Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Congrats to Dems! on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Win

It was just announced:

Wisconsin Supreme Court election
Challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg finishes with just a few hundred votes ahead of incumbent Justice David Prosser according to reporting from the Associated Press and WTMJ in a record-setting spring election that saw one and a half million voters go to the polls. This close and unofficial tally means a recount is likely and definitive outcome days away.

In special primary elections to fill open Assembly seats, Democrat Rick Aaron has won in assembly district 60, Duey Stroebel appears to have won the GOP nod.

Democrat Steve Doyle and Republican John Lautz have survived to meet each other in May to fill the 94th assembly district vacated by Walker cabinet appointee Mike Huebsch.

*******
 
Per a mass emailing by Democracy for America, Kloppenburg won by a significant margin in the district where State Senator Dan Kapanke is facing a recall, with a recall petition listing a sufficient number of names just filed.
         *********

Yes, this is close, and yes, this will go to a recount.  But more than that, is the record turnout, exceeding wildest expectations.  Governor Walker is trying to claim this is not a referendum on his policies, but no one believes that - I doubt the Governor does, least of all.

Maybe the conservatives will 'get' this message; if the don't, and don't change their ways, then I guess Wisconsin will change them right out of office. 

Change you can believe in....?

43 comments:

  1. Why should they change? 1.5 million votes and they might have lost by 200? that is like 50.001% to 49.999%. Obama did not change the healthcare plan when the Dems lost the House by a much larger margin. A lot of things I read said the Wis Supreme Court election will not change the union bill at all since there are still 3 conservative judges, 3 liberal judges, and the swing vote judge who most of the time sides with the conservative judges. Personally that whole thing stinks. The makeup of the Supreme Court should not matter, the only thing any of them should be looking at is does the law violate the constitution of the state of wisconsin. If it does not they should uphold it, if it does they should toss it out. But the various unions dropped 1.7 million on someone who was so far behind in the polls they did not have a prayer and they now feel like they bought a judge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First of all Tuck, the position of Obama is different than the authority of the courts.

    Secondly, conservatives, who had the advantage going in by an overwhelming margin before the anti-union legislation, also spent FAR more on this election than the unions did. Take a look at the contributors, especially big money corporations and very wealthy individuals.

    Contrast that to the ordinary people who donated small amounts - lots of ordinary people. And the average working guy represented by the unions. It's a big difference as to who is playing on which side.

    There have been some excellent things written, among other sources, on findlaw, about 'activist' judges, and how they are more often conservative than otherwise.

    The judge up for re-election had effectively indicated before this ever appeared that he would rule in support of Walker. That is wrong.

    But perhaps I can tempt Laci the Chinese Crested, who is a practicing attorney (although in criminal law) licensed both here and in the UK, to offer his expertise.

    Yes, ONLY the law should apply.

    Maybe with Prosser off the court, now that can happen, instead of the influence of big money / corporations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ttucker said, "The makeup of the Supreme Court should not matter, the only thing any of them should be looking at is does the law violate the constitution of the state of wisconsin." I don't think it is quite that simple. If it were, we would not need "judges."

    In my experience, the complexity of a decision rests in how the question that is being decided has been asked. Most decisions, especially those that rise to a (federal or state) supreme court level, are pretty precisely worded to achieve the objective(s) of the party that is bringing the issue to the courts system. I offer one example of a discussion that I believe is not being controlled so much by political ideology as by who is bringing the questions to the courts system and that is Monsanto and their Roundup Ready products.

    Monsanto is bringing lawsuits against farmers and stating that their products are being stolen. The facts seem to back Monsanto's claim - and they win. If the farmers were the ones bringing the lawsuits to the courts - claiming for instance that Monsanto's engineered-gene products were infecting their heritage seed stock, the same body of factual evidence would seem to back the farmers - and they would likely win.

    In the Monsanto issue, the company has taken a very aggressive posture. Thus, the company is controlling the discussion by bringing these lawsuits. In my estimation, the poor farmers don't have a chance until they can begin to control some of the discussion that leads to the court decisions - and that takes money.

    When it comes to the courts - money in the campaign helps but money paid to the company lawyer goes a lot further.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm just laughing, Dog. Congrats to Dems! You failed to steal another one!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kermit, first, welcome to Penigma; I don't think we've seen you here before.

    Second, this isn't over until it's over. It's possible the GOP won another auction (rather than election) by buying it.

    There are allegations of more crooked GOP manipulations, GOP voter fraud:

    "Nickolaus worked for 13 years for a Republican caucus that was controlled by Prosser when he was Assembly speaker in 1995 and 1996. She was given immunity from prosecution in a 2002 criminal investigation into illegal activity by members of the caucus where she worked as a data analyst and computer specialist.

    The corruption probe took down five legislative leaders, all of whom reached plea deals. Nickolaus resigned from her state job in 2002 just before launching her county clerk campaign.

    Nickolaus also has been criticized by the Waukesha County Board for her handling of past elections and lack of oversight in her operations.

    An audit of Nickolaus' handling of the 2010 election found she needed to take steps to improve security and backup procedures, including not sharing passwords. The audit was requested after the county's director of administration said Nickolaus had been uncooperative with attempts to have county experts review her systems and confirm backups were in place."

    So there is legitimate reason to question this woman's honesty now.
    http://www.startribune.com/local/119470779.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maybe the conservatives will 'get' this message; if the don't, and don't change their ways, then I guess Wisconsin will change them right out of office.

    FACT CHECK: Prosser won. The Democrat/Union position, even after all the saturation media attention and hype and hysteria, has been refudiated.

    Change you can believe in....?

    HELL yeah!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Second, this isn't over until it's over. It's possible the GOP won another auction (rather than election) by buying it.

    Do you serve cheese with your whine?

    God, I live listening to Democrats snivel.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are allegations of more crooked GOP manipulations, GOP voter fraud

    From people who claim "GOP Shenanigans" when McDonalds screws up their order.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, when government union workers take mentally handicapped people to vote it's just business as usual.
    When a Republican makes a brief error and quickly corrects it, "It's possible the GOP won another auction (rather than election) by buying it."

    This is the first time I've ever said this here: If it wasn't for double standards, liberal Democrats would have no standards at all.

    My work here is done.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Nickolaus worked for 13 years for a Republican caucus that was controlled by Prosser when he was Assembly speaker in 1995 and 1996.

    So you're declaring guilt by extremely tenouous association.

    Not very logical.

    By the same "logic", every decision Mark Ritchie makes is suspect, since he worked for ACORN.

    Sorry, DG. Even by your self-indulgent standards, this is really really lame stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Danny Boy, welcome.

    The recount hasn't happened yet; we will see who wins, it is still up in the air and neither side has conceded to the other.

    In the meantime, there are Republican senators facing recall, with sufficient signatures to make it happen.

    What the right has are a lot of half-baked unproven, and frankly ludicrous claims of voter fraud that never hold up to investigations and which lack all proof.

    There is no indication that any employees have taken disabled voters and acted even remotely inappropriately. Election judges deal with voters voting, including disabled ones; it's what an election judge does.

    So far, if you are referring to Crow Wing county, you have a claim made by people who by their own statements weren't present when the disabled people voted at the court house. Yet you believe them because you so badly want to believe them. You are desperate to believe any conspiracy theory, and your side is chock full of them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The recount hasn't happened yet

    That's what we're afraid of. The Dems will find a way to steal it. They almost always do.

    In the meantime, there are Republican senators facing recall

    And, if the result of this week's election are any guide, they will likely fail.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What the right has are a lot of half-baked unproven, and frankly ludicrous claims of voter fraud that never hold up to investigations and which lack all proof.

    FACT CHECK: Wrong again. Convictions in Milwaukee.

    There is almost no measuring the depravity of "progressivism".

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is no indication that any employees have taken disabled voters and acted even remotely inappropriately.

    I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you change subjects in mid comment?

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is no indication that any employees have taken disabled voters and acted even remotely inappropriately.
    So long as you ignore the affidavit of the father of one of the Crow Wing "voters".
    http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=19229#comments
    Being selective is getting harder every day, isn't it Dog?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Nickolaus worked for 13 years for a Republican caucus that was controlled by Prosser when he was Assembly speaker in 1995 and 1996.

    She was given immunity from prosecution in a 2002 criminal investigation into illegal activity by members of the caucus where she worked as a data analyst and computer specialist.

    The corruption probe took down five legislative leaders, all of whom reached plea deals. Nickolaus resigned from her state job in 2002 just before launching her county clerk campaign.

    Nickolaus also has been criticized by the Waukesha County Board for her handling of past elections and lack of oversight in her operations."

    What part do you deliberately ignore of needing immunity for criminal prosecution? THAT is the basis for skepticism about her integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Extremely tenuous guilt by association, far more tenuous than, say, a certain President's connections with Rev. "God **** America" Wright or Rod Blagojevich, Doggone.

    That said, I believe it's a blatant violation of legal ethics to announce how you'd rule on a case that hasn't even been presented yet. Kloppenburg dodged a bullet by losing, as doing what she planned to do could very well result in her being not only bounced from the bench, but disbarred.

    And yeah, her employer ought to take a very serious look at this serious breach of legal ethics, as she helps police elections.

    ReplyDelete
  18. First..

    Hi Kermey, how's your mum?

    Second, Danny, seriously? I mean, really? That's all you've got? Welcome anyway, but save the ad hominem - it makes you look childish.

    BikeBub - exactly what crime is it that Obama committed by knowing Rev. Wright.. oh, yeah, your word was tenuous, I think extremely tenuous in fact..

    Look guys, silly, meaningless and fact-challenged guilt by association kinds of commentary hardly qualifies as real discussion. Danny, you in particular need to be careful, I tolerate passioned discussion, I don't tolerate ubiquitous insult.

    DG didn't allege fraud, unlike say what has been said by righties about Crow Wing - a situation with far less "there" there than this situation. All that has been said is we'd like to have a little explanation.

    And that my friends is the rub AND the difference. Most lefties I know don't leap to ludicrous conclusion based on nothing (and less), we don't allege fraud based on what "my brother's sister's cousin's uncle" says he saw. I doubt very much this was some sort of fraudulent act, but it WAS careless, and the woman involved has a history of carelessness. Were this done by the left you'd be screaming fraud from the highest rafters, without proof, and without reason.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kermey,

    Apparently you have the memory of a gnat.

    Once upon a time, when your blog commenters (and blogging partner) behaved like asses, your reply to me was to "not take it personally, we normally greet people with 'FU and how's your mom?'"

    I meant no personal offense, if your mom isn't around, my regrets, but I certainly wouldn't have any way to know - I merely played by your rules - if that makes one a douchebag, then.. well, look in a mirror, but I guess that's the norm, two standards, one for you, one for everone else.

    And you wonder why I don't darken your door or deign to read the crap you righties trowell out so often..

    Bye indeed - hypersenstive much?

    ReplyDelete
  20. oh, and thanks for reminding me why I ban folks who can't do anything more than throw insults..

    When you get your big boy pants and want to engage in an actual discussion, Kerm, feel free to comment - if this is the best you've got - save yourself the effort and the readers here the time, seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Second, Danny, seriously? I mean, really? That's all you've got? Welcome anyway, but save the ad hominem - it makes you look childish.

    OK, now YOU are confusing me.

    First, you're confused about what "ad hominem" means. It's trying to use your opponent him/herself as evidence in your argument. "What you said was wrong because, dude, it's just you" is "Ad Hominen".

    "Er, you changed from Wisconsin to Crow Wing County" is not "ad homimen". It's "you've changed the subject, and I have no idea why, or what you're getting at.

    After reading a about 20 posts on this blog, I give the two of you a six for passion and a 1 for clarity of thought.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Look guys, silly, meaningless and fact-challenged guilt by association kinds of commentary hardly qualifies as real discussion.

    So you're castigating Dog Gone for writing "Nickolaus worked for 13 years for a Republican caucus that was controlled by Prosser when he was Assembly speaker in 1995 and 1996"?

    Well done! There is hope for you.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Danny, you in particular need to be careful, I tolerate passioned discussion, I don't tolerate ubiquitous insult.

    I'm sorry - what was the "insult".

    DG didn't allege fraud,

    So when she wrote this: "It's possible the GOP won another auction (rather than election) by buying it...allegations of more crooked GOP manipulations, GOP voter fraud..." etc etc etc, she wasn't alleging fraud?

    Please explain.

    Note that asking you to explain a contradiction is not an "insult".

    ReplyDelete
  24. Most lefties I know don't leap to ludicrous conclusion.

    So you saying "be careful, Danny, don't insult people" after I insulted (to my knowledge) nobody is a complate anomaly, then?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I go away to play, leaving the blog unattended for a short time and this breaks out! sheesh!

    Now to address the commments on my own post (thanks Pen for keeping an eye on it for me)

    Danny Boy said...
    The recount hasn't happened yet

    "That's what we're afraid of. The Dems will find a way to steal it. They almost always do."

    No Danny, Democrats have won elections not stolen them. Your assertion is utterly unsupported, particularly given the bipartisan scrutiny and support from the Republican officials / judges etc. involved in the recounts. So unless you can back that up with something more than your nonsensical wish that elections were stolen you are full of hot air and small sense.

    In particular you appear to lack any background whatsoever in the legal cases which have found misconduct by republicans in the past in Wisconsin. I'd be happy to provide a list, if you need one. You are not only a bullshitting ideologue who wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the behind, you are tragically ignorant.

    I'd be delighted to educate you with the specifics; just let me know.

    Unless you can produce proof of any of your accusations. You know P R O O F.

    You can't; I've checked. And I check better than you do.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bike Bubba, welcome to penigma, and my apologies for not greeting you here sooner.

    you wrote:
    "That said, I believe it's a blatant violation of legal ethics to announce how you'd rule on a case that hasn't even been presented yet. Kloppenburg dodged a bullet by losing, as doing what she planned to do could very well result in her being not only bounced from the bench, but disbarred.

    And yeah, her employer ought to take a very serious look at this serious breach of legal ethics, as she helps police elections."

    Prosser's leadership position in a political group that was directly involved with affecting legislation and legislators, resulting in criminal convictions and the need to have immunity before testifying - which is often if not always given where there is a risk of that person also being criminally convicted - puts a very different slant on this vote situation.

    No one that I am aware of on the left is screaming voter fraud the way you lunatics do at the drop of a hat. They have simply requested that given the past history of criminal activity, and the odd aspects of these votes, that it be examined.

    Kloppenburg is raising money for the recount as I write this, and doing very well. As someone who has participated in the MN recount, I will watch this with informed interest.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Personally, I wonder how many cartons of cigarettes Kloppenberg had to buy in Milwaukee.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dog Gone, the problem started with a clerk's mistake. It was compounded by Kloppenberg declaring victory based on an unofficial vote count when the margin was razor thin.
    This showed a lack of judgment on the part of Kloppenberg. It's not a good thing for a judge to lack judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Doggone; OK, first of all, you're the one that started guilt by association, so please don't complain when someone points out the President's many ugly-looking friends, OK?

    Moreover, your latest comment does it AGAIN; please, let's indulge a debate here. Is Kloppenburg's promise to rule one way without seeing the case a violation or legal ethics, or is it not?

    From the behavior of Supreme Court nominees on both sides of the debate--original intent vs. living document--I've got to assert that yes, it IS a big violation of legal ethics to do this, and as such, Kloppenburg is dodging a bullet by losing here.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gosh Kermey, I'm sooooo sorry, I realize now that likening your memory to that of a gnat when you called me a worthless douchebag because you couldn't remember the sorry excuse you used for the churlish conduct of you and others on your blog. Now I realize that when you act childishly it's really my fault. Weren't you leaving?

    Danny, you may want to look up "depravity", "steal", and "sniveling". Most of us consider being accused of stealing elections without proof, at best an insult, we also consider being called depraved and insult, and we normally think of being accused of snivelling one too. Just my thought. As such, yes, you make the argument about the people(person). You presented one point regarding Crow Wing County - namely that someone swore out an affadivit, GREAT!, gosh I wonder why the criminal investigators dismissed the complaint as without merit?? But yep, you're sure in your rights to say EVERY liberal and EVERY Democrat (or even the majority) consistently try to steal elections. Please go read about the history of Atlantic City, of Woody Jenkins, for that matter the 1000:100 ratio of frivilous complaints made by Republicans v. Democrats in the Emmer/Dayton recount, or the bogus and tossed complaints of Coleman v. Franken where conservative allegations of fraud were dismissed unanimously by 3 separate courts, courts dominated by Republican appointees.

    The one seeming consistency is only this, it seems consistent that Republicans (lately) appear willing to say ANYTHING, make ANY claim, do ANYTHING to deny people the right to vote. Should we be shocked that this woman who has at best a checkered past of cooperating with impoper conduct (for which she needed a grant of immunity), might make a mistake? No. Should we be skeptical, given the rash of frivilous complaints from the right that she might, oh, forget to enter vote totals properly? Yes. No one accused her of fraud based on nonsensical, erroneous complaints that 120 ballots in Dinkey-Town "showed up" marked only for Dayton - as Republicans have done. Nor do we persist in such complaints (as you do) after criminal investigations say you're wrong. You are (it appears) unable to admit to your own conduct, see the pattern, or even stop making the same bogus claims. There's no "sniveling" or depravity involved in pointing out your allegations lack sufficient evidence to be taken seriously and a serious person would move on.

    BikeBub, neither Obama nor George W Bush are part of this topic because they aren't actors in the dispute. Any "guilt by association" irrelevency you could care to make, I'm fairly confident I could make a similar one about Bush. Neither means anything. It's a distraction and that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And Danny, dismissing complaints of GOP shennanigans as "from people who complain when McDonalds screws up their order" is ad hominem.

    Did DG make that complaint? Is it even relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bike Bubba wrote:
    re - guilt by association, when some is involved integrally with a crime, and has to get immunity for their actions, that isn't guilt by association. What is involved is an inquiry into conduct which may be a pattern; the two are different. That person's integrity is in question by their own actions, not someone else's.

    "Is Kloppenburg's promise to rule one way without seeing the case a violation or legal ethics, or is it not? "

    I haven't seen the comment by Kloppenburg to which you refer. I'd like to see the statement, and look very closely as to whether she made a comment about the law itself, or a comment about the specific case.

    My impression - and I will look to substantiate it - is that it was Prosser, not Kloppenburg that made such a comment. I don't expect you to accept that until and unless I produce the quote and the source btw.

    May I add that the issue of ethics here is the one of the most interesting aspects, and thank you Bike Bubba for bringing it up. Well done - better than the snark swirling around here. My compliments and appreciation for that contribution.

    I am not accusing anyone of anything - unlike the frothing at the mouth conservatives like Kerm who are willing to believe anything bad, no matter how ludicrous, so long as it pertains to a liberal. At the same time approving the aroma of any excrement no matter how vile, from a conservative.

    Facts please - and then we shall move forward from there.

    A fact worth considering - given the 30 % poll lead that the incumbent conservative had before the actions of the legislature and the governor - even a squeaky win by Prosser is a failure.

    That is an enormous turnover in the supposed support for the conservatives. Especially in the context of dramatically larger amounts of money spent by conservatives (which is synonymous with corporations not real people) and in the context of other wins - like Walker's former seat - and the recall petitions moving forward against conservatives.

    You are losing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. And Danny, dismissing complaints of GOP shennanigans as "from people who complain when McDonalds screws up their order" is ad hominem.

    No, it's not. It's using an exaggeration to characterize people. Not "logical", but not really an ad-hominem.

    I'm sorry - someone told me there was a *smart* leftyblog around here somewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  35. a situation with far less "there" there than this situation

    Well, no. There is NOTHING "here" in the Wisconsin situation - just a bunch of guilt by association and hysteria.

    You declared victory and an end to Walker's mandate, and now are humiliated when the margin has swung - via means that bipartisan observers agree was perfectly legitimate - to the other side by a 35:1 margin.

    Walker wins. Unions lose. And you guys jumped too fast.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ned,

    No, it would be illogical exageration IF the person making the complaint were the person who complained about Mcdonalds, which in this case, it isn't.

    This was someone using an unrelated fact to demean a detractor rather than discussing the merits of the case, as such, it's ad hominem - while you may want to split hairs to claim it isn't, it is. It's attacking the person (or people) rather than the facts, the epitome' of ad hominem.

    I'm sorry, someone said there were smart conservative commenters around here...

    ReplyDelete
  37. That is an enormous turnover in the supposed support for the conservatives.

    This is complete delusion.

    Supreme Court election turnouts are usually like special elections - 10-20%. And so with the Democrats all supposedly energized, and with millions of unions dollars bankrolling their campaigns!), the GOP turns out at a level not far off that of the 2010 election.

    YOU are losing.

    I doubt any of you are astute enough to see it. After a day of reading this blog, you two look like you belong on "MN Progressive Project".

    Which is, in a way, an ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ned, you CLAIM there isn't anything there, and NONE of us have claimed it's fraud, but this woman has, at best, a checkered past, shouldn't be involved in elections, and therefore there is a reason to question her participation and the method of that participation.

    Consequently, there's much MORE there than the ludicrous complaint in Crow Wing, consequently, the Republicans, who whooped and hollered about Crow Wing, making far MORE out of it than the Dems are making out of this, went overboard, jumped to fast, and Dayton wins, you lose.

    You see, your method of argumentation is rather easily turend around.

    ReplyDelete
  39. By the way, Ned, your 35:1 ratio, while apparently accurate, does smell a little, unless you think that the district this woman was presiding over voted 35:1 for Prosser. She mistakenly failed to enter ballots for Prosser, her mistake was a 35:1 swing, but it's hardly some sort of reflection of a voting trend, which is what you appear to be trying to suggest. It's a suggestion that the woman was incompetent, and not much else.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Look folks, if you want to discuss points and merits of allegations of fraud, fine, if you want to level insults, degrade into stupid invective.. well, do it elsewhere.

    You'll be treated with at least as much respect as you provide.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "You are losing."
    When you control the house, the senate, and the presidency and you have to resort to backroom deals and rule-bending to pass HCR you are losing.
    Getting your b*tt kicked in the most dramatic mid-term congressional turnaround since the 1930's is losing.
    Failing to pass a budget when you control the house, the senate, and the presidency is losing.
    Starting a war without consulting the people's congress is losing.
    Failing to reverse the Bush tax cuts when you control the house, senate, and presidency is losing.
    Letting your opponent castrate your largest block of political support -- as Walker did in WI -- is losing.

    ReplyDelete
  42. My two cents: I personally welcome any investigation of the role of the Waukesha County Clerk, because there's every reason to believe the following will be the result of the investigation:

    a) Nickolaus screwed up by failing to upload the Brookfield, Wisconsin results with her initial reported totals.

    b) There was never a time when the results weren't there, however. A contemporaneous report of the results appeared in a website called the Brookfield Patch on the morning of April 6.

    c) The discovery that the results weren't part of the totals was made as part of the normal canvassing procedures and it was similar to other results for other counties in Wisconsin. The only difference is that instead of it being a missing precinct, it was an entire suburb. You need to understand that Brookfield is the Milwaukee equivalent of, say, Plymouth or Minnetonka. It's upper-middle class with a lot of professionals. It is not an old money place like Edina. Those folks are Republicans who work for a living and they vote.

    d) The business about keeping records on a personal computer is a canard. Do you work on a personal computer at your office? I do. Doesn't mean I own the computer. Do you keep any records on your computer at work? I do. My company can get at those records any time they'd like, though.

    Here's the bottom line -- I grew up in Wisconsin and I've been following this story very closely ever since the initial protests. The unions threw their best punch, but most people who aren't public employees weren't especially amused by the spectacle going on there. The enthusiasm gap in Dane County, where this was an existential issue, was nearly enough to win the day, but not quite.

    ReplyDelete
  43. unless you think that the district this woman was presiding over voted 35:1 for Prosser

    OK. Let's try this again.

    Klopper declared victory, and the leftymedia declared Walker's mandate dead, when it seemed Klopklop had a 200 vote margin.

    Now there's a 7,000 vote margin for Prosser. That is 35 times the margin that caused Dog Gone and so on to declare victory.

    Read again; it didn't happen because any district had a 35:1 margin; it happened because a district had a 2:1 margin with 20,000-odd votes. You do the math.

    ReplyDelete