"Ron Johnson, Tammy Baldwin: No pair of senators are further apart."

"Johnson, a Republican, ranks to the right of roughly 95% of his Senate colleagues in two well-established nonpartisan rating systems.... Baldwin, a Democrat, ranked to the left of the vast majority of her House colleagues in the same rating systems before she arrived in the Senate last month."

From Wisconsin.    

To use the old travel-guide cliché: a land of contrasts. 

"We know what happened in Benghazi now... but what we don't know is why we were misled."

Ron Johnson, questioning John Kerry. I'm breaking out what I think is the main quote. Look how differently this exchange is presented at TPM.

This was the same disconnect that Hillary Clinton tried to pull off when Ron Johnson questioned her the other day and she had her "What difference does it make?" outburst. She wanted us to focus on the point in time when the attackers decided to attack.

"Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?"

It. She has the wrong it. Johnson's question to her and then to Kerry related to the point in time when the people in the Obama administration decided to mislead the public by actively pushing a phony story about the "Innocence of Muslims" video. That was a strange thing to do, and both Clinton and Kerry have doggedly distracted us by pretending the question is why the attack occurred.

Ron Johnson — by raising his voice, getting testy, and interrupting — tricks Hillary Clinton into losing her modulation.

My interpretation of this is that Clinton had prepared for this question and practiced getting indignant, but she was not quite ready for the tension cranked up by the wily Wisconsinite Johnson. So the workshopped outrage flipped out over the top. Great theater.

ADDED: "It was theatrics... she didn’t want to answer questions so she makes a big show of it," said Ron Johnson afterwards.

"I'm not going to go away, but I'm not going to run again," says Tommy Thompson.

Who seems to have said that in 2010 when he opted not to challenge Russ Feingold for the Senate seat that Ron Johnson went on to win. But 2 years later, when Herb Kohl decided he'd sat in his seat long enough, Tommy decided to run or saunter over what was an empty seat. It should have been really easy, especially with the Democrats putting up the most left of the liberal Democrats in Congress. Well, it wasn't that easy.

ADDED: Here's Tammy Baldwin's victory speech. Congratulations. I remember her as a student in my class!

"Althouse: If you could write your 'How Obama Lost Me' post in the next 24 hours, the race could come down to your influence!"

Writes Ruth Anne Adams in the comments to the "last 72 hours" post. She adds "But if you're going the way of Colin Powell not so much" and "But if you could at least reveal your voting preference in the next few hours, that could win a wager or seven."

I think she's misremembering what the "lost me" posts of the past were about. I started blogging in 2004, a presidential election year, and, after much coverage of the election, including a commitment to something I called "cruel neutrality," on September 26th, I wrote a post called "How Kerry lost me." This wasn't me explaining why I was going to vote against Kerry. It was me acknowledging how I felt and realizing that I could mine the blog archive to discover where that feeling came from.

Yet I find myself expressing an increasing amount of hostility to Kerry, so I thought I'd go back and trace the arc of my antagonism through my various posts.

It was a bloggy project, solving a mystery about myself by taking advantage of the archive. For example, I found the wellspring of my antagonism in a single remark: "You're not listening" (said to a man who asked him what his position on Iraq was, as if the man had simply failed to pay attention to some supposedly previously stated position, when I too had been waiting for Kerry to answer that question). And I found what was, to me, "his final, fatal mistake" (disrespecting Allawi!), which prompted me to write the "lost me" post.

In 2008, I wrote "How McCain lost me," which may have created the impression that "lost me" posts are an Althouse blog tradition. That post was written after the election, but — I said at the time — "it's the same in that I'm mining my blog archive to try to understand how my resistance to the candidate formed and hardened and caused me to vote for the other man."

I know that I voted against McCain. Up through August, I genuinely didn't know which candidate I'd vote for, but I knew I was taking more shots at Obama and therefore giving the impression that I favored McCain. I didn't trust Obama, and I feared (and still fear) what Obama would do with a Democratic Congress. McCain was a more familiar character, less fun to write about, and he was also the underdog. But by mid-October, I knew that unless something big happened, I would vote for Obama. It was nothing new that Obama did. I didn't start liking him more, and I never got caught up in the Obama lovefest.

It was a lot of work to mine that archive. Oddly, despite all that work, my commenters have accused me for the last 4 years of having fallen for Obama delusions. But the point of the work was not to drum anything into your head. It was, as it had been in 2004, an effort to see where my decision happened. That's what I'm interested in: How people think, where, in the emotional/reasoning mind of an individual, does a decision take place? The blog archive gave me the ability to examine that. What I wrote in the "lost me" posts of the last 2 elections was not anything like a newspaper's endorsement of a candidate or an argument designed to persuade anyone to agree with me. It has more to do with my professional interest in how judges make decisions: How does the human mind work?

Why haven't I done a "lost me" post this time around? I haven't had the experience of noticing that there is a mystery that I could solve by delving into old blog posts. As you can see in that last indented paragraph, above, I didn't trust Obama, and I feared what he would do with a Democratic Congress. We all saw what he did with a Democratic Congress. He let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their way with him. It was horrible. It led to the Tea Party and the trouncing Democrats took in 2010. I've felt no connection to the Democratic Party since then. Of course, I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for, but I've still voted for some of them, notably Ron Johnson and (twice!) Scott Walker, because... what choice do I have? The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin.

If I could have been assured that the GOP would control both houses of Congress, I might have thought Obama would be good. I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism. If one of the hardcore righties had won the Republican nomination, I would probably have gone for Obama. But Mitt Romney got the nomination, which is what I had been hoping for (after Mitch Daniels decided not to run). It was time to pay attention again to Obama The Candidate, and his campaign centered on vilifying Mitt Romney in the most inane Occupy-Wall-Street style that was completely alienating to me. Romney seamlessly transitioned from being my choice in the primaries to being my presumptive choice for President. I remained open to Obama. Obama could have won me.

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

Senator Ron Johnson said it 3 times today: "The American people have the right to know."

On Fox News Sunday today, the Wisconsin Senator made it all about Benghazi. The moderator gave him the last word after a long colloquy, including him and Senators Warner, Udall, and Portman, and he said:

Chris, the American people have the right to know. And that is what they are demanding here in Wisconsin.

Let's face it. What was the president doing, during those seven hours? Did he give that directive? Or didn't he? Did Leon Panetta directly defy him? I mean, what happened?

Who sent out? Who sent Ambassador Rice out five days later when they knew it was a terrorist attack that was preplanned, sent her on Sunday talk shows to say in fact it was a spontaneous reaction to, of course, the video. This administration purposefully misled the American people for weeks. This president misled the American people for weeks.

And, I think the American people have the right to know.

It was either misleading or is incompetent. I think we are finding out it was probably both, misleading and incompetence on the part of this administration. The American people have the right to know.

"That directive" refers to what Rob Portman was talking about earlier:

Chris, I got to tell you, I am member of the Armed Services Committee and I appreciate what my friend Mark Udall just said about not politicizing this.

This is not about politics. This is about a huge national security issue that affects all of us and there was a shocking break down, operationally, not to have the security there in the first place and not to respond to these guys, in their pleas for help for seven hours, during a firefight. It's unbelievable.

And now, we are hearing that the president of the United States, based on his own words, issued a directive immediately after he found out about the firefight, saying, he wanted to be sure those people on the ground were safe and they were getting what they needed. It didn't happen.

This means either that the president's order was not followed, which would be a break down in terms of the White House procedure, or, it means the order wasn't issued. We need to find out about this, it's not about politics. It's is a very serious situation.

After the fact, of course, there has been a lot of confusion about what happened and why it happened. I think the bottom line for us, it shows a lack of leadership. And it shows the policy in disarray and I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask these questions.

As you know, John McCain and I sent a letter more than two weeks ago to Secretary Panetta asking for some of these answers. We haven't heard anything. We sent another letter yesterday, with the additional information. We're now hearing directly from the president about this order that he issued.

Why wasn't it followed? This makes no sense.

"In Missouri, Wisconsin and Arizona, a trio of wealthy businessmen have tapped their own bank accounts to surge near the lead of Republican primary contests this month..."

"... by portraying themselves as anti-politicians ready to come to Washington to fix things."

In launching these campaigns, the wealthy businessmen are trying to tap into the general disgust many voters have for Congress, which has an approval rating just above 15 percent in most recent public polls. 

They're tapping their our bank accounts and tapping our general disgust.

However, according to a Washington Post analysis, over the past four elections, only six senators have been elected without previously holding some kind of elected position, and [Wisconsin's Ron] Johnson is the only one to come directly from the business world. Before that, New Jersey Democrat Jon S. Corzine, after leaving Goldman Sachs, was the most recent businessman-outsider to come straight from the corporate world to the Senate, having spent more than $60 million of his own money to win his 2000 race.

“There are the Ron Johnsons and John Brunners, who made money making things,” [said Jennifer Duffy, the senior editor for the independent Cook Political Report]. “Their businesses were local and part of the community, or at least had a local feel to them. I think voters have a harder time understanding how a Hovde or a Romney made money.”

Hovde, before returning to Wisconsin after more than two decades running a fund in Washington, faces a similar hurdle as Romney in explaining to voters how he made his millions through investing in other companies and funds.....

What's going on with Senator Ron Johnson and his staff?

It's hard to read between the lines of this Rollcall piece.

While top Republican sources expressed exasperation at the internal turmoil in Johnson’s office, they also noted that the Wisconsin freshman has not been diligent in building relationships with other Senators within the Conference and has alienated himself by not reaching out more frequently to colleagues.

What's that about?

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson endorses Mitt Romney.

On this morning's "Meet the Press."

... Johnson says Romney is the only candidate with a realistic chance of getting the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination.

Johnson also says the candidates have had “a spirited debate” but he thinks it’s time “to end this” and prepare for the campaign against Obama.

I like the way everything is climaxing in Wisconsin.

ADDED: Meanwhile, Governor Scott Walker is not doing an endorsement.

Walker’s campaign spokeswoman said he’s not picking a favorite because his full attention is on defending himself against a recall election scheduled for June. But some political scientists say that’s only part of the story.

Polls show that the recall will be so close that Walker can’t risk alienating even a few Republican voters by endorsing one presidential hopeful over the others, said Mordecai Lee, a UW-Milwaukee professor of government affairs and former Democratic state lawmaker.

“Walker has no margin of error,” said Lee, pointing to polls that indicate the recall may be as close as the April 2011 state Supreme Court race that was decided by about 7,000 votes out of 1.5 million. “For Walker there is absolutely no self-benefit to endorsing anyone. He’s already a hero to every Republican. Walker hurts himself if he endorses any individual candidate.”

Prediction: Russ Feingold will run against Scott Walker in the recall election...

... if there is a recall election. I'm not predicting that the governor's antagonists will succeed in getting 540,208 signatures in 60 days, which is what they need to force an election. Once they've snapped up the easy signatures in Madison they've got to venture out to chillier places. For example, at yesterday's Packer game:


(Ha ha. The last guy in that video is great)

I'm only saying that if they get the signatures, Russ Feingold — despite repeated statements to the contrary — will step forward and run to take the governorship away from Scott Walker.

The fact that the signature effort may fail is just one of the reasons why Russ Feingold has taken the official position that he will not run. Yes, some people might be more willing to sign the recall petition if they knew the strongest-polling Democrat was ready to go, but the signature-gathering-effort would turn into a discussion about whether Feingold is preferable to Walker, and — as I read Feingold's mind — Feingold would prefer for people to leave him out of it and concentrate on how bad Scott Walker is.

By disclaiming the desire to take power, Feingold is able to present himself as a statesman, appearing at numerous anti-Walker events to bolster the morale of the protesters and, seemingly selflessly,  to criticize Walker. Here he was at Saturday's recall rally. Here he was at the Walkerville protest in June. And here he was embodying the Wisconsin protests for Netroots Nation people. That was back in March, before he'd done much at Wisconsin protests (oddly enough!), but when folks outside of Wisconsin, like FireDogLake, were straining to connect Feingold to the protests. FireDogLake noted that "practically every rally in Madison has included some variant of a 'Feingold for Governor' sign."

Back then, Feingold had only appeared at — I think — one anti-Walker protest: On February 18th, he marched with some firefighters. That was 2 days after he announced that he was starting a new organization called "Progressives United" (which hasn't made much... progress), about a month after he signed on to teach "Current Legal Issues: The U.S. Senate" at Marquette Law School, and 3 months after he was humiliated by the loss of his Senate seat to a political newby, the tea partier Ron Johnson.

As the protest season unrolled, and Walker-haters chanted "Recall Walker" and carried signs picturing Feingold with the slogan "This is what a Governor looks like," Feingold had to be careful not to look too eager to grab the governorship. Under Wisconsin law, there could not be a recall election until early 2012, and the time-line had to be managed. Feingold figured out — I'm guessing — that he needed to stay in the background, act as though he wanted nothing for himself, and let the demand build. People would have to beg to run.

If and when the recall Walker campaign come to fruition, there will be a painful, embarrassing dearth of willing Democratic candidates. The cry will reach a crescendo: Help us, Russ Feingold, you're our only hope!

And then, not for himself, not because he lost the Senate seat, not because he'd like to set himself up for a run at the presidency in 2016, but humbly, out of a pressing sense of duty, for the sake of the People of Wisconsin, Reluctant Russ will step forward. Oh, the liberal love that will gush forth that day!

Will he win? I don't know. He could be rehumiliated. First, that tea partier Ron Johnson, and next, that weasel Walker!

But what else can Feingold do with himself? Teach more courses about law and politics at Marquette? No, he has big ambitions, and the most ambitious path leads to the presidency. Russ wanted the presidency in 2008, (and his campaign collapsed early). What is the one thing that would — by far — help launch Feingold to the presidency if anything is going to launch him? Executive experience — successful executive experience — running a state.

He can't wait until 2014 — when Walker's term runs out — to run for governor. He must have realized that when he lost his Senate seat. This recall is exactly what he needs to restore his political career. Note that he declined to run for the Senate seat Herb Kohl is vacating. Why? I think it's that he already had fixed his ambition on the governor position. Why? It would be too small an accomplishment to crawl back to the Senate, where Ron Johnson is sitting in his seat. And the Senate is not a good path to the presidency. Feingold learned that the last time around, in the 2008 campaign. You need executive experience (or you need to be Barack Obama). Senator doesn't cut it. Especially for 2016, after Barack Obama.

So you take over as Governor of Wisconsin. You bring peace to our state after all of this discord. The liberals lapse into a snooze of bliss. Realistically, they know you can't do anything, because the Republicans hold the legislature. All you need to be is our dear Russ, the liberal, who ended the pain that was Scott Walker. While the liberals are sated and sleeping it off, Russ will build his new reputation. He'll demonstrate bipartisanship, working with the Republican legislature, gathering in a few symbolic accomplishments. The economic outlook will probably brighten — with Walker's reforms remaining in place — and Governor Feingold will glow over every tick upward. Feingold will seem so mature and moderate, so responsible and effective, so intelligent... so excellent!

Blah blah blah...  

President Feingold!!!

"[T]he feds have been creating various animated characters for materials intended to 'prepare' kids for disasters..."

"... and Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) reports that Washington could save $2.6 million over 10 years if the bureaucrats could simply settle on one mascot."

"Tommy Thompson is IN" — running for the Senate seat Herb Kohl is about to get up out of.

Says David Blaska, who used to work for Thompson.

My old mentor will have beaucoup de competition in the Republican primary for Herb Kohl’s U.S. Senate seat this time around. He can bring in boatloads of national cash, name I.D. up the wazoo, and residual good will. Question: Will he be outflanked from the Right and if so, by whom?

I vividly remember hearing Thompson say, a year ago, that he shouldn't be the one to challenge Russ Feingold:

Thompson took a lot of credit for his work as Governor and claimed to have instituted many of the Tea Party values. But, he said, it's time for a new generation to take over, and, besides, he promised his family...

Ron Johnson accomplished the task of defeating Feingold. Now, looking at an empty seat, Thompson no longer wants to leave things to the younger generation? Why not?

"Victoria Nourse really has very little connection to the state of Wisconsin, and nobody in the legal community in Wisconsin knows anything about her."

Said Senator Ron Johnson, who is blocking Obama's nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Apparently, the University of Wisconsin Law School doesn't count as "the legal community in Wisconsin." That says something. Let's talk about what.

"To tell you the truth, I'm not 100 percent certain America is made up of states. We might be living in a fiefdom, for all I know."

"Am I spelling that right? 'Wisconsin.' It looks weird written out.... Ladies and gentlemen, isn't it time you elected someone who only learned five minutes ago that there are three branches of government, not 14?... Russ Feingold could point out Washington, D.C. with his eyes closed, and I have never quite grasped the difference between a map and a light-up globe. That is the difference I bring to the race, and that is the kind of leadership we need.... What we don't need is Russ Feingold, who is a Democrat capable of conjugating verbs and composing thoughts in sentence form. I'll be honest, I have absolutely no clue what I've been saying here this entire time. What is time? Where am I? Who are you? How do telescopes work, and why am I writing this right now? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Because I am an outsider and Russ Feingold is a man with dark hair. Furthermore, overspending, the left-wing media, tax cuts, class warfare, Muslims, Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi, corporate giveaways, socialism, Nancy Pelosi. Washington, D.C. Voter-people of Wisoncassinn, my name is Rob Jameson, and I want to be your congressman or Parliament or surgeon general or whatever the hell it is I'm running for. Thank you."

Just ran across that Onion shredding of Ron Johnson. It's really funny. Especially now. The voters are pretty damn stupid.... ha ha ha.

"This is the old 'bitter clingers' (or 'What's the Matter With Kansas?') argument reduced to utter incoherence."

James Taranto quotes Gov. Ed Rendell...

[P]eople don't always vote on logical reasons. Emotion drives voters particularly when they have reason to be angry and frustrated. If you lost your job or lost your house or lost your 401k, you had every reason to be angry and frustrated and when you are, you have a tendency to blame the people who are in office...

... and — via me — UW polisci professor Charles Franklin:

I'm not endorsing the American voter... They're pretty damn stupid.

Taranto — being much nicer to Franklin than Rush Limbaugh was — includes the self-defense Franklin wrote in the comments to my blog:

... [V]oters embraced Ron Johnson before they knew much about him. . . . The race wasn't about specific details of Johnson vs Feingold, it was a rejection of Democrats more or less regardless of what voters knew about the GOP candidate... [D]espite not knowing the details of Johnson's policy positions, the voters did NOT make a mistake in choosing Johnson as the more conservative candidate and certain to be more favorable to cutting government....

Taranto finds this incoherent: "In other words, the electorate was smart. So why did Franklin call them stupid?"

***

By the way, I love Taranto's Best of the Web. This, from the same link, had me in hysterics:

Such as: What the Heck Is Tomosynthesis?
"Breast Tomosynthesis on Verge of U.S. Approval, but Questions Linger"--headline, DotMed.com, Nov. 24

Byron York, tipped off by a post of mine, takes aim at a UW professor.

"Political reporters often rely on University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin for expertise," says York:

If you read his quotes in mainstream publications, you'll find a series of measured statements on political trends.  Democrats appealing to the youth vote in the run-up to the midterms are "betting long odds, given the very long history of low turnout in midterms among young voters," Franklin told the Washington Post recently.  Final pre-election polls suggested "a Republican wave of genuinely historical proportions," he told USA Today.  Feingold's problems had "more to do with the mood of the country than with Feingold himself," he told the Boston Globe.

It's all pretty unremarkable stuff.  And readers would have no idea what Franklin really thinks about the voters whose opinions he's measuring and commenting on.  But now they do.

Here's the post of mine that York read, and here's the Isthmus article that I drew to his attention to Franklin's opinion of the voters ("They're pretty damn stupid.").

ADDED: Professor Franklin appears in the comments section of yesterday's post and says:

Sigh. Bill's Lueder's quote is exactly accurate. I said exactly what he says I said. Normally I would just let it go at that since once such a quote is out it will spread no matter what. The only complaint I have is that Lueder's subsequent conclusions from that quote are his own and not mine.

The context was the Senate race and the point I was making, which I've made numerous times before, was that voters embraced Ron Johnson before they knew much about him. In a June 26-27 poll by Public Policy Polling, Johnson trailed Feingold by just 2 points, yet in the poll 62% said they had neither a favorable nor an unfavorable opinion of Johnson. I've used that poll frequently to illustrate the fact that voters were ready to embrace a Republican they knew almost nothing about over a three term incumbent Democrat. The race wasn't about specific details of Johnson vs Feingold, it was a rejection of Democrats more or less regardless of what voters knew about the GOP candidate.

That was the context in which I said voters are "pretty damn stupid". Too hyperbolic indeed, but I said it and have no complaint that it was quoted when I knew I was speaking to journalists.

But I wish what I said next had also been quoted. I went on to say that despite not knowing the details of Johnson's policy positions, the voters did NOT make a mistake in choosing Johnson as the more conservative candidate and certain to be more favorable to cutting government. That was indeed the correct connection by an angry electorate, even if the details were quite vague.

Voter's often act on little information and can be astonishingly unaware of things one might consider "facts". A post-election Pew poll finds less than half (46%) know the GOP won only the House but not the Senate. And at times voters appear to vote for candidates who are likely to take positions at odds with the voter's interests.

But in the Johnson-Feingold race, I think despite lack of details about Johnson, a majority of Wisconsin voter's picked the guy they wanted, and for basically the right reason. Dems may be astonished at the rejection of a favorite son, but in making this choice I think voter's properly expressed their preferences and matched them to the right candidate.

So I wish I had phrased this differently but that's my bad, no one else's. But I do not agree with the conclusion that voter's were "stupid" to pick Johnson over Feingold. In fact I believe a majority got the Senator they wanted, and that is always good for a republic.

"The last thing Wisconsin needed was another rich guy to serve as fodder for the Feingold political machine. Just who did this thin-faced, white-haired guy think he was?"

Christian Schneider, of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, has a long, juicy article about Ron Johnson:

In early April of 2010, Michelle Litjens, the chairwoman of the Winnebago Republican Party, found some local guy that was thinking of running for the U.S. Senate.   She brought him down to a meeting of a handful of conservative operatives in Madison.  He didn’t even know he was supposed to speak at this meeting, and patched together a few talking points in the car on the way down.

When Litjens introduced businessman Ron Johnson to the group, people rolled their eyes and checked their watches as he ambled through his reasons for running.  There were already a few people thinking about running for senate, and even Wisconsin political legend Tommy Thompson was considering getting in the race.  The last thing Wisconsin needed was another rich guy to serve as fodder for the Feingold political machine.  Just who did this thin-faced, white-haired guy think he was?

Six months later, everyone found out who he was.  He was Ron Johnson, Republican Senator from Wisconsin.

That's the very end of the article. The "thin-faced" business refers back to this:

In his remote cubicle, [36-year old deputy campaign manager Jack] Jablonski is holding court with the other staffers, detailing a study he read that could bode well for RonJon.  Apparently, some political scientists have determined that voters are more likely to support the candidate with the narrower face.  It makes them look more trustworthy, or something.  These researchers actually used Feingold’s 2004 race against construction company owner Tim Michels to prove their point – Feingold’s face was narrower that Michels’ giant meaty head, so study respondents correctly picked Feingold as the winner by overwhelming margins.

“Ron’s face is even narrower than Feingold’s” Jablonski points out.  “Let’s all just go home – it’s a done deal,” he jokes.

I'd forgotten about the hopes that were pinned on Thompson. You may remember that I attended the Tea Party rally at the Capitol where Thompson announced that he wouldn't run. Leaking the news the day before, Firedoglake wrote:

[T]here was really only one Republican lurking out there who would have given Russ Feingold a tough race. In this case it was Tommy Thompson... [His decision not to run] all but assures that Feingold will be able to win re-election; the two candidates currently in the race against him are running well behind....

Ha.

"In this anti-establishment year, Ron Johnson is perhaps the only member of his freshman Republican Senate class who can truly lay claim to the Washington outsider label."

"Wisconsin’s newly elected senator has never served in public office. He didn’t benefit from family political connections, as did Rand Paul of Kentucky or Mike Lee of Utah. He funded most of his campaign with his personal fortune, keeping special interests at bay."

A worthy successor to our much-loved Senator Feingold.

Harry Reid ran the best campaign of the 2010 election season.

Says Chris Cillizza:

He had the worst possible situation for a politician seeking reelection: he was both universally known and not at all well liked by Nevada voters....

From the moment Angle officially won the Republican nomination, the Reid team began a systematic negative campaign against her that will go down in history as one of the best ever. Angle was constantly on defense in the fall -- trying to beat back Reid-generated stories about her comments on Social Security, Medicare and just about everything else.

The strategy reflected the simple reality of Reid's political predicament: his only chance to win the race was to turn it into a "devil you know versus the one you don't" choice for voters.

Cillizza is impressed by Reid's acceptance of the reality that he couldn't make himself more popular. He saw what he had to do — grimly tear down his opponent — and he did it.

There are runners up, including 2 Wisconsinites — Ron Johnson and Scott Walker.

Yesterday afternoon, Matt Welch and I tried to talk non-obsoletely about last night's election.

Topics, as framed by Bloggingheads:

Why Ann voted against her old pal Russ Feingold
Just a pendulum swing, or something fundamentally new?
Will the Tea Party take over the GOP, or vice versa?
Matt vs. Ann on Prop 19
Advice for Obama (which he probably won’t take)
The GOP’s possibly futile attempt to stop Sarah Palin

ADDED: Matt Welch is the editor-in-chief of Reason magazine.