Democrats take seats in Wisconsin : Both Sides Claim Victory

[Greed and Death]

Not just that, the economy is about to tank, unemployment is beginning to climb. Yeah, I don't think Obama's going to win. I'm not even sure I'll vote for the guy, and I'm a goddamn Democrat.

Who are you going to vote for? Mitt, and a party that hasn't had a new idea since the Emancipation Proclamation? Stewart Alexander? (Wasn't he the Vice-President of the Confederacy?)

Greed and death hopefully, he is clearly the best choice for President.

[Farnhamia]

Who are you going to vote for? Mitt, and a party that hasn't had a new idea since the Emancipation Proclamation? Stewart Alexander? (Wasn't he the Vice-President of the Confederacy?)

Greed and death hopefully, he is clearly the best choice for President.

Oh, go read a law book. And come back when you turn 35, and we'll talk.

[Greed and Death]

Greed and death hopefully, he is clearly the best choice for President.

Oh, go read a law book. And come back when you turn 35, and we'll talk.

I have a week before classes start no reading until 2 days before class. Otherwise I just torture the 1st years about how hard law school is.

[Farnhamia]

Oh, go read a law book. And come back when you turn 35, and we'll talk.

I have a week before classes start no reading until 2 days before class. Otherwise I just torture the 1st years about how hard law school is.

That alone is worth making it through the first year, I bet.

[Gauthier]

Greed and death hopefully, he is clearly the best choice for President.

Oh, go read a law book. And come back when you turn 35, and we'll talk.

And he'll need a long form birth certificate too.

[Farnhamia]

Oh, go read a law book. And come back when you turn 35, and we'll talk.

And he'll need a long form birth certificate too.

Plus a DNA sample, a urine test and at least one of his children, if he has any by then, to be held hostage by a prominent member of the opposition party.

[Greed and Death]

I have a week before classes start no reading until 2 days before class. Otherwise I just torture the 1st years about how hard law school is.

That alone is worth making it through the first year, I bet.

I told one group that they have an old fashioned fail 2/3s of the class professor. It most certainly is worth it.

[Greed and Death]

And he'll need a long form birth certificate too.

Plus a DNA sample, a urine test and at least one of his children, if he has any by then, to be held hostage by a prominent member of the opposition party.

I am white, I wont need to show that.

[Farnhamia]

Plus a DNA sample, a urine test and at least one of his children, if he has any by then, to be held hostage by a prominent member of the opposition party.

I am white, I wont need to show that.

We need to be sure, these days.

[Gauthier]

I am white, I wont need to show that.

We need to be sure, these days.

Don't forget back in the days you could be whiter than a ghost but if you had any black blood in you, you were still considered black.

[Farnhamia]

We need to be sure, these days.

Don't forget back in the days you could be whiter than a ghost but if you had any black blood in you, you were still considered black.

And G&D is from Texas, after all. How do we know there wasn't any mixin' goin' on?

[Greed and Death]

Don't forget back in the days you could be whiter than a ghost but if you had any black blood in you, you were still considered black.

And G&D is from Texas, after all. How do we know there wasn't any mixin' goin' on?

Lol, only with the Cherokee. Which if anything makes me more American.

[Gauthier]

And G&D is from Texas, after all. How do we know there wasn't any mixin' goin' on?

Lol, only with the Cherokee. Which if anything makes me more American.

Shouldn't you be getting drunk at a reservation casino?

[Wilgrove]

I think we all will. Because cutting student loans will cause a lot of problems...

I can see kids in the 2050s saying, "Tell us again, Grand-dad, what it was like when anybody could go to college. Did you really spend four years just reading books and learning things?"

Hey, neither grand dad OR the children will have time for stories, they still have to finish out their 16 hours shift at the sweatshop factory, where they only make 25 cents a day and can only spend it at the company's store!

[Gauthier]

I can see kids in the 2050s saying, "Tell us again, Grand-dad, what it was like when anybody could go to college. Did you really spend four years just reading books and learning things?"

Hey, neither grand dad OR the children will have time for stories, they still have to finish out their 16 hours shift at the sweatshop factory, where they only make 25 cents a day and can only spend it at the company's store!

And that doesn't take into account the 10 cents garnish!

[Greed and Death]

I think we all will. Because cutting student loans will cause a lot of problems...

I can see kids in the 2050s saying, "Tell us again, Grand-dad, what it was like when anybody could go to college. Did you really spend four years just reading books and learning things?"

You know most of the loans are not subsidized. Just means you have to pick a major that leads to a job that pays enough to cover the unsubsidized interest.

[Alien Space Bats]

That would make sense, if it weren't for the fact that in neither Democrat wins the voters chose the Republican ticket. Indeed, they rejected it quite soundly. If a rising national tide, so to speak, lifted all regional ships: one wonders why the 18th went 47 McCain and the 32nd went 38 McCain even though they voted, respectively, 50.1% and 51.4% for their Republican State Senators. In a nutshell, it sounds much more like a Democrat district happened to find upon a regional sweetheart irregardless of the individual's national party. Then, once the honeymoon lifted, they realized that a Republican was running their district and at the soonest possible moment switched a few percentage points. If that makes any sense.

You're doing it wrong.

You're assuming that the top of the ticket is all that matters, but it isn't. What you need to do is look at the history of these districts in terms of the Wisconsin State Senate itself; then, too, you have to step back and look at other factors, such as whether the local counties and municipalities have elected Republican or Democratic officials to conduct their affairs. You can't perform that kind of statistical slice-and-dice operation from across the country based on a single report you saw on T.V.; you have to dig into the specifics and look at dozens of elections. That's why the rest of us have to rely on local Wisconsin political observers to tell us what kinds of districts these are - and the local observers essentially label five of these six districts as Republican ones (the six is a swing district), with some being redder than others.

Eight Republicans was "as many as they could?" I'm not very familiar with the fundraising and 'get-out-the-vote' arms of Labor, but I was under the impression that if they wanted as many as they could do (not, necessarily, win) then they could do all the State Senate seats. Equally, it is hard to imagine the Republican losses as "safe spots," given their previous showing. I mean, if >52% is undoubtedly "safe," one wonders what unsafe Republican seats are?

Assumptions are dangerous.

Currently, Wisconsin is divided into 33 Senate Districts (1/3 of the current Assembly membership of 99) apportioned throughout the state based on population as determined by the decennial census, for a total of 33 senators...

Senators are elected for four-year terms, staggered so that half the Senate is up for election every two years. If a vacancy occurs in a Senate seat between elections, it may be filled only by a special election.

- Wikipedia Article on "Wisconsin State Senate"

Wisconsin law only allows a recall after someone has served at least one year of his current term (that's why there's no petition to recall Scott Walker... yet). That means that only those State Senators elected in 2008 could be recalled this year (the Class of '10 will be vulnerable next year, in Round Two of the recalls); since the State Senate uses an "even-odd" basis for staggering elections, only the 16 even seats were at risk this year.

Looking at the current membership of the State Senate we can see that the Class of '08 was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans at 8-8 (you have to skim to the bottom of the page to see that the Wikipedia page I've cited reflects the post-recall Senate, in which the Class of '08 will have a 6-10 split, and not its pre-recall status); that means that only eight Republican Senators could have been recalled overall; six (75%) had to face recall, which is an indication of how monumental this effort was (in contrast, the parallel Republican effort only produced two recall races (25% of the possible maximum).

Come January, the over 17 Senators will be vulnerable to recall; that group is split 11-6 in favor of Republicans. Assuming no effort is made to go after Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), who opposed Walker's efforts (and I'd expect exactly that from Democrats, to prove a point), that will means that another 7-8 Republicans will likely face similar recall races next spring.

Kinda changes your thinking on the whole affair, doesn't it?

[Revolutopia]

I'm just going to flat out disagree with the point that "it does not matter if they voted for Obama or voted against Prosser." If they voted solidly for McCain in 2008, that would make a large difference. A very large one. If they had voted for Prosser, equally, that would have made a large difference. Anyway you cut it, I just don't see how their 2008 election results or AG results aren't indicative of certain facets of their nature.
First, about Prosser the point is his election and these recall elections were equally about the samething an refrendem on Walker the fact they voted against Prosser only helps foreshadow the Republican lost in the recall elections as the district turns against Walker. About, Obama here is a side not the location where I currently reside is a deep blood red saying that before 2008 it had not voted for a Democrat since LBJ. However, during 2008 it bucked that trend and followed the rest of the nation in voting for Obama, while still electing a Republican representative and supporting Republican senator. The fact being that presidentially the Republican party was extremely weak similar to the Democrats in 1980 and 1984 in that you had many individuals turn around to vote for the other parties president be they Reagan Democrats or Obama Republicans.

In how unless Wisconsin elects their state senators for 8 or more years Hopper and Kapanke had to been elected in 2006, 2008, 0r 2010 as those only election years available. Well first we can discount 2010 as if they were elected then they would not be open for recall so that only leaves 2006 or 2008.

I, very strongly, do not understand why you immediately discount 2010 as a point of reference. Perhaps it seems like an open and shut prima facie case to you. To me, I'm mystified. I mean, if they were elected with 99.9% of the vote in 2010, then that would say something about the vote today. If they were elected with 50% +1 of the vote, that would also say something.
I am ignoring 2010, as Wisconsin politics dictates a politician must serve a year before being recalled i.e why the Democrats are still waiting on Walker's recall. Thus to have been open for recall they have to been elected pre-2010.

Both 2006 and 2008 were major Democratic wave, i.e the Democrats were able to make tremendous gains, and a major down year for Republicans therefore for a district to elect a Republican in either of those years means that the district must be fairly conservative. Otherwise, they should have easily went to the Democratic challenger/candidate similarly as what happened on the national scale.

That would make sense, if it weren't for the fact that in neither Democrat wins the voters chose the Republican ticket. Indeed, they rejected it quite soundly. If a rising national tide, so to speak, lifted all regional ships: one wonders why the 18th went 47 McCain and the 32nd went 38 McCain even though they voted, respectively, 50.1% and 51.4% for their Republican State Senators. In a nutshell, it sounds much more like a Democrat district happened to find upon a regional sweetheart irregardless of the individual's national party. Then, once the honeymoon lifted, they realized that a Republican was running their district and at the soonest possible moment switched a few percentage points. If that makes any sense.
No the more likely result, is what I mentioned is that a bunch of Republicans in the district grew dissatisfied with Bush in the same manner as the rest of the nation, thus leaving them to vote for Obama like a number of other red districts in the nation. However, while federally dissatisfied with the Republican party they still supported the local party thus came out to vote for the Republican candidate.

The reason why Labour was willing to try to oust Republicans in GOP safe spot was that they were trying to oust/challenge as many Republicans they could and a majority of those open to challenge were situated in safe spots.

Eight Republicans was "as many as they could?" I'm not very familiar with the fundraising and 'get-out-the-vote' arms of Labor, but I was under the impression that if they wanted as many as they could do (not, necessarily, win) then they could do all the State Senate seats. Equally, it is hard to imagine the Republican losses as "safe spots," given their previous showing. I mean, if >52% is undoubtedly "safe," one wonders what unsafe Republican seats are?

[New Chalcedon]

That would make sense, if it weren't for the fact that in neither Democrat wins the voters chose the Republican ticket. Indeed, they rejected it quite soundly. If a rising national tide, so to speak, lifted all regional ships: one wonders why the 18th went 47 McCain and the 32nd went 38 McCain even though they voted, respectively, 50.1% and 51.4% for their Republican State Senators. In a nutshell, it sounds much more like a Democrat district happened to find upon a regional sweetheart irregardless of the individual's national party. Then, once the honeymoon lifted, they realized that a Republican was running their district and at the soonest possible moment switched a few percentage points. If that makes any sense.

You're doing it wrong.

You're assuming that the top of the ticket is all that matters, but it isn't. What you need to do is look at the history of these districts in terms of the Wisconsin State Senate itself; then, too, you have to step back and look at other factors, such as whether the local counties and municipalities have elected Republican or Democratic officials to conduct their affairs. You can't perform that kind of statistical slice-and-dice operation from across the country based on a single report you saw on T.V.; you have to dig into the specifics and look at dozens of elections. That's why the rest of us have to rely on local Wisconsin political observers to tell us what kinds of districts these are - and the local observers essentially label five of these six districts as Republican ones (the six is a swing district), with some being redder than others.

Eight Republicans was "as many as they could?" I'm not very familiar with the fundraising and 'get-out-the-vote' arms of Labor, but I was under the impression that if they wanted as many as they could do (not, necessarily, win) then they could do all the State Senate seats. Equally, it is hard to imagine the Republican losses as "safe spots," given their previous showing. I mean, if >52% is undoubtedly "safe," one wonders what unsafe Republican seats are?

Assumptions are dangerous.

Currently, Wisconsin is divided into 33 Senate Districts (1/3 of the current Assembly membership of 99) apportioned throughout the state based on population as determined by the decennial census, for a total of 33 senators...

Senators are elected for four-year terms, staggered so that half the Senate is up for election every two years. If a vacancy occurs in a Senate seat between elections, it may be filled only by a special election.

- Wikipedia Article on "Wisconsin State Senate"

Wisconsin law only allows a recall after someone has served at least one year of his current term (that's why there's no petition to recall Scott Walker... yet). That means that only those State Senators elected in 2008 could be recalled this year (the Class of '10 will be vulnerable next year, in Round Two of the recalls); since the State Senate uses an "even-odd" basis for staggering elections, only the 16 even seats were at risk this year.

Looking at the current membership of the State Senate we can see that the Class of '08 was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans at 8-8 (you have to skim to the bottom of the page to see that the Wikipedia page I've cited reflects the post-recall Senate, in which the Class of '08 will have a 6-10 split, and not its pre-recall status); that means that only eight Republican Senators could have been recalled overall; six (75%) had to face recall, which is an indication of how monumental this effort was (in contrast, the parallel Republican effort only produced two recall races (25% of the possible maximum).

Come January, the over 17 Senators will be vulnerable to recall; that group is split 11-6 in favor of Republicans. Assuming no effort is made to go after Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), who opposed Walker's efforts (and I'd expect exactly that from Democrats, to prove a point), that will means that another 7-8 Republicans will likely face similar recall races next spring.

Kinda changes your thinking on the whole affair, doesn't it?

Minor quibble, ASB: Three Dems faced or are facing recall. Dave Hansen (D-30th) won his handily, and Jim Holperin (D-12th) and Robert Wirch (D-22nd) are facing the music next week.

Of the two, Holperin is clearly the more vulnerable, having only won with 51% of the vote in 2008. while Wirch should be in little enough trouble (hopefully) with 67% of hte vote in 2008 (although only 52% in 2004).

[Wikkiwallana]

But don't let the fact that there is no money to pay for the lavish benefits of the public sector unions get in the way of your fantasy.

The only reason there is no money is because Walker gave it all away in the form of tax cuts to his corporate donors.

...but the Right should go ahead and keep scapegoating hard-working middle class people some more. I'm sure it will pay off in the long run.

There was apparently actually a budget surplus until he implemented those tax cuts.

[Greater Cabinda]

The only reason there is no money is because Walker gave it all away in the form of tax cuts to his corporate donors.

...but the Right should go ahead and keep scapegoating hard-working middle class people some more. I'm sure it will pay off in the long run.

There was apparently actually a budget surplus until he implemented those tax cuts.

Which isn't that surprising.

[Conserative Morality]

'People' or just the people who happened to vote in this special election?

I'm glad the Republicans retained control.

Can't have them uppity workers wanting the right to bargain, nope.

[Wikkiwallana]

There was apparently actually a budget surplus until he implemented those tax cuts.

Which isn't that surprising.

Money doesn't magically appear in coffers, it has to come from somewhere, I can't tell you how much that shocked me.

When I was 5.

[Delator]

There was apparently actually a budget surplus until he implemented those tax cuts.

Which isn't that surprising.

You want to know what is surprising?

This whole effort by Republicans to "fix our budget problem"...addresses barely 5% of the projected shortfall. And all we had to do was scale back about 60 years worth of progress on labor rights.

Thanks Republicans!

[Gauthier]

There was apparently actually a budget surplus until he implemented those tax cuts.

Which isn't that surprising.

Take a state with a budget surplus, then plunge it into heavy deficit by giving massive tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.

Why does this sound so familiar?