 |
| Supreme Court Justice-Elect Rebecca Dallet |
I really don't like the phrase "needed a win" mostly because people underestimate parties when they lose an election & assume that they are now "without a victory forever." Candidates change, political winds blow in different directions, and what once was thought impossible suddenly results in a Democratic Senator from Alabama.
That being said, Democrats pragmatically needed a victory in Wisconsin last night, and they got one. No Democrat since Barack Obama was first elected has won as a non-incumbent in a non-presidential cycle (this doesn't sound like much, but remember that Wisconsin's weird judicial election cycles pretty much guarantee a statewide election every year, so they have more elections than your average state). Dallet's victory is one that Democrats can boast about with pride after multiple defeats (including losing to Scott Walker thrice), and can also point to as evidence that they should have confidence heading into November, particularly considering that the Democrats have two major races they want to win statewide come the midterms.
 |
| Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) |
One could make the argument that Dallet won less because of her campaign and more because people just wanted to stick it to Scott Walker, a polarizing governor who has nonetheless had enormous control over the state in the past decade. Some exit interviews I was reading in major Democratic cities like Milwaukee & Madison showed a number of people coming out for the first time essentially saying "I don't know much about Dallet, but the other guy's for Walker, so I'm voting for her." That sort of mentality is important to note, particularly considering that the Democrat in November (probably State Superintendent Tony Evers) will not have as much money, name recognition, or the campaign operation that Walker will have at his advantage after three successive victories as governor. But if Evers just needs to be the anti-Walker to win, he could well take the seat without those advantages.
But the more damning news for Walker was in the ballot referendum last night. Wisconsin voters went to the polls not just to elect a Supreme Court Justice, but also to decide whether or not they should have the right to pick their State Treasurer. Walker wanted to eliminate the position (which he and incumbent Walker Stapleton have gutted of most of its responsibilities), and this was an initiative that the Koch Brothers has invested money into as well, but a resounding defeat met the resolution, meaning Wisconsin will continue to elect their State Treasurer. The next step for the Democrats is to get a candidate who can win this office in November, but make no mistake-this was a huge repudiation for Scott Walker, who has to be worried that his iron grip on the state's highest elected office could be loosening in the wake of a Trump presidency.
 |
| State Sen. Patti Schachtner |
Of course, Walker will have a chance for redemption or perhaps further cementing his vulnerability this June, as the highest-stakes special election in a while will be taking place in Wisconsin. Walker recently appointed two members of the state legislature to his administration, leaving their positions open. The governor, despite being the cause of these vacancies, had been reluctant to call a special election for them because of a shock pickup for the Democrats in January (when Patti Schachtner won a State Senate seat that had gone overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2016). However, the courts said that Walker couldn't keep the seats closed for an entire year, and ordered him to call an election in June.
The seats are not easy pickup opportunities for Democrats, but they might have a shot. Both seats delivered similar wins for Trump in 2016 in comparison to Schachtner's seat, and after both of these women's victories, WI Democrats likely smell blood in the water. Though neither will change the majority of either legislative house, expect millions to pour into these races as they serve as proxy battles for Walker in November.
 |
| President Donald Trump (R-NY) |
It is always a bad idea to attribute too much ink to how one special election will affect the November midterms. After all, all races are unique, and the electorate (even the increased one in select areas of Wisconsin) will be considerably larger in November. That being said, Dallet is just another in a long line of talking points for the Democrats going into the fall, as they have continually won seats that went for President Trump (worth noting that Dallet did just that, even if Trump took the state narrowly), and have generally out-performed Hillary Clinton's numbers nationally. That might not be enough to win back both houses (or a majority of the governor's mansions), but it's worth a start.
It's also worth noting that Dallet indicates something else that Democrats desperately need, and could get in November: a replenished bench. While President Obama won both of his elections rather handily, his party suffered repeatedly in terms of down-ballot races, giving them a depleted candidate pool that has hurt them in recruitment this cycle. Look, for example, at the number of military veterans and business leaders that they are going to for House races, rather than state legislators (which is normally where they'd head for such candidates), in large part because they don't exist in swing seats. Supreme Court seats, constitutional offices, and of course state legislatures have enormous sway over public policy even though they aren't as sexy of positions as governors or congressmen, and major gains for Democrats there could have an enormous impact on the individual directions of many states.
 |
| Judge Joanne Kloppenburg |
This is me griping, but why is it that Democrats can only remember how to vote when there's a presidential election or a Republican is in the White House? I keep thinking, looking at this election what would have happened if just 8000 more of the 1.6 million voters that voted for Barack Obama in 2012 had turned out for Joanne Kloppenburg in 2011. A race decided partially by 7000 Wisconsinites and partially by what happened to be in Kathy Nickolaus's trunk at the time (look it up), the Democrats came SO close to unseating conservative Justice David Prosser. Were they to have turned out in similar margins to the presidential elections (or even gotten close), we wouldn't be looking at a 4-3 Conservative Court, but a flip to a 4-3 Liberal Court, giving the Democrats their best tool against Scott Walker we have until November.
This isn't exclusive to Wisconsin. Four current Republicans (Cory Gardner, Pat Toomey, Dean Heller and Thom Tillis) all won their last elections by less than 2-points. In the cases of Gardner & Heller, both those were states that went for President Obama & Secretary Clinton in the general elections, but Democrats either were too lazy to get out and vote, or too blind to Mitch McConnell's hold on the Senate to not split their ticket (in the case of Heller). Give those four senators just a handful more votes, and we don't have Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, Neil Gorsuch, Jeff Sessions, or any number of conservative justices that have now been appointed for life to the bench. Never forget how much your vote matters, and that you need to vote in every election, no matter how small, because what might be inconsequential now could have damning effects later. This is a lesson that Democrats seem to be remembering here, but I hope they don't have collective amnesia they second a President Biden or President Harris take the oath of office.
No comments:
Post a Comment