Stupendous news! An extremist nutjob like Ernst has no business being a US Senator.
Is it possible that Braley is improving because of early voting? In other words, Dems are getting a lot of people out to vote who would normally be shut out of the LV screen, but you can't say someone who already voted isn't a likely voter.
You really believe the above?
Yes?
The question mark appended to the "yes" meaning that you are unsure if you really believe what you said?
The question mark was because your question was fairly odd, considering any rational person knows that Joni Ernst is an extremist nutjob.
IC. I guess that I am just irrational then. Thanks.
Perhaps. Unless you think that someone who thinks Obama is a dictator that should be impeached, peddles Agenda 21 conspiracy theories, supports Personhood which failed even in Mississippi, thinks the EPA should be abolished, thinks Iraq had WMDs, etc. is not an extremist. She's basically a more charismatic version of Sharron Angle. I know the Republicans have gone far right recently, but even by that standard she's still way out of the mainstream.
Seriously Torie. I may've been a godless Democrat not THAT long ago, but how is she materially different than, say, Michelle Bachmann? If Ernst isn't extreme, then.....
I don't have any interest in debating if Ernst is an extremist or not, but here's what, in my opinion, makes her materially different than Bachmann (and Angle): she isn't running on any of those issues, let alone those positions -in fact, she isn't actively defending most of those positions (again, if she holds them is irrelevant to the issue at hand)- and she has a largely uncontroversial voting record. Moreover, I've noticed a widespread enshrinement of the belief that Braley failed to sink Ernst by painting her as an 'extremist' but, due to the reason pointed above, I think the difficulty of that task is being grossly underestimated.
Summarily, it'd be feasible to paint Ernst as an extremist if she was actually running around claiming Agenda 21 is a conspiracy (and not claiming it's a very gloomy and bad thing, at first; and a non-issue later), that Obama should be impeached under current circumstances (and not if the SCOTUS ruled an abuse of power), that abortion should be illegal in all cases and women persecuted (and not parroting the "pro-life with exceptions but only persecute the provider" line), that there Iraq had an active program of WMD at the moment of the invasion (and not ""We don't know that there were weapons on the ground when we went in, however, I do have reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", later 'clarified'/downplayed to "I did not mean to suggest that Iraq had WMD at the time of invasion. It is clear they did not. What I was trying to say was that Iraq had had WMD in their past, and had even used them. My point was that we don't know exactly what happened to those weapons.") and so on.
However, besides not focusing on those issues, as soon as she says something dubious enough to be seen as controversial (and most of those statements can be better classified as ambiguous, creating the potential to controversy, than openly polemical), she immediately retracts to some bland and non-committal position. That's radically different from, to use your threhsold, Bachmann's modus operandi - Bachmann would double down on her polemical views, focus public interventions on controversial issues and be tone-deaf about her audience (like rambling about fluoridation or vaccines or whatever it was during presidential primary debate on national tv and then sticking to it). That combination of clarity and consistency (and, to some extent, tone) is necessary to build credibility to the claim of extremism (in the sense of selling it to the average voter) - and ideally there's a voting record to finish the case. Ambiguous, disconnected, statements that are quickly retracted/clarified, aren't helped by a scary voting record and are relative to underlying issues which aren't either pushed or promoted by the candidate or seen as important by the electorate, don't do the job.
Ernst might be an extremist or not, but, assuming she is, she doesn't behave like one to the point of allowing an opponent to easily convince the voters of that fact. Braley is being blamed for not preparing an omelet when he wasn't given enough eggs.
A propos, I think both Barley and Ernst are incredibly underrated as candidates by the CW (the one from this board, from inside the beltway, etc). After millions of dollars spent on negative advertising and an abundance of negative free press from both sides, Iowans seem quite content with their candidates: Ernst favorables in the last 4 polls (Suffolk, Quinn, Selzer, Ras) are +7, +6, +4, +5, Braley is a bit lower but still basically even : -2, -2, -1, +1; polls suggest, and early voting seems to validate, very high enthusiasm levels and the libertarian candidate, may he rest in peace, wasn't gaining any traction, unlike what one can see in races with unpopular major party candidates like FL-Gov and NC-Sen.
