>> WHY DID YOU SUPPORT LIMITING
THE PRESIDENT'S WAR POWERS IN
IRAN?
>> WELL, HONESTLY, THIS HAS BEEN
OVERDUE FROM PROBABLY A FEW
DECADES.
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS
THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
PUTTING OUR COUNTRY INTO A WAR
UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTACK
DIRECTLY AGAINST OUR COUNTRY AND
A FEW OTHER PROVISIONS.
AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE
LAST COUPLE DECADES CONGRESS HAS
GIVEN UP TOO MUCH OF THAT POWER
TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND
PRESIDENTS, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS, HAVE LOOSELY USED
OLD 2001, 2002 AUTHORIZATIONS TO
GO INTO WAR FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
AND IT'S LONG OVERDUE THAT WE
DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
WHAT WE SAW THE PRESIDENT DO
LAST WEEKEND WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE
AN OF SOMEONE NOT COMING TO
CONGRESS AS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO
FOR ADVICE AND CONSENT.
WE JUST NEED TO DO THIS NOT JUST
FOR DONALD TRUMP, BUT FOR ANY
FUTURE PRESIDENT.
WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS AND THAT MEANS
CONGRESS HAS THAT SOLE POWER.
>> REPRESENTATIVE GALLAGHER SAID
IT WILL HAVE THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF UNDERMINING OUR
MILITARY.
WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
>> THAT'S POLITICAL RHETORIC.
I KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS
THAT INVOLVE WAR, WE HAVE TO GET
BEYOND OUR LITTLE WHAT TEAM
WE'RE ON, WHAT PARTY WE'RE ON
AND TALK ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT FOR
THE COUNTRY.
AND IN THIS CASE, IF YOU ARE A
COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT,
CONGRESS, AND CONSTITUTION
EXPLICITLY SAYS IT'S CONGRESS'S
ROLE, WE SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND
RECLAIM THAT ROLE BECAUSE WHAT
WE DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN IS
PRESIDENTS LOOSELY USING OLD
AUTHORIZATIONS TO GO INTO WAR
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE, THAT
2002 AUTHORIZATION TO GO INTO
WAR WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT
SADDAM HUSSAIN IN IRAQ AND IT
WAS THE RATIONALE USED BY THE
PRESIDENT THIS TIME TO DO
SOMETHING IN IRAQ JUST BECAUSE
IT HAD THE WORD IRAQ.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED BY
CONGRESS BACK IN 2002.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO, AGAIN, AS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IS
GIVEN TO CONGRESS, TAKE THAT
BACK SO THAT ANY PRESIDENT,
DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN,
UNDERSTANDS THEY HAVE TO COME
BEFORE CONGRESS IN ORDER TO DO
THAT.
>> WELL, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON
THE ASSASSINATION OF GENERAL
SOLEIMANI?
>> WELL, AGAIN, I THINK ONE OF
THE TROUBLING THINGS WE HAD, WE
HAD A CLASSIFIED BRIEFING THIS
WEEK.
ALSO I WENT INTO A CLASSIFIED
SETTING AND READ THE PRESIDENT'S
TWO-PAGE REASONS WHY WE DID
THIS.
THE PROBLEM IS -- AND IT'S NOT
JUST COMING FROM ME, BUT IT'S
COMING FROM REPUBLICANS IN THE
SENATE AND OTHERS, THEY DIDN'T
GIVE US ANY JUSTIFICATION.
IT WAS SAID WE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE
OR WHEN, BUT IT WAS IMMINENT.
IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS
ACTUALLY FACTUAL.
EVERY TIME WE ASKED, WELL, WHAT
WAS THE IMMINENT WARNING?
WELL, IT WAS IMMINENT.
WHAT WAS IMMINENT?
IT WAS A WARNING.
WE NEED HARD FACTS TO KNOW IF
IT'S SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT HAD
TO DO OR DID HE HAVE THE TIME TO
COME TO CONGRESS AND DO IT.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT
ASSASSINATION HAS BEEN
CONSIDERED BY PREVIOUS
PRESIDENTS WHO DID NOT DO IT
BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES ARE
SEVERE.
WE DID GET SOME BACKGROUND WHAT
THOSE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE
ACCORDING TO THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY AND IT WAS A BAD
ASSESSMENT WITHOUT A REAL
IMMINENT REASON.
THAT'S WHY I THINK AGAIN
CONGRESS NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND IS
THE COEQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS.
IT'S ABOUT BEING AMERICANS.
WE NEED TO RECLAIM THAT
AUTHORITY PER THE CONSTITUTION
THAT CONGRESS HAS.
AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE
SOME OTHER MEASURES COMING IN
THE COMING WEEKS THAT ARE ALSO
GOING TO DO THAT.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
SOMETHING THAT SAYS NO FUNDS CAN
GO TOWARDS WAR WITH IRAN AND SEE
SOMETHING REPEALING THAT 2002
ITEM, SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE
DONE A LONG ITEM AGO.
>> WHERE DO YOU THINK THIS U.S.
MILITARY ACTION AND REVENGE FOR
IT LEAVES OUR PEOPLE?
>> WE ARE WITHOUT A DOUBTLESS
SAFE TODAY THAN WE WERE A WEEK
AGO.
BECAUSE BY DOING SOMETHING THAT
IS ESSENTIALLY ASSASSINATING THE
NUMBER TWO PERSON OF A COUNTRY
THAT HAS THE EIGHTH LARGEST
MILITARY ON THE PLANET, THAT IS
NOT A GOOD IDEA UNLESS YOU HAD
SOME REAL REASON.
AND SINCE WE HAVE NOT SEEN A
REAL REASON, IT PUTS US AT
GREATER RISK.
EVEN THOUGH WE SAW ONE REACTION
FROM IRAN, WHAT WE THINK IS
GOING TO HAPPEN IS THERE'S GOING
TO BE MORE SURROGATE REACTIONS
THAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE WEEKS
TO COME THAT MAKE THE REGION
LESS SAFE.
THAT IS A BAD THING.
IF WE EVER HAVE TO CONSIDER
SENDING MEN AND WOMEN FROM THE
UNITED STATES OVER TO THE
MIDEAST, THAT HAS TO BE A VERY
THOUGHTFUL DECISION.
THE PRESIDENT PROMISED HE WAS
GOING TO END ENDLESS WARS, BRING
TROOPS HOME, BUT RIGHT NOW WE
HAVE 15,000 MORE TROOPS IN THE
MIDEAST THAN WE DID SIX MONTHS
AGO AND THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR
PEACE.
>> JUST VERY BRIEFLY AS WE CLOSE
THIS OUT, ALL OF THIS SAID, I
TRUST DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE
DEFENDING SOLEIMANI?
>> NO.
NO ONE IS.
IN FACT, TODAY REPUBLICANS ARE
STARTING TO APOLOGIZE FOR THEIR
RHETORIC OF THE WEEK THAT THEY
SAID PEOPLE WERE STANDING IN THE
AYATOLLAH.
THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS YOU DON'T
PUT THE BLUE OR RED CAP ON.
YOU SAID WHAT IS IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF PEACE IN THE MIDDLE
EAST AND NOT HAVING TO SEND
AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS.
RIGHT NOW IT IS BY HAVING
DEESCALATION, HAVING DIPLOMACY
AND I'M HOPING THAT'S WHAT WE'LL
DO MOVING FORWARD.
>> ALL RIGHT.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK POCAN,
THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> YEAH.
THANK YOU, FREDERICA.
>> NOW BACK TO 2020 ELECTION
COVERAGE OF THE STATE SUPREME
COURT RACE.
IN TONIGHT'S CLOSER LOOK, WE
CONTINUE OUR INTERVIEWS WITH THE
CANDIDATES RUNNING IN THE
FEBRUARY 18 PRIMARY RACE FOR THE
HIGH COURT.
LAST WEEK, WE SPOKE WITH
INCUMBENT JUSTICE DANIEL KELLY.
NEXT WEEK JILL KAROFSKY WILL BE
HERE.
TONIGHT, A CONVERSATION WITH ED
FALLONE WHO BEGAN HIS CAREER IN
PRIVATE LAW PRACTICE IN
WASHINGTON D.C.
HE'S BEEN ON THE FACULTY OF THE
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS.
ED FALLONE JOINS US TONIGHT FROM
MILWAUKEE AND THANKS VERY MUCH
FOR BEING HERE.
>> PLEASURE TO BE HERE,
FREDERICA.
>> WELL, WHY ARE YOU RUNNING FOR
THE STATE SUPREME COURT?
>> OH, WELL, I TELL YOU, YOU
MENTION I RAN FOR THE COURT IN
2013.
AT THAT TIME I WAS TALKING ABOUT
THE DYSFUNCTION IN THE COURT,
THE FACT THAT WE HAD ONE JUSTICE
PHYSICALLY ASSAULT ANOTHER
JUSTICE, AND I SAID IT WAS TIME
TO END THE DYSFUNCTION AND GET
THE COURT WORKING TOGETHER.
AND AS I'VE WATCHED SINCE THEN,
AS WE GET TO NOW 2020, IF
ANYTHING, THE COURT IS MORE
DIVIDED.
IT SEEMS THEY DON'T TALK TO EACH
OTHER.
AND I THINK WE MORE THAN EVER
NEED TO REFORM THE COURT AND
MAKE A CHANGE.
>> HOW DO YOU REFORM THE COURT
TO FIX WHAT YOU DESCRIBED THEN
AND SAY PERSISTS AS DYSFUNCTION?
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED A
WIDER DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCE
AND A WIDER DIVERSITY OF LEGAL
PERSPECTIVES ON THE COURT.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE WORK
OF THE COURT AND MAKE IT BETTER,
YOU BRING MORE VIEWPOINTS, MORE
PERSPECTIVE.
AND SO WHAT I BRING IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR,
SOMEONE WHO'S AN EXPERIENCED
CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER AND
SOMEONE WHO'S WORKED AS A
COMMUNITY ADVOCATE IN
COMMUNITY-BASED GROUPS PROVIDING
LAWYERS TO WORKING FAMILIES AND
TRY AND GET MORE PERSPECTIVE SO
WE CAN GET THE COMMUNICATION
GOING AND BUILD CONSENSUS.
JUST ELECTING MORE OF THE SAME
JUDGES WITH NARROW PERSPECTIVES
IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR
SYSTEM.
>> YOU ALSO SAID SEVEN YEARS
THAT IT IS A MISTAKE TO INJECT
POLITICS INTO JUDICIAL RACES AND
YET TODAY THE IDEA THAT SUPREME
COURT ELECTIONS ARE NONPARTISAN
IS LARGELY IN NAME ONLY.
YOU ARE ENDORSED BY THE
MILWAUKEE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
WHY SHOULDN'T CITIZENS BELIEVE
THAT RESULTS IN PARTISAN,
FOREGONE DECISIONS?
>> WELL, FIRST LET ME CORRECT
YOU.
I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE BEEN
ENDORSED BY THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY
DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IF IT HAPPENED, IT WAS NEWS TO
ME.
I AM RUNNING A NONPARTISAN
CAMPAIGN.
IN FACT, I'M THE ONLY CANDIDATE
WHO'S TRYING TO KEEP POLITICS
OUT OF THIS RACE.
WE HAVE OUR INCUMBENT, DANIEL
KELLY, WHO YOU INTERVIEWED LAST
WEEK.
HE'S LOCATED HIS CAMPAIGN
HEADQUARTERS IN THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY HEADQUARTERS.
HE'S AN EMBRACED HIS POLITICAL
AFFILIATION.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
WE SEE PARTISAN ATTACKS BEING
MADE BY OTHER CANDIDATES THAT
REALLY POISON THE WATERS AND
PREVENT ANY SORT OF COOPERATION
OR CONSENSUS-BUILDING.
MY CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN TO MAKE AN
AFFIRMATIVE CASE FOR MY
EXPERIENCE AS A LAW PROFESSOR,
MY EXPERIENCE STANDING SHOULDER
TO SHOULDER WITH WORKING
FAMILIES WHO HAVE LEGAL PROBLEMS
AND TRYING TO HELP THEM GET
LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
AND MY EXPERIENCE IN THE LATINO
COMMUNITY.
I WOULD BE THE FIRST LATINO
JUSTICE ON OUR STATE SUPREME
COURT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES
OF OUR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES IN
THE STATE AND HAVE BEEN WORKING
FOR OVER 25 YEARS TO TRY AND
HELP AND GIVE BACK TO THAT
COMMUNITY.
SO I'M MAKING AN AFFIRMATIVE
CASE BASED ON MY QUALIFICATIONS.
I AM NOT ENGAGING PARTISAN
ATTACKS.
>> DO YOU FEEL AS THOUGH ANY
RECENT DECISIONS FROM OUR HIGH
COURT HAVE BEEN POLITICAL?
>> OH, I THINK SO.
I THINK WE SEE SOME VERY
TROUBLING TRENDS.
WE'VE SEEN OPINIONS IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS WHERE CERTAIN JUSTICES
ON THE COURT MAKE NOTICE OF THE
POLITICAL AFFILIATION OF THE
PARTIES IN THE CASE, WHICH IS
NEVER RELEVANT TO DECIDING A
LEGAL QUESTION.
AND WE SEE INSTANCES WHERE THE
COURTS -- THE JUSTICES SOMETIMES
DON'T EVEN SEEM TO TALK TO EACH
OTHER.
ONE BLOCK IS TALKING TO ITSELF,
WRITING ITS OWN OPINION.
THE OTHER BLOCK IS DISSENTING.
AND I DON'T SEE ANY EFFORT, ANY
EFFORT REALLY TO REACH ACROSS
THE DIVIDE AND TRY AND FIND
CONSENSUS IN THE MIDDLE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I FIND
TROUBLING.
BECAUSE THE COURT BELONGS TO ALL
OF US IN WISCONSIN.
IT WORKS FOR ALL OF US.
AND IT'S SELF-INDULGENT FOR THE
JUSTICES TO JUST VIEW IT AS
THEIR OWN PARTISAN FIGHT TO
EXPRESS THEIR OWN PARTISAN
VIEWS.
>> WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON
WHETHER RECUSAL RULES SHOULD BE
TIGHTER?
>> WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE
BEEN VERY CONSISTENT ON.
WHEN I RAN IN 2013, IT WAS ONE
OF MY MAJOR CAMPAIGN PLATFORMS
AND IT CONTINUES TO BE.
IT'S JUST THIS SIMPLE.
WE HAVE A CURRENT COURT RULE
THAT ALLOWS JUSTICES TO SIT ON
CASES AND DECIDE CASES WHEN A
MAJOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR IS
ONE OF THE PARTIES IN THE CASE.
AND THAT'S JUST WRONG, BECAUSE
IF SOMEONE LOSES IN A LAWSUIT AT
OUR STATE SUPREME COURT OR
ANYWHERE AND THEY WALK AWAY FROM
THE COURTROOM WITHOUT KNOWING
WHETHER THEY LOST ON THE MERITS
OR THEY LOST BECAUSE THEIR
OPPONENT HAD MADE SIGNIFICANT
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
JUDGE, THAT UNDERMINES OUR
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT RULE AND
THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE
CONSISTENTLY ARGUED FOR AS A
CANNED EIGHT AND EVEN IN WORKING
WITH COMMON CAUSE WISCONSIN AND
OTHER GROUPS ADVOCATING FOR
CHANGE SINCE THEN.
>> DANIEL KELLY SAYS HE ONLY
APPLIES THE LAW IN CASES AND
DOESN'T, QUOTE, LEGISLATE FROM
THE BENCH.
HOW WOULD YOU VIEW YOUR ROLE AS
A JUSTICE?
>> WELL, FIRST O I WOULD
COMPLETELY TAKE ISSUE WITH
JUSTICE KELLY'S SELF-SERVING
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HE DOES.
IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT HE HAS AN
AGENDA ON THE BENCH.
THIS IS SOMEONE WHO ATTENDED THE
CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, A LAW
SCHOOL THAT WAS FOUNDED WITH THE
PURPOSE OF ADVOCATING A BIBLICAL
INTERPRETATION OF OUR
CONSTITUTION.
IT'S SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTED
REPUBLICAN OFFICE HOLDERS AND
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN HIS
LEGAL PRACTICE.
HE'S SOMEONE WHO HIS WHOLE LEGAL
CAREER HAS ADVOCATED FOR AN
AGENDA.
SO IF THERE IS SUCH A THING AS
AN ACTIVIST ON THE RIGHT,
CERTAINLY JUSTICE KELLY FITS
THAT DEFINITION.
I HAVE BEEN PRINCIPLED.
I HAVE STOOD FOR THINGS LIKE
RIGHTING FOR EQUAL PROTECTION
UNDER THE LAW, FIGHTING FOR FREE
SPEECH UNDER THE LAW.
BUT THESE ARE PRINCIPLES THAT
ARE GROUNDED IN OUR
CONSTITUTION.
THEY'RE THE SAME EXACT
PRINCIPLES I'LL FIGHT FOR WHEN I
TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE ON THE
BENCH.
>> ED FALLONE, THANKS VERY MUCH
FOR JOINING US.
>> MY PLEASURE.
IN IN FACT, A QUICK RECHECK
SHOWS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF
MILWAUKEE COUNTY ITSELF DID NOT
ENDORSE, BUT PEOPLE LISTING
THEIR AFFILIATION WITH THE PARTY
HAVE DONE SO.
NEXT WEEK, CANDIDATE JILL
KAROFSKY WILL JOIN US.
FOR SOME ELECTION YEAR
FORESIGHT, WE NOW TURN TO OUR
POLITICAL PANELISTS SCOT ROSS
AND BILL MCCOSHEN.
IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR 2020
PREDICTIONS AND THAT'S WHAT WE
ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE TONIGHT.
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
>> HAPPY NEW YEAR.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING US.
>> WE START WITH YOU, BILL.
YOUR FIRST ONE IS THAT HOUSE
DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE 14 SEATS AND
COME BACK WITH A SLIM,
UNMANAGEABLE MAJORITY, 2018, IN
2021.
SO WHY DO YOU THINK THAT?
>> THAT'S AS OF TODAY.
THAT COULD CHANGE.
THERE'S 232 DEMOCRATS, 198
REPUBLICANS, ONE INDEPENDENT AND
FOUR VACANCIES INCLUDING THE
WISCONSIN 7TH DISTRICT WHICH
WON'T GET DECIDED UNTIL MAY.
NANCY PELOSI WILL LIKELY KEEP
HER MAJORITY, BUT BY THE
SLIMMEST OF MARGINS.
32 DEMOCRATS ARE IN SEATS THAT
DONALD TRUMP WON.
AT LEAST HALF OF THOSE WILL FLIP
BACK TO THE REPUBLICANS.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
>> I THINK THAT DEMOCRATS AND
INDEPENDENTS LITERALLY RAN TO
THE POLLS IN 2018 TO REJECT
DONALD TRUMP.
IT'S GOING TO BE EVEN MORE
DISTINCT.
I THINK THEY GROW THE MAJORITY.
>> WELL, I GUESS IT'S A
PREDICTION AND WE'LL SEE, RIGHT?
LET'S GO TO YOURS, SCOTT.
YOU SAY THAT THE DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WILL WIN
WISCONSIN'S TEN ELECTORAL VOTES,
LEADING TO A DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT JANUARY 20, 2021.
>> YES.
THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WILL BE
A BETTER CANDIDATE AND HUMAN
BEING THAN THE RACIST, SEXIST
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE PUT UP.
HIGHER WAGES, BETTER HEALTH
CARE, STUDENT LOAN REFORM,
ENDING THE TAX CUTS THAT HAVE
GIVEN COMPANIES LIKE IBM,
NETFLIX AND OTHERS HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX
BREAKS WHEN THEY'RE MAKING --
AMAZON, $11 BILLION IN PROFIT.
IT GOT $129 MILLION BACK AS A
RESULT OF THE TRUMP TAX CUTS.
THE THIRD REASON IS BECAUSE
DEMOCRATS ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE
WISCONSIN FOR GRANTED THIS TIME.
THEY'RE ALREADY DOING
COMMUNICATIONS, ATTACKING TRUMP
ON A DAILY BASIS IN THE LOCAL
AND STATE MEDIA, IN DIGITAL AND
AT THE DOORS.
THAT'S GOING TO BE THE KEY.
WISCONSIN WILL BE A DEMOCRATIC
STATE IN 2020.
>> TRUMP WINS WISCONSIN.
HE TAKES THE TEN ELECTORAL
VOTES.
DEMOCRATS ARE WELL ON THEIR WAY
TO NOMINATING SOMEONE WHO WILL
KEEP A PORTION OF THEIR PARTY
HOME JUST LIKE HILLARY CLINTON
DID.
JOE BIDEN.
THE PROGRESSIVES WON'T COME OUT
FOR HIM.
HE'S LIKELY TO BE THEIR NOMINEE.
>> I DID NOT REALIZE YOU WERE
THE AOC WHISPERER.
>> ALL RIGHT.
LET'S MOVE TO STATE POLITICAL
PREDICTIONS.
HERE IS BILL MCCOSHEN'S.
THE GOP WILL WIN THREE SEATS AND
COME BACK WITH A RECORD 21
SEATS.
SO THESE ARE ALL INTERESTING
DISTRICTS.
>> RIGHT.
>> YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT
JENNIFER SCHILLING GOES DOWN.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE OTHER
TWO.
THE 10TH DISTRICT HAS BEEN
REPUBLICAN FOR A LONG TIME,
SHEILA HARSDORF, HER BROTHER JIM
BEFORE THAT.
THIS HAS BEEN A REPUBLICAN SEAT
THAT PATTI SCHACHTNER WON DURING
THE
THOSE YEARS.
THAT IS A REPUBLICAN SEAT.
53% ON AVERAGE REPUBLICAN SEAT.
SO JUST NORMAL PERFORMANCE WOULD
PUT A REPUBLICAN BACK IN THAT
SEAT.
THAT WOULD PUT REPUBLICANS AT
20.
THE OTHER ONE I THINK THEY CAN
GET IS NOW DAVE HANSON'S SEAT,
THE 30TH IN GREEN BAY.
DONALD TRUMP GOT 52, SCOTT
WALKER GOT 52.
VUKMIR GOT 48%.
THAT SEAT IS ABOUT A 51%.
HANSON ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK HE'S
RETIRING.
HE'S A STRONG CANDIDATE, THE
FAVORITE TO GET REELECTED.
THAT GIVES REPUBLICANS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THEIR 21ST
SEAT, WHICH WOULD BE THEIR
LARGEST SENATE MAJORITY IN 50
YEARS.
>> WHAT ABOUT JENNIFER
SCHILLING'S DISTRICT?
>> THAT'S A TOUGHER ONE.
TRUMP DOES WELL ALONG WESTERN
WISCONSIN.
IT'S LIKELY RON KIND WILL BE
TARGETED AGAIN.
IF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PUTS THE
RESOURCES IN THAT DISTRICT, THEN
THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT THAT
SEAT COULD BE COMPETITIVE AGAIN.
LAST TIME SHE WON BY LESS THAN
2,000 VOTES.
>> RON KIND DIDN'T HAVE AN
OPPONENT LAST TIME.
IF HE PUTS $3 MILLION ON TF V TV UP
THERE, IT'S GOING TO BE BAD NEWS
FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
THE SECOND THING IS, LISTEN,
PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THE
DYSFUNCTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT
AND IT'S BECAUSE OF ROBIN VOS
AND SCOTT FITZGERALD.
THAT'S WHY THERE WAS HOMEWORK ON
CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR.
YOU ACT LIKE A CHILD, THEY'RE
GOING TO TREAT YOU YOU LIKE A
CHILD.
>> YOUR LAST PREDICTION IS AS A
RESULT OF ALL THE ATTENTION IN
MILWAUKEE OF THE DNC CONVENTION
THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MOVE
THERE AFTER THEY SEE MILWAUKEE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
15,000 VOLUNTEERS ARE BEING PUT
TOGETHER TO SUPPORT AND PROMOTE
TO THE WORLD HOW GREAT MILWAUKEE
IS.
THERE IS THIS INCREDIBLE
OPPORTUNITY TO BRING PEOPLE
TOGETHER THAT'S GOING TO LAST
LONG BEYOND THE CONVENTION AND
WE ARE GOING TO DEFINITELY HAVE
-- MILWAUKEE'S GOING TO SHINE.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME
THERE.
BUILD IT AND THEY'RE GOING TO
STAY.
>> BILL AND SCOTT, THANKS VERY
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEW WISCONSIN FLU STATISTICS
WERE RELEASED THIS AFTERNOON.
CASE NUMBERS THAT CONCERN
OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES.
TODAY'S INFLUENZA STATUS REPORT
SHOWS 962 TOTAL DIAGNOSED CASES
OF FLU SINCE OCTOBER.
THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF 622
HOSPITALIZATIONS FOR THE FLU.
15 WISCONSINITES HAVE DIED THIS
SEASON DUE TO FLU-RELATED
ILLNESSES.
TOM HAUPT PUT THESE NUMBERS IN
PERSPECTIVE IN OUR INTERVIEW ON
NOON WEDNESDAY.
>> WELL, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY
HIGHER THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR AT
THIS TIME.
ONE BIG DIFFERENCE THAT WE'VE
SEEN THIS YEAR IS THE
HOSPITALIZATIONS HAVE BEEN
AFFECTING THE YOUNGER
POPULATION.
OUR HIGHER NUMBER IS BETWEEN 18
AND 49-YEAR-OLD RANGE COMPARED
TO PREVIOUS YEARS.
WE ARE SEEING A HIGHER INCIDENCE
OF OUTPATIENT INFLUENZA-LIKE
ILLNESSES AS WELL COMPARED TO
PREVIOUS YEARS.
>> TODAY'S HEALTH SERVICES
UPDATE REPORTS THE STATE'S FIRST
PEDIATRIC DEATH DUE TO THE FLU.
THAT IS ALL FOR TONIGHT'S
PROGRAM.
NEXT WEEK STATE SUPREME COURT
CANDIDATE JILL KAROFSKY WILL BE
HERE.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.
>> FOR MORE "HERE AND NOW" 2020
ELECTION COVERAGE GO TO PBS.ORG
AND CLICK ON NEWS.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.