If Dems lost in Minnesota of all places, they'd have a lot to more to worry about than that seat. Like the fact that the GOP probably now has a supermajority in the Senate and Dems got few if any House gains.
Well, there are examples of states bucking their usual trends all over the place during midterms (some very good examples in 2006). A very good national climate does not guarantee a very good climate in every state. My home state's a pretty good example of that; relative to the previous midterm, it has went in the opposite direction of the national climate in the past three midterms.
Minnesota is a state where we saw the bottom fall out with a lot of their traditional Democratic coalition in 2016. Couple that with the ouster of a popular Democrat being replaced mid-term by a (very relative) nobody and then throw into the mix somebody like Pawlenty (who isn't a Tea Party darling and has enough moderate street-cred and/or a track record of winning in MN) and you could be in some serious trouble even if the national climate is spectacular.
This post made me feel physically ill. If people tolerate evil people being in office, then the future of the country will be shaped by evil people, and the scope of the damage will be immense even if they campaign on their support or opposition of some hot button issue you care about. You can't let someone who's obviously morally degenerate have massive amounts of power just because they put out campaign literature supporting one or two things you like.
If? Of course people tolerate evil people being in office. Most politicians are evil.
Then why do you hate Hillary so much? Is she really any more "evil" than any other politician?
She's more evil than most. Most politicians don't launder money to the DNC and 33 state parties during a primary to circumvent campaign finance laws. Most politicians don't have their Foundation take millions from the Saudis before they approve $165 billion in arms deals.
