Former Senator Russ Feingold, In LaFollette Progressive Tradition, Attempting Return To Senate In 2016 Election!

Wisconsin, the home of LaFollette progressivism a century ago, and the home of many progressive leaders since “Fighting Bob” LaFollette became the most prominent progressive in America, has had difficult times recently with the election of Scott Walker as Governor and Ron Johnson as Senator, defeating Senator Russ Feingold, one of the finest public servants ever to grace Wisconsin government and the US Senate, in the 2010 midterm elections.

Between Congressman Paul Ryan being the Vice Presidential nominee for Mitt Romney in the Presidential Election of 2012 and being elevated to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman in 2015; and Governor Walker hoping to be the Republican Presidential nominee in 2016; along with the backward, regressive record of Senator Johnson, Wisconsin has been dealt a terrible hand, and it is time to move to return Wisconsin to its proud progressive tradition!

That can be accomplished by working to prevent Scott Walker from being the GOP Presidential nominee, and by bringing Russ Feingold back to the US Senate, kicking Ron Johnson out!

There is great hope for change, now that Feingold has decided to attempt a return to his Senate seat, which he honored with an outstanding record from 1993-2011!

Feingold can be part of the mission of the Democrats to return to control of the US Senate in the 2016 Congressional elections. He has been one of the most outstanding members of the US Senate in the past two decades, and his defeat was a major blow that helped to undermine any chance of Wisconsin continuing its traditional role as a state which led the nation in so many ways!

27 comments on “Former Senator Russ Feingold, In LaFollette Progressive Tradition, Attempting Return To Senate In 2016 Election!

  1. Max May 21, 2015 9:50 am

    Interesting phrase, “along with the backward, regressive record of Senator Johnson” . I always pondered what was meant by “regressive”. I mean as far as I can tell it’s “progressives” who constantly fall back to a out of date, bureaucratic state established 80 yrs. ago as a basis for the solution of every single real or perceived problem in society. I see nothing modern in the so called “progressive” vision based upon the expansion of the bureaucracy, especially when, as history demonstrates, modernity has always come from the private sector or as I like to say the “civil society”, never from a bureaucratic agency no matter which “alphabet soup” one chooses.

  2. Ronald May 21, 2015 10:10 am

    Well, Max, it is clear you and I disagree on this, and that is fine.

    You forget that all of the social and economic reforms that we benefit from every day came from progressives since the time of TR on, and conservatives have always stood in the way of dealing with issues that affect average Americans. They are just good at propagandizing many Americans who have no clue as to how the good legislation and agencies came about.

    Bureaucracy is here to stay, whether from the left or the right, and that is not going to change in a nation of 320 million people and growing. The private sector is not out to benefit anyone but the elite wealthy, so the middle class and the poor are left in the lurch, and only the progressives work to try, and often succeed, in including you and me and others in the equation.

    Russ Feingold is one of the best US Senators in my lifetime, and Ron Johnson is one of the absolute worst of my lifetime, so hopefully, sanity will return to a state now dominated by Scott Walker and Paul Ryan and their ilk!

  3. Max May 21, 2015 10:44 am

    I fundamentally disagree with this idea “The private sector is not out to benefit anyone but the elite wealthy,” Why? Because WE the American people are the private sector, the civil society. Every single idea that benefited the well being of your average human being, including and especially the poor and middle class, was devised by the civil society, by us acting as free individuals in pursuit of our personal interest. Just look around you, everything that surrounds your life did not come from a bureaucratic agency, whether it be textiles, steel, electronics, the internal combustion engine, medicine, AC, the access to food and clothing, the light bulb, gas, oil, all forms of energy, computers everything! The civil society acting freely, free individuals interacting with each other in hundreds of millions of transactions daily have done more than any other system devised by man, than any red tape or bureaucracy to elevate the well being of man and to reduce poverty. Poverty was not created by individual freedom, by the civil society, it was inherited. And just look around you, look at the world and you will see that wherever there is not a vibrant free civil society, but an overwhelming state bureaucracy that suffocates it you have poverty and misery. In other words, you have what mankind has always had, poverty. General well being and wealth in a society is the exception not the rule. And the US used to be the “exception”.

  4. Ronald May 21, 2015 11:51 am

    I understand what you are saying, Max, and do not fundamentally challenge it, BUT government is essential to REGULATE behavior and actions, as otherwise, historically, there are massive abuses, such as child labor, poor labor practices, environmental damages, racial and ethic discrimination, and others. Of course, freedom in a capitalistic system is essential, but with REGULATION and social responsibility as part of it!

  5. D May 21, 2015 11:53 am

    The state of Wisconsin has been on a roll.

    Since 1976, every presidential election in which Wisconsin also had on a schedule a U.S. Senate election has resulted in the same party having carried the state at both the presidential and senatorial levels.

    • 1976 U.S. President: Jimmy Carter (Democratic challenger and pickup winner; Democratic pickup of the state)
    • 1976 U.S. Senate: William Proxmire (re-elected; Democratic hold)
    • 1980 U.S. President: Ronald Reagan (Republican challenger and pickup winner; Republican pickup of the state)
    • 1980 U.S. Senate: Bob Kasten (Republican challenger and pickup winner)
    • 1984 (No scheduled U.S. Senate election)
    • 1988 U.S. President: Michael Dukakis (Democratic nominee who did not win election but carried the state in a Democratic pickup)
    • 1988 U.S. Senate: Herb Kohl (Democratic hold of the seat of retiring William Proxmire)
    • 1992 U.S. President: Bill Clinton (Democratic challenger and pickup winner who carried the state in a Democratic hold)
    • 1992 U.S. Senate: Russ Feingold (Democratic challenger and pickup winner)
    • 1996 (No scheduled U.S. Senate election)
    • 2000 U.S. President: Al Gore (Democratic nominee who did not win but carried the state in a Democratic hold)
    • 2000 U.S. Senate: Herb Kohl (re-elected; Democratic hold)
    • 2004 U.S. President: John Kerry (Democratic challenger who did not win but carried the state in a Democratic hold)
    • 2004 U.S. Senate: Russ Feingold (re-elected; Democratic hold)
    • 2008 (No scheduled U.S. Senate election)
    • 2012 U.S. President: Barack Obama (re-elected; Democratic hold of the state)
    • 2012 U.S. Senate: Tammy Baldwin (Democratic hold of the seat of retiring Herb Kohl)

    It needs to be noted that the state of Wisconsin has not carried for a Republican presidential nominee since the 40th president of the United States Ronald Reagan was re-elected to the tune of 49 states and 525 electoral votes back in 1984. (The only state Reagan did not, and never did, carry was Minnesota. That state hasn’t carried Republican since Richard Nixon was re-elected to the tune of 49 states and a mathematical 521 [520] electoral votes. Add to this, of course, the non-state District Columbia, Democratic in every election since it first participated back in 1964.)

    What this means is: If the Republicans were to keep this seat, with incumbent Ron Johnson (who was unseated Russ Feingold in the 2010 midterm wave for the GOP), the pattern suggests that the party will have to win a pickup of the state at the presidential level. And, with that, Ron Johnson would get re-elected by effectively having ridden the coattails of a Republican presidential nominee who won the presidency and picked up the state of Wisconsin in the process.

  6. Ronald May 21, 2015 12:02 pm

    Again, D, you came through with a brilliant analysis of the Wisconsin situation and history, and I thank you for your contributions, which are always significant!

  7. Max May 21, 2015 12:14 pm

    I agree with laws that punish certain abuses, I don’t believe I ever heard anyone against those laws. I think it is a matter of degree, and for decades , way before Obama, we have had thousands of regulations that have been imposed on us without any Congressional oversight but by the permanent un-accountable bureaucracy. Did you know that every single one of us is in violation of at least one regulation on a daily basis? Did you know that many of these regulations impose prison time? And I am not taking here about child labor laws, antidiscrimination laws or laws that protect the environment. But we seem to have lost common sense. California for example has destroyed the most prolific agricultural valley, and thus thousands of families and jobs, all because of a fish, the smelt! We have gone overboard, clearly the regulators have over-played their hands.

  8. Max May 21, 2015 12:21 pm

    So by what I see, according to D, the last time Republicans won Wisconsin was with Ronald Reagan, in other words it was the last time the Republicans nominated a conservative. This begs the question, if Republicans finally nominate a conservative after 30 yrs., could they win Wisconsin? And if they win Wisconsin, does that mean they win Presidency? On the other hand, if Republicans nominate, as usual, an establishment moderate, then would they surely lose Wisconsin, and of course the Presidential election?

  9. D May 21, 2015 12:32 pm

    I also want to add the following:

    This particular Wisconsin U.S. Senate seat—Class No. 3—has seen five consecutive incumbent United States senators who became unseated.

    • 1938: F. Ryan Duffy. The incumbent Democrat, first elected in the Democratic presidential wave of 1932—in which the party won a pickup of the U.S. Senate as Franklin Roosevelt unseated Herbert Hoover in a likewise Democratic pickup of the presidency—was unseated in the 1938 midterm wave for the Republicans (during the presidency of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt).

    • 1962: Alexander Wiley. The incumbent Republican, who unseated F. Ryan Duffy in his party’s midterm wave of 1938, became unseated in the 1962 midterms under the Democratic president John Kennedy. (The Democrats won a net gain of three seats.)

    • 1980: Gaylord Nelson. The incumbent Democrat, who unseated Alexander Wiley in 1962, was unseated by Republican challenger Bob Kasten in 1980—with Kasten having ridden the Republican wave with Ronald Reagan at the top of his party’s ticket (“Reagan’s coattails”).

    • 1992: Bob Kasten. The incumbent Republican, who unseated Gaylord Nelson in the Republican presidential wave of 1980—in which the party won a likewise pickup of the U.S. Senate as Ronald Reagan unseated Jimmy Carter in a likewise Republican pickup of the presidency—was unseated by Russ Feingold as the Democrats, with Bill Clinton at the top of the ticket, unseated Republican president George Bush.

    • 2010: Russ Feingold. The incumbent Democrat, who unseated Bob Kasten in the Democratic presidential wave of 1992—in which the party won a hold of the U.S. Senate as Bill Cinton unseated George Bush in a Democratic pickup of the presidency—was unseated in the 2010 midterm wave for the Republicans (during the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama).

    By contrast to this, Wisconsin’s other U.S. Senate seat—Class No. 1—has not seen an incumbent United States senator unseated with a general election since Republican Matthew H. Carpenter lost re-election, and was succeeded by Republican colleague Angus Carpenter, in 1875. (This was during the presidency of Republican Ulysses Grant.) In the case of 1924 Progressive Party nominee and native Wisconsin son Robert La Follette: He lost his Republican U.S. Senate re-nomination bid—to Joseph McCarthy—in 1946, the midterm wave for the Republicans, in which the party won majority pickups of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate (during the presidency of Democrat Harry Truman).

  10. D May 21, 2015 12:55 pm

    Max writes, “ …if Republicans nominate, as usual, an establishment moderate, then would they surely lose Wisconsin, and of course the Presidential election?”

    After Ronald Reagan, the Republicans won the presidency with George Bush and George W. Bush. Neither carried the state of Wisconsin because, by then, the Republicans’ base had moved to the Old Confederacy states (with bellwethers from that area of the nation)—formerly the domain of the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan’s maps had him carry some states outside the Old Confederacy with margins above and below his national percentage margins of 1980 and 1984. A winning Republican will nowadays carry Old Confederacy states (with bellwethers from this area) with margins above their national percentage margin. George Bush did that in 1988. (Louisiana has was his lowest margin. He carried it by over 10 points while he won the popular vote by about 8.) George W. Bush also did it in both 2000 and 2004. (Florida, the best bellwether in the Old Confederacy, gave him approximately 1 and 3 points above his national percentage margins.)

    This has nothing to do with the breed of the Republican who gets nominated. Wisconsin was a presidential base state for the Republicans from that party’s first winning candidate, starting with Abraham Lincoln in 1860, through to Ronald Reagan in 1984. The only prevailing Republican who did not carry the state was Calvin Coolidge in 1924. (And that’s because native son Robert La Follette carried Wisconsin in that election.) Wisconsin is now a presidential base state for the Democratic Party. Every candidate from the party who was elected to the presidency since 1964 has carried the state of Wisconsin. (In a way, it stretches back further to Franklin Roosevelt. But Roosevelt failed once—in his last re-election of 1944—to carry Wisconsin. And John Kennedy did not flip it in his 1960 Democratic pickup, in part because of his narrow Democratic pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote.) So, by today’s electoral map, if a Democrat wins election/re-election to the presidency of the United States…Wisconsin carries.

  11. Max May 21, 2015 1:07 pm

    So let me get this straight if “Wisconsin is now a presidential base state for the Democratic Party” does this mean that if Democrats lose Wisconsin they probably lose the Presidency? If so, would it not be logical for Republicans to nominate Walker, who has successfully won every single election in Wisconsin against every single prediction made by Democrats?

  12. D May 21, 2015 1:44 pm

    Max writes, “So let me get this straight if “Wisconsin is now a presidential base state for the Democratic Party” does this mean that if Democrats lose Wisconsin they probably lose the Presidency?”

    (P.S. I have to go now. If there is anything else…I’d have to address later.)


    Imagine a winning Republican or a winning Democrat with a list of states carried. (Since after the 1980s, the most won were by Bill Clinton, in 1992, with 32 states plus District of Columbia. He carried 64 percent of the nation’s states.)

    Look at the percentage margin in the popular vote. The base states (either party) will perform various percentage points about the national percentage margin.

    A party is not going to win without carriage of a base state. If that were to be happening, it would be a transitional time at least for the state. (Example: In 1988, George Bush, in a Republican hold and third straight victory for his party, failed to hold Iowa. Nine of Ronald Reagan’s 49 states, from 1984, flipped Republican to Democratic. Wisconsin was one. Iowa was another. That marked the first time a winning Republican did not carry Iowa. And when George W. Bush flipped Iowa, with re-election in 2004, he carried it with a margin lower than national number.)

    Max also writes, “If so, would it not be logical for Republicans to nominate Walker, who has successfully won every single election in Wisconsin against every single prediction made by Democrats?”

    If it’s going to be a Republican presidential victory. But, also, to answer: It would depend on the percentage points margin. How many, in theory, needed to help win some select states not a part of your party’s base. The 7.26 percentage points, in the Democratic pickup year of 2008, was surprisingly enough for Barack Obama to flip Indiana from 2004 Republican to 2008 Democratic. With the trend in North Carolina moving away from Republican to Lean Republican to what I will believe will be the next bellwether state (the word “Tossup”)…that 7.26 percent was also enough.

    If a Republican is winning the presidency, and Wisconsin is part of it, he is going to probably win by about six or seven percentage points nationwide. That means the Republican is going to have the narrow the margin of women nationwide…or win them over where there is essentially no gender gap between how men and women voted in a particular presidential election. The Republicans haven’t carried women nationally, in a presidential election, since George Bush won them by one percent in 1988.

  13. Ronald May 21, 2015 2:15 pm

    WOW, what a fascinating discussion going on between Max and D! I LOVE IT! 🙂

    Two points here.

    When Robert LaFollette JR lost his GOP party nomination in 1946, it was NOT the same Robert LaFollette SR who ran on the Progressive Party line in 1924, but rather his son, who had succeeded him upon his death in 1925 and held the seat to the beginning of 1947. There are TWO LaFollettes, both brilliant progressives, among the best in Senate history!

    The other point is that D is right, how are the Republicans going to win the women’s vote, which they have not won in decades, and will not, with their misogynistic views on women?

    And really, the best bet for the GOP is to nominate Ohio Governor John Kasich from a TRUE swing state, in which every Republican winner in history has won Ohio.

    Or Florida, another crucial swing state, with either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, with Rubio probably the better bet,. However, Rubio, being Cuban, only 3.5 percent of all Hispanics, is NOT likely to win over the two thirds Mexican American vote, and the close to one fifth Puerto Rican vote.

    And finally, Texas is red, but is starting to move toward blue, and if Hilary Clinton or any Democrat chooses former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (Mexican American), now HUD Secretary, as VP running mate, there is a chance for the Democrats to win Texas. But even if they do not, by 2020, it is much more likely that Texas would go blue, and then the Republicans are doomed for the long run on the Presidential level!

  14. D May 22, 2015 7:12 am

    WARNING: A long response follows…


    I was forgetting about the two Robert La Follettes at the moment I posted that. (I’m embarrassed. It’s like have a brain f**t. Next thing I know is that I will forget about there having been two Adams presidents. Weren’t they father and son?)

    Ronald also writes, “The other point is that D is right, how are the Republicans going to win the women’s vote, which they have not won in decades, and will not, with their misogynistic views on women?”

    I’m one who believes in realigning presidential periods. That we’ve been living in them since the fourth presidential election cycle of 1800. I’m referring to the following: 1800–1824: Democratic-Republican (starting with Thomas Jefferson; they won all seven election cycles); 1828–1856: Democratic (beginning with Andrew Jackson; they won six of eight election cycles); 1860–1892: Republican (starting with Abraham Lincoln; they won seven of nine election cycles); 1896–1928: Republican (beginning with William McKinley; they won seven of nine election cycles); 1932–1964: Democratic (starting with Franklin Roosevelt; they won seven of nine election cycles); 1968–2004: Republican (beginning with Richard Nixon; they won seven of ten election cycles). It is likely we can also add, as the most recent, 2008: Democratic (starting with Barack Obama).

    In all those realignments, the majority party (in winning the presidency overwhelmingly through such period) was not stopped by the minority party (at a disadvantage) from experiencing at least three consecutive victories. (The 1968–2004 Republicans won all three of the election cycles from the 1980s.) So, with Max having addressed the state of Wisconsin and its governor Scott Walker…

    If we want to take Max’s possible theory about the home state mattering, I think the following is worth noting: The majority of the minority-party presidential winners, from those past realignment periods, came from states which were a combination of the following: historically high-ranking states (in having carried for presidential winners); bellwether states (for the time); or particular states which were part of the majority party’s base.

    Let’s start with the 1828–1856 period for the Democratic Party: Winners from the Whig Party were the single terms of William Henry Harrison (1840), from Ohio, and Zachary Taylor (1848), from Louisiana. Ohio—not just with its long-running bellwether status—ranks as the fifth best-performing state in having historically carried for presidential winners. (It is one of only seven states which have historically carried for presidential winners more than 80 percent of its participation; New Mexico, which ranks No. 1 and first voted in 1912, is the only state carried over 90 percent; the historical average is between 69/70 percent—which are 34/35 of the current 50 states.) Louisiana, come to think, was a part of the base of that period’s dominant Democratic Party. And Taylor won select states from this area—while losing Democrat Lewis Cass (of Michigan) managed to hold a good amount of his party’s base states, including the notoriously and historically poor-performing duo of Alabama and Mississippi, in his column. (This is sort of like the result from 1992.)

    Moving over to the 1860–1892 period for the Republican Party: There was just one winner from the Democratic Party—the two non-consecutive election cycles (1884, 1892) won by Grover Cleveland. His home state was New York. The Empire State ranks No. 4 in having historically carried for presidential winners since it first participated in the second election cycle of 1792. (Since 1789, we have had a total thus far of 57 cycles.) New York developed a bellwether status during much of this late-1800s period.

    Reflecting on the 1896–1928 period for the Republican Party: There was just one winner from the Democratic Party—and it was with the two terms (1912, 1916) won by Woodrow Wilson. His home state was New Jersey. The first election was the split in the Republican Party between its most recent incumbents: Teddy Roosevelt (1904 full-term election) and sitting president William Howard Taft (elected in 1908). The blow up was so bad that Roosevelt took six states from Taft’s 1908 column, and the incumbent president managed to hold only two states (Utah, Vermont). With New Mexico and Arizona newly established, and first having voted in 1912, Wilson carried the remaining 40 of the nation’s 48 states. That large of a scale meant that Wilson won his party’s base states, yes, but also a significant number of states that were the Republicans’ base (including New Jersey!). With re-election in 1916, albeit with a lower electoral-vote score (the first president, prior to a re-elected Barack Obama of 2012, with that distinction), Wilson still won states the Republicans had in their column in elections won by the party—including, the most obvious, Ohio and Wilson’s Democratic pickup of California. (At the time, every winning Republican, except an 1880 James Garfield, carried California.)

    Looking to the 1932–1964 period for the Democratic Party: There was just one winner from the Republican Party—and it was with the two terms (1952, 1956) won specifically by Dwight Eisenhower. I’ve seen conflicting information that Eisenhower claimed New York, in 1952, and Kansas (the latest from or Pennsylvania, in 1956, as his home state. (Dave Leip’s “Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections” website claims New York was Eisenhower’s home state in both elections. For 1956, notes, “Although he was born in Texas and grew up in Kansas before his military career, at the time of his election Eisenhower was president of Columbia University and was, officially, a resident of New York. During his first term as president, he moved his private residence to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and officially changed his residency to Pennsylvania.” Yet, in its upper-page sidebar, claims Eisenhower’s home state was Kansas.) Well, in the case of Pennsylvania—it ranks as the No. 6 best-performing state historically in having carried for presidential winners. Kansas became a base state for the Republicans—after it voted for the 1932 and 1936 elections of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt (who carried 42 and 46 of the nation’s 48 states)—beginning in 1940.

    Referring to the 1968–2004 period for the Republican Party: Two Democrats from three election cycles won during this period. They were both from Old Confederacy states—Jimmy Carter (1976), of Georgia, and Bill Clinton (1992, 1996), of Arkansas. This period became a transitional one with the electoral map. Fourteen of the 23 states which carried for the 1976 election of Carter (the last Democrat elected primarily through the south) had also voted for the 2000 and 2004 elections of Republican George W. Bush. On the other side, nine states which voted for the unseated Republican Gerald Ford, in 1976, never once voted for Bush Jr.—as they went for losing Democrats Al Gore, in 2000, and John Kerry, in 2004. Clinton’s map was the beginning of the “Blue Firewall” of states which used to carry Republican when the party won—and much of the time when they lost (but did not lose too badly)—but moved over to the Democratic column after the 1980s. (Some, like Wisconsin, made the move in 1988.) A parallel between the 1932–1964 minority-party-winning Republican Dwight Eisenhower and the 1968–2004 minority-party-winning Democrat Bill Clinton shows that, on Clinton’s [counter-] realigning map, there were just two states in his column which had never once voted for Eisenhower: Clinton’s home state Arkansas and Georgia. (And those two states rank among the ten worst states historically in having carried for presidential winners.) Eisenhower was the last Republican who carried all six New England states in both of his two elections. Clinton became the first Democrat, elected beyond one full term, who carried all six New England states in both of his two elections. This was a transitional period in which the Republicans made it official, in 1988, with carriage of all Old Confederacy states with margins above their national percentage points of winning the popular vote—and the map counter-realigned, with Clinton, outside the Old Confederacy for the Democrats. (The most notable are the heavily-populous, double-digit, electoral-vote-rich states which now identify as Lean Democrat or Strong Democrat or Solid Democrat. And, let us keep in mind, Bill Clinton’s home state came from the Republicans’ base. Clinton recently said that he could no longer carry Arkansas. Under the latest voting tendencies, with the map, the same is true with Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and their home state California.)

    I gather a number of things from all these past presidential realigning periods. It’s hard to convey everything. But I’ll share this:

    • No. 1: All the realigning presidents—1800 Thomas Jefferson; 1828 Andrew Jackson; 1860 Abraham Lincoln; 1896 William McKinley; 1932 Franklin Roosevelt; 1968 Richard Nixon—won re-elections four years later. Since I’m on board with citing 2008 as a realigning presidential election for the Democrats, we can add the 2012 re-election of Barack Obama.

    • No. 2: The minority-party-winning presidents, from those past realignments, had to win on a national scale impressive enough to carry select states which weren’t a part of their party’s base during those periods. (It’s best to check out the site if you want to see the maps for yourself.) None of them were able to do it by only appealing to their party’s base states’ voting electorates. Those minority-party-winning presidents had to present an argument that would translate well beyond their base states’ borders—and allow them to actually carry some states which were a part of the majority party’s base of support.

    • No. 3: Dividing the “North” versus the “South”: We established half the nation’s states by the time the Republicans won the realigning presidential election of 1860. Since 1860, around 55/56 percent of the presidential victories went to the party whose base was primarily outside the Old Confederacy states. And that’s because seven of the eleven Old Confederacy states—Louisiana (No. 41); Arkansas (No. 43); Texas (No. 44); Georgia (No. 45); South Carolina (tied at No. 45); Mississippi (No. 49); and Alabama (No. 50)—rank among the ten worst states in having historically carried for presidential winners.

    All this begs the question, “Who, exactly, from the minority party of this realigning presidential period—that would be from the Republican Party—is going to be able to nationally rally such voter support with what he or she has to offer in his or her campaign?” The Republicans are looking for someone who doesn’t get lost in translation—like a William Henry Harrison, a Zachary Taylor, a Grover Cleveland, a Woodrow Wilson, a Dwight Eisenhower, a Jimmy Carter, a Bill Clinton—whoever, specifically (and with the favorable national conditions of the mood of the voters), can do it for the Republicans? This may help answer Max’s concern/question about a Republican [like Scott Walker] winning on a national scale so well enough…he or she possibly wins over the female vote (Republicans carry men before women); wins nationally in the U.S. Popular Vote by a good five or six or seven percentage points (as if one of those may be the magical number); and, in this process, gets to carry a Democratic base state like Wisconsin.

  15. D May 22, 2015 7:50 am

    By the way: I posted the ranking of states with regard to how they have performed historically, in carrying for presidential winners, since each one first participated.

    This was from ““’Swing’ States Becoming Fewer Every Election: Locking In Electoral Votes!” on January 26, 2015.

    A link:


  16. Ronald May 22, 2015 8:35 am

    Again, D, you are amazing, and I appreciate your contributions to our discussions! Thanks!

  17. Pragmatic Progressive May 22, 2015 9:34 am

    Progressives want the country to move forward, specifically on social issues and environmental issues.

    Conservatives want to move backwards on such issues.

  18. Ronald May 22, 2015 9:44 am

    Precisely, Pragmatic Progressive!

  19. Max May 22, 2015 3:35 pm


  20. Rustbelt Democrat May 23, 2015 1:12 pm

    We are totally unamused by that Max.

  21. Southern Liberal May 23, 2015 1:18 pm

    I second that Pragmatic!

    Does anyone else here get the feeling that Max is Juan in disguise? 😉

  22. Princess Leia May 23, 2015 1:20 pm

    That wouldn’t surprise me one bit, Southern Liberal.

  23. Ronald May 23, 2015 1:28 pm

    Ladies, I have been wondering if Max is Juan, not quite sure yet, but it COULD be that he has reemerged LOL and if I think that is true after further thought and evidence, which is not yet clear enough, I will arrange to solve that issue!

  24. Pragmatic Progressive May 23, 2015 1:47 pm

    I second that Rustbelt!

  25. Southern Liberal May 23, 2015 3:42 pm

    Exactly right Pragmatic!

    Republicans are anti-gay rights, anti-women, anti-civil rights, and anti-science. That’s why I opt to vote for Democrats over Republicans.

  26. Ronald May 23, 2015 4:16 pm

    Southern Liberal, sadly, you are totally correct, no question about it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.