If Wisconsin is a state that is highly polarized, then why was there a 10% difference in the 2018 Senate vs Governor elections? Why is Wisconsin prone to big swings such as 2008 --> 2012 or 2012 --> 2016. On the county level, the swings between elections are even more extremes; rural's and suburban counties have shifted over 20% between election cycles. The more accurate answer to Wisconsin's ideologically distant senators is not that it's a "turnout game", it's that voters don't vote strictly on ideological lines and are willing to consider other factors. In addition, they were both elected during different years.
Wisconsin is actually one of the more elastic and least polarized states.
"ELASTICITY" DOES NOT EXIST
DIFFERENT PLACES SWINGING TO DIFFERENT ALIGNMENTS IN DIFFERENT ELECTIONS WITH DIFFERENT TURNOUT DYNAMICS DOESN'T MEAN WISCONSIN IS PEOPLED ENTIRELY BY MUH MODERATE SWING VOTERS
TAMMY BALDWIN HAS CROSSOVER APPEAL BECAUSE OF CONSTITUENT SERVICES AND ADVOCACY FOR IDIOMATICALLY WISCONSIN THINGS
Capslock doesn't make your argument any more valid. Especially when the last sentence just proves my point anyways.
Then have something I've said before without being a Hysterical Woman:
"Elasticity" is an ivory tower analytics-bro tautology that ignores why places are unusually swingy, which is usually parochialism/retail politics and/or a transient condition created by an intersection of unique factors (both at play here), in favor of treating it as some inherent truism property.
...So you are just proving my point that voters in Wisconsin are elastic. I said nothing about them voting based on ideology (other than that they don't seem to vote on a strictly ideological/partisan basis), merely that they are willing to vote for candidates of different parties / split the ticket. Do you have any reading comprehension, or are you just parroting talking points from a different discussion?
