Trump’s EPA Budget: A Broadside Attack on the Great Lakes

Throughout the first few months of the Trump presidency, the president’s first proposed budget has developed with an overall theme of a large increase in military spending that is paid for with equivalent decreases in domestic discretionary spending. These spending cuts were anticipated to be across the board in all programs except defense and homeland security. In line with Trump’s populist, working class rhetoric (but not necessarily policy that would benefit those who his policy is geared towards) has been the cutting funding and regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Throughout February news began to leak out of the Executive Branch that the EPA’s budget would in fact be cut, reducing it’s budget up to 24% from just over $8 billion to $6 billion.

The specific cuts that would lie within Trump’s proposed EPA budget were first leaked on March 3^rd. While many areas within the EPA’s budget anticipated cuts, the most significant program that saw the deepest cuts was the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). With its 2016 funding levels at $300 million, the proposed 2017 budget of just $10 million equates to a staggering 97% proposed cut to GLRI, a bipartisan, apolitical program that has served the eight Great Lakes states and their five Great Lakes since 2010.

At this point I want to provide full disclosure. I am fairly directly involved with and affected by the potential cuts to the GLRI as my job with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) involves working with cities, counties, other Great Lakes states and their environmental agencies, EPA, NOAA, and other federal agencies in order to facilitate and implement projects with GLRI funding. I therefore have an obvious bias more than the average person. But to make the most of a potential devastating situation, Josh urged me to write about it. With that said, I apologize for the length of this article and will note that this is the shortened version.

At this point you’re probably thinking (read quote in the voice of Sarah Palin), “Of course Sam doesn’t want GLRI to be cut by 97%, he works for the government and is just another bureaucrat who deserves to have the gravy train end at Trump Station!”

I would first like to note that having worked in both the private and public sectors, I can assure you that working for the government is no gravy train. Second, GLRI has created an opportunity since 2010 for the EPA and state agencies to finally have the necessary funding to seriously and successfully address environmental degradation that has plagued the Great Lakes far before the issues were officially recognized during the environmental movement. Third, and possibly most puzzling, GLRI has helped address environmental problems that have plagued the river and lake resources of small towns and cities along the Great Lakes, in many cases bringing money to small towns that would otherwise never have the means to address the massive environmental problems that industrial pollution left by lumber mills, oil refineries, power plants, and other forms of industry left behind to accompany their shuttered buildings and lost jobs.

Invasive Species removal Morgan Swamp

EPA’s Origin and GLRI’s Predecessor

EPA’s regulations have not always been seen as anti-business. During the agency’s first decade, it saw bipartisan support as it attempted to tackle the side affects of unregulated industry, which allowed business to do what it saw fit and as most cost affective when extracting materials and disposing waste. These practices finally grabbed the public eye and forced policymakers in Washington to address the need for the passed of the Clean Water Act and the creation of the EPA with the infamous burning of the Cuyahoga River in 1969.

Similar to other rivers throughout the industrial Midwest, the Cuyahoga River was lined with steel miles and factories, allowing industry to discharge liquid and solid waste into the river. This waste often lead to contamination of these waterways from substances that are incredibly dangerous and just as expensive to remove, including lead, heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other toxic substances that are detrimental to the health of habitat, wildlife, and humans.

One of the drivers behind the creation of GLRI was to enable work to be completed to address the issues laid out in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), a commitment between the United States and Canada to restore and protect the waters of the Great Lakes. First signed in 1972, the agreement provided the framework for identifying binational priorities and implementing actions that improve water quality.

Additionally, the GLWQA designated geographic area within the Great Lakes Basin that show severe environmental degradation known as “Areas of Concern” or AOCs. The agreement defines AOCs as a geographic area designated by Canada and the U.S. where significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level. The Great Lakes has a total of 43 AOCs, with 26 in the U.S. and an additional 5 shared between the U.S. and Canada.

Impairment of a beneficial use is a reduction in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes sufficient to cause any of the 14 specific problems, or beneficial use impairments (BUIs). A few examples of BUIs that can affect an AOC include restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, tumors or deformities of wildlife, degradation and loss of wildlife habitat, invasive species, point-source and non-point source pollution (ex. runoff from urban areas, such as parking lots, and rural areas, most commonly farm fields), and restrictions on dredging activities due to contaminated sediment.

Local technical advisory committees would do a thorough evaluation of each AOC to determine all BUIs that applied to the AOC. Once projects are implemented to address and ultimately resolve each BUI, a review is conducted to determine the removal of the BUI for the AOC. Once all the BUIs are removed, the AOC is given a final review and delisted.

What is the GLRI?

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative was first passed by Congress and signed into law in 2010 to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes, the world’s largest system of fresh surface water. The program has been the catalyst for unprecedented federal agency funding and coordination of efforts throughout the Great Lakes watershed. While much of the credit goes to Obama for GLRI, the seed was planted by President George W. Bush. In 2004, Bush signed an executive order that called for an interagency task force to promote regional collaboration to protect the Great Lakes.

Until the passage of GLRI, agencies were only able to complete a minimal number of projects with lower costs due to the overall lack of funding, resulting in AOCs lingering as known problem areas that simply weren’t addressed.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then Senator Obama promised to bring substantial funding to the Great Lakes region to facilitate work on the ground to fight off invasive species, remediate contaminated soils from industry, and restore wildlife habitat. While this funding would stimulate work on the ground to rehabilitate the AOCs, it would also allow communities to return to their once deteriorated resources and reinvest in the community, as the restored rivers and shorelines offered new opportunities for wildlife restoration, outdoor recreation, and waterfront business opportunities.

How and Where are GLRI Funds Implemented

State governments, local governments, and non-profit organizations are eligible to receive grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for projects addressing toxic substances, invasive species, non-point source pollution, habitat protection, and restoration or accountability, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnership building.

An example of this is how the state of Wisconsin manages GLRI funds through the Wisconsin DNR. The DNR has a AOC Coordinator for each of the state’s five AOCs, one of which is on Lake Superior (St. Louis River in Superior/Duluth, MN) and four of which are on Lake Michigan (Lower Menominee River in Marinette/Menominee, MI; Lower Green Bay Fox River in Green Bay; Sheboygan River in Sheboygan; and the Milwaukee Estuary in Milwaukee). Each AOC Coordinator works with local stakeholders, such as city and county governments, non-profits, universities, and federal agencies, to design, implement, and design and monitor projects in each AOC.

For the Wisconsin DNR this has resulted in managing more than $21 million in projects that have been developed, implemented, and completed in Wisconsin since 2010. For the state of Wisconsin as a whole across all government agencies, non-profits, and universities, the state of Wisconsin has received $327 million through federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. The entire Great Lakes region has seen roughly $2.2 billion reinvested in Great Lakes communities.

To help give you a better visualization of the extent of projects that GLRI helps fund, the Great Lakes Commission has an excellent project listing and mapping tool that maps out each project with corresponding information on each project as well as map boundary layers for counties and Congressional districts. It looks like it GLRI took a 12 gauge (shotgun for you non-hunting folks) to Google Maps in the most environmentally beautiful and satisfying way.

GLRI’s Uncertain Future

Overall, the reception of the proposed 97% cut to GLRI has been strongly opposed by Democrats in Congress as well as some Republicans. Most federal-level Republicans have not commented as they find their way through the opening months of the Trump presidency. However, the same cannot be said on the state level, with Republican Governors Scott Walker (WI) and Rick Snyder (MI) already voicing their opposition to the proposed budget cuts for federal FY2018.

Unfortunately, the news has not gotten much better recently. On Tuesday (March 29^th), President Trump proposed $50 million in immediate budget cuts for this year’s GLRI funding (FY2017) to help cover early costs for the proposed U.S.-Mexican border wall. Coupling this with the proposed $290 million in cuts for FY2018 shows that Trump does not understand the positive results GLRI has for environmental restoration, its successful investment in recreation, and economic opportunities for the communities that live with the waste of the unfettered industrial past. If all of that wasn’t enough, the White House’s final proposed budget released on March 16^th left the EPA in a worse position than it was in the earlier leaked budgets, as the administration’s official budget proposal called for a 31% budget cut.

Trump’s proposed budget for the EPA and GLRI is difficult to comprehend as someone who is concerned about environmental policy and management at all levels of government. What makes it even more difficult to understand is how it affects areas of the Rust Belt that have been struggling for decades with economic conditions in many small towns pushing those who live in these communities to vote for Trump in hopes that the government would help revive these areas of the country. Politically, to say this makes no sense would be an understatement. Trump won the entire Rust Belt, but with his proposal to cut next fiscal year’s funding from $300 million to $10 million and cutting current funding by an additional $50 million demonstrates Trump’s disregard for facts and on-the-ground results that matter.

Investment in environmental restoration for the Great Lakes advances the region’s broader strategy to create jobs, stimulate economic development, and invest in freshwater resources and waterfront communities. An in-depth study completed by The Brookings Institute found that by fully implementing the Great Lakes restoration strategy would generate between $80 billion to $100 billion in benefits for the Great Lakes region. The study’s findings include a generation of $6.5 billion to $11.8 billion in direct benefits from tourism, fish, and recreation. It also found a $12 billion to $19 billion increase in property values in degraded shoreline areas, including up to $2.3 billion for the Milwaukee metro area alone.

Ultimately the administrative branch’s proposed budget is just that: a proposed budget. Congress will begin drafting the budget for FY2018 this spring and should have a final budget proposal sometime this summer or early fall. The GLRI has always had bipartisan support, with Republicans giving it more funding than President Obama proposed for FY2017. Of the 48 House districts that are in the Great Lakes Basin, there at 29 Republicans accompanied by 19 Democrats out of the 430 current members of the House (with 5 vacancies). The majority math necessary for Republicans to pass a budget without Democrat support only allows them to lose up to 21 votes. Additionally, the 16 Senate seats from the eight Great Lakes states will not have an easy vote on a GLRI-gutted budget.

I believe I am more rural-oriented and often siding with the interest of fishermen and hunters more than the average progressive. I am in the middle of getting my hunter safety certification, I can’t wait to get back out on the lack and catch some bass and bluegills, and I’m going camping in the Northwoods in early April. I grew up in a town of 8,000 and consider Madison, Wisconsin (population 225,000) to be the big city. But its important to understand how important culture is in the rural Midwest and how it can ultimately be one of the most powerful tools Democrats can utilize to regain the trust of Midwestern, Rust Belt voters.

Culture matters. Midwesterners enjoys microbrews like New Glarus and Toppling Goliath alongside macrobrews like Hamm’s and Busch Light because both beers remind them of their roots. From the thrill of landing your first fish of the day to going out for a hike in your favorite state park so you can watch the sunrise in the middle of a protected natural area, protecting the natural habitat, environmental resources, and the cultural identify of the Great Lakes matters.

The GLRI restores and protects areas that industry has misused, restoring habitat and reducing runoff so our Great Lakes can be healthy again. The GLRI allows people to reconnect with nature by kayaking, fishing, boating, and swimming in the rivers and lakes again. The GLRI removes toxic sediments, making channels navigable and allowing ships to come into port and continue to drive the Great Lakes’ regional economy, which generates $5.8 trillion and 46 million jobs.

Eliminating GLRI would leave serious environmental issues left unaddressed. Eliminating GLRI would cut off funding that private contractors are rewarded to reestablish native species in riparian areas overrun with invasive like phragmites and clean up industrial waste that will plague the Great Lakes until its addressed. Eliminating GLRI will be another devastating political, economic, environmental, and cultural punch to the gut for a region that has known just that for the past four decades.

Cutting GLRI funds by 97% would be the worst thing to happen to the Great Lakes since the Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. The actual wreck, not the song. Man, Gordon Lightfoot crafted one of the most beautiful songs from such a terrible tragedy. And Great Lakes Brewing Company drafted a great beer in the ship’s honor.

Whether you call it the Great Lakes Basin, the Midwest, the Rust Belt, or that place where people go for vacation and hope to catch a trophy musky, the Great Lakes deserves better than to have its funding cut against statistical reasoning and logic. We must address our lingering industrial pollution. If we chose to ignore the lingering impairments that we’ve allowed to happen and cause so much destruction, we will repeat the part of 1940s-1960s American history that we like to gloss over: the lead up to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.

Protect the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Great Lakes deserve to be great again.

Guest Post: A March Madness Manifesto

Hey everyone, Josh here. This is our first guest post on the Purple State Progressive, and I cannot be happier for it to come from my brother. Joel converted me into a huge March Madness fan growing up–I still remember celebrating with him in the Minneapolis airport in 2005 when he successfully picked #12 seed UW-Milwaukee to make it to the Sweet Sixteen–and it remains one of the most fun weeks of the year for us. Joel has a knack for in-depth sports statistics, and his analysis proves right more often than any other pundit I pay attention to. A few years ago, his predictions landed in the 98th percentile on ESPN. So, without further ado, here’s Joel’s analysis:

March Madness is a truly special time of year. Think about it. This country is as divided as we’ve ever been. But in March, we unite. Remember last year, when 4-seed Cal’s best guard got injured right before the tournament, uniting the entire nation behind the 13-seed Hawaii Rainbow Warriors against those injured choking Golden Bears? How great was that? Red State, Blue State, Purple State–the United States became Rainbow Warriors for a day. It was fantastic.

Unless you picked Cal to win. If you did that, I bet you feel dumb right now. Really dumb. But don’t worry, you’ve come to the right place. I offer my bracketology tips to you, free of charge.*

First things first, there are 2 rules.

1) Don’t listen to the talking heads on TV. Try as much as you can to ignore the seeding. Don’t look at the AP Top 25, or the Coaches’ poll, or the RPI, or the BPI, or anything like that.
2) Visit this website: www.kenpom.com

Ken Pomeroy’s advanced metrics are the most predictive statistical model out there. Unlike the RPI, KenPom measures not just who you play, but also how you play. KenPom measures each team’s offensive and defensive efficiency on a points-per-possession basis, and adjusts those efficiency stats for strength of schedule. It’s a bit nerdy, but the math works really well when filling out a bracket. Just look how KenPom predicted the tournament last year:

– The top-rated KenPom team going into the tournament in each region–#1 Kansas in the South, #2 Virginia in the Midwest, #4 UNC in the East, and #8 Oklahoma in the West–at least made the Elite 8. 2 made the Final 4.

– National Champion Villanova entered the tournament ranked #5 on KenPom, Runner-up UNC was ranked #4.

It wouldn’t be March Madness if it was easy, though. At the end of the day, KenPom is a strong baseline to work from, especially for those tough-to-pick 8-9 and 7-10 matchups. But it’s not perfect. Nothing is.

3 KenPom Top 10 teams (#3 Michigan St, #6 West Virginia, and #10 Purdue) were upset in the 1st round last year. And Syracuse came out of nowhere to make the Final 4, despite having just the 37th best KenPom rating in the entire field going in. That’s what makes March Madness so great. Sometimes injuries derail a top seed’s chances. Sometimes the better team’s weaknesses play directly to their opponents’ strengths. Sometimes underdogs get hot and get on a run of upsets. And sometimes good teams just choke. There’s no way to predict it. But it’s fun as hell to try.

With that, on to my picks.

EAST

First Round Upsets:

#12 UNCW over #5 Virginia

Virginia is a great defensive team, but they have struggled to score points in the final third of the season. Virginia played Villanova in Philadelphia back on January 29th. The Cavaliers dominated the Wildcats for the majority of the game, holding Villanova to 22 first half points. Virginia went 5 minutes in the second half without scoring a point, however, and Villanova ended up winning the game with a last-second tip-in. Count that game, and Virginia finished 6-7 to end the season. Their confidence is gone. UNCW is one of the better offensive teams in the field. They push tempo and score a lot of points. I like UNCW’s style of play against Virginia’s stingy defense. The best way to beat Virginia is to beat them down the court and shoot 3s at a good rate. That’s how both Pittsburgh and Virginia Tech beat the Cavaliers in the ACC this year. And that’s how UNCW wants to play. The Seahawks play 4 guards at a time, and they have 3 great ones. Sophomore CJ Bryce leads the team in scoring with 17.6 ppg. Senior Chris Flemmings scores 15.8 ppg. And senior PG Denzel Ingram not only has a strong assist/turnover ratio; he also scores 14.5 ppg and has hit 105 3 pointers this season (the 3rd most of any player in the tournament, behind Nevada’s Marcus Marshall and UCLA’s Bryce Alford). UNCW’s talent isn’t limited to its backcourt, either. Sophomore center Devontae Cacok is a dunking double-double machine, averaging 12.3 ppg, 9.6 rpg, and shooting .799 from the field this season, which is the nation’s best field goal percentage for any player. UNCW has a lot of talent, and they are similar in style to the 4-guard La Salle team that made a run to the Sweet 16 a few years ago. I like the Seahawks to pull an upset and bust a lot of peoples’ brackets right away in the tournament’s first game.

#10 Marquette over #7 South Carolina

South Carolina is a great defensive team, but the Gamecocks are awful on offense. Marquette, on the other hand, is one of the best offensive teams in the field. By nearly every offensive metric, Marquette is one of the best teams in the tournament and South Carolina is one of the worst. I don’t think South Carolina can keep up with the Golden Eagles. Yes the Gamecocks get to play in their home state, but Marquette–despite their lower seed–is actually rated slightly higher by KenPom than South Carolina. I’m going with Marquette.

Second Round Stunners:

#8 Wisconsin over #1 Villanova

Wisconsin is one of the few teams in the field with more tournament experience than Villanova, the defending champs. The Badgers’ four seniors have been to the Final 4 twice in their careers, and their style of play also poses a tough matchup for Villanova. Wisconsin is a top 10 defensive team, led by two very good perimeter defenders–Nigel Hayes and Zak Showalter. Hayes and Showalter are good enough to defend Villanova’s two superstar guards, Josh Hart and Jalen Brunson. Villanova has also struggled against patient, methodical offenses this season–losing home and away to Butler. Wisconsin is similar to Butler because they play slowly and run a lot of offense through their center. Wisconsin’s Ethan Happ is a skilled offensive player just like Butler’s Andrew Chrabascz. Villanova is undersized, and struggles to guard quality big men like Wisconsin’s Happ. The Badgers’ biggest weakness is free throw shooting, but Villanova only plays 7 guys, and can’t afford to get in foul trouble. I am a little worried about Wisconsin’s struggles at the end of the Big 10 season, but I think they have recovered from their slump. While senior PG Bronson Koenig was fighting an injury, the Badgers lost 5 of 6 at one point, including twice at home. But Koenig looks healthy now, and the Badgers ended with very convincing wins against 3 KenPom Top 50 teams before dropping to Michigan in the Big 10 title game. I think Wisconsin got back on the right track just in time. The Badgers were a 7 seed and they upset Xavier, a Big East 2 seed, in the 2nd round last year. I’m picking Wisconsin to knock off a 1 seed from the Big East this time around.

#6 SMU over #3 Baylor

SMU hasn’t lost a game since January 12. Baylor is 5-6 since February 1. SMU’s starters are all 6-5 or taller, and they have the versatility to switch screens on defense and guard anybody. The Ponies are a strong rebounding team as well, which is vital against a poor shooting team like Baylor, because the Bears rely on offensive rebounds to score. SMU also has an NBA-caliber PG in Shake Milton. Baylor PG Manu Lecomte, on the other hand, has really struggled in the second half of the Big 12 conference season. SMU is the higher ranked team on KenPom, and they are playing their best basketball of the year right now. Baylor isn’t. I like SMU to reach the Sweet 16 this year.

Sweet 16

#8 Wisconsin over #4 Florida

Both of these teams have Top 10 defenses, but Florida’s has shown a weakness this year, and it’s the exact same weakness as Villanova’s. The Gators have struggled to guard quality centers since John Egbunu went down injured, losing 3 times to Vanderbilt and their 7 footer, Luke Kornet. Wisconsin’s Happ, like Kornet, is a skilled big man. Like Vanderbilt, Wisconsin surrounds Happ with 4 players who shoot 3s. The Badgers have the right personnel to exploit Florida’s weaknesses on defense. Wisconsin also has the right personnel to slow down Florida’s guards on the other side of the ball. I’m not really sold on this Florida team, and I only have them making it this far because they get to play their first two games very close to home in Orlando. The Gators don’t have much tournament experience, and inexperience can cost you in low scoring, tough, defensive tournament games. I think Wisconsin’s experience wins out in another favorable matchup for the Badgers.

#2 Duke over #6 SMU

Duke technically will not have “home court” advantage if they make the Sweet 16 and play in Madison Square Garden, but they’ll certainly have “familiar court” advantage. It seems like Duke plays at least one game in the Garden every year, and they won’t be overawed by the bright lights of New York City, having just won the ACC tournament in Brooklyn last week. Duke struggled with lots of distractions in the middle of the season, but this team was always one of the most talented in the country, and everything seems to have clicked for them at the end of the season. The Blue Devils might have finally figured out how to play together. There are lots of reasons to like SMU in this game, however. SMU’s leading scorer and best player is Duke transfer Semi Ojeleye, a 6-7, 235 lb swingman who averages 19 ppg. The Mustangs are rated higher on KenPom, and they have more talented guards than Duke. But Duke has Coach K, one of the best and the most experienced coaches in the country, and SMU’s coach Tim Jankovich is making his first trip to the tournament. I think the coaching gap is the biggest difference in this game. Duke wins.

Elite 8

#2 Duke over #8 Wisconsin

I think Wisconsin’s Cinderella run ends in the Elite 8. In senior Amile Jefferson, Duke has the player Villanova and Florida needed–an experienced center who can guard Ethan Happ one-on-one. Showalter might be able to slow down Duke sharpshooter Luke Kennard, and Hayes should pose a real challenge for freshman superstar power forward Jason Tatum. But Duke has a lot more depth than Villanova, and a lot more experience than Florida. In addition, Duke has that “familiar court” advantage at MSG, and of course you can’t forget Coach K. Combine these ingredients, and I think the Blue Devils have what it takes to win the East Region and make the Final 4.

WEST

First Round Upsets:

#9 Vanderbilt over #8 Northwestern

Northwestern has been a great story this season, but I really don’t like this matchup for the Wildcats. Northwestern is one of the better shot blocking teams in this tournament. Unfortunately for all those Northwestern alums who work in sports media, Vanderbilt’s style of play should neutralize Northwestern’s strengths. The Commodores shoot a ton of 3’s, and a big part of that is 7 foot “stretch-5” center Luke Kornet. Northwestern’s shot blockers will have to abandon their rim-protecting position in the paint and follow Kornet around the perimeter, which will take the Wildcats out of their comfort zone on defense. Vanderbilt is a terrible matchup for Northwestern, and I’m taking the Commodores.

#14 Florida Gulf Coast over #3 Florida State

Florida State wasn’t great away from home this year, including a loss to Temple (KenPom’s 117th ranked team) in the NIT Season Tip Off. The Seminoles are stocked with NBA talent, including a lottery pick in 6-10 freshman “small” forward Jonathan Isaac. But Georgetown had a lottery pick in Otto Porter too, and the Hoyas still lost to Florida Gulf Coast (aka Dunk City) in a classic 15-2 upset a few years ago. Gulf Coast is still Dunk City. That hasn’t changed. The Eagles have one of the highest field goal percentages in the field, and they have much better athletes than your typical 14 seed. Drawing another Florida team like Gulf Coast neutralizes what could have been a valuable home court advantage in Orlando for Florida State in this one. I think the Eagles pull off another major upset.

Second Round Stunners:

#5 Notre Dame over #4 West Virginia

Notre Dame has the 2nd best assist/turnover ratio, the lowest turnover rate, and the best free throw percentage in the field. Those are key stats in a matchup against “Press” Virginia. West Virginia presses hard for 40 minutes. As a result, they force a lot of turnovers, but they also foul a lot more than the average NCAA tournament team. Notre Dame is disciplined enough to avoid turnovers, and skilled enough to make West Virginia pay from the free throw line when the Mountaineers inevitably get in foul trouble. I like the Irish to make their third straight Sweet 16.

#7 St Mary’s over #2 Arizona

St Mary’s is better than Arizona both offensively and defensively, according to KenPom. The Gaels also are a much better shooting team than the Wildcats, and a better rebounding team. Arizona has struggled to play against slower teams this season, such as Butler and Cal, and St Mary’s loves to keep the tempo slow. Arizona has also missed a floor general like TJ McConnell for the last 2 seasons. St Mary’s starts 2 PGs (Joe Rahon and Emmett Narr) who are better than Arizona PG Parker Jackson-Cartwright. I like St Mary’s to pull off what would be a shocking upset in the 2nd round.

Sweet 16

#1 Gonzaga over #5 Notre Dame

These aren’t your father’s Gonzaga Bulldogs. The Zags start 3 players who featured for power-conference programs as underclassmen: Washington transfer Nigel Williams-Goss, Cal transfer Jordan Matthews, and Mizzou transfer Johnathan Williams. Williams-Goss is the NCAA’s version of Russell Westbrook–a do-it-all PG who averages 17 points, 5.7 rebounds and 4.8 assists per game. Matthews is the type of wing Gonzaga has always lacked–a shutdown perimeter defender with size and a reliable shooter who was one of the top 15 scorers in the Pac 12 as a sophomore. Williams leads Gonzaga in rebounding, which should come as no surprise, as he was one of the best rebounders in the SEC–maybe the toughest, most athletic conference in college basketball–before he joined Gonzaga. On top of those 3 transfers, the Zags feature one of the best big men in the country in 7-1, 300 lb. center Przemek Karnowski, a 5th year senior. Gonzaga also might have the best 6th man in this tournament in 7-0, 230 lb. Zach Collins, a super-talented McDonald’s All-American freshman who scores 10.2 points and grabs 5.7 rebounds in just 17 minutes per game. This is the deepest and most athletic team Mark Few has ever coached at Gonzaga. It might be the deepest and most athletic team in the entire tournament. KenPom has Gonzaga rated as the best team in the field this year, and the only team in the field with top 10 offensive and defensive efficiency ratings. Notre Dame is a great team, but Gonzaga is a freight train coming down the tracks right now. The Zags are one of the few teams in the field who have the length and athleticism to handle Notre Dame forward Bonzi Colson, a matchup nightmare with a freakish 7-2 wingspan. And I don’t see how Notre Dame can defend Gonzaga on the other side of the floor. I like the Zags to advance.

#7 St Mary’s over #6 Maryland

Maryland is one of the most overseeded teams in this tournament. KenPom rates them as the 10th best team in this region, behind #7 St Mary’s, #9 Vanderbilt, #8 Northwestern, and #11 Xavier. I think the Terrapins will get by Xavier in the first round, simply because the Musketeers have gone 6-7 since losing NBA PG Edmond Sumner to injury on January 30th. After that, I have Maryland beating 14 seed Florida Gulf Coast to make the Sweet 16. The easy matchups end there for the Terps. St Mary’s is a much better team than Maryland in nearly every statistical category. St Mary’s can sometimes struggle against teams that speed up the pace, but Maryland doesn’t really push the tempo. Give me the Gaels again.

Elite 8

#1 Gonzaga over #7 St Mary’s

Gonzaga has beaten St Mary’s 3 times already this season, by an average margin of 17 points. The Zags simply have the Gaels’ number. St Mary’s doesn’t have size or athleticism to match Gonzaga inside or on the perimeter. The Zags’ defense suffocated the Gaels in every game they’ve played. This is the year the Zags win the West Region and make the Final 4.

MIDWEST

First Round Upsets:

#11 Rhode Island over #6 Creighton

Creighton was looking like a real force to be reckoned with early in the season, before star PG Maurice Watson Jr. tore his ACL in a win against Xavier on January 17th. Creighton struggled down the stretch, finishing the season with a 7-8 record since the Watson injury. Rhode Island, on the other hand, won the A-10 tournament and they’ve won 8 games in a row in total, an impressive feat for a team that was on the wrong side of the bubble not too long ago. The Rams have played well under pressure for the last 3 weeks. Rhode Island had injury issues early in the year, but they are healthy right now, and playing great basketball. Creighton is one of the worst rebounding teams in the tournament, which suits Rhode Island because they are not a great shooting team, and they rely on second chance points. Like Gonzaga, Rhode Island features a couple of experienced, athletic, power-conference transfers in Memphis transfer Kuran Iverson and Indiana transfer Stanford Robinson. They also have an NBA-caliber guard in EC Matthews, and one of the nation’s best shot blockers in Hassan Martin. Give me the Rams.

#10 Oklahoma State over #7 Michigan

This is a must-see game between 2 great PGs (Okie State’s Jawun Evans and Michigan’s Derek Walton) leading 2 elite college basketball offenses. Michigan is one of the hottest teams in the country, having won 4 games in 4 days at the Big 10 tournament last week. But they are not a good matchup against Oklahoma State. The Cowboys are the best offensive team in the field, according to KenPom, despite being a much worse shooting team than Michigan, who has the 5th best offense in the field. The reason? Offensive rebounding. Oklahoma State is one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the field, and Michigan does a terrible job ending defensive possessions with rebounds and/or steals. I think Michigan is a good team, but this is a terrible matchup for them. Okie State to advance.

Second Round Stunners:

#5 Iowa State over #4 Purdue

Iowa State will need to survive their first round matchup against a very good Nevada team, but if they do, I think the Cyclones pose an awful matchup for Purdue. Purdue has quality size in 7-2, 290 lb. center Isaac Haas and 6-9, 250 lb. power forward and Naismith Award candidate Biggy Swanigan. Both are really tough to guard, but they can be exploited on the other side of the floor. Teams who can stretch Purdue out and make the bigs chase their man all over the perimeter do well against the Boilermakers. Michigan proved that twice this season, and Iowa State has the personnel to do the same. Purdue is also prone to turnovers on offense, which is a bad problem to have against the Cyclones. Iowa State is one of the best teams in the field at getting steals. Iowa State’s biggest weakness as a team is their lack of size and resulting inability to end possessions with defensive rebounds. But Purdue, despite their great size inside, isn’t a great offensive rebounding team. I like Iowa State to make their second straight Sweet 16.

#11 Rhode Island over #3 Oregon

The recent ACL injury to Oregon’s star shot-blocking forward Chris Boucher is a big deal. Like Northwestern, Oregon’s defense is driven mostly by elite shot blocking. Oregon was the best shot blocking team in the country with a healthy Boucher, who averaged 2.5 blocks per game. Without him, the Ducks are a completely different team. Oregon still has fantastic guards. Dillon Brooks, Tyler Dorsey, Dylan Ennis, and Payton Pritchard all can shoot the 3 and beat you off the dribble. Brooks, in particular, is a clutch shooter who loves big moments and has been tough to cover for a lot of teams when he plays “stretch-4” in a small-ball lineup. The problem is, during the season, Oregon used that 4-guard lineup in short spurts for a change of pace, sort of like a college version of Golden State’s small-ball “death lineup” in the NBA last season. Now, without Boucher’s size down low, Oregon has little choice but to use their small lineup for the majority of this tournament. Rhode Island has the size, rebounding, and athleticism to grind down the mini-Ducks defensively, and they will enjoy attacking the rim against Oregon without Boucher in the lineup. I think the Rams will be last double-digit seed standing, and the only double-digit seed to reach the Sweet 16 this year.

Sweet 16

#5 Iowa State over #1 Kansas

Iowa State doesn’t technically have a 2nd home court in Kansas City, but don’t tell the Cyclones that. The Sprint Center, or “Hilton South” as Cyclone fans call it, has been very kind to Iowa State over the last few years. Yes they won a Big 12 championship in that building last week, but the Cyclones’ “familiar court” advantage in Kansas City extends well beyond this season. Senior stars Monte Morris, Naz Long, and Matt Thomas have won 3 Big 12 championships in the Sprint Center over their careers. Those guys are a combined 9-1 in that building. Iowa State lives and dies by the 3 point shot, which makes them a horrible pick in an unfamiliar atmosphere like a dome or a football stadium, because these are awkward basketball environments in which jump shooting normally suffers. Put them in a “familiar court,” however, and the jump shots are more likely to fall. Kansas is easily the worst 1 seed on KenPom, and they’ve already lost to Iowa State at home once this season. Iowa State should be able to get steals and fast break points against the Jayhawks, because Kansas turns the ball over a lot. 2 years ago, Kansas got blown out against in-state rival Wichita State in a second round game in Omaha. I think another Midwest rival stays close to home and knocks the Jayhawks out again this year.

#2 Louisville over #11 Rhode Island

Louisville is the best KenPom team in the Midwest Region, and they have one of the best tournament coaches in NCAA history in Rick Pitino. The Cardinals play suffocating defense, and they block shots at a high rate. Rhode Island, after beating two injured teams in the first two rounds, finally matches up against a team that has the size and athleticism to bully the Rams all around the floor. I think Louisville wins this matchup easily.

Elite 8

#2 Louisville over #5 Iowa State

Lousiville has the 23rd best offensive efficiency in the tournament, but they are one of the worst shooting teams in the field. Their efficiency rating is boosted heavily by offensive rebounding, which is the kiss of death for the Cyclones. Iowa State’s biggest weakness, by far, is defensive rebounding. Louisville also avoids turnovers much better than either Kansas or Purdue, which makes them a much tougher matchup for a Cyclones team that tries to make up for their weakness on the glass by getting steals. Iowa State is incredibly tough to beat in Kansas City, but Louisville is the type of team you’d draw up to exploit the Cyclones’ weaknesses. I like Louisville to win the Midwest Region and advance to the Final 4.

SOUTH

First Round Upsets:

#9 Seton Hall over #8 Arkansas

Rebounding should be the difference in this one too. Seton Hall is one of the better offensive rebounding teams in the tournament, and Arkansas struggles to close defensive possessions with rebounds. The Pirates played 2 SEC teams in the non-conference this season. They beat 7-seed South Carolina, and they lost to 4-seed Florida by 5. Seton Hall has the athletes to handle SEC-style basketball. I like the Pirates in a minor upset.

#12 Middle Tennessee over #5 Minnesota

This is one of the most popular upset picks in this year’s tournament. Middle Tennessee shocked the world when they beat 2 seed Michigan State in the first round last year. The Blue Raiders brought everybody back, moved up 3 seeds, and are now facing a much worse Big 10 team in the first round. No brainer right? One thing worries me about this matchup for Middle Tennessee–Minnesota’s shot blocker Reggie Lynch. Now that Boucher is out injured for Oregon, Minnesota is the best shot blocking team in this year’s tournament, and almost all of that is down to Lynch’s 3.5 blocks per game. Middle Tennessee doesn’t shoot a lot of 3s, and they depend a lot on points in the paint to score. The Gophers possess one of the best interior defenses in the country, so they aren’t a great matchup for the Blue Raiders. But Minnesota has also struggled to score points this year, and that was before they lost 3 point specialist Akeem Springs for the season last week with an injury. It’s a tough call, but at the end of the day, this is Minnesota’s first tournament game since 2013. Middle Tennessee has been there and done that, and Minnesota hasn’t. I think the Blue Raiders’ tournament experience will ultimately give them the advantage in what should be an excellent game to watch.

#10 Wichita St over #7 Dayton

I feel like its stupid to even call this one an upset. Wichita State is KenPom’s 8th best team in the country. Dayton is 36th. The Shockers are great on both sides of the ball, and they have the 2nd highest 3 point percentage in the field. Dayton is a good team, but this is an awful matchup for them against the most underseeded team in the tournament. Wichita State should win this one easily.

Second Round Stunners:

#6 Cincinnati over #3 UCLA

Cincinnati defends as well as they always have, but the big difference for them this year is their offensive efficiency. Normally one of the worst offensive teams in the field, the Bearcats have improved on that side of the floor. They have the 35th most efficient offense in the country, powered mainly by the 3rd best assist/turnover ratio in the field. That’s what makes Cincinnati a bad matchup for UCLA. The Bruins really struggle to stop teams from scoring points, and they haven’t seen anyone in the Pac 12 who plays defense like Cincinnati does. UCLA Head Coach Steve Alford has lost to 3 double-digit seeds in his coaching career. Cincinnati isn’t a double digit seed, but they should have a significant toughness advantage against this young, soft UCLA team. The Bearcats already beat Iowa State in Ames this season, and the Cyclones play the same way as UCLA. I like the Bearcats to win this one and send Alford’s Bruins home early.

Sweet 16

#1 UNC over #4 Butler

North Carolina reminds me a lot of the Kentucky team that went into the tournament undefeated 2 years ago. They are one year removed from losing the national championship by slim margins, and are determined to get back. They don’t quite have that Kentucky team’s dominant defense, but the Tar Heels do have a great offense. And like Kentucky 2 years ago, North Carolina has a great offense despite making a relatively low percentage of their shots, so they are reliant on offensive rebounds to score a lot of their points. The Tar Heels grab their own misses better than any team in the tournament, which means that in order to beat them, you have to limit them to one shot per possession. Butler isn’t the team to do that. Butler is one of the worst rebounding teams in the field. The Bulldogs will try to slow the game down and keep it close, but North Carolina has the athletes to score points in transition. North Carolina has an easier path to the Elite 8 than anyone, so don’t be the only one in your bracket pool who doesn’t put them there.

#2 Kentucky over #6 Cincinnati

Kentucky, unlike UCLA, has the defense to stop Cincinnati’s improved-but-still-not-great offense. The Wildcats have one of the 4 best KenPom ratings in the field, and they are top 15 in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Kentucky has a couple freshmen lottery picks in their backcourt named De’Aaron Fox and Malik Monk, and Calipari normally gets his young guys playing their best this time of year. I think this Wildcat team has enough to make the Elite 8.

Elite 8

#1 UNC over #2 Kentucky

Some of the great Kentucky teams of the past had elite big men like Julius Randle, Willie Cauley-Stein, Trey Lyles, and Karl-Anthony Towns. This Kentucky team isn’t built in the same mold. Its two stars, Fox and Monk, play in the backcourt. Kentucky doesn’t have the frontcourt depth they normally do, and their rebounding has suffered as a result. That’s not a good recipe against North Carolina. The Wildcats beat the Tar Heels in a 103-100 thriller back in December. Monk exploded for 47 points in that game, and Fox added 24 points and 10 assists. But that was 3 months ago in Lexington. This is now. North Carolina’s defense has improved steadily during ACC conference play, and Kentucky won’t be playing at home again. I like North Carolina to win the rematch, and advance out of the South region to make the Final 4.

FINAL 4

Gonzaga over Duke

2 years ago, the Zags faced the Blue Devils in an Elite 8 matchup. Duke overwhelmed Gonzaga with their athleticism and guard play, and went on to win the national championship. But this is not the same old Gonzaga team. The script has been flipped, thanks to those transfers. This time, Gonzaga should have a distinct advantage over Duke in the backcourt with guards like Williams-Goss and Matthews. They also have athletes to match Duke in the frontcourt in Williams and Collins. Throw in a 300 lb. matchup nightmare like Karnowski, and Duke will really struggle to guard this team. And don’t forget, the Final 4 games will be played in a football stadium, which has historically made jump shots harder to make. Gonzaga is far less reliant on the 3 point shot than Duke. So the location of this game doesn’t break well for the Blue Devils either. Coach K is a great coach, and just getting this Duke team to the Final 4 would be an impressive achievement in itself. But I like Gonzaga to move on to the national championship.

North Carolina over Louisville

The Tar Heels played Louisville on February 23rd in Chapel Hill, and they won the game fairly easily, holding a 10 point lead for the majority of the 2nd half. They won’t be playing at home again in Phoenix, but I think North Carolina still will have enough to beat Louisville a second time. Louisville is a great offensive rebounding team, but they aren’t as good at defensive rebounding, which is a key stat to look for in any potential matchup against the Tar Heels. I see the Tar Heels moving on to play in their second straight national championship.

CHAMPIONSHIP GAME

North Carolina over Gonzaga

Gonzaga’s biggest weakness–and its not a huge one by any means–is transition defense, because the 300 lb. Karnowski struggles to get up and down the floor without getting fatigued. BYU, who plays at the fastest pace in Division 1, beat Gonzaga in Spokane in the last game of the regular season. North Carolina plays at the 7th fastest pace in field, much faster than any of the teams Gonzaga has faced in my bracket so far. The Tar Heels also don’t rely on 3 point shooting to score their points, which will be important in the football stadium in Phoenix. I think Gonzaga is good enough at rebounding to hang with the Tar Heels, and I think this would be an excellent game. But at the end of the day, North Carolina’s experience and fast-paced style of play will be too much for the Zags to overcome.

You heard it here first. [REDACTED] will go down in history as the 2017 NCAA National Champions (after the NCAA strips North Carolina of all their records for academic fraud).

* DISCLAIMER – I’ve won my share of bracket pools, but I picked Michigan State to win it all last year. So the smart move might be ignoring my advice completely.

Poverty is Feminized. Can a Basic Income Help?

In honor of International Women’s Day, I wanted to write on the precarious situations women face in poverty all around the world.  I recognize that I am a cisgendered white male writing about a feminized issue that intersects with other sources of disadvantage, like race and sexuality, but I hope this provides informative insight into one way to make women’s lives better all over the world.

A 1995 Human Development Report claimed—on possibly rocky evidence—that 70% of the world’s poor are women.  Regardless of the actual number, however, women face poverty more than men in today’s society.  Often saddled with lower pay and more care work for children and relatives, the feminization of poverty brought with it questions on how to shape public policy to account for it.

During the late twentieth century, Western society moved relatively homogenously away from a male breadwinner model, where each household had one worker, who was usually a man, to a dual earner model, where households were expected to have two people working.  This is seen in the image below from the Pew Research Center.  This change led to a productivity boom as women joined the workforce in droves, but it did not alter home life in the way it should have.  Women still bore the brunt of most care work (see the Pew study above), and while they were earning income in the labor market, they earned less on average.

This evolution of expectations surrounding work led to what can be called an M-curve, which displays women’s labor force participation on aggregate over their lifetime.  As you can see below in the graphic from the Economist, women work at high rates in their early 20s before commonly moving out of the labor force in their late 20s and 30s, often to take care of newborn children and to raise them through childhood.  Their participation picks up in their 40s and 50s, however, as care work tends to decline.

As you can see, some countries are particularly susceptible to the M-curve.  This can be explained by cultural factors and/or public policy.  For example, Denmark avoids the M shape for the most part, partially thanks to their commitment to “active labor market policies” (or ALMPs) that focus on “activating” people into the labor force.  Think of job training, education, and flexible working hours as ALMPs. On the opposite pole, the U.S. also avoids the M-curve through providing little protection to women saddled with care work.  We offer no guaranteed maternity leave and stingy income support shrouded in negative stigma and work requirements, which push women back into the labor force quickly after childbirth.

Independent of strategies to mitigate the M-curve, it clearly influences the feminization of poverty as women enter, leave, and re-enter the workforce.  So how else could we help smooth income levels across a woman’s lifetime to account for female poverty?

One answer could be a universal basic income.

Basic income is an unconditional income paid to every person as a right of citizenship. Man, woman, or gender nonconforming; child, adult, or pensioner; poor, rich, or middle class; working, unemployed, or retired—all citizens receive a basic income with no means test or work requirement. The only income difference arises from a person’s age, as a child’s basic income would be lower than an adult’s, and a pensioner’s basic income would be even higher.

Imagine that a child’s basic income could be set at $4,000 per year, an adult’s at $10,000, and a pensioner’s at $16,000.   These numbers are by no means the ideal income levels—that is still up for debate—but the idea is that a person is guaranteed survival and the dignity of existence, regardless of working status.  A basic income cannot and should not replace the entire welfare state—indeed, it should be paired with separate programs for disabled citizens and for those who need healthcare, among other caveats.

But how could a basic income impact the feminization of poverty?

A basic income provides a tangible continuity of financial security in the face of life events that affect a woman’s ability to work.  It smooths income throughout everyone’s lives, but that could be particularly useful for women, who, as evidenced by the M-curve, are more likely than men to leave the labor market and return later in their life.

Similarly, a basic income protects women who perform care work as a primary “job”.  Are all jobs in the labor market more valuable to society than care work? Of course not, and a basic income’s freedom from work requirements and means tests finances the care work that is disproportionately done by women.  This point highlights the crucial detail that a basic income must be given on an individual basis, and not on a household basis. While women currently earn nothing by caring for children and loved ones, a basic income provides some economic reward for this unpaid work that mothers everywhere have done and continue to do for the betterment of society. The graphic below, again from the Pew Research Center, shows society’s reliance on women in performing care work.

Lastly, a basic income could help tackle female poverty by promoting financial independence for all women.  During the basic income pilot project in Namibia in 2008-2009, many of the wealthiest families in Otjivero-Omitara decided not to enroll in the pilot, choosing to maintain a misguided semblance of purity over the poorer villagers.  Months into the pilot, however, many of the wives in these households came forward to ask for their basic income without their husbands’ consent. Too many women are trapped in unequal relationships where their partner controls most, if not all, of the household’s finances.  A basic income paid directly to women in these situations could go a long way toward encouraging them to exit unhealthy, abusive relationships.  Further, the Namibian pilot found that prostitution declined as women regained control over their own sexuality—a point not restricted to third world countries, as evidenced by the film I, Daniel Blake in the UK this year.

Promoting basic income as a possible remedy to the feminization of poverty has been criticized by many, however. Jacqueline O’Reilly worries that a basic income could solidify the inequality of care work in relationships, as women now get “paid” to do such work, and childcare and care work should be split evenly among partners.  This critique is valid, but a basic income is not a silver bullet—it cannot and will not fix everything.  A basic income must be paired with other policies to encourage equity in relationships, like Equal Pay legislation, paid parental leave (and especially paternal leave if possible), childcare service reform, and ALMPs to find jobs that make it easy for women to work while being mothers as well.

The feminization of poverty hurts women all over the world as society imposes countless expectations and standards on them without considering the effects they have on the women who care for children and relatives and who live in unequal social relationships.  A basic income will not fix all of this, but it could be a start.

What Do We Do Now: Contenders for the 2018 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election.

This is the first post for our new reoccurring series“What Do We Do Now”, which covers the current state of the Democratic Party and the issues they must address on various topics and levels, including at the grassroots, state and federal elections, and state and federal legislation and regulation.

With the 2016 election firmly in the rearview mirror, one of the last things many people will want to do is look forward to the upcoming midterm elections in 2018. The overall outlook for the local, state, and federal elections across the country are especially intriguing disregarding the potential events that could unfold between now and November 6^th, 2018. So far President Trump and Congressional Republicans will attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare. In the Midwest, the state of Iowa passed anti-union legislation against public employees in a similar vein to Wisconsin’s Act 10 from 2011, which devastated the collective bargaining ability of public employees.

One of the most intriguing state-level races is the 2018 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. When asked if he’ll run for a third term due to Wisconsin’s absence of gubernatorial term limits, Governor Walker insists that he will make the decision once the biennial budget is passed by the Wisconsin legislature and signed by the governor. Though there are rumors that Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch or Congressman Sean Duffy could run, the prevailing political scuttlebutt Madison to Minocqua is that Walker will seek a third term.

On the Democratic side of the equation, the field is wide open as the party has sustained repeated crushing losses. The 2014 gubernatorial election resulted in former Trek executive and Madison businesswoman Democrat Mary Burke lost to Governor Walker 52-46%. Additionally, the 2016 election results spell even worse defeats for the Democrats on the state level. The Senate race between the first-term incumbent Republican Ron Johnson and former three-term senator Russ Feingold started as a predicted likely victory for Feingold but ended with a late surge by Johnson, largely driven by out-of-state money largely from the Koch brothers, ultimately resulting in the 50-47% GOP victory. In the presidential election, Trump’s 47-46% victory in Wisconsin was the first for a Republican since Reagan in 1984. Democrats were able to hold on to their three incumbent of Wisconsin’s eight members of the US House, but Republicans gained seats in the State Senate and Assembly, leaving Democrats reeling.

In spite of the sustained losses from 2014 and 2016, Wisconsin Democrats find themselves with an opportunity. With Republicans in control of the state legislature and governor’s mansion as well as both houses of Congress and the White House, the Republicans must bare the burden of being the party in power. This is a complete inverse of the federal government and the state of Wisconsin in 2009 as Democrats were in the majority or controlled the executive branch across the board. The next resulting election saw Democrats lose control of the state legislature and governor’s mansion in Wisconsin and the Tea Party takeover of the US House.

With all that said, the 2018 Wisconsin gubernatorial election is largely important to see how the Democratic party responds to being out of power no the state level in a purple, but leaning blue, Rust Belt state. The Democratic field is wide open with a decent bench of candidates from the federal, state, and local levels. While its still very early and I do not have a favorite yet myself, the following are candidates that present themselves as viable candidates that could challenge Scott Walker from Superior and Wausau to Sheboygan and Waukesha.

Wisconsin Federal Democrats

1. Rep. Ron Kind (D,WI-3): Congressman Ron Kind is Wisconsin’s most senior Democrat of either chamber of Congress. Kind is a moderate Democrat who has lead the “New Democrat Coalition”, a centrist House committee, for four years while also a senior Democratic member of the powerful Ways and Means committee. Kind’s district in southwestern Wisconsin hugs the Upper Mississippi River and traditionally leans blue, driven by labor union influences along river towns and rural progressives in the Driftless Area. Kind’s ten terms of congressional experience and moderate, bipartisan leadership position him as political veteran with the experience to challenge the two-term Governor. However, his moderate track record could be a liability in the turning out progressives.

2. Rep. Gwen Moore (D,WI-4): Congresswoman Gwen Moore has represented the city of Milwaukee in Wisconsin’s second district since 2004, was the first African American and second female member of Congress from Wisconsin, and she spent 17 years in the state legislature. Oh, and Moore is the only person to beat Governor Walker in an election, defeating Walker for the State Assembly seat in Milwaukee in 1990. Moore’s only regret was that she “feels tremendously guilty about not beating him well enough” to end his political career. Moore’s extensive state and federal legislature experience complement her strong liberal views. While some fear running a strong, female African American on the state level, it’s worth noting that Obama outperformed almost every white presidential candidate in Wisconsin since the 1970s.

3. Rep. Mark Pocan (D,WI-3): Congressman Pocan is the most progressive of the three Wisconsin Democrats in Congress. Pocan, who is the second openly gay member of Congress from Wisconsin, represents Wisconsin’s third district, which contains all of Madison and Dane County and is by far the most progressive district in the state. While Pocan began his service in the State Assembly in 1999 and was elected to Congress in 2013, he is the least experienced of the three federal candidates. Additionally, the third district has not presented a challenge for Democrats to be elected in, which casts some doubt on his electability statewide. However, Tammy Baldwin’s election to the US Senate in 2012 as the first openly gay senator and first female senator from Wisconsin demonstrate that it is possible for a Bernie-style progressive can be elected in a statewide election. Pocan is also a local business owner, but Burke’s similar business experience was not enough to help her overcome Walker in 2014.

Honorable Mention: Russ Feingold (former three term U.S. Senator, 1993-2011) who lost the U.S. senate race for the second time (2010, 2016). Russ is one of the best know progressives statewide and outperformed Hillary in rural Wisconsin.

Wisconsin State Democrats

1. Senator Kathleen Vinehout: Senator Vinehout is a smart state senator, with a particular focus on rural and agricultural issues. Vinehout is from the small Mississippi River town of Alma and represents the rural 31^st State Senate district in west central Wisconsin, bringing much needed insight to help win back rural voters that the Democratic Party has ignored for too long. If Vinehout can connect with rural voters with her experience in agriculture and a better understanding of rural Wisconsinites than Madison democrats could help rural voters overlook her pro-choice positions and lack of Bernie-esque populist oratory skills.

2. Senator Julie Lassa: Senator Lassa is a longtime state senator from Stevens Point, a decent modest sized town in the central Wisconsin 24^th State Senate district. Lassa has been in the State Senate since 2003 and previously served in the State Assembly beginning in 1999. Lassa ran for the US House seat in the 7^th district against Republican Sean Duffy in 2010. Though the seat had been held by Democratic Congressman Dave Obey for 42 years, Duffy ultimately defeated Lassa by 8 points to secure the congressional district that contains a large portion of the Northwoods. Though Lassa was unsuccessful in 2010, the Tea Party wave took down many others, including then incumbent Senator Russ Feingold. Lassa could provide the strongest opportunity to shore up support in the central and Northwoods areas of the state. However, her years in the state senate could provide amble ammunition for GOP attack ads.

Honorable Mention: State Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-LaCrosse), who initially looked into running for governor but ruled out a run in December 2016. Shilling’s leadership in the State Senate has given her additional name recognition and experience, but its worth noting she was reelected in 2016 by just 56 votes.

Wisconsin Local Democrats

1. Executive Tom Nelson: Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson is a former member of the Wisconsin State Assembly from 2005-2011 before winning election to be the county executive in 2011. While the move to county executive may not appear impressive at first glance, its worth noting that Outagamie County is traditionally conservative that Walker carried easily in 2014. The positives from this are that Nelson is able to garner support from rural moderates and conservatives, which is a difficult task for Democrats outside of Madison and Milwaukee. The negatives? Nelson is more fiscally conserative than the traditional Democrat and may need help in exciting the progressive base of the party. A task that Mary Burke was also presented with and unable to achieve in her failed attempt to defeat Walker in 2014.

2. Executive Joe Parisi: Dane County Executive Joe Parisi is also a former member of the State Assembly (2004-2011) before successfully running for county executive in 2011. Parisi’s track record for success can be easily seen by the economic success of Dane County, which is one of only two counties in the state that has seen more businesses open than close over the past year. Additionally, Parisi’s holds strong progressive policy positions that will likely excite the progressive and environmentalist base, which was a weakness in the past three elections against Walker. While Parisi is a strong progressive, he may be too easy for Walker to turn the campaign into “Walker vs. Dane County/Madison Democrat”. Walker, and the rest of the GOP, has successfully painted Dane County as the red communist/socialist scourge of the state and could possibly continue this campaign strategy against Parisi.

Many progressive Wisconsinites are of the midset that a Madison liberal, but finding an old-school, rural progressive with any experience is difficult to come by. Democrats with any experience from the Central Sands or Northwoods tend to be moderate or conservative Democrats and would have a difficult time turning out the progressive bases in Madison and Milwaukee. Similarly, there is a largely negative stigma of Madison liberals throughout north of the state capitol that gives Republicans an easy label to utilize. My natural instinct is the perfect blend of progressive and rural would come from the Driftless Area. However, I hesitate to predict the solution will come from the Driftless as State Senator Jennifer Shilling has ruled out running and Congressman Kind would have to address being labeled a Washington insider by conservatives and a turncoat moderate by progressives.

Ultimately, I believe Burke’s loss in 2014 coupled with Feingold and Hillary in 2016 demonstrated that the Democrats won’t get within 4 points if they don’t provide progressive policies that actively support rural Wisconsinites in an easily visible and promotable fashion. Additionally, a Democrat cannot win without also mobilizing the two dynamic but different progressive bases in Madison and Milwaukee.

No matter who ends up throwing their hat into the ring as we approach the 2018 primary season, the Democrats vs. Walker will be a key barometer reading for the nation to gauge the political climate within the Midwest and gauge the Rust Belt’s response to total Republican rule. If history is any indicator, the pendulum is ready to swing back left.