WI: Rasmussen: Thompson cruising to victory

[Miles]

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

Wow, I'm impressed, you really have the talking points nailed down! Want a cookie?

I'm curious, in your view, was the discourse perpetuated by the tea party mobs on Capitol Hill any more elevated than that of the Wisconsin protesters? Remember, these people threatened to take up a arms against the federal government and literally spit on Rep. Cleaver. But, in your book, they're probably FFs.

In 2010, Baldwin ran less than 3% behind Feingold (66.7% vs 69.5%). Baldwin was in a safe race and could thus afford to run a more lax campaign; Feingold, by contrast, needed all the Dane votes that he could get and had a greater GOTV effort there.

[krazen1211]

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

Wow, I'm impressed, you really have the talking points nailed down! Want a cookie?

I'm curious, in your view, was the discourse perpetuated by the tea party mobs on Capitol Hill any more elevated than that of the Wisconsin protesters? Remember, these people threatened to take up a arms against the federal government and literally spit on Rep. Cleaver. But, in your book, they're probably FFs.

In 2010, Baldwin ran less than 3% behind Feingold (66.7% vs 69.5%). Baldwin was in a safe race and could thus afford to run a more lax campaign; Feingold, by contrast, needed all the Dane votes that he could get and had a greater GOTV effort there.

Well, that doesn't make much sense; the voters already turned out for Feingold. That they decided to specifically not vote for Baldwin is quite interesting! It certainly must be extremely rare for an incumbent Congressperson to severely underperform numerous times as Baldwin did the same in 2000 and 2004.

In any case, tea partiers were angry, yes, but they certainly did not storm the Capitol. The Madison unions were like Orcs invading Helm's Deep.

[Miles]

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

Wow, I'm impressed, you really have the talking points nailed down! Want a cookie?

I'm curious, in your view, was the discourse perpetuated by the tea party mobs on Capitol Hill any more elevated than that of the Wisconsin protesters? Remember, these people threatened to take up a arms against the federal government and literally spit on Rep. Cleaver. But, in your book, they're probably FFs.

In 2010, Baldwin ran less than 3% behind Feingold (66.7% vs 69.5%). Baldwin was in a safe race and could thus afford to run a more lax campaign; Feingold, by contrast, needed all the Dane votes that he could get and had a greater GOTV effort there.

Well, that doesn't make much sense; the voters already turned out for Feingold. That they decided to specifically not vote for Baldwin is quite interesting! It certainly must be extremely rare for an incumbent Congressperson to severely underperform numerous times as Baldwin did the same in 2000 and 2004.

In any case, tea partiers were angry, yes, but they certainly did not storm the Capitol. The Madison unions were like Orcs invading Helm's Deep.

I can see some Independent voters crossing over against Baldwin, perhaps in the interest of a divided government. In any case, I think Feingold was (is) an all-around more appealing candidate than Baldwin.

The tea party never stormed the Capital? Really? That's an odd claim, considering Michele Bachmann encouraged tea partiers to do just that.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Entirely independent of his bizarre double standards and excuses on the subject of the appropriate level of political discourse, which he of course has done so much to heighten in his time on the Atlas Forum, am I correct in reading the other portion of krazen's response to my original question as a very lazily coded way of saying that he considers Tammy Baldwin a 'nutter' because she is a lesbian?

[Miles]

Yeah, the 'Bay Area' reference seems to support your argument, Nathan.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I was thinking of 'personal lifestyle choices'. I'm accustomed to seeing the Bay Area, my state, and a few other places being used as generic (and interchangeable, which is hilarious to anybody who's bothered to live in or even extensively visit any) synecdoches and shibboleths for the 'fake America'.

[DrScholl]

It's pretty clear what the intent of the post was.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Sorry, I've been doing literary analysis of other texts involving lesbians this evening (albeit texts from ninety years ago) and forgot to turn it off.

[tmthforu94]

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

Wow, I'm impressed, you really have the talking points nailed down! Want a cookie?

I'm curious, in your view, was the discourse perpetuated by the tea party mobs on Capitol Hill any more elevated than that of the Wisconsin protesters? Remember, these people threatened to take up a arms against the federal government and literally spit on Rep. Cleaver. But, in your book, they're probably FFs.

In 2010, Baldwin ran less than 3% behind Feingold (66.7% vs 69.5%). Baldwin was in a safe race and could thus afford to run a more lax campaign; Feingold, by contrast, needed all the Dane votes that he could get and had a greater GOTV effort there.

Feingold's opponent also had universal name recognition and was flooding the airwaves. The race received all the attention. In comparision, Baldwin (an assumption) had an unknown opponent with no airtime, and the race saw little attention. Had she faced an opponent similar to Johnson, she would have been much lower than Feingold.

[Niemeyerite]

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

Wow, I'm impressed, you really have the talking points nailed down! Want a cookie?

I'm curious, in your view, was the discourse perpetuated by the tea party mobs on Capitol Hill any more elevated than that of the Wisconsin protesters? Remember, these people threatened to take up a arms against the federal government and literally spit on Rep. Cleaver. But, in your book, they're probably FFs.

In 2010, Baldwin ran less than 3% behind Feingold (66.7% vs 69.5%). Baldwin was in a safe race and could thus afford to run a more lax campaign; Feingold, by contrast, needed all the Dane votes that he could get and had a greater GOTV effort there.

Feingold's opponent also had universal name recognition and was flooding the airwaves. The race received all the attention. In comparision, Baldwin (an assumption) had an unknown opponent with no airtime, and the race saw little attention. Had she faced an opponent similar to Johnson, she would have been much lower than Feingold.

OK, she got 3% less because she's a lesbian. Does that mean she's "nutts"?? I'm sure she'll get more than 70% in her home district this time around.

[krazen1211]

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

Wow, I'm impressed, you really have the talking points nailed down! Want a cookie?

I'm curious, in your view, was the discourse perpetuated by the tea party mobs on Capitol Hill any more elevated than that of the Wisconsin protesters? Remember, these people threatened to take up a arms against the federal government and literally spit on Rep. Cleaver. But, in your book, they're probably FFs.

In 2010, Baldwin ran less than 3% behind Feingold (66.7% vs 69.5%). Baldwin was in a safe race and could thus afford to run a more lax campaign; Feingold, by contrast, needed all the Dane votes that he could get and had a greater GOTV effort there.

Feingold's opponent also had universal name recognition and was flooding the airwaves. The race received all the attention. In comparision, Baldwin (an assumption) had an unknown opponent with no airtime, and the race saw little attention. Had she faced an opponent similar to Johnson, she would have been much lower than Feingold.

OK, she got 3% less because she's a lesbian. Does that mean she's "nutts"?? I'm sure she'll get more than 70% in her home district this time around.

How funny! Baldwin has never gotten 70% in that district.


I don't quite get why voters would vote MORE Democratic in the competitive senate race in the interests of 'divided government', or why those same independents refused to vote for Baldwin in 2000 and 2004 and yet voted for Gore and Kerry.

But that's liberal world.

[Torie]

What exactly does "Bay area" voting record mean?  And I thought nobody cared what women do to women; it's only when men do it, that some feel threatened.

[Gustaf]

What exactly does "Bay area" voting record mean?  And I thought nobody cared what women do to women; it's only when men do it, that some feel threatened.

They're taking our women, Torie. Almost as bad as immigrants.

[Torie]

What exactly does "Bay area" voting record mean?  And I thought nobody cared what women do to women; it's only when men do it, that some feel threatened.

They're taking our women, Torie. Almost as bad as immigrants.

We'll just import some more Swedish au pair's to replace those women who are so misguided so as to not appreciate just how truly magnificent the male body is.

[Miles]

Will krazen please explain to us what exactly makes Representative Baldwin and the populace of Dane County 'nutters', as opposed to people with whom he disagrees politically and whom he dislikes?

Namely, of course, the tantrums in city hall, the screaming and rioting, the lawsuit barrage, and the recalls.

None of which are typical behavior of political 'disagreement'. None of the private sector did all that when the unions socked us in the chin good.


In any case, the loudmouths somehow convinced many that Scott Walker would actually be recalled! The problem is they ran into the great Silent Majority.


The people will of course also decide whether they approve of Baldwin's personal lifestyle choices and Bay Area voting record. Even in Dane County, Baldwin got thousands of fewer votes than Feingold.

Wow, I'm impressed, you really have the talking points nailed down! Want a cookie?

I'm curious, in your view, was the discourse perpetuated by the tea party mobs on Capitol Hill any more elevated than that of the Wisconsin protesters? Remember, these people threatened to take up a arms against the federal government and literally spit on Rep. Cleaver. But, in your book, they're probably FFs.

In 2010, Baldwin ran less than 3% behind Feingold (66.7% vs 69.5%). Baldwin was in a safe race and could thus afford to run a more lax campaign; Feingold, by contrast, needed all the Dane votes that he could get and had a greater GOTV effort there.

Feingold's opponent also had universal name recognition and was flooding the airwaves. The race received all the attention. In comparision, Baldwin (an assumption) had an unknown opponent with no airtime, and the race saw little attention. Had she faced an opponent similar to Johnson, she would have been much lower than Feingold.

OK, she got 3% less because she's a lesbian. Does that mean she's "nutts"?? I'm sure she'll get more than 70% in her home district this time around.

How funny! Baldwin has never gotten 70% in that district.


I don't quite get why voters would vote MORE Democratic in the competitive senate race in the interests of 'divided government', or why those same independents refused to vote for Baldwin in 2000 and 2004 and yet voted for Gore and Kerry.

But that's liberal world.

How funny! If you don't quite get why some voters cross over in the "interest of divided government", then you don't know much about electoral politics. I'm one who thinks that, more than anything else, the 2010 elections were a referendum on Pelosi; thats why Democrats did relatively well in the Senate compared to the House. Perhaps that 3% of voters voted for Feingold, but wanted to vote against Pelosi. Baldwin actually ran ahead of Kerry in 2004 and in 2000, she was not a very entrenched incumbent and her opponent was a string campaigner.

Martin Heinrich ran 9% behind Obama and even further behind Udall in 2008. But this year, he's leading in the same person he beat back then in the polls. So, I think to judge candidates based in such arbitrary margins doesn't give you the entire picture.

Finally, there actually are ways to debate without giving off such arrogant and condescending undertones. You should look into that....you'd actually probably win more people over to your side if you adopted such an approach.

[krazen1211]

How funny! If you don't quite get why some voters cross over in the "interest of divided government", then you don't know much about electoral politics. I'm one who thinks that, more than anything else, the 2010 elections were a referendum on Pelosi; thats why Democrats did relatively well in the Senate compared to the House. Perhaps that 3% of voters voted for Feingold, but wanted to vote against Pelosi. Baldwin actually ran ahead of Kerry in 2004 and in 2000, she was not a very entrenched incumbent and her opponent was a string campaigner.

Martin Heinrich ran 9% behind Obama and even further behind Udall in 2008. But this year, he's leading in the same person he beat back then in the polls. So, I think to judge candidates based in such arbitrary margins doesn't give you the entire picture.

Finally, there actually are ways to debate without giving off such arrogant and condescending undertones. You should look into that....you'd actually probably win more people over to your side if you adopted such an approach.

Well, that is a very interesting theory.

This Pelosi linked underperformance does not seem to have affected Ron Kind in the neighboring district.

Ron Kind managed to get 54.8% in Eu Claire and 52.9% in La Crosse. Feingold managed 50.6%/50.3%, respectively.



But I suppose Ron Kind cannot be tarnished with the Bay Area brand because he doesn't have a Bay Area lifestyle with a Bay Area voting record. That is a massive 5 point swing between Baldwin and Kind.

[krazen1211]

What exactly does "Bay area" voting record mean?  And I thought nobody cared what women do to women; it's only when men do it, that some feel threatened.

It would refer to a voting record that is reflective of having a massive excess of liberals in one's district. Such is true in the Bay Area but not the state of Wisconsin.

[Miles]

How funny! If you don't quite get why some voters cross over in the "interest of divided government", then you don't know much about electoral politics. I'm one who thinks that, more than anything else, the 2010 elections were a referendum on Pelosi; thats why Democrats did relatively well in the Senate compared to the House. Perhaps that 3% of voters voted for Feingold, but wanted to vote against Pelosi. Baldwin actually ran ahead of Kerry in 2004 and in 2000, she was not a very entrenched incumbent and her opponent was a string campaigner.

Martin Heinrich ran 9% behind Obama and even further behind Udall in 2008. But this year, he's leading in the same person he beat back then in the polls. So, I think to judge candidates based in such arbitrary margins doesn't give you the entire picture.

Finally, there actually are ways to debate without giving off such arrogant and condescending undertones. You should look into that....you'd actually probably win more people over to your side if you adopted such an approach.

Well, that is a very interesting theory.

This Pelosi linked underperformance does not seem to have affected Ron Kind in the neighboring district.

Ron Kind managed to get 54.8% in Eu Claire and 52.9% in La Crosse. Feingold managed 50.6%/50.3%, respectively.

Well, Kind was in a considerably more competitive race and had to campaign much stronger. As I said before, Baldwin was in a very safe seat, so she could afford to run behind other candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very good use of alliteration.

[krazen1211]

How funny! If you don't quite get why some voters cross over in the "interest of divided government", then you don't know much about electoral politics. I'm one who thinks that, more than anything else, the 2010 elections were a referendum on Pelosi; thats why Democrats did relatively well in the Senate compared to the House. Perhaps that 3% of voters voted for Feingold, but wanted to vote against Pelosi. Baldwin actually ran ahead of Kerry in 2004 and in 2000, she was not a very entrenched incumbent and her opponent was a string campaigner.

Martin Heinrich ran 9% behind Obama and even further behind Udall in 2008. But this year, he's leading in the same person he beat back then in the polls. So, I think to judge candidates based in such arbitrary margins doesn't give you the entire picture.

Finally, there actually are ways to debate without giving off such arrogant and condescending undertones. You should look into that....you'd actually probably win more people over to your side if you adopted such an approach.

Well, that is a very interesting theory.

This Pelosi linked underperformance does not seem to have affected Ron Kind in the neighboring district.

Ron Kind managed to get 54.8% in Eu Claire and 52.9% in La Crosse. Feingold managed 50.6%/50.3%, respectively.

Well, Kind was in a considerably more competitive race and had to campaign much stronger. As I said before, Baldwin was in a very safe seat, so she could afford to run behind other candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very good use of alliteration.

Interesting theory, I suppose. I wonder how many incumbents consistently run behind other candidates merely because they can afford to, and not because they are simply lousy politicians! See Jim Bunning, 2004.

[TJ in Oregon]

Honestly the main reason why this isn't competitive is probably a name recognition gap between a popular former governor (he has to be somewhat popular to have been elected as a Republican multiple times in a traditionally Democratic state and is still polling 50%+ here) and a congresswoman from Madison the rest of the state has probably heard very little of.

That and the political transformation of sorts Wisconsin seems to be going through at the moment. While, I'm not convinced Mitt Romney has a chance at Wisconsin quite yet, if the Republicans nominate Tommy Thompson, he will likely cruise to an easy victory barring something strange happening.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hah, Tammy Baldwin.  What a joke.  Looks like we're gonna pull in Wisconsin what the Dems pulled in Virginia in '06-'08

Narrow or landslide?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If Tammy Baldwin was married to a big tough manly man with muscles and a penis and a manly job like long-haul trucker or haircare specialist, or if she was such a man herself, I sincerely doubt that anybody would think to use the fact that she's slightly less popular in her safely left-wing district than national left-wing icon Russ Feingold to indicate much of anything.

What exactly does "Bay area" voting record mean?  And I thought nobody cared what women do to women; it's only when men do it, that some feel threatened.

Bay Area=mythical homogeneously white-liberal elitist cultural area, which may or may not be the same area as Dane County or New England, which are similarly homogeneous, dontcha know.

Nobody cared what women did to each other until relatively recently but that's one of the changes that modernity and the Victorian fixation on better-managed sex wrought.

[krazen1211]

If Tammy Baldwin was married to a big tough manly man with muscles and a penis and a manly job like long-haul trucker or haircare specialist, or if she was such a man herself, I sincerely doubt that anybody would think to use the fact that she's slightly less popular in her safely left-wing district than national left-wing icon Russ Feingold to indicate much of anything.

What exactly does "Bay area" voting record mean?  And I thought nobody cared what women do to women; it's only when men do it, that some feel threatened.

Bay Area=mythical homogeneously white-liberal elitist cultural area, which may or may not be the same area as Dane County or New England, which are similarly homogeneous, dontcha know.

Nobody cared what women did to each other until relatively recently but that's one of the changes that modernity and the Victorian fixation on better-managed sex wrought.

You forgot to mention that Tammy Baldwin is also slightly less popular than proven twice loser non-friend of the unions Tom Barrett.

But truthfully the bay area is not very white. Dane County is, which makes their behavior all the more perplexing to the rest of the state.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If Tammy Baldwin was married to a big tough manly man with muscles and a penis and a manly job like long-haul trucker or haircare specialist, or if she was such a man herself, I sincerely doubt that anybody would think to use the fact that she's slightly less popular in her safely left-wing district than national left-wing icon Russ Feingold to indicate much of anything.

What exactly does "Bay area" voting record mean?  And I thought nobody cared what women do to women; it's only when men do it, that some feel threatened.

Bay Area=mythical homogeneously white-liberal elitist cultural area, which may or may not be the same area as Dane County or New England, which are similarly homogeneous, dontcha know.

Nobody cared what women did to each other until relatively recently but that's one of the changes that modernity and the Victorian fixation on better-managed sex wrought.

You forgot to mention that Tammy Baldwin is also slightly less popular than proven twice loser non-friend of the unions Tom Barrett.

Okay, but in the contexts that we're looking at I'm still skeptical that that's enough to declare her mentally unsound. At worst she's a less-than-ideal pick for a Senate candidate in her state, which I don't think any of us are denying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware of this, which is what makes a lot of the venomous cultural rhetoric surrounding the Bay Area as compared with other strongly left-leaning parts of the country strike me as somewhat curious. Vermont, for example, is also very white, indeed whiter than Dane County. Ideally I wouldn't think that white liberals should be inherently perplexing, even in large numbers and concentrations. Their existence is pretty well-established.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Krazen is one of those matters that Hamlet talked about, isn't he?