Wisconsin: A Maverick Wild Card

---

---

"It was Wisconsin, as a matter of fact, that in 1903 first invented the presidential primary, which so many other states have since copied. And the political philosophy that inspired that revolutionary invention has made and left Wisconsin in political terms an unorganized state, a totally unpredictable state, a state whose primaries have over many quadrennials proved the graveyard of great men's presidential ambitions."

Theodore H. White, The Making of the President 1960

---

When Theodore White wrote the above, it was a very different political landscape across the United States than the one we have today. When all is said and done, more than three dozen states will have held presidential primaries in 2016. In 1960, only 14 states and the District of Columbia held primaries.

Most state delegations were chosen at state party conventions in those days. A primary's value was more symbolic than actual. In 1960, Wisconsin's primary was the second in the nation, coming four weeks after the New Hampshire primary. John F. Kennedy, from neighboring Massachusetts, easily won the New Hampshire primary as expected. Wisconsin's importance was that it would demonstrate whether Kennedy appealed to voters outside his native region.

Kennedy did win Wisconsin, receiving 56% of the vote, but it was determined that much of his margin in that primary came from heavily Catholic precincts. It would be a month later, when Kennedy trounced Hubert Humphrey in heavily Protestant West Virginia, that he demonstrated conclusively that he could win the popular support of Protestant voters outside of New England.

Still there is little doubt that Kennedy's wave of momentum began in Wisconsin on April 5, 1960.

As we round the stretch and head toward the finish line in Wisconsin two days from now, it is worth reviewing the recent history of the Wisconsin primary because it has been such a maverick state — and if the front–runners in both parties lose there, as polls currently suggest they will, it could change the dynamics of both races.

Wisconsin may still prove to be "the graveyard of great men's presidential ambitions."

When White wrote that 55 years ago, he had no way of knowing that eight years later a president would drop out of the race because of an insurgent challenger (and his own problems with a civil war in Southeast Asia). A few days later — and only two days before the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. — the insurgent, Minnesota Sen. Gene McCarthy (the Bernie Sanders of his day), won Wisconsin's primary with 56% of the vote.

"[I]n Wisconsin," White wrote in his book on the 1968 presidential election, "one could see naked the end of the historic Johnson mandate of 1964."

In 1972 Sen. George McGovern used his victory in Wisconsin as his springboard to the nomination, eclipsing pre–Democrat primary campaign front–runner Ed Muskie and former Vice President Hubert Humphrey with 30% of the vote in a 10–candidate field.

In 1976 President Gerald Ford got off to a fast start, winning the first five primaries and the Iowa caucus, prompting many party leaders to openly encourage former California Gov. Ronald Reagan to withdraw prior to the North Carolina primary. If Reagan had withdrawn, it might well have ended his hopes of winning the presidency. But he won North Carolina, and the candidates moved on to Wisconsin two weeks later — even though Reagan had more or less written off Wisconsin because of a money crunch brought on largely by his losing streak in the primaries.

Although momentum was with Reagan after the North Carolina primary, Wisconsin sided with the president. It might well have backed the challenger, who took 44% of the vote, if he had been able to run the kind of advertising campaign that would have been necessary to defeat a sitting president. Reagan went on to win the Texas primary and made a close race of it right up to the party's convention in Kansas City that summer, but many people — myself included — believe the decision to more or less bypass Wisconsin was the greatest mistake Reagan made in the 1976 campaign.

On the Democratic side, former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter scored an upset over liberal Mo Udall, who had been counting on Wisconsin's liberal tradition to juice up his campaign.

Instead, Carter won, 36.6% to 35.6%, and the momentum carried Carter to the nomination in July and the presidency in November.

In 1980, Reagan had been alternating electoral momentum with George H.W. Bush in the primaries until he won Wisconsin. After that, he seldom lost another primary, won the nomination and went on to win the presidency.

If you're curious as to the kind of effect that Trump's recent gaffe on abortion can have, it might be useful to remember the 1992 Democratic primary in Wisconsin.

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown announced in New York that, if he was the nominee, he would give Rev. Jesse Jackson serious consideration for the running mate slot. Jackson, the first true black contender for the presidency, was a controversial figure; when the votes were counted in Wisconsin, Bill Clinton defeated Brown by 37.2% to 34.5%. Clinton won all but two of the remaining electoral contests and claimed the party's nomination that summer.

Wisconsin is a legitimate wild card, capable of producing perhaps the only true political drama until this summer's conventions.

Republican front–runner Donald Trump and Democratic front–runner Hillary Clinton are currently running second in Wisconsin polls. If those polls prove to be correct, it could change the complexion of the races.

As Leo once said on The West Wing, "I'd watch."

Abortion and Punishment

---

---

DONALD TRUMP: Are you Catholic?

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yes, I think ...

TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church's position?

MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.

TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.

TRUMP: And do you concur with the position?

MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question — here's my problem with it ...

TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you: But what do you say about your church?

MATTHEWS: It's not funny.

TRUMP: Yes, it's really not funny. What do you say about your church? They're very, very strong.

MATTHEWS: They're allowed to — but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe ...

TRUMP: No, but ...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

---

I am always uncomfortable when the subject of abortion is brought into the political arena.

That is mostly because I have always considered myself totally neutral on the issue. It's like Mark Twain said about heaven and hell. He said he had friends in both places, and I have friends on both sides. What's more, whenever my friends explain their positions, I find it hard to dispute what any of them say.

I agree that it is terrible that people end the lives of unborn children before they have begun. Children are the most innocent of creatures, and it is hard to justify denying them the opportunity to live and to love, to experience all the things, good and bad, that there are to experience in this world.

But I have known a few women who had abortions — I may know others as well, but those are the three who I know for sure have had abortions — and it was a painful experience for them. I'm not talking about physical pain — although I'm sure there was some of that as well. I'm talking about emotional pain, inner turmoil.

Without exception they experienced fear — of what, I couldn't tell you. Society? The legal system? God? All three? All three and more? I don't think even they knew for sure. But they were afraid, and they lived with that fear long after the abortion.

They were sad, too — again, not well defined, but it would be safe to say that they felt sadness over having to do what they did — and that, too, can be for many reasons. Obviously, I could never know what maternal instincts feel like, but my best guess would be that a significant part of that sadness was because the act of abortion is totally contradictory to one's protective maternal instincts. It's a law of nature, really, and I am certain that there is an emotional price to be paid by those who believe they have violated natural law.

They were confused, swept along by a series of events over which they had no control.

If the subject is going to be punishment, I think those women — and most of the others who have had abortions since the Supreme Court's decision 43 years ago — endured plenty of punishment, mostly self–inflicted. It was a mandatory byproduct of the procedure.

I'm sure that isn't the kind of punishment Trump meant when he spoke with Chris Matthews at a town hall meeting that was televised on MSNBC earlier this week ahead of next week's primary in Wisconsin. And there may well be some people in this country who agreed with Trump when he said there had to be a form of punishment for women who had abortions if abortion was made illegal. There probably are some people who agreed with him, but it would have to be a tiny sliver of a minority.

In fact, of all the pro–life people I know and have known — and bear in mind that I live in what is arguably the most conservative part of the country — I can't think of one who would support the idea of punishing the woman. The doctor who performed the abortion and profited by it is another matter entirely, but I cannot imagine any of my pro–life friends saying that the woman should be punished.

They would probably advocate counseling of some kind, but I'm quite sure they would be sympathetic with the woman and see her as more of a victim than a perp.

Trump backtracked shortly after making the statement — presumably when his aides pointed out to him that he had enough problems with women without saying they should be punished for having an abortion — but the damage had been done. Trump's negatives took a hit, not just with women but with young voters, independents, the list of groups keeps on growing. I'm sure his answer didn't help him with Hispanics, most of whom were already angry at him over his immigration remarks.

(Perhaps my favorite line about Trump's standing with women came in a column written by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan for the Wall Street Journal. "Already his numbers in next week's Wisconsin primary have fallen," Noonan wrote, "and as for women — well, with women nationally Mr. Trump is currently more popular than cholera — but not by much.")

I haven't really been surprised by the backlash. I've always thought Trump was something of a loose cannon; I'm just surprised it took so long to become clear to everyone else. Like most people, I guess I figured he would fizzle out long before his campaign reached the point where trying to stop him from winning the nomination appeared as hopeless as trying to stop a runaway train.

But now he may have handed his opponents the ammunition they need to bring him down. My take on this, though, is that it's not just the interview that is responsible. I truly believe it is the cumulative effect of several months of Trumpisms that leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those who hear them. Some — not all but some — of the Trump supporters I know are mortified by the things he has been saying. Texas' Republican primary was held on March 1 so the Trump supporters around here who are suffering from buyer's remorse have few options, but it isn't too late for people who vote in primaries this month and in May and early June.

I've heard the Wisconsin primary described as the Republicans' Alamo — their very last opportunity to stop Trump. Based on the polls I have been reading, Trump may well lose in Wisconsin, a state in which he was leading not long ago — and victories have a way of ending one candidate's momentum and giving it to someone else. We will see if that is what happens this time.

Nor am I really surprised that Matthews pressed Trump into delivering one of his shoot–from–the–hip responses. Matthews long ago made clear which side he favored in political contests, and he was doing his usual job as the lackey journalist. Mission accomplished. He drew Trump out into a minefield of his own making.

It's part of the give–and–take of politics. There hasn't been a president in my lifetime who hasn't felt mistreated by the press. If you aspire to be president, you have to be prepared for that. You have to be nimble, light on your feet in your answers, not lead–footed.

Trump gives the impression that he speaks without having given much, if any, thought to the subject. I have been critical for months of his failure to provide any solutions for the problems facing this country except to repeatedly tell us that the United States is "going to win again" when he becomes president. That sounds like Charlie Sheen (who also has problems with women).

It is simply inexcusable for a Republican not to anticipate questions about abortion. The public is going to assume, rightly or wrongly, that a Republican is going to be pro–life, and that is probably what Matthews assumed. Now, it's OK to be pro–life if you're going to give thoughtful reasons for your position — but it isn't OK, even with most other pro–lifers, to be Draconian about it.

Trump wasn't the only one who needed instruction in how to conduct himself, though. Matthews, too, could have used some pointers.

I have taught many journalism students, and I would chastise any of them for allowing an interviewee to become the interviewer, as Matthews allowed Trump to do. In this case, it ended up working out for Matthews, but that can so easily backfire on a journalist.

A journalist has no control over how the subject of an interview responds to questions. I understand that. Each situation is different and must be handled differently, but, in this case, I would have advised Matthews to say this when Trump started to interview him: "This is not about what I think. I am not a candidate for president. You are a candidate for president, and it is in that capacity that I am asking you what you think."

(By the way, that is essentially the same question I would ask of Hillary Clinton on the subject of her emails — in the context of her Nixonian assertion that her predecessors at State did the same things she did: "This is not about what they did. This is about what you did.")

When I was studying journalism in college, one of my professors delivered the lecture that every journalism student has heard at one time or another. "You should be like a fly on the wall" when you report on an event, the professor said. "The reader shouldn't even know you're there." If there was one thing that was driven home repeatedly in my journalism classes, it was the idea that a journalist should never be part of the story.

The readers — or, in this case, the viewers — knew Matthews was there, that he was part of the story. He managed to turn the tables on Trump and goad him into giving what could be, in hindsight, the remarks that proved to be the tipping point for his campaign. Perhaps, in Matthews' mind, all's well that ends well.

But he ran a huge risk of being the elephant in the room rather than a fly on the wall.

Ike and Joe

---

---

It is ironic, in its way, that President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney will meet in the first of three presidential debates tonight.

A debate, I have heard people say, is the one setting in which voters can see candidates for office as they really are — not as their campaigns wish them to be seen.

Some people would have you believe that politicians are different today than they used to be, that a system in which politicians will do or say anything to be elected is some kind of recent phenomenon.

But that is not the case.

If you read the history books, Dwight Eisenhower comes across as a wise leader, reasonable, above the pettiness of traditional politicians, a man whose experience as a warrior sharpened his principles. To an extent, all that is true, but it is not the whole story.

With the considerable benefit of historical hindsight, we know that Eisenhower was elected president in 1952 with more than 55% of the popular vote and more than 80% of the electoral vote. We also know that Eisenhower won Wisconsin with almost 61% of the popular vote.

In hindsight, it seems inevitable that Ike would win — and by a significant margin.

But, on the ground in the fall of 1952, before anyone had cast a ballot, all political observers knew was what had happened in recent years. After two decades of Democrat control of the White House, no one knew what to expect even though the Truman administration was deeply unpopular, and the state of Wisconsin, once a mostly reliable Republican state, had voted Republican only once in national elections since the stock market crashed in 1929.

State elections were a different story. In the race for the U.S. Senate in 1946, Republican Joseph McCarthy had been elected. In the course of that six–year term, McCarthy launched his search for Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the U.S. government, and he was seeking re–election in 1952.

The Eisenhower campaign apparently felt it would be a good idea to have Ike align himself with the popular McCarthy, but the problem was that Eisenhower's basic philosophy and McCarthy's differed wildly.

They were not, to put it mildly, compatible. Yet Eisenhower chose not to use the occasion to come to the defense of his friend and colleague, General George C. Marshall, who had been frequently criticized by McCarthy.

(McCarthy had often spoken of the "20 years of treason" of the Roosevelt and Truman presidencies, and he didn't hesitate to label Marshall a traitor.

(McCarthy later amended his timeline to include the early years of Eisenhower's administration.)

A defense of Marshall had been part of the initial drafts of a speech Eisenhower was to deliver in Green Bay, but he left it out of the final draft at the urging of supporters who were afraid he might lose Wisconsin if he was seen as quarreling in public with McCarthy.

A New York Times reporter discovered what had been done, and an article appeared in the Times, prompting considerable criticism of Ike for abandoning his principles — and his friend.

Most of the time, Eisenhower treated his allies and adversaries the same — respectfully — but McCarthy's approach was to intimidate his foes via accusation. Absence of proof — and there was a lot of that — did not deter him one bit.

Eisenhower went on to receive even more votes in Wisconsin than McCarthy did, and many Republicans hoped McCarthy would be muzzled by the GOP's new authority in Washington, but Eisenhower, never one of McCarthy's admirers, declined to confront him.

Supposedly, Eisenhower didn't want to "get down in the gutter with that guy" because he felt that a public rebuke by the president would be giving McCarthy precisely what he wanted.

But if he had shown the political courage to confront McCarthy, he might have spared the nation McCarthy's later excesses on the national stage.

Does Ryan Put Wisconsin in Play?

Politically, Wisconsin is a fascinating place.

(I'm sure it is fascinating in other ways, too. I have never lived there, but, in the interest of full disclosure, I have been a Green Bay Packers fan all my life.)

It is mostly regarded as a progressive "blue" state, having produced Robert La Follette, 1924 presidential nominee of the Progressive Party. La Follette got nearly 17% of the national vote that year, the best showing for a third–party candidate between 1912 and 1992.

La Follette began his political life as a Republican. Joe McCarthy, a controversial right–wing Republican senator, came from Wisconsin, too. In fact, although Wisconsin is often thought of as a Democratic state today, the truth is that the Republican Party got its start in a meeting at a school in Ripon, Wisconsin, in the mid–19th century. Opposition to slavery was the unifying theme at the time.

In 2008, Barack Obama won Wisconsin by more than 400,000 votes. Obama's 56% share of the vote was the highest in that state for any presidential candidate since 1964.

With the exception of the southeastern corner of the state (where Milwaukee is — although Milwaukee County itself voted 2 to 1 for Obama), the Democratic ticket cruised to victory in just about every county.

Based on that — and the fact that Democrats have carried Wisconsin in every election since 1988 — Wisconsin has acquired a reputation as a decidedly blue state.

But that six–election streak is a bit deceiving. Before 2008, Wisconsin was more of a purple state.

In 2004, Democrat John Kerry beat Republican George W. Bush in Wisconsin by about 11,000 votes. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore beat Bush there by about 5,000 votes.

Prior to that, Bill Clinton did win the state by comparatively comfortable margins, and Michael Dukakis did get a majority of the vote against George H.W. Bush (even though his margin was less than 100,000 votes).

But Republicans won Wisconsin in four of the five elections prior to the Bush–Dukakis race — and the only exception was a narrow victory for Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Wisconsin's political allegiance seems to shift every couple of decades. The state often seems determined to march to the beat of a different drum. It even voted against Franklin Roosevelt the fourth time he sought the presidency in 1944.

There were indications in the midterms of 2010 that such a shift could be happening in Wisconsin now. Wisconsin's House delegation went from being majority Democrat to majority Republican, Republican Scott Walker was elected governor and survived a recall election in June of this year, and Ron Johnson upset three–term Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold, becoming the first duly elected Republican senator from Wisconsin in a quarter of a century.

Obama is still popular in Wisconsin, but consider this: Ryan's district re–elected him with 64% of the vote in 2008. In the same election, that district gave Obama 51% of its vote. Clearly, many of the residents of that district who voted for Obama also voted for Ryan.

In fact, even if one assumes that every voter in the district who voted for John McCain also voted for Ryan — and experience tells me that some did not — the conclusion that more than one–fourth of Obama's supporters must have voted for Ryan, too, is inescapable.

But Ryan has never been in a statewide race before. The elections of Walker and Johnson two years ago suggest that Wisconsin is receptive to the idea, but the most recent polls I have seen indicate that Obama is poised for a narrow victory in the state. Marquette University's latest poll shows Obama leading Romney, 50 to 45, which is about what most polls have been showing.

And conventional wisdom holds that, in an election involving an incumbent, undecided voters usually (but not unanimously) tend to break for the challenger. In that pre–Ryan environment, Democrats could anticipate a slim win in Wisconsin.

Of course, none of the polls were taken after Ryan was introduced as Romney's running mate.

Presumably, new surveys are being conducted now, which will give us some context for comparison as we get closer to Election Day.

If subsequent polls show the race tightening, Democrats may be forced to fight for Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes.

The Battle for the Senate

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times.

Practically since the last vote was counted in the 2010 midterm elections, supporters of the administration have bemoaned the difficulty of accomplishing anything with this Congress. Barack Obama can't do anything with this do–nothing Congress, they say.

I find myself struggling to follow the logic.

If the administration has been unable to accomplish its objectives because the Congress — more specifically, the House because that is the chamber that is controlled by the Republicans — has been obstructing its efforts, then it seems to me there are really only two options:

1. Change the president to one who will work with the Congress or


2. Change the majority in Congress to one that will work with the president.

If the American people decide collectively that they want cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, the former seems more likely than the latter.

I mean, for Democrats to control both chambers of Congress, they would need to reverse the outcome of the midterm House elections, and that's a very tall order.

In 2010, Republicans took 64 seats from the Democrats. It wouldn't be necessary for Democrats to win that many to reclaim control of the House — unless the objective was not merely to win control of it but to regain the margin Democrats enjoyed in Obama's first two years in office.

To seize an extremely narrow majority (but a majority nevertheless) in the House, Democrats would need to increase their total by 25 seats in November. That certainly isn't impossible. Americans have taken at least 21 House seats from one party and given them to the other in the last three elections — but two of those elections were midterm election years, not presidential election years.

Historically, such turnover in Congress typically happens in midterm elections.

The party of an incumbent president who is seeking another term usually wins a few House seats in the process, whether the president wins or not, but only one such incumbent in the last 60 years has seen his party win as many seats as Democrats need to capture the House in 2012.

And no one has been suggesting that Democrats are likely to do that.

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball indicates that Republicans currently are likely to hold 234 seats, which is 16 more than they need to ensure a majority in 2013 and 2014. Democrats can expect to hold 186. A total of 15 seats are regarded as tossups.

The Rothenberg Political Report says only six House seats are "pure tossups" — and there are five more, although Rothenberg indicates that those seats are leaning, however slightly, to one party or the other.

Well, one thing is certainly clear. Barring the development of something totally unexpected, the numbers just don't seem to be there to flip the House back to the Democrats.

That doesn't faze some of the Democrats I know.

It's no secret that Congress isn't popular, but many Democrats appear to be gambling that, because of that unpopularity, not only will Obama be re–elected but the voters, frustrated by gridlock, will give him a Congress that will work with him.

Don't hold your breath — at least on the latter — writes Alan Abramowitz for Sabato's Crystal Ball.

"[D]espite the abysmal approval ratings that Congress has been receiving," Abramowitz writes, "2012 will not be an anti–incumbent election. That's because opinions about the performance of Congress and opinions about whether most congressional incumbents deserve to be re–elected have little or no influence on the outcomes of congressional elections."

Sweeping losses in the House in a presidential election year (in which a 25–seat turnover is possible) tend to happen when the president (or his surrogate) is in trouble with the voters — in 2008, for example, when Obama was elected after eight years of Republican rule, and in 1980, when Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide.

If a change is going to come in Congress, it seems more likely to come in the Senate, where the Democrats' once filibuster–proof majority was reduced significantly in the 2010 midterms but they still clung to a bare majority.

Only 51 members of the Senate are Democrats, and two independent members of the chamber typically vote with the Democrats, giving them 53 seats. Forty–seven members of the chamber are Republicans.

It's safe to say that — numerically, at least — the bar for success is much lower in the Senate.

If Obama is re–elected, Republicans would need to win four Senate seats to have control of both chambers. That might be easier said than done, but incumbents who win re–election have been known to lose some ground in the Senate simultaneously. Bill Clinton's Democrats lost three Senate seats when he was re–elected in 1996, and Ronald Reagan's Republicans lost a single Senate seat in 1984.

If Obama is defeated, Republicans would need to win only three seats. That would produce a 50–50 tie, but the Republicans would have effective control of the chamber because the new vice president, who would be responsible for casting any tie–breaking votes, would be a Republican.

The fortunes of the individual presidential nominees in certain states could influence the outcome of the battle for the Senate. Rothenberg observes that ticket splitting, in which someone votes for the nominee of one party at the top of the ticket but votes for nominees from the other party in races down the ballot, is "increasingly rare" in America.

Thus, the trend to straight–ticket voting should work in Obama's favor in places like Hawaii and Massachusetts. Both states have long histories of supporting Democrats for president, and both will have Senate races this year. Logically, both seats should be in Democratic hands after the votes are counted, but both are a bit shaky.

In Hawaii, Democratic incumbent Daniel Akaka is retiring, and in Massachusetts, Scott Brown is running for a full six–year term after winning last year's special election to succeed Ted Kennedy. Obama's presence on the ballot could help his party retain — or regain — those seats.

But Obama could just as easily hurt Democratic prospects in states like Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota, Rothenberg says. Presently, Democrats hold all four seats, but two are retiring, and those seats are regarded as likely to flip to the Republicans. The incumbents are running in the other two states, and those races are regarded as tossups by both Sabato and Rothenberg.

Nebraska was already likely to elect a Republican senator before incumbent Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson opted to retire, Sabato writes, so that didn't significantly alter the terrain, and that certainly makes sense, given the state's electoral history. But Nelson's decision "makes a Republican takeover of the Senate a little more likely," Sabato observes.

The task could be made even easier in the weeks and months ahead — and Rothenberg points out that it all could come down to half a dozen states that are considered battlegrounds in the presidential race — and also happen to have Senate races on the ballot: Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Five of those seats (all but Nevada's) are currently held by Democrats, and three of those Democrats (the ones from New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin) are retiring.

New Mexico may be small, but it bears watching. With a reputation for being a bellwether (it's been on the winning side in 23 of the last 25 elections), it might be the most accurate political barometer on Election Night — in more ways than one.

Virginia, as I wrote last month, had been in the Republican column for more than 40 years until it voted for Obama in 2008. But his popularity has declined there, and I am sure that the state will vote Republican in November. The next question would be, will the Republican nominee's coattails help the GOP retake the seat it lost in 2006?

I don't know what to expect in Wisconsin. The state has supported Democratic presidential nominees in the last six presidential elections, and it has seldom sent Republicans to the Senate since the days of Joe McCarthy — but it voted for a Republican over three–term Sen. Russ Feingold i 2010, and it has frequently elected Republican governors, including the one who was elected in 2010.

Both Obama and his eventual opponent can be expected to spend a lot of time and money in those states. It remains to be seen what kind of an effect the presidential race has on the Senate campaigns there.

Who Will Win in Wisconsin?

Things could get pretty exciting in next year's elections.

The Democrats really don't need for things to get too exciting. They already have their work cut out for them in 2012, what with a president and a reduced majority in the Senate to defend.

Holding on to that advantage in the Senate could be a Herculean challenge.

About one–third of the seats are on the ballot in each election cycle — unless there are vacancies that make additional special elections necessary.

In 2012, the Republicans will only need to swing four seats to their side to flip control of the chamber — and Democrats, because of their success in the 2006 elections, hold about two dozen of the seats that will be on next year's ballot.

Whether the incumbents are running or not, most of those seats currently appear likely to stay with whichever party now holds them.

There are some clear tossups emerging — Democrat–held seats in Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico and Virginia — and winning four or all five would give control of the Senate to the GOP.

But, barring a tsunami–like event between now and November 2012, it has been hard to see the Republicans running the table or coming that close to it — not impossible but hard.

Until recently.

Last Friday, Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, reliably liberal, a dependable vote for his party and an apparent cinch to win a fifth term if he sought one, announced that he would not run for re–election — and that, I believe, could change things for Barack Obama.

Things were already getting interesting in Wisconsin this spring, but I felt that, ultimately, Obama would get through it, thanks to Kohl. And why shouldn't he? The state has voted for Democratic presidential nominees in six straight elections — although it has sometimes been by a paper–thin margin. Obama's supporters had every reason to expect the state would remain in the Democrats' column.

Before Kohl's announcement, I was inclined to predict that Wisconsin would vote to re–elect Obama next year. He won there by a wide margin in 2008 — wider than anyone in more than 40 years — but I'm not so sure about a post–Kohl environment.

The Rothenberg Political Report isn't ready to declare the seat a tossup yet — but, with Kohl's announcement, it did move the race from "Safe Democrat" to "Leans Democrat" — a progression that several Democrat–held seats went through en route to defeat in the 2010 cycle.

With the popular Kohl on the ballot, Obama had a proven Democratic–voter magnet on the ballot with him. Kohl was first elected to the Senate in 1988 and was never seriously challenged after that. Without him on the ballot, there may be a free–for–all in the party primary and, possibly, the general election.

The idea may seem absurd to young political observers, who may be aware of the fact that Wisconsin has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since before Kohl was elected to the Senate — but neither had it sent a Republican to the Senate in that time until Ron Johnson defeated Russ Feingold last November.

If anything could stand between Wisconsin Republicans and victory in next year's Senate race, it might be the absence of a heavyweight name. House Budget chairman Paul Ryan might have been that name — but he announced today that he would not enter the race.

Speculation now appears to be centering on former Gov. Tommy Thompson.

Even if the Wisconsin Republicans have to settle for less than a heavyweight nominee, I still expect a lot of money to be spent in what might otherwise have been a rather pedestrian affair — if the 76–year–old Kohl had sought another term.

Even though Obama and the Democrats must have expected to spend some money on campaign advertising in Wisconsin next year, they are likely now to be forced to spend even more. They will need to do whatever they can to prop up the Democrats' Senate nominee — whoever he or she may be — because they won't have Kohl to attract Democrats.

Speaking of heavyweights, Feingold (who went from 55% support in 2004 to 47% support in 2010) has been mentioned as a possible candidate as well, but he hasn't announced his intentions yet.

Whatever his plans may have been for 2012, Feingold may now have to re–evaluate the situation. Open seats have a way of changing things — especially when the electorate is as volatile and polarized as this one.

There's going to be plenty to watch in Wisconsin next year.

A Look at 'The Map'

During the weekend, I wrote about the Electoral College and how it works (read: how it really elects the president), and I made my first assessment of Barack Obama and John McCain in their head-to-head matchup in the Electoral College about a month ago.

Today, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics weighed in.

"[E]xcept for the guessing game about the vice presidential nominations," Sabato writes, "there's no greater fun to be had in July."

And he affirms some of the points I've been making.

For example ...

Sabato concedes that "[i]t is highly likely that a half-dozen or more states will flip sides," but he confirms my point, which has been that past election results are a pretty good way to assess the chances that a party's nominee has of winning a given state.

If, as Sabato says, "a half-dozen or more" states switch party allegiances this fall, "that suggests that around 40 states may keep the same color scheme."

And, Sabato writes, "If November unexpectedly becomes a landslide for one party, then many states may temporarily defect from their usual allegiances."

The key word in that sentence, whether you're Obama or McCain, is "temporarily." The winner of such a state can't count on its support when the next presidential election campaign rolls around.

For example, if Obama carries Colorado, as many people are suggesting that he might, that would be a significant shift in voting behavior. Colorado has voted for every Republican since 1968 — with the solitary exception of voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 (but the voters there resumed their Republican pattern when Clinton ran for re-election).

At this stage of the campaign — nearly four months before Election Day without knowing the identities of either running mate or what may happen in the world before the voters go to the polls — Sabato says it is necessary "to assume that the election will be basically competitive, let's say with the winner receiving 52% or less of the two-party vote."

A lot can happen in four months, and Sabato says "If one candidate's proportion of the vote climbs above 52%, then virtually all the swing states will move in his direction."

In Sabato's current scenario, there are eight states worth a total of 99 electoral votes that qualify as "swing states" — Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. It's a mix of small states (New Hampshire and Nevada), mid-sized states (Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin) and large states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

If these states are still the swing states by the middle of October, states like New Hampshire and Nevada can expect to get as much attention from both parties as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

If this race is as close as it was in 2000, every electoral vote will matter.

Which leads me to another interesting point that Sabato makes.

"History also suggests that the Electoral College system is only critical when the popular vote is reasonably close or disputed. That is, the College can potentially or actually upend the popular vote just in elections where the major-party candidates are within a point or two of one another."

---

---

So where does Sabato think things stand on July 10?

Well, he starts with the states that appear to be "solid" for one party or another.

Obama has 13 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and D.C. in that column, worth 183 electoral votes.

McCain has 17 "solid" states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming) worth 144 electoral votes.

Sabato thinks it would be futile for either candidate to make much of an effort to win any of the "solid" states from the other, and I'm inclined to agree.

I think Sabato is right when he says McCain "will end up wasting a lot of money" if he tries to win a state like California. And I also think Sabato is right when he says he "will be surprised" if Obama is successful at capturing any of McCain's "solid" states — although he acknowledges the possibility that Obama could win Indiana if he puts Sen. Evan Bayh on his ticket.

From the "solid" states, we move on to the ones where the candidates are "likely" to win. These are also states where the chances are better for the opponent to pull off an upset.

Sabato lists only two "likely" states for Obama — Oregon and Minnesota — worth 17 votes (that gives Obama a total of 200 electoral votes from 15 states and D.C.). He lists five "likely" states — Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana and North Dakota — worth 30 electoral votes for McCain (and that gives him 174 electoral votes from 22 states).

From Obama's list, Sabato says McCain's best shot at an upset is in Oregon. "The only way McCain could steal Minnesota is by picking Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his running mate," Sabato says. "However, even a McCain-Pawlenty ticket would have a 50-50 chance, at best, of carrying Minnesota."

Sabato rates Obama's chances of winning some of McCain's "likely" states as better than his opponent's chances, but he's skeptical about the claim that Obama can produce enough of a turnout among blacks to reverse voting patterns of four decades in the South.

"If Libertarian nominee and former Georgia GOP Congressman Bob Barr wins his projected 6 to 8% in the Peach State, or if Obama chooses former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, Obama could have a shot at a plurality victory," Sabato says, "but for now we'll bet on McCain ... A giant African-American turnout might shift Mississippi (38% black) to Obama, but that is not our gamble."

That leaves the states that are "leaning" in one direction or another.

Again, there are two states in Obama's column — Iowa and New Mexico — worth 12 electoral votes. If those two states, along with the "likely" states and the "solid" states that Sabato has identified, do indeed vote for Obama, that gives him 212 electoral votes from 17 states and D.C.

McCain has three states "leaning" in his favor — Florida, Missouri, North Carolina — worth 53 electoral votes. If McCain sweeps all the states in his column, he will receive 227 electoral votes from 25 states.

Of the leaners, Sabato seems confident that Obama can hold both Iowa and New Mexico, especially if he puts New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on his ticket.

In McCain's case, Sabato says, "If he loses even one of them, he will be up against the Electoral College wall."

So then it's up to the states that are too close to call.

"If Obama carries Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he's already at 269 (one vote short), and would need just one of the following states: Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia," Sabato writes.

"Of course, if McCain managed to secure Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia, we'd be at that fabled 269-269 tie."

And, Sabato continues, "If McCain can grab Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, while holding Ohio, he's back in the hunt, with smaller toss-up states proving decisive."

Actually, Sabato's prediction isn't that much different from my own. He allowed himself the luxury of putting the troublesome states in the "toss-up" column. But, excluding the "toss-ups," our predictions were identical.

In my prediction, I gave McCain six of the eight states Sabato lists as "toss-ups" — and, in my scenario, that gave him a 295-243 victory in the Electoral College.

It's all a guessing game right now.

Will the running mates make a difference?

What will happen in the world between now and November 4?

The Campaign Goes On

The polls will be closing in Wisconsin in a few hours. The Democrats and Republicans are holding primaries there today -- and in Washington state. And Hawaii's Democrats are holding caucuses today. In case you didn't know, Barack Obama was born in Honolulu.

After that, there will be a two-week break before primaries resume. Two big states -- Texas and Ohio -- will be holding their primaries on March 4. Rhode Island and Vermont will be holding primaries that day as well, but, for obvious reasons, Texas and Ohio will get most of the attention. Both parties will be holding primaries in all four states that day.

Obviously, with last week's endorsement from his nearest competitor and the delegates he had captured in the previous primaries and caucuses, John McCain will be hoping that Texas and Ohio put him over the top -- if he isn't able to reach that point in today's contests. It is certainly to his advantage to wrap up the nomination and have about six months to choose his running mate and preserve his resources for the fall campaign.

A presumptive nominee always has to contend with media speculation about the running mate. In fact, writers are already weighing in with their choices for McCain's No. 2. In today's USA Today, DeWayne Wickham proposes the selection of Condoleezza Rice.

"[N]o matter what the outcome, the Democratic Party will make history by selecting either a white woman or a black man to head its presidential ticket," Wickham writes. "[McCain] can make history of another sort by picking Condoleezza Rice as his running mate."

By wrapping up the nomination early, McCain would also have the opportunity to put an end to the questioning of his conservative credentials. If he's going to retain the conservative base of his party and make sure those conservatives come to the polls on Election Day, this is something that must be done.

It does seem odd that McCain should have to defend his conservatism, but it's really nothing new in Republican politics.

Christopher Buckley, who worked for George H.W. Bush when he was vice president under Ronald Reagan, writes in today's New York Times that Reagan faced the same kind of skepticism when he sought the presidency in 1980.

Believe it or not, there were conservatives in those days who didn't think Reagan was conservative enough.

"Funny," Buckley observes. "Mr. Reagan, to judge now from utterances by presidential candidates on both sides -- ahem -- of the political divide, appears to have survived that charge."

Indeed. Reagan has become an icon of conservatives, and virtually every Republican who ran for the nomination this year was eager to wrap himself in Reagan's legacy like a cocoon.

The day before Buckley's column appeared, his old boss was doing his best to promote McCain. Former President Bush endorsed McCain's candidacy Monday, saying "This criticism of conservative or not conservative is absurd."

If you look at McCain's ratings from groups like National Taxpayers Union, it's hard to imagine him being considered anything else. Yet he still must defend his credentials.

With McCain all but assured of the GOP nomination, most attention is focused on the race for the Democratic nomination between Hillary Clinton and Obama.

No matter what happens in today's contests, the Clinton-Obama race won't be decided tonight. Nor will it be decided in two weeks, when Texas and Ohio vote.

In fact, that leads me to an unusual request I'd like to make of anyone who reads this blog. But I'm going to save that until the end of this article.

Interestingly, as the debate continues in the Republican Party about just how conservative John McCain is, a similar debate seems to be brewing in Democratic circles.

Scott Moss of The Politico wonders whether Clinton or Obama is more liberal.

"We could stand to hear a little more on issues and a little less on polling," writes Moss, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Law School.

Speaking of the polls, American Research Group reports that, in a poll concluded Monday, Obama leads in Wisconsin, 52% to 42%. That's a reversal from an ARG survey a few days earlier that showed Clinton leading in Wisconsin, 49% to 43%. Public Policy Polling finished a poll on Sunday that had Obama leading in Wisconsin, 53% to 40%.

Draw whatever wisdom you may from those numbers. It may not matter now. Max Brantley writes, in his blog for Arkansas Times, that the Democratic race is over. Brantley acknowledges that he supports Clinton, but he goes on to say that "The media talk, the popular mood, the times -- they all work for Obama."

Brantley continues, "Obama will win the nomination. Polls today say he'll beat McCain everywhere -- in every key state and nationally. Those same polls said the same thing about Hillary Clinton's sure dominance a few months ago. For the record."

John Brummett, writing for Arkansas News Bureau, apparently doesn't think the race is over. He thinks Clinton's "inevitable comeback-kid heroics" could begin in Wisconsin tonight.

Stay tuned.

Assuming the race hasn't been decided today, Obama and Clinton are supposed to have a debate from the University of Texas campus in Austin on Thursday night. It's set for 8 p.m. Eastern time, and you can see it on CNN.

And now, for my request.

As a resident of Texas, I will be voting in the primary in two weeks, and I need some advice on how to vote.

Although it is possible for me to vote in either party's primary simply by declaring my preference at the polling place, I have always voted in Democratic primaries and I consider myself a centrist Democrat. Originally in this campaign, I supported John Edwards.

And, while I believe Edwards' name will remain on the ballot and I could probably vote for him, the fact is that the Texas primary has rarely been important in my lifetime and I would like to cast a meaningful vote instead of one that says, basically, None of the above.

The polls seem to show a tight race here. Survey USA released its most recent poll of Texas Democrats on Monday; Clinton led Obama, 50% to 45%. CNN/Opinion Research concluded its latest poll on Sunday; Clinton led in that poll, 50% to 48%. On Valentine's Day, Rasmussen Reports released a poll showing Clinton ahead, 54% to 38%. That same day, American Research Group released a poll that had Obama leading in Texas, 48% to 42%.

In order for me to decide whether to vote for Obama or Clinton, I need more information about the candidates.

Particularly in Clinton's case, I don't know enough about her accomplishments -- which is odd, I suppose, since I grew up in the state where she was first lady for a dozen years. I know some things about her activities as Arkansas' first lady and as America's first lady, but I don't know much about her actual achievements.

In Obama's case, I realize he's in his 40s, and he hasn't had as much time as Clinton to build up his resume, but I would still like to know why his supporters believe he would make a good president.

I've listened to the speeches, I've watched the debates. They don't tell me everything I need to know.

Voting is a very personal thing, and people often can't put into words what moves them to vote for one candidate or another. A friend of mine told me her vote in her state's primary was based more on instinct than logic. When it comes to picking a president, instinct may be more valuable than logic, since there is no job I can think of that will adequately prepare a person to be president.

In just the last century, for example, history recorded the election of presidents who had backgrounds in farming, acting, retail clothing sales, the military, newspaper management and academia. The current occupant of the Oval Office was co-owner of a baseball team at one time.

But if you can share some insights with me, I would appreciate it very much.

Just try to be civil!

What Can Be Done About Campus Shootings?

A few days before Wisconsin voters go to the polls, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are calling for common-sense changes in gun laws in the wake of Thursday's shootings at Northern Illinois University.

Given the proximity of the NIU campus to Wisconsin, it's not surprising, really, that the subject of gun laws should come up on the campaign trail.

But I have to wonder, what was the violation of the unwritten rules of common sense? If we can identify that, maybe we can do something to improve the situation and make it less likely that something like the NIU campus shootings happens again.

But what could have been done?

The gunman apparently had a valid state-required firearm ID card. That meant that he could purchase guns legally -- as it appears that he did -- in the days before the shootings.

It's possible, under some existing laws in some jurisdictions, to prevent a person from purchasing a firearm if that person has exhibited unstable behavior, making him/her a threat to himself/herself and others.

Did the gunman, Steven Kazmierczak, exhibit such behavior?

Further details may emerge in the days to come, but right now, all I've heard is that he stopped taking whatever medication he was on in the days leading up to the tragedy. Based on the very limited information I've heard, I can only assume he had been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder -- perhaps he'd been diagnosed as bipolar -- and had been taking some sort of prescribed medication to deal with it.

University police say that people close to Kazmierczak say he became "somewhat erratic" after he stopped taking the medication in recent weeks. But we have no other information about this "erratic" behavior. Was he physically threatening other people?

Until we get more details, there's no way to know if the medication was what prevented Kazmierczak from committing acts of violence in the past.

And if it was, how can we pass -- and enforce -- laws requiring people to take their prescription drugs?

I think it's fair to say we can deduce, in this case, that at least one person in the medical community believed that taking a certain medication would be beneficial to a certain patient. But actually taking the medication is still a matter of individual freedom and choice. If we're going to pass laws that require dispatching officers to make sure the patient takes the medication, doesn't that put society in a hornet's nest of privacy issues?

From the details that have emerged, there were no advance warnings to indicate that beneath a seemingly calm exterior there was a simmering cauldron on the verge of exploding.

It's not unusual for friends and family members, in the aftermath of such an horrific event, to express shock that the perpetrator would do such a thing. I have often observed, to my friends and family, that, within a few hours of a mass shooting, TV reporters can be expected to be airing footage of shocked colleagues and relatives, all saying, "He was always such a good boy."

If my memory serves me correctly, that's what Ted Bundy's mother said when he was arrested.

This case is no different, really. But what is different is how many people are saying it about Kazmierczak.

The graduate student seemed to have had no problems with students or faculty.

"I found Steven to be a very committed student, extremely respectful of me as an instructor and adviser," his adviser at the University of Illinois said.

Kazmierczak "was an awarded student. He was someone that was revered by the faculty and staff and students alike," the campus police chief said.

He seemed to have no problems with his landlord. The man says his former tenant "always paid on time, never a noise problem, left the place spotless."

A criminal justice student, Kazmierczak seemed to have had no problems with police. The only previous run-in with the law that has been uncovered was a speeding ticket in an accident on a snowy day in December 2006. There were no injuries, and Kazmierczak paid a $75 fine.

In the aftermath of the shootings, police have said he was "a fairly normal, unstressed person" who had no known motive for what he did and left behind no notes explaining his actions.

From the information we have in this case, what would Obama and Clinton suggest that would make society safer and protect the rights of gun owners at the same time?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quotes Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, as saying that America needs to "get a handle on all the violence that's been taking place and ... do a more effective job of enforcing our gun laws, strengthening our background check system, being able to trace guns that are used in violent crimes ... (and) close the gun show loopholes."

Perhaps Obama should have taken the opportunity to speak out against gang violence and spousal abuse as well. Those subjects have virtually the same relevance to the NIU case.

I agree, violence is out of control in this country. But how were gun laws not enforced in the Northern Illinois University shootings case? What is the weakness in the background check system? How can we trace guns better? And how, for that matter, would that have prevented the NIU shootings from occurring?

And how did "gun show loopholes" get inserted into the discussion?

I remember that such loopholes were factors that contributed to the Columbine shootings in 1999. But I've heard no evidence that suggests Kazmierczak ever attended a gun show. And, if he did, there's no evidence that the weapons he used were purchased at a gun show.

Clinton was similarly obsessed with issues that had no connection with the reality of the NIU shootings.

"I do support lifting the prohibitions on local law enforcement being able to track guns to gun dealers who have a record of selling guns without appropriate oversight. ... I do support closing the gun show loophole. I support reinstating the assault-weapons ban," she said.

As I understand it, Kazmierczak brought a shotgun and three handguns with him. No assault weapons.

I agree that assault weapons should be banned. Permanently. But they simply have no bearing on this case.

Both candidates affirmed their support of the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to own guns.

"I believe strongly people have the right to own and bear arms under the Second Amendment," Clinton said. "And I also believe we can reconcile our constitutional rights with common-sense measures that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and people with mental health problems."

Based on the information available, Kazmierczak was not a criminal. He was not a terrorist. The report that he had stopped taking whatever medication he'd been prescribed implies the possibility of "mental health problems" but doesn't confirm that -- yet.

The concerns that both candidates raised are important and need to be addressed. But they don't appear to be relevant to this case.

In other shootings, like the Columbine shootings, there are obvious issues that need to be addressed -- like the gun show loopholes.

And, in the case of the Virginia Tech shootings last spring, the perpetrator had a history of run-ins with the law and mental health issues.

But the NIU case is bewildering because none of that appears to be a problem. So we struggle with the question: What could have been done to prevent this?

Both campuses are gun-free zones. But how can campus police, which are notoriously understaffed and underequipped, adequately enforce that with campus populations of 25,000 (the approximate enrollment of NIU) or 27,000 (the approximate enrollment of Virginia Tech)? Or more?

Is the answer to build brick walls around every campus and install metal detectors at every entrance? That could be pretty expensive -- especially with talk about building walls along our country's northern and southern borders to keep the terrorists out.

With the federal government already spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq and contemplating spending who knows how much on border walls and increased patrols, campuses large and small could not count on much, if any, financial help from outside their home states. And most states are struggling to meet their obligations as it is.

Or should we reverse the gun-free zone policy? Do we want students and professors coming to class armed? Is that conducive to the kind of learning atmosphere college campuses are supposed to provide?

By the way, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed Obama today. Its editorial made no mention of the NIU shootings -- or either candidate's reaction.