Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

> Perhaps it’s the local summer diet of deep-fried cheese curds, corn on the cob, and Spotted Cow, but Wisconsin residents have been feeling pretty dyspeptic about Flock’s automated license plate cameras.

Or... perhaps it's because Wisconsin is a hotbed of progressive politics? Especially in the Madison area.

Wisconsin is a "purple" state, but that's somewhat misleading, because the people aren't generally "centrist". Rather, the state is deeply divided between left wing and right wing, as evidenced by Wisconsin's polar opposite Senators Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson.

View on HN

It’s not as uninteresting as you imply. There’s also a strong union-blue presence (also seen on the south side of Chicago), where there are swaths of blue collar union workers who vote blue due to financial progressivism rather than social progressivism. You’ll find pockets of people who have no problem pulling out racial slurs but also voted for Kamala.

There’s also what I call the “Janesville conservative”, or people who likely worked or know someone who worked for Scott Walker and/or Paul Ryan. Their politics are much more conservative coastal elite / country club rather rural / pastoral.

> It’s not as uninteresting as you imply.

Uninteresting?

> There’s also a strong union-blue presence

The largest number of union members in Wisconsin may be government workers. (Incidentally, the outgoing Governor was originally a public school teacher.)

> people who likely worked or know someone who worked for Scott Walker and/or Paul Ryan.

What do you mean by "worked for"? If you meant that literally, it wouldn't be an electorally significant number of people.

WRT "uninteresting", this phrasing I found reductive to the rather interesting political dynamics in Wisconsin:

> Wisconsin is a "purple" state, but that's somewhat misleading, because the people aren't generally "centrist". Rather, the state is deeply divided between left wing and right wing, as evidenced by Wisconsin's polar opposite Senators Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson.

WRT union-blue presence, I'm speaking from a position of firsthand experience: friends and family who are union-blue and not public sector workers. Paper mill workers and railroaders, specifically.

WRT "worked for", you'll notice my full phrasing included "or know someone who worked for". Janesville is not a sprawling metropolis and most people know most people. Paul Ryan and Scott Walker have deep connections with the south-central part of the state, which has a thick flavor of coastal / country club elite that is not found elsewhere in Wisconsin. Ryan and Walker's success in Wisconsin is interesting given how much they were not rural yokels and would stick out like a sore thumb in most taverns north of the conifer line. Ron Johnson was part of that same anti-Obama political wave, but he's maintained his presence by embracing MAGA in a way that Ryan and Walker never did.

There is some centrism in there, especially if you consider that MAGA is further right than the Tea Party, and have probably successfully shifted the Overton window.

> WRT union-blue presence, I'm speaking from a position of firsthand experience: friends and family who are union-blue and not public sector workers. Paper mill workers and railroaders, specifically.

I'm certainly not denying their existence, but their political potency is another matter.

> Janesville is not a sprawling metropolis and most people know most people.

That's ridiculous. I've lived in smaller cities than Janesville, live in one now, and most people do not in fact know most people. I don't even know most of the people who live in my building.

> Ryan and Walker's success in Wisconsin is interesting given how much they were not rural yokels and would stick out like a sore thumb in most taverns north of the conifer line.

This is true of most politicians, indeed Trump himself. Politicians are not "average" people.

> There is some centrism in there, especially if you consider that MAGA is further right than the Tea Party, and have probably successfully shifted the Overton window.

I put "centrist" in quotes specifically because I think the line theory of politics is bunk, the idea that political views can be put on a line of left-center-right or liberal-moderate-conservative. The elections of Trump should have completely refuted that theory, but it somehow survives in reality denial form. Anyway, I don't think the Tea Party was ever centrist.

Idk man I think you're just going to argue point-by-point literally anything I write. I'm pointing out, as someone very familiar with Wisconsin, that coming onto this forum and making claims about the state that reduces its political dynamics to "deeply divided between left wing and right wing" is silly.

> I think you're just going to argue point-by-point literally anything I write.

What's wrong with arguing point by point?

> I'm pointing out, as someone very familiar with Wisconsin, that coming onto this forum and making claims about the state

I would point out that I live in Wisconsin and have lived in Wisconsin for more than 30 years. You?

> reduces its political dynamics to "deeply divided between left wing and right wing"

I don't think "reduces" is a fair characterization. My point is that although Wisconsin is a "swing" state, it often swings quite wildly, again evidenced by its two Senators for example, so purple does not imply centrist or moderate, and the superficial appearance of Wisconsin election results does not preclude it from being a hotbed of progressive politics (and/or the opposite of progressive politics).

>Or... perhaps it's because Wisconsin is a hotbed of progressive politics? Especially in the Madison area.

Ah, yes, Wisconsin. Famously more progressive than the bordering states of Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois (I'll give you Iowa).

Attitudes on surveillance follow economics more than anything else.

> Ah, yes, Wisconsin. Famously more progressive than the bordering states of Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois

Wisconsin actually is famously progressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Progressive_Party

"Milwaukee is a city where socialists have found success to a greater extent than any other U.S. city" https://uwm.edu/lib-collections/mke-socialism/

https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/wisconsin/

Do you believe that this somehow contradicts my point? You show an election result with a very small margin, less than 1%. I said in my original comment that Wisconsin is a purple state, "deeply divided between left wing and right wing, as evidenced by Wisconsin's polar opposite Senators Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson."

Wisconsin is a hotbed of progressive politics. It's also a hotbed of regressive politics. Nowadays the urban/rural difference tends to be very stark.

Just because one side calls themselves Progressive, doesn't make the other side regressive.

What do you mean by "hotbed", then? Do you just mean, "there exists a party with that alignment?" What state is not a "hotbed of progressive politics" by this interpretation?

> What do you mean by "hotbed", then? Do you just mean, "there exists a party with that alignment?"

No, I mean very active and influential, achieving real, significant political results. The submitted article is about how they've achieved results, not only fighting Flock but winning and getting rid of Flock.

My links about the history of Wisconsin progressivism show that they were winning elections.

>The submitted article is about how they've achieved results

"They" meaning just Wisconsinites. The only political point I can find with a quick skim of the article is

>“There are well-documented concerns about how this company operates and uses its technology to violate people’s Fourth Amendment rights [against unreasonable searches],”

which is not what I would call a progressive political stance. If anything, it's conservative in the literal sense, of maintaining existing political institutions in their present state. It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.

I think you're missing the point. A "stance" is passive. I'm talking about activism, grassroots organizing, protests, political action. That's why I called it a "hotbed". A stance must be pushed forcefully to overturn the status quo.

> It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.

> which is not what I would call a progressive political stance. If anything, it's conservative in the literal sense, of maintaining existing political institutions in their present state. It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.

1) The word "progressive" has multiple meanings. Your overly "literal" interpretation is not particularly useful in the political context.

2) The Flock cameras were already in place, so getting them removed is "progressive" even under your odd interpretation. But I don't even want to argue semantics. That seems like a silly argument to me.

Bernie was probably the most popular presidential candidate in Michigan during the 2016 and 2020 elections. They also have legal weed, despite the local republicans doing everything possible to stop it and sabotage it. Doesn't seem that bad to me.

How many right wingers will be left now support for Trump is crumbling?

All of them I'd reckon. I don't imagine they'll suddenly become liberals, they'll just follow the next leader in the cult of personality.

Right vs left wing is a silly idea. What does my position on health care have to do with my position on defense? Now consider the above question, but substitution any two of the thousands of different things the government does. At best the two are a loose alignment, but there is no unity.

Support for Trump is not crumbling. His base still supports him. What is crumbling is the alliance of "right wing" people who never really liked/supported Trump, but were willing to accept him for the alliance. This is enough to turn the next election, but the "right wing" (again, whatever that is...) is still there and mostly hasn't change positions.

>What does my position on health care have to do with my position on defense?

Plenty if you're in charge of allocating finite resources. Look up "guns vs butter"

You so completely lost my point that I can't even figure out how you got to your reply from mine (after reading both again), much less how to get you back on track. I know I'm not the best writer, but I didn't think I'm that bad.

I'm only responding at all in hopes that someone can help me understand the confusion and perhaps explain things in a way you can understand.

I remember similar things said 6 months before the 2024 election

However unpopular Trump is he still has a double digit lead over how unpopular the Democratic Party is.

The explanation there seems pretty obvious. Simplified:

Trump's disapproval is all Democrats.

DNC's disapproval is all Republicans plus many/most Democrats (for not opposing Trump hard enough).

Well and leftist voters don't like neoliberals that seemingly sit around finding knew ways to jerk off corporations while pretending they are doing it for the working class.

I would really disagree that opposing Trump hard enough is the reason. It’s probably the opposite, the entire party has become “oppose Trump” and has treated that like a platform instead of doing things actual voters want.

More than enough to give the next one who isn't a deranged madman their full support

Reply on news.ycombinator.com