So basically a tactic that backfired. Serves the devious sod right! .... and now he's appealing against his defeat, is he?

I suspect likewise re Congress, but I know nothing about the real capabilities of Biden, Sanders, etc. Would Bloomberg have been effective?

@Petter Sanders was my pick; IMO all the others entered politics for personal reasons, enrichment and grandure. They care nothing for the people. They will give lip service while campaigning, but give the richest 1% billion$ for big PAC donations, and deny basic heath care to the masses. IMO it is literally mass murder by the politicians and oligarchy.

@Petter The Democratic Party is so divided that I'm not sure any candidate could bring it together. Everywhere you see posts from Bernie sipporters that they will not vote in the election or will vote green because he did not get the nomination.

I'm pretty sure there would have been a similar reaction from some of the more conservative democrats if he had gotten the nomination.

Most people participating in that great divide do not even consider the impact Congress has always had on the final outcomes.

These same people don't seem to care or want to consider that Trump or another outside influence may be pushing that divide in order to help him win.

In other words I'm putting all my campaign money on Congressional candidates that might be abke to change things.

@Lorajay Another good insight. Thank you. It's certainly helping me to understand the situation. Some of what you said is similar to what caused the demise of the "middle of the road" liberal party in the UK, which suffered factionalism and eventually split completely, to become an ineffectual party.

Thank you. I can see broad implications of US politics, but not the medium print, let alone the fine print.
So does this mean she is not yet there, despite the vote result?

@Petter . . . (wise-ass crack) the difficult done immediately, the impossible takes a little longer

@Petter My understanding is that the WI Supreme Court ruled (kinda last-minute) that state law required the election to go-forward. I have heard (I think) that SCOTUS is 'reviewing' the case -- really not sure about that -- but if so the result(s) could change. Because the WI Exec/Legislature are bitterly divided, the makeup of their SC is important.

@FearlessFly Isn't the SCOTUS somewhat biased against liberal candidates?

@Petter As a very close watcher, I'm aware of amazingly good decisions (Brown v Board of Education) and shockingly bad ones (Dredd Scott). I doubt that bias is non-existent, but I'm not aware of any political "design" (lifetime tenure) that is better-suited to eliminate bias.

@Petter I just realized I should have included co-equal branch of government as a "design" feature.

@Petter yes

@FearlessFly I thought the only thing that was sent to the SCOTUS was the question about extending the date for absentee ballots which they have already ruled on.

@Lorajay @Petter Thank you, yes that's right about SCOTUS.

The NYT article also mentions several challenges to the WI SC Democratic win, maybe a good-long while until that's final.

[nytimes.com]

. . . also (from the NYT)

"The winner will be in position to cast a deciding vote on a case before the court that seeks to purge more than 200,000 people from Wisconsin’s voter rolls — in a state where 2.6 million people voted in the last governor’s race. When the matter was first before the court in January, Mr. Kelly recused himself, citing his upcoming election. He indicated he would “rethink” his position following the April election, which comes with a 10-year term."