r/politics Vermont Jun 10 '23

Republican Rep. Gallagher won’t run for US Senate in Wisconsin, leaving open field


64 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator Jun 10 '23

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


u/DriftlessDairy Jun 10 '23

Gallagher knows he can't win a statewide race. Gerrymandering won't help him.


u/Sweatier_Scrotums Jun 10 '23

Gerrymandering won't help anyone else in Wisconsin either when their new progressive Supreme Court majority strikes down their disgustingly unfair maps in a few months.


u/KatBeagler Jun 10 '23

Is their Court progressive? Or are they just actually neutral?


u/Shuvaa29 Wisconsin Jun 10 '23

After the most recent Supreme Court election, where the conservative candidate got trounced by 11%, the Court has a 5-4 liberal lean.


u/thatbumguy Jun 10 '23

Sadly this point shouldn’t matter. All matters of election integrity should be 9-0. Obviously biased maps awarding unequal representation? 9-0 People being denied basic rights 9-0. Disenfranchisement 9-0. It’s sad being an adult sometimes.


u/The_Lost_Jedi Washington Jun 11 '23

It -shouldn't-, but it does, unfortunately. That's the reality we're in, and we need to act and vote accordingly. Republicans are anti-democracy. The only reason they don't just try to cancel elections and rule by decree is because they don't think they can get away with it, nothing more.


u/KatBeagler Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 11 '23

Just because they decide the law favors liberals in the cases that are brought before them does not mean their decisions are biased towards liberal politics. The same cannot be said of conservatives because the law does not favor conservatives; justices who find that it does, have to torture a warped personal interpretation out of it to make it fit for their friends.

I just don't think it's fair to imply they have a bias just because the voter base didn't want a biased anti-law candidate warping the law against them


u/CheeseStandsAlone262 Jun 10 '23

Protasiewicz [the liberal candidate] specifically campaigned that she would be a liberal on the bench. It was her entire selling point [and apparently, a good one]

She explicitly said in her commercials how she would rule on certain issues


u/Bruce_Wayne_Wannabe Jun 11 '23

Excellent point. All liberal justices are unbiased, fair people. All conservative justices are biased, law warping scum.

Jesus Christ…


u/KatBeagler Jun 11 '23 edited Jun 11 '23

It was a generalization. If you can't understand what a generalization is, and that it shouldn't be applied to every single situation, or to exceptions to the reality, and that it's meant as a description of the general situation then i'm sorry your red state public education (or your homeschooling parents) failed you.

I suspect it's much more likely that you just prefer to ignore the fact because you're unwilling to admit that if you're still siding with republicans, its because you're just one more fascist shitheel yourself, pining for the day when ballots sent in from districts that do not favor republican candidates can just be thrown in the trash by any republican official empowered by state law to that specific purpose- if you aren't actually looking forward to hunting them for sport.


u/aabazdar1 Jun 11 '23

Alright let’s say that the court hypothetically strikes down the maps. Who will draw the new maps ? It’s the R dominated almost supermajority legislature. Same thing happened with Ohio in 2022 where Supreme Court striked down the GOP map and they kept submitting it again and again until it was too late to change it for the election


u/Dineology Jun 10 '23

Unfortunately, even in a statewide race gerrymandering helps because it also depresses turnout. Getting out the vote is the biggest hurdle for Dems to pass and if you live somewhere where you feel as if your vote for the House/state legislature is irrelevant because of how gerrymandered your district is then you’re less likely to get out to vote. A dog shit gubernatorial candidate in a normally close state could easily dumb luck their way into a solid win if they’re on the same ticket as a bunch of legislators in competitive districts who have a good ground game in their campaigns.


u/newnemo Vermont Jun 10 '23

Wisconsin Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher announced Friday that he won't run for U.S. Senate in 2024 against Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, leaving an open GOP field with no declared candidates in the battleground state.

Gallagher was the highest profile Republican said to be considering a run against Baldwin, who is seeking a third term after an 11-point win in 2018. Baldwin is viewed as a formidable opponent due to her strong showing six years ago, her high profile across the state and her ability to raise money.

Democrats, including Baldwin, are defending 23 seats in the U.S. Senate in 2024, including two held by independents who caucus with Democrats. That’s compared with just 10 seats that Republicans hope to keep in their column.

article continues...


u/Spalding4u Jun 10 '23

One of those "independents" is Sinema, and she should have absolutely zero chance against any Democrat opponent...but she might dilute the vote enough for a republican candidate, but that's the same as voting for Sinema, so, idk.


u/alien_from_Europa Massachusetts Jun 10 '23

Yeah, she'll probably run as an Independent just to ensure a Republican wins.


u/AuroraFinem Jun 10 '23

I doubt it. If she wanted republicans to win just for the sake of it she would have just switched parties. She didn’t do that because she thinks she can win votes from both sides. She has no loyalties except to herself and who will pay her. The only successful independent candidates are ones who run with a party support and then designate independent afterwards. She won’t have party support and I doubt she’ll draw enough democratic votes with how she’s acted almost all of Arizona Dems hate her and Arizona has been turning more blue since her first run.

I’m not saying it’s a sure bet, but I don’t think even if she ignorantly tried to run interference it wouldn’t be to be a spoiler it’d be because she thought she could actually win. Whether she can draw enough vote to be a spoiler idk but I don’t think so at this time because she likely very well will also draw republicans votes since Arizona isn’t as hardline conservative in its republicans either.


u/alien_from_Europa Massachusetts Jun 10 '23

The only successful independent candidates are ones who run with a party support

I think Bernie Sanders is the example here.


u/The_Lost_Jedi Washington Jun 11 '23

IIRC, the Democrats don't run anyone against Sanders. In 2018, the Vermont Democratic party voted to nominate Sanders, but he declined the nomination in order to run as an indepedent. He similarly declined in 2012 and 2006, and they didn't run a different candidate, so it was just Sanders vs a Republican all three times.


u/sonofabutch America Jun 11 '23

Sinema switches parties and she loses to a MAGA Republican in the primary.


u/AuroraFinem Jun 11 '23

Yeah, and she loses to a dem if she doesn’t. That’s not the point. The point was she isn’t going to run independent just to be a spoiler candidate. She’d accomplish just as much if not more by running Republican. She’s doing it because she thinks she can actually win by splitting the ticket.

Also Arizona isn’t remotely MAGA. A more liberal Republican would do better than MAGA but sinema ain’t it. Just like relatively moderate democrats do better in Arizona but sinema ain’t it. It’s a purple state through and through not a state of extremes.


u/khamike Jun 10 '23

It was actually an interesting move from a game-theoretic standpoint. Start from the assumption that she is simply trying to maximize her own chances of winning and doesn't care if a democrat or republican wins otherwise. If she runs as a democrat, she will almost certainly lose the primary. If she switched parties and ran as a republican, she would also almost certainly lose the primary.

If she runs as an independent and there is a credible democrat candidate, she will also almost certainly lose. But in that case she might draw enough votes to be a spoiler and let the republican win. She won't get a lot, but she won't get any republican votes so it can only hurt the dems. So she is hoping she can threaten the dems into not running a real candidate, that's her only chance. Someone else will be the official nomination but it's just possible it's a no-namer and she can convince the national party not to support them or spend much money. Essentially it's a game of chicken, trying to get the dems to blink. The odds are low but from her perspective it's worth taking the risk because she loses nothing if they don't. She doesn't care about red or blue, she just cares about herself.


u/Branagain Jun 10 '23

Arizona has "Sore Loser" laws to prevent just such a thing. Anyone who loses a primary is SOL when it comes to showing up on the ballot.


u/Dineology Jun 10 '23

That’s the entire reason why she left the Democratic Party and became an independent, she knew she’d have no chance at winning a primary and was hoping that Dems wouldn’t have the spine to run a candidate against her in the general for fear of splitting the vote. She’s a walking, taking, grifting embodiment of why we need to eliminate first past the post nationally.


u/Freddies_Mercury Jun 11 '23

Those numbers may seem scary but remember this was the "blue wave" cohort.

A lot of these senators are very popular and were voted in by an engaged electorate.


u/dremscrep Jun 10 '23

Baldwin will Win This because the Wisconsin GOP voter base is insane enough to vote for some MAGA loser in the primary who is a former Veterinarian turned Right wing Podcaster with the name of Russ McCullough (i pulled the credentials out of my ass) and he will lose absolutely against Baldwin.


u/BaDingbat Jun 10 '23

Tammy will also win because she's a beloved incumbent. This is definitely a safe seat.


u/RileyXY1 Jun 10 '23

Yep. She won by eleven points last time, and of the two Wisconsin Senators she is the much stronger candidate. And after Janet Protasiewicz's strong victory in this year's Supreme Court election it's clear that Wisconsin is abandoning the GOP, and it will only get worse for Wisconsin Republicans once the fair maps come into play for 2024.


u/prailock Wisconsin Jun 10 '23

Janet's election was so decisive that it was called in under an hour. That's insane for a heavily gerrymandered "red" state. She fully cut into every single county by actually campaigning in the rural areas.


u/nykiek Michigan Jun 10 '23

actually campaigning in the rural areas.

This is the Way.

More Dems need to take this note.


u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Tammy Baldwin is a good example of a Midwest progressive who safely has her seat, just like Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Notice that corporate media pundits who obsess over centrist swing voters ignore progressives like Baldwin and Brown. They focus on corporate centrists like Klobuchar or McCaskill instead. It's propaganda.


u/isikorsky Florida Jun 10 '23

Brown & Baldwin are the 12th and 13th most 'liberal' Democrat Senators out of 51. (With the New Mexico Senator who just won a nail biter in the 11th spot)

Think it has more to do with the individual candidates that have a history and name in the state then their position and can actually win their primary.


u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Thanks for confirming Brown and Baldwin are among the most progressive Senators.

I notice that when a progressive loses, the spin is always that their ideology is to blame. But when a progressive wins, there's always some other reason. And when a corporate Democrat loses it's never blamed on their ideology. That's propaganda and confirmation bias.

No matter how many times corporate Democrats lose, no media pundit ever says, "Maybe it was because they followed the agenda of major donors instead of what their constituents wanted."


u/luckyscars Jun 10 '23

Because “progressive” isn’t a set in stone, homogenous ideology.

It’s possible to be very progressive and still be unelectable if the issues on which you choose to take a progressive position on are unpopular (race reparations, for example). Likewise, it is possible to be very progressive and still be electable IF you identify which areas your electoral coalition value progress in and stick to those.

Sherrod Brown is a great example. Sure, he’s very progressive on lots of things…but not on trade. On trade he is almost perfectly in agreement with Trump. He actually voted with Trump’s position about a quarter of the time across the board. Things like that, together with authenticity and likeability, keep him elected in Ohio. It’s not progressivism per se.


u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Brown's position on trade is strongly progressive. Centrist/corporate Democrats like Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA and WTO. Progressive Democrats, even in the 90s, opposed bad trade deals designed to attack workers and the environment. Brown is a good example of how a progressive trade policy appeals to the Midwest and rural areas.

In the case of Trump, it's an example of how running to Hillary's left on a few issues (like trade and opposition to her war-hawkishness) was a winning strategy. It shows that Hillary lost the Midwest because she was too conservative to keep the Obama coalition together. Obama also won in '08 by criticizing NAFTA.

Corporate politicians and pundits spin Brown's trade views as conservative in order to de-legitimize them.


u/luckyscars Jun 10 '23

Nobody is saying Brown is a conservative.

The point is that there isn’t a neat “progressive policy” on an issue like trade. Most people are in favor of good trade deals. Most people are against bad ones.

What is a good trade deal is open to disagreement. Including between “progressives”


u/jackstraw97 New York Jun 10 '23

What are you talking about? Brown’s views on trade are nothing but progressive.


u/Trix_Are_4_90Kids Missouri Jun 10 '23

I never looked at Brown as a progressive.


u/luckyscars Jun 10 '23


u/Trix_Are_4_90Kids Missouri Jun 11 '23

I'm not misinformed. I didn't say he wasn't progressive, I said that I never looked at him as a progressive. In other words, he may be a progressive, but I never looked at him as that. I never put a label on the man.

So busy being defensive, we can't see or hear.


u/luckyscars Jun 11 '23

“Something is actually, factually something, but I did not personally view it as being that thing” is fairly close to the dictionary definition of misinformed.

Don’t take it personally. I’m misinformed about lots of things as well. Just today I found out pee doesn’t actually help soothe jellyfish stings. It’s cool.


u/isikorsky Florida Jun 10 '23

I notice that when a progressive loses, the spin is always that their ideology is to blame. But when a progressive wins, there's always some other reason. And when a corporate Democrat loses it's never blamed on their ideology. That's propaganda and confirmation bias.

I notice when people are trying to sell a narrative, they never actually give facts.

Every race is unique, however, the majority of them depend on three things - money, voter turnout, and name recognition. Ideology is maybe a distant 4th. People have become more focused on the letter next to your name, not the specific policies that would differentiate a 'corporate' vs 'progressive'

Raphael Warnock didn't just win because he is a progressive - he won because he had a shit ton of money, TWO terrible opponents, and he had name recognition as the Senior Pastor at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church and they got people to vote.

Tim Ryan didn't lose because he was a progressive. He lost because Democrats couldn't be bothered to vote and JD Ryan got a huge hand in money from PACs


u/The_Lost_Jedi Washington Jun 11 '23

Tim Ryan also wasn't a progressive, or at least wasn't running as one. He ran as a conservative democrat, which seems to have done him no favors there.

Really, the trick seems to be finding a sweet spot that wins over, or reassures, enough moderate voters and maybe even some rural conservative leaning ones, while also exciting more progressive minded voters. And if you want an example of that, look no further than John Fetterman.


u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

I notice when people are trying to sell a narrative, they never actually give facts.

Yes, like the majority of corporate media pundits and corporate consultants who reinforce confirmation bias by always blaming ideology first whenever a progressive loses. I'm glad you recognize the propaganda.


u/isikorsky Florida Jun 10 '23

corporate media pundits and corporate consultants

'Corporate Democrats' , 'Corporate media pundits', and 'corporate consultants' .. Impressed how many times you got that word in there - almost as good as DeSantis with his 'woke' speech.

Congrats - You are the left version of DeSantis.

Zero facts, silly statements


u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

[removed] — view removed comment


u/isikorsky Florida Jun 10 '23

So you think money has no influence in politics.

So you can't read ?

Every race is unique, however, the majority of them depend on three things - money,

Dude - if you don't want an actual conversation, don't expect people to answer. am done.


u/FridgesArePeopleToo Jun 10 '23

Watching progressives try to claim mainstream Dems as being progressive while calling Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris centrists has been hilarious


u/Able_Impression4206 Jun 10 '23

I'm surprised more republicans haven't jumped ship with all the embarrassing trump politicians.


u/heyitsthephoneguy Jun 10 '23

For every Trump they have, there are 2 Trump 2.0’s right behind ready to make things worse. If Trump goes away by any measure of the word, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ron Desantis are big enough names and equally as offensive and obnoxious, if not worse, than Trump, and are here to never let us forget. This fight doesn’t ever end.


u/r1dogz Jun 10 '23

Honestly at this point this seat is a lock for dems. Any serious GOP candidate who gets into the race now will be so far behind in money.


u/CatAvailable3953 Tennessee Jun 10 '23

After reading some I have realized the progressive and conservative names have lost meaning. There seem to be a bunch of hair on fire right wing lunatics hell bent in destroying our country and then there’s everyone else.


u/Ditka85 Jun 10 '23

Excellent; all we need is Tammy.


u/itsl8erthanyouthink Jun 12 '23

Every Republican should run…right off a damn cliff. Their services are no longer needed. Good riddance.


u/I_am_The_Free_Market Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

Someone call Fiona, we found Frank.

(this was a Shameless joke.)


u/Scary-Rough7543 Jun 11 '23

I’m watching it now and I immediately connected the name and the face 😂


u/Kind_Tradition564 Jun 10 '23

Is she the one that smashes all those melons?


u/Kind_Tradition564 Jun 10 '23

I mean he not she. Pronouns are hard.


u/throw123454321purple Jun 10 '23

Rich Evans, your time has come.


u/cannitt Jun 10 '23

Holy crap, she looks like a Gallagher


u/slapnowski Jun 10 '23

…that’s Baldwin. Her nameplate is in the picture.


u/cannitt Jun 10 '23

Idk, looks more like frank to me