I’ve been reading a lot on Facebook and elsewhere about Chris Taylor and Tammy Baldwin endorsing Hillary Clinton and how they’re “wrong” for endorsing her. While I disagree with their decisions to endorse Clinton, because I don’t believe she’s as progressive as her rhetoric, Taylor, Baldwin, and anyone else is free to endorse Hillary for whatever reasons they see fit.

To be honest, I expected both Chris Taylor and Tammy Baldwin to endorse Hillary Clinton, because she’s the establishment Democratic candidate, and they’re part of the Democratic establishment. The folks who make up the Democratic establishment tend to stick together.

Tagged with:
 

15 Responses to Chris Taylor and Tammy Baldwin endorsed Hillary Clinton. That shouldn’t surprise anyone

  1. John Casper says:

    Zach, thanks.

    Disappointed in Rep. Taylor and Sen. Baldwin. Does the timing suggest this is Sec. Clinton’s response to polls showing her trailing?

    Both Rep. Taylor and Sen. Baldwin could have stayed out of it.

    I hoped Rep. Taylor was a rising star in the Democratic party. Tougher now to trust her.

  2. GuyFromWI says:

    There’s a very concerted effort, especially among female Democratic elected officials to make sure Hillary Clinton is the nominee. These endorsements aren’t a surprise at all.

  3. AJ says:

    I am not really surprised either, I would have been surprised if either one of them made a public endorsement of Bernie Sanders, both Rep. Taylor and Sen. Baldwin are better than most of the establishment when it comes to policy, but Zach is right the establishment sticks together. I can see Sen. Baldwin being on the short list of VP candidates.

    • I don’t see Tammy Baldwin as a VP candidate for Hillary Clinton; I think Clinton will go with someone like Julian Castro who is young, charismatic, has served as an executive, and who’ll give Clinton a legacy.

  4. John Casper says:

    A.J.

    Appreciate your take and agree with most of it.

    WRT Sen. Baldwin as a VP candidate, imho, all Senate Dems are off that list, because they are too crucial in the Senate. AFAIK, if Sen. Baldwin became VP, it would allow Gov. Walker to appoint her replacement. He’d probably appoint Justice Rebecca Bradley.

    With the House so dominated by wing nuts, we absolutely have to control the Senate.

    I’m no expert.

    • AJ says:

      In Wisconsin the Governor does not appoint a replacement to the US Senate, the electorate does, this is how Senator William Proxmire was elected in 1957. Senator Baldwin has a lot of legislative knowledge and would not over shadow the top of the ticket. If losing one Senate seat can cost the majority, the democrats have a lot of other issues, I think winning big at the top of the ticket and hoping for a wave election is the way to go.

      I do not think playing games with the VP goes well, looking back at 2004 the case can be made that had Dick Gephardt been the VP nominee over Edwards it may have been enough to flip a very close election. The Republicans going with Sarah Palin and then Paul Ryan as VP pretty much cost the Republicans those Presidential elections if they had any hope at all.

  5. Dan says:

    I’m curious to see what a Wisconsin win (which is beginning to look likely) will do for Sanders’ momentum, given his recent success out west. Have any of the superdelegates switched? Baldwin is one so I assume she is pledged to Clinton. Is Larson?

    • onevote says:

      Wisconsin has 10 superdelegates for the convention, of which 6 have now already pledged for Clinton.

      Representative Ron Kind is the latest make a pledge, the others being Representative Gwen Moore, Senator Tammy Baldwin, and DNC members Christine Bremer Muggli, Martha Love and Michael Childers.

      Those staying uncommitted before the convention are Representative Mark Pocan, as well as DNC members Martha Laning, David Bowen and Jason Rae.

  6. Duane12 says:

    “The folks who make up the Democratic Establishment tend to stick together.”

    Zach,what do you mean by this? To me, it sounds derogatory, divisive, exclusive, or petty.

    I don’t always agree with our State or National leaders but it’s my party too. And as an EQUAL part of the body politic, Democratic, I have an obligation to voice my approval, disagreement, or whatever without defining them or me as separate or unequal. I, and they, are part of the “Establishment” no more, no less.

    As recent as last month, I had occasion to voice dismay at my errant young brothers and sisters known as”Wisdems” by their dues and collection or accounting efforts As a former CFO and a Credit Union Manager, I was doing them a favor.

    I replied to their solicitation with a note “YOU ARE SO ****** UP!”

    • Dan says:

      But don’t you find it a little off-putting that they have basically rigged the game here? The Democrats spend a lot of time slamming the Republicans on suppressing the vote, and yet their own nomination process makes the voice of the voter largely irrelevant due to these superdelegates.

      I imagine it is especially frustrating for the more liberal minded folks this time as the Republicans are in such disarray with this Trump situation that their chances of winning the general are slim at best.

      • Kraig Swartz says:

        Okay, can we stop with the “Super delegates are subverting democracy” refrain?

        The Super delegates were instituted to decrease the chances of a prolonged and damaging bloodbath on the floor of the convention if no candidate manages to get to the magic number of 2383 in order to clinch the nomination before the convention begins.

        Sanders is behind Clinton pledged delegates by 200. That’s a lot, given that the Democrats award pledged delegates proportionally (As opposed to Winner-Take-All). If Sanders can manage to catch up to Clinton in pledged delegates, her Superdelegates will all start to defect to his column. That’s what happened in 2008. When it became clear that Clinton was never going to be able to catch Obama, all her Superdelegates switched over to him. If Bernie can somehow overcome his deficit (which is even larger than the one Hillary faced eight years ago) all those Superdelegates will switch to him. It’s actually not that sinister of a system.

        • John Casper says:

          Kraig,

          1. Are you folkbum?

          You wrote, “Okay, can we stop with the “Super delegates are subverting democracy” refrain?”

          No.

          You wrote, “The Super delegates were instituted to decrease the chances of a prolonged and damaging bloodbath on the floor of the convention if no candidate manages to get to the magic number of 2383 in order to clinch the nomination before the convention begins.”

          2. Who is the source behind your theory? 2.1 Are there any other theories?

          You wrote, “If Sanders can manage to catch up to Clinton in pledged delegates, her Super(sic)delegates will all start to defect to his column. That’s what happened in 2008. When it became clear that Clinton was never going to be able to catch Obama, all her Super(sic)delegates switched over to him.”

          3. Is what you described, like what just happened in Nevada?

          “While Hillary Clinton appeared to win the Nevada Democratic caucus on February 20, the delegate split turned out to be closer than expected. The breakdown originally gave Clinton 20 delegates while Bernie Sanders had 15.

          In a turn of events, Sanders gained more Nevada delegates on Saturday through Nevada county conventions. Click here for full details on how the delegates flipped to Sanders. The specific delegate results will depend on how many of the elected delegates will show up at the upcoming state convention.”

          http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/updated-latest-democratic-delegate-count-nevada-delegates-numbers-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-dem/

  7. onevote says:

    Party loyalty is certainly needed to win elections, but in primaries for democracy to function our Party needs to avoid agreements like the Hillary Victory Fund. Our DPW was one of 33 states to sign on to this arrangement with the Clinton campaign through the DNC, clearly designed to game the primary process and pressure for Clinton endorsements from future candidates (see http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/).

    To date, the Hillary Victory Fund has raised some $26 million with these states, sending some $207,000 back to our DPW thus far (more than three times what most states received in return). HVC also transfers lots of money to the Hillary for America and Forward Hillary PACs, spends directly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and moves funds into the DNC to use as they see fit.

  8. John Casper says:

    FWIW,

    “Wisconsin Exit Polls
    Surveys of Democratic voters exiting voting locations throughout Wisconsin on Tuesday.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/05/us/elections/wisconsin-democratic-primary-exit-polls.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.