiners who have never before had to deal with a society that didn't bend over backwards to kiss their ass, when youth are sufficiently marginalized they don't waste their time complaining to people that won't listen or simply ignore them. They will tear your shit apart.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201189165143946889.html

Seriously, the issues of increasing wealth disparity require address because frankly, if it continues getting worse and remain unaddressed, governments can and will be toppled. As populations increase and developing countries increasingly stake their own claim on strategic resources that are increasingly difficult to access expect to see a lot more anti-government, anti-wealthy protests of increasing intensity.

That's a great rant. Kinda off-topic though.

[Greater Cabinda]

I think we all will. Because cutting student loans will cause a lot of problems...

So what is your alternative? I am genuinely interested in what you would have us do in the present situation.

Raising taxes on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels, moderate adjustments to medicare and social security, cutting subsidies for oil, corn, and soybeans; along with ending loopholes in the corporate tax rate (and probably lowering it to around 25%).

But deficits aren't the problem to focus on right now. Let's get the economy started in the right direction before we decide to cut any more spending.

[Nansurium]

Between any nation and their youth there is a sacred trust. It goes something like this: society at large ignores the hell out of youth, marginalizes them, and blames children for the failings of the generation that raised them. There are no multi-billion dollar PR campaigns to get youth into office. There are no representatives who identify their views. For them to vote, or not vote is the same because either way they will be largely ignored except as PR material.

On the other hand, youth expect when they grow up they will be afforded a place in society. And unlike say, some 50 year old baby-boomer whiners who have never before had to deal with a society that didn't bend over backwards to kiss their ass, when youth are sufficiently marginalized they don't waste their time complaining to people that won't listen or simply ignore them. They will tear your shit apart.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201189165143946889.html

Seriously, the issues of increasing wealth disparity require address because frankly, if it continues getting worse and remain unaddressed, governments can and will be toppled. As populations increase and developing countries increasingly stake their own claim on strategic resources that are increasingly difficult to access expect to see a lot more anti-government, anti-wealthy protests of increasing intensity.

Life sucks doesn't it? Well I am relatively youthful and I won't be asking for any special favors.

[Nansurium]

So what is your alternative? I am genuinely interested in what you would have us do in the present situation.

Raising taxes on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels, moderate adjustments to medicare and social security, cutting subsidies for oil, corn, and soybeans; along with ending loopholes in the corporate tax rate (and probably lowering it to around 25%).

But deficits aren't the problem to focus on right now. Let's get the economy started in the right direction before we decide to cut any more spending.

Our debt and the economy are joined at the hip. The economy will not improve until the our debt trend is reversed.

[Greater Cabinda]

Raising taxes on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels, moderate adjustments to medicare and social security, cutting subsidies for oil, corn, and soybeans; along with ending loopholes in the corporate tax rate (and probably lowering it to around 25%).

But deficits aren't the problem to focus on right now. Let's get the economy started in the right direction before we decide to cut any more spending.

Our debt and the economy are joined at the hip. The economy will not improve until the our debt trend is reversed.

No amount of debt reduction will increase consumer demand.

[Aionia Epitychia]

So what is your alternative? I am genuinely interested in what you would have us do in the present situation.

Raising taxes on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels, moderate adjustments to medicare and social security, cutting subsidies for oil, corn, and soybeans; along with ending loopholes in the corporate tax rate (and probably lowering it to around 25%).

But deficits aren't the problem to focus on right now. Let's get the economy started in the right direction before we decide to cut any more spending.

I agree 100%. But on the federal level for a quick moment, Harry Reid announced his reps for the "Super Congress", and it was John Kerry (D-MA), Max Baucus (D-Montana), and Patty Murray (D-WA), and while I agree with Kerry, I wished for different people, as I fear that these three will readily cave to the demands of the GOP and the TP. I fear more cuts are coming our way......

[Nansurium]

Our debt and the economy are joined at the hip. The economy will not improve until the our debt trend is reversed.

No amount of debt reduction will increase consumer demand.

No, but lower levels of debt will restore confidence in the fiscal sanity of the American government and inject a level of certainty into the economy. The debt is not something that we can simply ignore.

[Greater Cabinda]

Raising taxes on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels, moderate adjustments to medicare and social security, cutting subsidies for oil, corn, and soybeans; along with ending loopholes in the corporate tax rate (and probably lowering it to around 25%).

But deficits aren't the problem to focus on right now. Let's get the economy started in the right direction before we decide to cut any more spending.

I agree 100%. But on the federal level for a quick moment, Harry Reid announced his reps for the "Super Congress", and it was John Kerry (D-MA), Max Baucus (D-Montana), and Patty Murray (D-WA), and while I agree with Kerry, I wished for different people, as I fear that these three will readily cave to the demands of the GOP and the TP. I fear more cuts are coming our way......

They are. The Dems will refuse to agree to any plan that doesn't include revenues, and the Republicans will refuse to agree to any plan that does include revenues. So, the automatic triggers will most likely happen.

That being said, I'm going to end the threadjack.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

The only sane nominee to the Super Committee was Chairman Baucus. I should have thought the Chairman of the Budget Committee qualified.