I may not have a clue, but to call it a victory when you lose two republicans less than a year after elections in the districts they won in kind of sends a message to me. You can dismiss it all you want. My point is, if everyone is happy about the leadership of Walker - as you continue to say - then I would assume all six would hold seats they recently won. I may also be wrong on this, but I heard in two reports last night that all six districts voted for Walker in the election, since you bring up Obama. So, that would seem to be a comment in that regard.
A couple other points. Marine, it seems the only money coming into the state that bothers you is the money (and protestors) that have a different view than you do. And seems to me it shouldn't be that tough in a 12 hour period of time to go cast a vote for something you believe in - but that is a hassle for some, I guess. Plenty of money and campaigning being done by outside sources and financiers supporting the republican incumbents, including the tea party busses, for one.
If you people don't like the money coming in to your elections, you'd better revisit how you feel about the Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to now fund races all over the country. These races are an indicator of where we're headed in the future.
And Wease - I wasn't crowing about anything. My observations were on point with two republicans losing seats and one hanging in the balance until well after Midnight in the district that just went through plenty of issues with the clerk who botched the results in the state supreme court race in April - and apparently hasn't figured out how to manage an election yet - if that's all that she was really up to, that is. I guess she found enough votes again last night, who knows? 40% of the seats changing hands this soon after an election is worth a mention, I'd say - but thanks for your opinion, as always Weasey... :SIB
Chad - you are ignoring the huge enthusiasm gap for this election. Clearly, the union worker base was charged up about this issue. Many of the Republican base, while excited about the positive change that Walker has brought to WI, certainly weren't as motivated.
It was a lot like the 2010 elections - but in reverse. Given the E gap, Dems should have done a lot better than they did, IMHO.
The state's politics have changed greatly since 2008. We can clearly thank Obama for that. His 2 big social experiments - Stimulus (his payoff to unions) and Obamacare - have really been successful in changing our state to one that had been Democratic leaning to one that is, at a minimum, Republican leaning.
The Dem's underperformed yesterday, especially with Obama directing his national organization to come to WI and knock on doors (won't even get into how inappropriate that is).
It was a great day for WI overall. Yes, we'd have loved to keep all 6 seats, but knew that Kapanke was toast due to his district being trending Democrat and also knew that Hopper could lose due to his infidelities with young staffers.
The Unions poured a lot of money into the Paasch/Darling race and came up short. That one had to leave a mark for them.
The "Hope and Change" we were promised in 2008 never came - well, it did in 2010 due to Scott Walker. You may argue with his methods, but certainly can't complain about his results so far.
Now, Obama, you can complain about his methods (the way he rammed through Healthcare was not unlike how Walker did the budget bill), but with Obama, you can also complain about the results (higher healthcare costs due to Obamacare as verified by CBO, higher unemployment, etc).
I know its hard for liberals to admit when they are wrong, but clearly Walker is a hero, and Obama is a zero.
