Independents went for the GOP by a large margin. That’s not just a turnout problem.
Damn right. We’re very familiar with the reality of T-Pawnomics here. The guy looks like a weasel for a reason.
Thanks for posting that, I’m going to let them know. They talked like it was several hundred dollars. Maybe he’s having a fire sale. This will make them like me 
He spent most of his career in the mid-50s in approval and won two term. That is not the mark of an unpopular governor.
I’m sure you hold Mark Dayton a completely different standard.
To underscore this point - The following showed up in my Facebook feed this evening:
“One of our members shared one with me today I’d never heard. And as usual… it was FALSE! It was titled Obama gives 7 oil rich islands to Putin! And yes… the full moon is in full force! Snopes.com has not checked this one out, but FactCheck.org has and here is the information. Tell your crazy uncle to step away from the key board.
Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA”
With this as the second response:
“sorry, don’t trust anything you have to say good about Obama…not even going to look at this!”
The same person added this later:
" LOL and WOW - in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ““The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their validity.””
From the looks of her profile she works for a local news channel. http://www.wrex.com/
These people give me brain freeze.
Yeah, who’da thunk he’d be less popular here as a presidential candidate than he was as the governor of our own state? I guess it had something to do with seeing the longer-term effects of his policies. Yes indeedy, many inexplicable things have happened in Minnesota politics. Remember who preceded ol’ Ferret Face?
Dayton is … less offensive than I thought he’d be. He gives his dogs cool names, and he seems to stick to his principles for good (gay rights) or bad (Vikings stadium). His facial tic drives me batty, though.
I can accept a lot of explanations, but voter ignorance is not one of them. I see tons of ignorance from Obama supporters. Most of them are completely unfamiliar with the President’s record. Many don’t even know that he’s a flip flopper on the same scale as Romney. They don’t know about the cronyism. They don’t know about the use of executive power to directly further his reelection(WARN notice rules, postponing Medicare Advantage cuts). And they interpret his accomplishments in the most favorable light. They take him at his word that he created or saved X number of jobs, even though he directly kills jobs all over the country that aren’t theoretical or based on a model. They don’t hold him responsible for Fast and Furious, even though supposedly a president is responsible for what goes on in his administration.
When Obama supporters acknowledge the massive plank of ignorance in their own eye, they can comment on the mote in the eye of the general electorate.
All the states in the region suffered. Most of the states were run by Democrats. Minnesota and Indiana, Republican-run states, got off relatively lightly compared to Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.
The only thing you can blame Pawlenty for is not beign as awesome as Mitch daniels. He clearly outperformed his fellow governors in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.
Mistakes were made.
Yes. And you won’t see me pouncing on the President’s failures as clearcut evidence that he doesn’t deserve to be reelected. I mean, to me his shortcomings add up to no way in hell should he get a second term, but others’ mileage might vary. But I don’t think people should accuse the general public of being ignorant when they haven’t fully examined their own guys’ record.
I think a vote for Obama is defensible despite his record. His supporters just need to recognize that vote for Romney is also justified despite his shortcomings as well. It’s not like we have a clearcut case of an awesome incumbent like a Reagan or a Clinton who clearly deserved reelection. And even in their cases, they had serious flaws in their records.
Then you need to see an optometrist.
Wisconsin went to having a Democratic controlled state senate, assembly, governors mansion, and 2 US Senate seats, to a Republican assembly, senate, 1 US Senate seat, and 2 Democratic congress reps replaced by Republicans.
The state senate is temporarily control (by 1 vote) by Dems, but that will change after November. And odds are both US Senate seats will be held by Republicans.
All of this in only 2 years and you don’t see a huge shift?
Is it a permanent shift, or just the same thing that went on in most states, with incumbent parties being rejected in favor of new blood?
Not really, sorry. I’m seeing the same anti-incumbent sentiment colored by a decrease in union loyalty.
Perhaps I am too focused on the presidential race, but I haven’t seen enormous movement in the upper midwest as a whole - merely in WI. Most of the other states have seen movement in line with the movement in national polls.
The idea that the region has shifted to the GOP (if it has) because suddenly the electorate got dumber is, IMO, ridiculous.
Minnesota’s relative lack of “suffering” has more to do with having an economy that is not as dependent on manufacturing as those of some of our midwestern neighbors than it does with any alleged accomplishments of that Republican rodent and his cronies.
I do have one good thing to say about your pal Pawlenty, though. He left.
Yeah, just an awful governor, elected to two terms and all.
Wisconsin is what I specifically replied to, hence the quote I supplied in my post.
See? I knew you’d come around. 
So you agree with me then? That the upper midwest as a whole hasn’t shifted - only Wisconsin. And I don’t agree with you that the GOP will get both US Senate seats - Baldwin vs. whomever will be close. Obviously the state-level politics have changed, I don’t really know or care about that, to be honest. But yeah, as I noted, WI has shifted maybe 4% towards the GOP compared to the nation as a whole. Ohio has apparently shifted the other way about 4%, to get a feel for the magnitude we’re talking about.
But if you think that Romney will win WI, then I’ll happily take that action.
The states that have truly shifted are the “near South” - Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee. There was a time that these could go Democratic in a national election.
I don’t see a permanent shift, but the polling in the Presidential race is a lot closer than in the past. If Romney has a good night, he can win any or all of those states except for Illinois. but I do think that’s circumstances that only apply to this election.
:dubious: You think getting re-elected is proof of non-awfulness?
That would imply that W Bush was non-awful, and that FDR was AWESOME! Would you agree with both those claims?