Back in my public TV pundit days, the late Wisconsin Public Television “WeekEnd” show had a post-election “hangover” show in which WPT would invite all of its pundits to an on-air party in Madison.

The last such show was the most strange, because the Friday after the 2000 presidential election was a show that, unlike every previous such show, included one very prominent race that was not yet decided, with no prospect of a decided result.

That is certainly not the case with this “fall” primary election, which if anything featured surprisingly wide margins in some races, including the U.S. Senate Republican primary, with U.S. Sen. Leah Vukmir (R–Brookfield) having no problem defeating Kevin Nicholson despite Nicholson (and his out-of-state money) vastly outspending Vukmir.

Nicholson is evidence of how out-of-state money doesn’t necessarily translate into votes, especially if the candidate has a clueless campaign. Anyone who has paid any attention to politics should have known the fights Vukmir was involved in the Legislature during her career, including Act 10, school choice and various tax cuts. Obviously GOP voters found most of what Nicholson claimed to lack credibility. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the demise of the GOP establishment in Wisconsin was exaggerated.

That doesn’t necessarily end Nicholson’s career, of course. In fact, the next 12 weeks will prove how much Nicholson is interested in Wisconsin politics, or not. If he doesn’t campaign hard for Vukmir and other Republicans, we’ll know the answer. If he’s really interested in haviing a future in state politics, he should also be looking for an office — state Legislature, or maybe the Fifth Congressional District if U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R–Menomonee Falls) retires — to run for in 2020.

Dan O’Donnell has more on the Vukmir race and other Tuesday stuff:

“Crucial Waukesha County” has been a running joke among pundits on election nights, but last night it proved just how crucial it is. As of this writing, Vukmir’s 22,005-vote margin of victory in Waukesha County made up approximately 73 percent of her statewide margin of victory. That, combined with her 9,679-vote victory margin in Ozaukee and Washington Counties, means that nearly all of her statewide margin of victory came from just three counties.

All told, she won just 16 counties (nearly all of them in southeast Wisconsin) while Nicholson won 56. Yet Vukmir’s margin of victory in the counties she won was simply too much for Nicholson to overcome outstate.

In presenting himself during the campaign as an outsider running against the weak, timid, do-nothing Republican Establishment, Nicholson made what would have been in any other state a wise gambit in the Age of Trump.

In southeast Wisconsin, however, it proved to be disastrous.

From the moment Governor Walker first proposed Act 10 in his first major act after his inauguration in 2011, Wisconsin Republicans—especially those who represent the very conservative WOW counties—found themselves in an all-out war with the most thuggish elements of liberalism. But they didn’t waver; they held together and won. And then they kept on winning, passing voter ID and right-to-work laws, repealing prevailing wage for local construction projects, and cutting tax and regulatory hurdles that reopened the state for business.

Along the way, they became the model for conservative governance for the rest of the country and a shining example of what Republicans could accomplish if they would only hold together and hold to their promises. Nicholson’s campaign, though, divisively suggested—first obliquely and then openly after he lost the GOP nomination and internal polling likely showed him struggling in the race’s final months—that the Wisconsin Republican Party was just like the dreaded “Republican Establishment” everywhere else; that it was somehow standing in the way of conservative reform instead of enacting it.

In attempting to cast Vukmir as a “typical politician” and an “Establishment type,” Nicholson also cast the rest of the Wisconsin GOP and those who have supported it as the Establishment. The gross miscalculation of voters in the counties he needed most is enough to make even the most casual observer of politics say “WOW.”

Not surprisingly, those voters resented it, and they punished Nicholson for it.

That, however, was [Tuesday]. Today, the divisiveness of the primary must give way to a united conservative movement or every one of Wisconsin’s conservative reforms is in jeopardy.

In a far less bitter primary, State Superintendent Tony Evers won the Democratic Party’s gubernatorial nomination. As of this writing, more than 525,000 people voted in that primary, compared with about 430,000 who voted in the Republican Senate race and 442,000 who voted in Governor Walker’s largely uncontested primary. Neither of those are perfect comparisons, of course, but they are still gaps of roughly 95,000 and 83,000 more Democrat votes across the state.

In Wisconsin’s First Congressional District, which leans Republican, roughly 1,200 more votes were cast in the contested Democratic primary (which was won by Randy Bryce) than in the Republican primary (won by Bryan Steil).

This would seem to confirm that the enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democrat voters in Wisconsin is both very real and very concerning. To put it in perspective, in the Republican wave election of 2010, Ron Johnson beat incumbent Democratic Senator Russ Feingold by 105,091 votes out of 2.14 million cast for the two men combined—a margin of victory of 4.9 percent. Walker defeated Tom Barrett by 124,638 votes out of 2.13 million cast for the two of them—a margin of 5.8 percent.

[Tuesday] night, the “margin of victory” for statewide Democrat votes cast in the gubernatorial primary over Republican votes cast in the Senate primary was 9.9 percent (and nearly 100,000 total votes out of fewer than half of the total cast in the general election eight years ago).

This, again, is far from a perfect comparison, but it does illustrate the challenges that both Vukmir and Walker will face this November. This is also why it is absolutely imperative that the divisiveness of yesterday’s primary be forgotten (or at least forgiven) today.

If it isn’t, if conservative voters decide that they don’t want any part of Wisconsin’s “establishment” Republican Party, then Democrats will win—not just the Senate race, but the Governor’s race, too—and every conservative reform of the past seven years will be in jeopardy.

Once again, southeast Wisconsin (especially the WOW counties) will take the lead, but every other county must join them and be every bit as active and engaged if conservatives are to win again this year.

One might say it’s crucial.

Today is the “fall” primary election in Wisconsin, though the weather is far from fall-like.

The biggest race on the Democratic side is, of course, the 337-candidate gubernatorial primary.

The favorite is supposedly Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers, basically because he’s won statewide elections before now. Evers is not only a politician, but he comes from the education bureaucracy. which makes him doubly bad.

Of the Democrats, Christian Schneider writes:

According to the Marquette Law School poll, State Superintendent [of Public Instriuction] Tony Evers has hovered in the mid-20% to low 30% range, with no other Democratic contender even registering in the double-digits.

Either the other seven remaining candidates are all completely inept, or they simply don’t want to win. Only sporadically has another Democrat taken a gentle jab at Evers, the clear frontrunner. Instead, they all emphasize their own credentials and criticize Walker, giving Evers a clear path to stroll to the nomination on Tuesday.

In a perfect world, candidates would be able to simply discuss their own qualifications and leave it up to voters to make their own choices. But this is real politics, where successful candidates not only have to promote their own ideas but explain why the other candidates are wrong. The other seven candidates needed to bring Evers’ numbers down in order to overtake him; instead, they gave him a free pass.

Of the group of Democrats, only gruff attorney Matt Flynn has aggressively targeted Evers, arguing in a debate this week that Walker would “have (Evers) for lunch.” (This likely would only happen if Evers were dressed as a ham sandwich and hiding in a paper bag.) Yet Flynn has little chance of making up ground on Evers, as other prominent state Democrats have called for him to drop out of the race because of his work defending the Milwaukee Roman Catholic Archdiocese.

Other plausible challengers, including former State Rep. Kelda Roys and firefighter Mahlon Mitchell, have decided to take a knee. Both had the chance to go negative on Evers weeks ago, but each demurred, intent to simply ride out the election. Both have young families that they may not want to have subjected to a fierce general election; perhaps neither thought they could put in the time needed to raise enough money to challenge Walker’s war chest.

Roys’ timidity is especially puzzling, given the fact that she loaned her own campaign nearly a quarter of a million dollars to keep it alive. She even received the backing of the wealthy EMILY’s List, but special interest groups can read polls, too, and they passed on dumping a truckload of money on her behalf. Clearly, Roys is the candidate Walker would least like to face in the general election, but if it wasn’t for fringe candidate Josh Pade polling at 0%, she’d be in last place.

And, of course, there are candidates like State Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, Mike McCabe, and Madison Mayor Paul Soglin who are just along for the ride. In the last reporting period, Vinehout reported raising and spending almost no funds. Soglin, who dubbed his vanity candidacy as a “Supper Club” campaign, seems like he may have just been very hungry when he made his choice to run.

While Flynn has almost no chance of winning, he is right in one respect — Evers is the guy Walker likely wants in the general election. At the state level, the two have worked together, with Evers even calling Walker’s most recent education a “kid-friendly” budget. Undoubtedly, Walker has these quotes in his chamber, ready to use them to blunt criticism of his tenure as governor.

Evers and the other Democrats have been bashing Walker for not spending enough money on schools, despite the fact that K–12 spending is up 21 percent since Walker’s first budget and up 12 percent since Gov. James Doyle’s last budget. Evers has also been talking about what needs to be done with schools, which is odd for someone who was supposedly in charge of the state’s schools since he was elected in 2009. (Evers’ Department of Public Instruction media minions keep referring to him as “State Superintendent,” as if Evers has more power than he actually does.)

What about the other candidates? Mitchell has been sending news releases about how much money he’s raised, though that has not apparently led to noticeable popularity. Mitchell is also a government union head, which should make him ineligible for elective office.

I would have expected more of a race from Madison Mayor Paul Soglin, but he got on the ballot and, if he hasn’t stopped campaigning since then, he’s been practically invisible, matching his polling. I would have expected more of a race from state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout (D–Alma) as well, because as a non-Madisonian one would have thought Vinehout could have caused Walker more problems than Roys, but Vinehout’s campaign hasn’t gone anywhere either.

The only candidate that deserves some respect for at least not being a hypocrite is Mike McCabe, who at least has not been aping his fellow Democrats by accepting huge sums of campaign donations and then decrying big money in politics. I wouldn’t call McCabe exactly a moderate, but it’s too bad he didn’t run as an independent instead of a Democrat, since he styled himself as the critic of both parties and government as usual, although his Blue Jean Nation’s Five Aims are big government as usual.

The biggest race on the Republican side, of course, is the U.S. Senate primary, essentially between (though there are other candidates) Sen. Leah Vukmir (R–Brookfield) and former Democrat Kevin Nicholson.

Nicholson has run a stupid race fueled by the money of people who evidently know very little about Wisconsin. It is impossible to imagine how Vukmir, who led the way on Act 10, several tax cuts and other reforms since Walker became governor, can be called unconservative, whether or not you agree with her votes. Nicholson, a former member of the Democratic Party hierarchy, has been far less persuasive than another former Democrat, Ronald Reagan, about why he is an ex-Democrat.

Nicholson’s entire campaign seems to be (1) he was a Marine and (2) he’s running for office for the first time. Being a veteran means you served your country; it does not necessarily mean by itself that you should be elected to office. Nicholson should be running for something other than U.S. Senate first. Nicholson also has yet to explain why he has any chance at all against U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D–Wisconsin) when Vukmir would seem much more likely to get women to vote for her.

One of the Congressional primary races is in the Fifth Congressional District, where U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R–Menomonee Falls) faces an opponent who appears to hold multiple and opposite positions on one issue, James Wigderson reports:

Longtime conservative Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI5) has an opponent in the Republican primary, Dr. Jennifer Vipond of Brookfield. Vipond claims to be a lifelong Republican, and even claimed on Facebook that’s she’s pro-life.

However, Vipond is definitely not pro-life and is in favor of legalized abortion. At a “meet the candidate” event in West Allis, Vipond made her position clear.

“I believe that abortion should not be illegal,” Vipond said. Then echoing the Clinton-esque “safe, legal and rare,” position, Vipond said, “I believe the demand for abortion should be eliminated.”

Vipond also said she would not support legislationto make abortion illegal. “I don’t know. Probably not,” Vipond said. “Making abortion illegal does not reduce the demand for an abortion. Making abortion illegal would make it possibly less likely but it…”

At that point, she was interrupted with a question if she would support a ban after 26 weeks, Vipond responded that she would support a ban after 20 weeks. But then she offered support for “health centers” such as those run by Planned Parenthood.

“The real way to reduce abortions is to get rid of abortions would be health centers and adequate health care,” Vipond said, and said more access to long-term contraceptives would reduce unwanted pregnancies.

“With the technology that we have, abortion should be a very rare event,” Vipond said.

Vipond also claimed that, because of a questionnaire she received, she learned that to be considered pro-life meant that a candidate had to be against all contraception, a position that is incorrect. While many pro-life organizations oppose artificial contraception for a variety of reasons, including those contraceptives that can be used to induce abortions, being pro-life does not mean opposing all forms of contraception.

“I strongly believe in birth control, and condoms. I’ve been prescribing them for 27 years,” Vipond said. “And even if I tried to say that I don’t believe in them, no one would believe me because, you know, 3,000 girls in Waukesha would hold up their prescription with my name on it.”

When asked to choose between being described as pro-life or pro-choice, Vipond said, “Pro-reality. The pro-life people say that you cannot have birth control, condoms, obviously abortion, or education. I cannot say that I am that.”

On the right to bear arms, Vipond refused to answer the National Rifle Association survey, earning an F rating. While she says on her website that she supports the right to bear arms, she would support raising the minimum age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to 21 and would support limits on magazine sizes. She would also support a federal requirement for a minimum amount of instruction for concealed carry permits, and would increase the amount of background checks needed for private sales.

Vipond likes to engage in conspiracy theories, attacking Sensenbrenner because he dares to own pharmaceutical stocks and blaming Congress for the opioid problem. Of course, she’s ignoring the work that Congress, including Sensenbrenner, and Wisconsin Republicans have done to combat the opioid epidemic, and even the bill he introduced to fight Fentanyl abuse.

Vipond even went full-tilt conspiratorial by accusing Sensenbrenner of avoiding media appearances because he didn’t want to give her publicity, even though Sensenbrenner has made countless appearances at town hall meetings with his constituents and is one of the most visible members of Congress in Wisconsin. Apparently Vipond is unaware that equal time restrictions no longer apply and that a Sensenbrenner appearance on any radio or television program does not mean she would be invited on.

Ironically, Vipond brings in a former local politician to accuse Sensenbrenner of being part of “the swamp,” her “friend,” former Village of Menomonee Falls President Joe Greco Sr. As long time observers of Menomonee Falls politics will note, Greco accusing anyone of being part of a political swamp is like an alligator calling someone a reptile.

No suprise, Vipond is being promoted by a very liberal Republican group, Republican Women for Progress, an organization that began as “Republican Women for Hillary” in 2016.

Then there’s the race for state treasurer, a position that, irrespective of how the state’s voters voted in the April referendum, should not exist. I voted for neither Republican, but James Wigderson reports:

The GOP primary for state treasurer got personal Wednesday night when one candidate, Jill Millies, said in a Facebook post that her opponent, Travis Hartwig, would be shot and that his fiancée will be raped.

The post was allegedly in response to Hartwig’s positions on gun control and abortion. Hartwig is pro-life and has an AQ rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Millies is for legalized abortion, including support for government funding of Planned Parenthood, and gets an F rating from the NRA.

In an interview on Thursday, Hartwig said he had to re-read the post after being stunned by the content.

“I didn’t think my opponent would go there,” Hartwig said. “And then we started taking it very seriously. We thought it was very inappropriate for anyone to threaten rape or gun violence in a post like that.”

Hartwig said it was especially upsetting that his fiancée was mentioned in Millies’ Facebook post.

“I personally chose to be in this race. I understand politics is ugly,” Hartwig said. “But personally I think my fiancée deserves better than that.”

Millies deleted the post on Thursday and issued an apology on Facebook to those that read it, but not to Hartwig, whose supporters caused her to lose her temper, she claims.

“I would like to apologize to anyone who read last nights comments on Facebook,” Millies wrote. “They have been deleted. My opponent and his supporters got the best of me and drew me into a fight on our beliefs of abortion.”

Millies then attempted to deflect attention by pointing to one question from the Ivoter Guide survey that she says prompted the exchange:

According to Ivoter Guide this question was:
Q: Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?
Travis said NONE
Jill said “In any case of rape, or the woman is not mentally stable or in health issues.”

However, the Ivoter Guide asked the candidates if they agree or disagree with the statement, “Human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection at every stage until natural death.” Millies said she disagreed while Hartwig agreed.

The guide also asked the candidates to agree or disagree with a statement about Planned Parenthood, “Abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, should not receive funds from federal, state, or local governments.” Millies disagreed while Hartwig agreed.

While Millies did not respond to our request for an interview, she told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the post was written out of frustration.

“Push come to shove, this is my first time in politics and I’m just sick and tired of Travis and his little minions coming onto my Facebook page and bashing the hell out of me all the time,” Millies told the newspaper. “I guess I just blew it after awhile.”

It’s not clear to me why abortion rights and gun control are issues in a state treasurer’s race. This kerfuffle suggests at a minimum that Millies lacks sufficient judgment to be an elected official until she learns to not assault those with different views from herself on social media, given that if she wins the primary she’s going to have to get the support of those who didn’t vote for her to win in November.

I wrote in Mrs. Presteblog for state treasurer. I voted for Jay Schroeder for secretary of state even though I believe neither office should exist. Secretary of State Douglas La Follette shouldn’t be paid $70,000 a year to protect the state seal.

Cast an informed vote today.

M.D. Kittle reports:

A newly released poll provides a compelling counterpoint to the Democratic Party “Blue Wave” narrative – at least in the Wisconsin Legislature.

The poll, commissioned by the Brookfield-based Jobs First Coalition, surveyed 600 likely voters in “Wisconsin Target Districts,” eight legislative districts that could very well determine control of the Legislature in 2019.

“I don’t think you will see a blue wave hitting the Wisconsin Legislature,” said former GOP Assembly Speaker and Jobs First Coalition adviser Scott Jensen.

Republicans hold a slight advantage over Democrats, the poll found, in these districts, with 41 percent of respondents saying they would definitely or probably vote Republican if the elections for state legislator were held today. That compares to 39 percent saying they would vote for a Democrat. A total of 22 percent make up the Lean/Undecided/or refused to answer category of voter in the districts, so despite the bitterly divided nature of Wisconsin politics, there remain plenty of voters to win over.

The poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on July 29-31. The Republican polling firm, led by pollster and researcher Gene Ulm, has been conducting polls in Wisconsin for decades.

Among its key findings, the poll found that Gov. Scott Walker’s approval rating in these key districts is well above water, at 54 percent. Meanwhile, the disapproval rating for the Republican incumbent, seeking his third term, is at 43 percent, according to the poll.

Assembly districts 49, 50, 51, 68, 72, and 85, and Senate districts 17 and 23 – including Chippewa and Eau Claire counties in the west to Grant County in far southwestern Wisconsin – make up these all-important swing districts.

They supported Walker in 2014 and helped turn Wisconsin from blue to red in the 2016 presidential election that saw the surprising victory of Republican Donald Trump.

“They haven’t changed their minds how they voted in the last two election cycles for Walker and Trump,” Jensen said of voters in the legislative districts.

Walker’s job approval rating was 47 percent, with 45 percent of respondents disapproving, in the most recent statewide Marquette Law School poll last month. The governor’s numbers rose to 52 percent approval when voters were asked whether Wisconsin was headed in the right direction.

But it’s in the smaller target districts, which gave Walker critical support in the 2012 recall election, where the 2018 general elections will be won or lost, Jensen said. And Walker holds an 11 percentage point favorability lead here.

“Gov. Walker is in a very strong position in the swing districts around the state where the Legislature’s control will be determined,” Jensen said.

Many of these swing districts include so-called “pivot counties” that voted for Republican Trump in 2016 after voting for Democrat President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, according to Ballotpedia. Wisconsin had 23 of the 206 pivot counties in 34 states.

Trump’s job approval rating in the eight swing districts is right-side up, as well. The Jobs First Coalition poll found 49 percent of likely voters approved of the president’s job performance, while 47 percent disapproved. Like several other polls, Trump had significant support (89 percent) among voters in his party, and perhaps more impressive, 49 percent approval among undecided voters and 61 percent among the “Movers” category.

While mid-term elections historically have run against the party in power, the latest polling figures suggest some potential lessening of that trend.

The poll found that health care and public education should be the main focus of state government, or anyone hoping to be elected to serve.

Twenty-three percent of respondents ranked health care as a top policy concern; 23 percent of Republicans, 27 percent of Democrats, and 22 percent of Independents.

Improving education was a top priority for 21 percent of respondents, with 37 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of Independents saying so. Only 7 percent of Republicans surveyed put the issue at the top of the priority list.

Improving the economy ranked third on the primary focus list, with 13 percent of likely voters in the target districts ranking jobs and economic growth the number one priority – 22 percent of Republicans, but only 11 percent of independents and 5 percent of Democrats.

Despite all of the legislative battles over the state of Wisconsin’s roads and funding for them, 9 percent of the poll’s respondents said road repair was a top issue.

And 6 percent of likely voters in the target districts say holding the line on taxes is the biggest policy concern. Another 10 percent said they wanted to see a reduction in government spending. Not surprisingly, 14 percent of Republican respondents cited shrinking the size of government as a major issue, while just 5 percent of Democrats said so.

Income and property taxes remain the sources of government revenue that voters in the swing districts would most like to see cut. The poll found 34 percent of respondents – 30 percent Republicans, 38 percent Democrats – favor cutting individual income taxes first. Just below that, at 33 percent of respondents – 39 percent Republicans, 29 percent Democrats – would first choose to trim their property taxes.

The MacIver Institute has proposed “A Glide Path To A 3% Flat Income Tax,” which would go a long way in reducing the tax burden in a state long known for its high tax rate rankings.

The poll looked at a number of controversial ideas or proposals from Democratic candidates, including tax increases, non-resident voting, and a sweeping prison inmate release plan. Those ideas did not test well in the swing districts.

A vast majority of respondents – 71 percent – said they were “Much Less Likely” to vote for a Democratic candidate who wants to release half of the inmates currently in Wisconsin’s prisons; 12,000 convicted felons, some of which are serving time for committing the most violent crimes like murder and rape.

That bold idea comes from Democrat gubernatorial candidate and Madison ultra-liberal, Kelda Roys, who told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last month that she would halve the prison population through more parole options, the release of ill and aging inmates, and legalizing marijuana.

The poll found 66 percent of respondents were less likely to vote for candidates who support allowing non-residents to vote in Wisconsin elections.

More than half of respondents weren’t crazy about a liberal proposal to raise Wisconsin taxes by $460 million. That provision is part of Rep. Chris Taylor’s proposed amendments to the state constitution. That’s the price tag of Assembly Democrats’ progressive income tax.

The Assembly Democrat manifesto also includes a provision allowing local government to regulate the carrying of arms, effectively gutting the Second Amendment and the state’s concealed carry law. The poll found more than half of respondents were much less likely to vote for a Democrat candidate who supports allowing local governments to override the Wisconsin state constitution and “restrict the right to bear arms by law abiding citizens.”

But only 33 percent of likely voters said they would be less likely to support a Democrat who would vote to legalize recreational marijuana. Fifty percent of Republicans said as much, while just 17 percent of Democrats sounded opposed to such a proposal.

A majority of poll respondents (51 percent) support the Foxconn incentives deal, with 24 percent strongly in favor, and 27 percent somewhat in favor. On the other side, 30 percent of the likely voters surveyed were strongly opposed, and 13 percent somewhat opposed.

“A lot of Democrats are counting on (the Foxconn deal) to be one of their issues that’s going to help them capture the majority, and I just don’t see that,” Jensen said.

That is certainly interesting reading for someone who lives in the 17th Senate District and the 49th Assembly District, both home to Presteblog World Headquarters. I find the labeling of those two districts as “swing” districts somewhat curious, however. Wisconsin’s reputation as voting on both sides of the political aisle in an election forgets that’s it’s not just whom you vote for, it’s the race too. The fact that a majority of people in a particular legislative district voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016, or that they voted for Tammy Baldwin in 2012 and Ron Johnson in 2016 doesn’t tell you as much as you might think.

Recall that the 17th Senate District was the home of Sen. Dale Schultz (R–Richland Center) before his retirement in pique in 2014. My research at the time indicated that the 17th Senate District had been represented by a Democrat exactly twice since statehood, most recently after the 1974 election, when UW–Platteville Prof. Kathryn Morrison, who defeated Sen. Gordon Roseleip (R-Darlington), he of the famous butter vs. margarine taste test. Morrison’s Senate career lasted one term, until she lost to Richard Kreul in 1978.

After then-Rep. Howard Marklein (R–Spring Green) announced early in 2014 that he was running for the Senate, Schultz announced his retirement in rather bitchy fashion, not bothering to first announce his retirement to news media in his own Senate district. Compare and contrast:

• Marklein on Schultz: “I applaud Sen. Schultz on a successful career in the State Senate. He will be missed by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Wisconsin State Legislature.”
• Schultz on Marklein: “Howard made it clear in his announcement challenging me that his top two reasons for doing so were my votes on Act 10 and mining. It’s pretty difficult to support someone who’s so out of step with the views of my constituents on major issues they care deeply about.”

Indeed, Marklein was so out of step with his future constituents that he won the 2014 election.

I haven’t had to research the 49th Assembly District, but I think it has similar history. The last Democrat to represent the 49th was Rep. Phil Garthwaite (D–Dickeyville). (Note: I covered Phil when he was a high school athlete at the late West Grant High School. Sigh.) He got elected in 2006 over colorful Rep. Gabe Loeffelholz (R–Platteville), and was reelected in 2008 before being flushed out with other Democrats in 2010. Rep. Travis Tranel (R–Cuba City) ended Garthwaite’s political career and hasn’t really been touched since then. Before Garthwaite, according to my research, a Democrat has not represented Grant County in the state Assembly since 1914.

The 51st Assembly District seems to be more close given that Iowa County is a more Democratic county. Marklein was replaced by Rep. Todd Novak (R–Dodgeville), who is also the Dodgeville mayor and a target of The C(r)apital Times because Novak breaks several Republican stereotypes. Novak had a narrow win in 2014 and in 2016 over a Sauk Prairie School District assistant superintendent, who is running against Novak again. The 50th Assembly District is an open seat after the retirement of Rep. Ed Brooks (R–Reedsburg).

Basically the Senate is considered close because had its majority trimmed to 18–15 in two (wasteful) special elections earlier this year. One of those, the 1st Senate District, will be rerun in November, and if they have any brains Rep. Andre Jacque (R–Manitowoc) and his campaign will be paying attention to the lessons taught by his loss in November.

To believe that the Democrats will flip the Senate basically requires you to believe that the special-election winner (the other will serve until 2020) will win in November and both Marklein and the other Senate district brought up here, the 23rd Senate District, will flip to Democrat. That is certainly possible; anything is possible in these tumultuous political days. Likely?

Wisconsinites Against the Fist posted Friday: