Democrats take seats in Wisconsin : Both Sides Claim Victory

[The Andromeda Islands]

Although I wouldn't call it a victory by the Democrats, reducing the GOP margin from 5 seats to one is significant.

Things have to be pretty bad in a state if 6 GOP Senators were forced into recall elections.

Dems didn't win back the state senate, but they have the wind at their back for future elections. Don't call it a victory, because the battle is still being fought.

[AiliailiA]

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.


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,

65.9% is handily, yes. Less than half the turnout of 2008 (cos it's a recall) ... but he got 66.1% in 2008 so it was virtually identical.

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).

Yes, Wirch would be quite safe to judge by Hansen's showing.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

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

No, not at all, I'm afraid. My whole point was that these were not (according to New Chalc) "blood red" Republican districts. Looking through my posts, one could easily deduce I thought that they potentially swung Democrat but that was largely irrelevant to my point. Are the Districts "blood red," and were they some sort of horrible upset of the Walker agenda? No. End of story. Equally, we could both debate until we're blue in the face about what level of effort labor put into these races. Clearly, they're disappointed with the results. Again, enough said.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to arguing a series of truisms. (1) Two Republicans losing was a Republican loss. (2) Organized labor put more effort into their efforts than... Well, whomever. You get the point. Whose going to debate a series of truisms?



Though good for you, had literally nothing to do with anything.

[Alien Space Bats]

... and were they some sort of horrible upset of the Walker agenda? No.

Except that Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) is now the swing vote in the State Senate, and he doesn't support the Governor's agenda - which essentially brings further measures to a halt (rolling back Gov. Walker's prior to his recall next year was never an option).

Then, too, there will be more recall elections next year, so this story isn't over by a long shot.

Organized labor put more effort into their efforts than... Well, whomever.

Because conservative PACs didn't plow millions of dollars into stopping the recalls, oh, no...

[F1-Insanity]

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.

Hey, first of all I ain't no republican and also I do not support corporate welfare. In fact, corporate welfare is first on my list of issues to abolish completely. And defense spending to protect anything else than the good ole USA itself. Defense needs to cut down on quantity, and a 50% reduction in that would almost half the deficit, but the rest will have to come from cuts in medicare and welfare and the ridiculously bloated public sector salaries and benefits.

And I wouldn't call the unionized 'I should pay in less than half to my pension that a private sector worker does, and receive three time the benefits' workers to be 'hard-working middle class' but instead profiteers who want a free ride and to get others to pay for it.

[Xsyne]

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.

Hey, first of all I ain't no republican and also I do not support corporate welfare. In fact, corporate welfare is first on my list of issues to abolish completely. And defense spending to protect anything else than the good ole USA itself. Defense needs to cut down on quantity, and a 50% reduction in that would almost half the deficit, but the rest will have to come from cuts in medicare and welfare and the ridiculously bloated public sector salaries and benefits.

And I wouldn't call the unionized 'I should pay in less than half to my pension that a private sector worker does, and receive three time the benefits' workers to be 'hard-working middle class' but instead profiteers who want a free ride and to get others to pay for it.

Yes, yes, everyone who is richer than you is lazy. We've heard it all before. Mostly from communists.

[New Chalcedon]

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.

Hey, first of all I ain't no republican and also I do not support corporate welfare. In fact, corporate welfare is first on my list of issues to abolish completely. And defense spending to protect anything else than the good ole USA itself. Defense needs to cut down on quantity, and a 50% reduction in that would almost half the deficit, but the rest will have to come from cuts in medicare and welfare and the ridiculously bloated public sector salaries and benefits.

And I wouldn't call the unionized 'I should pay in less than half to my pension that a private sector worker does, and receive three time the benefits' workers to be 'hard-working middle class' but instead profiteers who want a free ride and to get others to pay for it.

You're forgetting one salient fact: namely, that this highly-generous benefits setup in in direct exchange for a lower salary. Federal and State workers typically take a pay cut of between 10 and 25% to work for the government (i.e., they get paid between 10 and 25% less than they would doing the same job with the same qualifications in hte private sector), with the understanding that if they stick with the government, they get good benefits in retirement and healthcare. It actually makes some sense - rather than attracting talent by offering bloated paychecks, the government instead attracts and retains them with the offer of a long-term benefit.