Has DPW Chair Martha Laning flip-flopped on who she’ll give her superdelegate vote to?

From the files of, “The more things change, the more they stay the same,” it appears Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Martha Laning has flip-flopped on who she’ll give her superdelegate vote to at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.


Related Articles

9 thoughts on “Has DPW Chair Martha Laning flip-flopped on who she’ll give her superdelegate vote to?

  1. Zach, thanks.

    This is why I don’t send DPW a cent. I hope those who do will register their concern.

    1. I still think it is important to be a member so that our voices are heard and to grow and gain a better dpw. I have stopped giving extra donations though because I am just not seeing what the dpw’s goals and priorities are. Martha Laning and the rest of the super delegates that are not supporting the winner of the state primary show just how they are not in tune with the Wisconsin voters. I am just baffled when I see people in the inner dpw apparatus bashing Senator Sanders and his supporters for Kloppenburg not winning. The simple fact is had Senator Sanders not been in this race and his supporters hadd not shown up Kloppenburg would have lost nearly half her total vote.

      1. Thanks, AJ.

        State Representative and superdelegate David Bowen has now endorsed Sanders (see http://elections.wispolitics.com/2016/04/bowen-first-wisconsin-superdelegate-to.html). This is encouraging, as we all know that Sanders voters were very much a part of those that voted for Kloppenburg to win the State Supreme Court election.

        Sanders won 71 0f 72 Wisconsin counties, all except for Milwaukee County. Seems like quite a disconnect on leadership’s part, and for the sake of the Party maybe they should give up their blaming of Sanders when things don’t go well and might reflect on them.

        1. Of course it’s true their was an undervote by Sanders supporters for Kloppenburg, but he had a lot of first time voters that came out to support him and the Supreme Court race is non partisan in addition to not a lot of information on Kloppenburg and why Kloppenburg would be a better justice than Bradley. Anyone looking over the results has a high level of political engagement, the question is how to get people engaged that are not as involved. We should be running a go all the way on election day campaign that has been effective in the past in Wisconsin particularly with young people.

  2. So let’s work to have the winner of the state be the presumptive nominee. Problem solved. 🙂

    But this definitely puts Lanning and Baldwin (who is saying the same thing for her girl Hillary) on notice.

    1. The other problem with the DPW and the DNC is that they both get involved in taking primaries, most notably this presidential election. Their focus should be on winning general elections.

      1. “Their focus should be on winning general elections.”

        Exactly! There are some who would engage in phony arguments and suggestive threats if they don’t get their political way.

        But Blogging Blue under the leadership of Zach does not in my opinion.

    1. GFW,

      Appreciate the link.

      Makes some interesting and valuable points. FWIW, I support Sen. Sanders.

      On balance, however, I found the analysis lacking. I didn’t not do a close read, didn’t read the links. Perhaps I’m wrong, missed some stuff?

      Judge Kloppenburg lost for the same reason so many judicial candidates have lost, the falsely elites smeared her as soft on crime. The identical Fourth Amendment protections they used against the John Doe, are what they want denied to everyone else.

      I don’t think One Wisconsin Now’s reporting on Justice R. Bradley’s Marquette writings had anything to do with the loss. It was important information to get out about her. IMHO wing nuts successfully used their control of the media to paint Justice R. Bradley as the victim, but I don’t see what else progressives could have done.

      What really helped Justice R. Bradley was the lack of coverage of her admitting being a felon.

      Justice Rebecca Bradley’s an admitted felon.
      “Bradley, now a state Supreme Court justice and candidate for a full term, responded in a January 2005 affidavit that she could remain on the case.
      “At one time I had a romantic relationship with (Bednall), which we both believed might result in marriage. We broke off that relationship in November 2002, although we have continued to date on a nonexclusive basis since that time,” wrote Bradley, who was divorced in 2004.”


      Adultery’s a felony in Wisconsin.

      Per her campaign site, Justice Rebecca Bradley’s a hypocrite in the footsteps of Jim and Tammy-Faye Bakker.

      “The people of Wisconsin are best served by justices who understand and embrace their duty to state what the law is, not what they prefer it to be.”


      When a Wisconsin law doesn’t appeal to her, she ignored it.

      That was what Wisconsin voters needed to know about their new Supreme Court justice.

      Why didn’t Scott lead with that in his analysis?

Comments are closed.