WI: Rasmussen: Thompson cruising to victory

[Miles]

New Poll: Wisconsin Senator by Rasmussen on 2012-6-14

Summary: D: 36%, R: 52%, U: 6%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Miles]

[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.

[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.

[Miles]

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

[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.

[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.