I agree with Wildgoose that waking up this morning was unsettling, but I will say I was quite shocked at the Jesse win and really shocked at the George W. win in 2000. 

I thought the Oberstar speech at the 10 o'clock hour last night was heartfelt and tinged with an "I've got this" tone so I feel he is the most shocked of anyone. 

Overall, I'm ready to move forward and support anyone who can control spending and reduce government.

More shocked by Ventura.

More depressed by tea party.

Ventura didn't shock me at all. Mr. Cravaack didn't either, considering how close it was. It did shock me, however, how lightly Mr. Oberstar's campaign took him. Very poor ads, went on the attack versus championing his own merits, etc. As I said on another post, his campaign manager should have been either thanked or crucified, depending on what side of the fence you are on. And B-Man, nobody would agree with your hope more than me. Especially four years. I truly believe that Mr. Cravaack will hold everyones interest in his efforts and sway some naysayers. Some, meaning those with an open mind.

Claire, I was there. Were you? He was extremely respectful. Much more than Mr. Oberstar. He left it to the moderators, who lost control. Mr. Cravaack never got up and criticized the audience with a wagging finger. I felt like my Grandfather admonishing me for having my hat on at the dinner table. 

I have met Mr. Cravaack. He is an extremely intelligent, thoughtful and respectful individual, much like you saw on his campaign commercials. He will represent you and I well, and you are lucky to have him. Give him a chance. Mr. Oberstar lost because many of us are angry with people who have made a career out of the taxpayers. Mr. Oberstar was the embodiment of that anger. Sorry to disagree, but half a century of being a Washington insider is waaaaay too much.

Maybe I did see you there. I was the guy with the flannel shirt and the Farmall hat.

Great. Since comments were frozen in the other thread, let's continue the mud slinging here. 

To the Cravaack supporters: we know he won. Let's show some class and embody a part of the state he wouldn't be embarrassed to represent. Time to stop singing "We Are the Champions" and do some positive supporting. 

Yelling, "In your face, losers!" is expected from little leaguers, not adults who elected an official to office. 

Also, what is wrong with a Duluth-Twin Cities train system? That'd bring a lot of folks north to visit, especially during our months of treacherous weather.

Also, I want to applaud Jim for seemingly trying to build bridges when, less than a week ago, he was declared a troll. There may have been some gloating at first, but now it just seems like most of the nay-saying is coming from those that are "depressed" that their candidate lost.

I am just another person that believes that the voting system is in shambles anyway. We shouldn't take it too personally if our candidate wins or doesn't win. No matter what, a significant portion of the community would be upset with the result of these elections, even those who didn't vote (and, in my humble opinion, still have the right to still be upset).

I got off the plane in MSP after living in Africa for two years.  The next evening, my cousin was playing in Johnny Lang's band which had the gig celebrating Jessie's win at the Target Center.  I think that remains the most surreal experience of my life.

For those that believe it's fiscally responsible to only buy what you can pay for at that very moment, do you rent or were you able to pay cash for your house?  

To me, home ownership, even with a mortgage, is fiscally responsible.  If you agree, and also agree with Cravaack, there's a disconnect in your thinking on which you need to reflect.

Also, for those who also supported the war on Iraq, I'll only think you have integrity once you open your checkbook and pay for it in full instead of making the rest of us and the next generation pay for it.

Thanks for the ringing endorsement for Cravaack Jim. Unfortunately, based on the knee-deep comments you have made in the past, this does not make me warm-n-fuzzy inside. 

Most issues you have brought up here on this forum are important and dear to me as well. However, on most issues you follow the jinglistic responses put forward by the tea partiers (for example blame illegals and welfare recipients for economy and deficit respectively). These make great sound bites, but are non-factors when actually doing due diligence and examining the issues. The growing deficit for example is very complex and requires fixing of its root causes. 

What worries me the most is that some of these candidates (similar to the class of 94) may not have the attention to detail that is required to make sound legislature on these issues. Additionally, candidates elected through a populist backlash election generally have shown a resistance to voting against public opinion. They most likely will take the easy route of politicking on sound bites. Hopefully, they will prove me wrong. 

The only assurance I will make is that the root cause to the current deficit will be there in the next election cycle. We spend over half of our discretionary spending (the spending that either party is willing or can change) on the military. This equals 40% of all military expenditures worldwide. Good luck attempting to improve the infrastructure and getting our country to compete in a global economy with that monkey on your back. 

Receipts and expenditures estimates

The "nice-ness" of the discourse is an illusion. Certain inflammatory comments (including my own -- I can't help it, I'm a sucker for snark) have been deleted.

I don't see how illegal immigrants are costing us much. I really do wish people would choose to take the legal route, but I wouldn't say illegals are the cause of economic woes. They mainly work the jobs most Americans won't settle for. They pay income taxes, but they don't get a return, and they rarely apply government assistance for fear of being deported.

Like other first world countries, America's fertility rate is dropping. Our rate of natural increase would actually be negative if it weren't for immigrants (illegal and otherwise), and in 20 years and beyond, we'd be left with a smaller workforce working harder than ever to care for a rapidly aging population.

Maybe they're not as bad as you think, Jim.

Si, Ganso.