Wisconsin August 9 Recall Liveblog
This is where we are live blogging the results of today’s Wisconsin recall elections. Results and high level commentary appear here, but we’ll all join in the comments below as well.
[liveblog]
This entry was posted by Logarchism.com on August 9, 2011 at 5:30 pm, and is filed under Breaking News, Wisconsin Recall Elections. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#4 written by marc miwerdz 1 year ago
-
@marc… why are we suddenly seeing the word reëlection spelled with the 2 dots over the second e ? Is this the trendy affectation for 2011?
We’ve just moved up to a classy new sever, and the diacritical marks come with the software. We have to be trendy and affected whether we like it or not.
It DOES look just a bit precious, doesn’t it?
-
#6 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Remembe what I said earlier from the guy in Wisconsin. One side may well challenge almost every thing in the count if they think they are losing. He said we could be days or weeks before we know not hours and certainly not minutes.….….….so where are the results? What no exit polls? One of the news orgs hasn’t made a foll of themselves yet? What kind of an election is this?
Oh and the beer is in the fridge.….…you kind of told me late so all the store had left was PBR and Nasty Ghansette.……drink hearty.
-
-
Here’s a place everyone can follow returns
http://wisconsin.onpolitix.com/pages/260/august-9–2011-state-senate-recall-election-results
There are tiny percentages so far, maybe 1 — 7 percent. Far too early to call anything.
-
-
#10 written by Mainer 1 year ago
-
-
#12 written by Mainer 1 year ago
It will be interesting to see how well the pre election polls hold up. Nate seemed to have some doubts. Smaller samples in a smaller area must make it difficult. Also the numbers so far don’t show a big turn out also indicating much smaller rural areas or precincts. One would expect some bigger numbers to come up shortly.
-
#13 written by WA7th 1 year ago
-
There is an error in the link DC posted:
http://wisconsin.onpolitix.com/pages/260/august-9–2011-state-senate-recall-election-result
or
http://tinyurl.com/3byjf2q
Looks like Democrats may take 2 of the seats at most.
-
#16 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
#17 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
-
#20 written by Jean 1 year ago
As of 9:29 pm:
State Senate — District 18 — General
August 09, 2011 — 09:29PM CT
Wisconsin — 21 of 108 Precincts Reporting — 19%
Name Party Votes Vote %
King , Jessica Dem 7,464 50%
Hopper , Randy (i) GOP 7,368 50%State Senate — District 32 — General
August 09, 2011 — 09:29PM CT
Wisconsin — 59 of 119 Precincts Reporting — 50%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Shilling , Jennifer Dem 11,353 53%
Kapanke , Dan (i) GOP 9,968 47%State Senate — District 8 — General
August 09, 2011 — 09:29PM CT
Wisconsin — 15 of 82 Precincts Reporting — 18%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Pasch , Sandra Dem 8,848 57%
Darling , Alberta (i) GOP 6,741 43% -
#21 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Actually Mono the Dems are now leading in 3 of the contests so there is hope. Interesting that Clarke is making at least a contest of it. I wonder if Cowles will look back on tonight in any degree of comfort even with what for most would be a big win? Another race and a slightly stronger opponent and he could be in trouble.
-
-
@Jean… So far, I’m not impressed with your new server. I’m getting error message:
Resource Limit Is ReachedI’ve been getting the same thing. Very frustrating, the new server was supposed to be able to handle heavy traffic night like this.
I note that it’s better the past few minutes, though. Michael must be doing some behind-the-scenes magic.
-
-
#26 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
-
#28 written by Mainer 1 year ago
-
-
Well, looky here. First I’ve seen of this.
I wonder if this kind of emotion is playing into the recalls here in WI, as well.
Beset by debt ceiling woes, President Obama has been trailing behind a hypothetical “generic Republican” in recent polls. But no longer! The latest from Gallup has him moving into a solid lead. According to the monthly survey, which was conducted from August 4 –7, Obama would win 45–39 against “the Republican party’s candidate.” The previous two polls from Gallup had the generic GOPer running strong with a 47–39 lead in July and 44–39 lead in June.
Looks like the Republicans have… quite literally… hit their “ceiling”
-
#31 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
#32 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
#33 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#34 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
#35 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
#36 written by Mainer 1 year ago
-
#37 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
#40 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
#44 written by Jean 1 year ago
And here’s what they’re saying over at redstate:
“I’m pre-loading this: I have family over. Results can be found here, once the polls close at 8 PM CST: if I had to guess, I’d say +1 Democrat is the most likely result, with +2 Democrat almost as likely and +0 Democrat is not actually out of the question. I’m not expecting the Wisconsin Senate to actually flip, which is the Democrats’ actual victory condition here – but then, I was hopeful that we weren’t going to lose Congress in 2006, so what the heck do I know?
Guess we’ll see.
PS: I am reminded that Governor Walker signed into law today redistricting legislation that should usefully infuriate Wisconsin Democrats. Said legislation will have no effect on the recall elections, but it’s going to have a serious effect on the next set of elections; the Democrats are challenging the results in court, apparently on the grounds that partisan gridlock is effectively enshrined in the state constitution.
I swear, once upon a time everybody thought that Wisconsin politics were kind of innocuous. Apparently there was this sea of molten rage and contention lurking beneath the surface. Who knew?”
-
#45 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
Grog, all these districts also went to Governor Walker in 2010. And elected Republican state senators in 2008, despite President Obama’s national landslide and his win of Wisconsin statewide.
We can argue the definition of Republican vs Democratic districts another time, but I’ll give you that the 32nd was trending Democratic.
-
#47 written by Brian 1 year ago
“08:48:45pm Michael Weiss
Not that anything strange could happen there or anything…right?”
If 1000’s of votes are “found” again, and change the results of the election, that might be even better for Democrats than actually winning the seat. Or if they just wait until they know exactly how many votes are needed to win, and then a little bit more than that are counted.
Look at me, a little too much time in Freeperland and I’m turning into a conspiracy nut. Fili, how do you avoid it?
-
-
-
#51 written by Mainer 1 year ago
One would almost have to suspect that Waukesha county is being watched like a hawk this night. Would som be stupid enough to try it again? Sure but a second bite at that apple in the same place and you can almost expect bad things to happen. It is and will be close which ever way it goes and at some level challenged by some one.
-
-
#53 written by parksie555 1 year ago
-
#54 written by Brian 1 year ago
@Michael,
I don’t recall that, as my mother was all of 10 when he stepped down as President, but I do not approve of it, regardless of political affiliation. I know finding a few votes happens a lot as you’ve explained in previous articles, but for it to happen in 2 consecutive close elections and turn the favor to the Republicans both times (if that were to happen this time), I’d have to be at least a little bit wary.
-
#55 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Parksie, winners win, some losers whine and assholes cheat to win. Most every one expected this to be close for the Democrats to have a chance to take back the Senate up there but to have a county tainted by past election questions positioning itself to perhaps do the same thing again this close to the last escapade doesn’t pass the smell test. So wipe the smirk off your face jerk if this smells right to you then you too are a part of the problem in this country that this election is trying to right.
Oh and lose the lib Pubbies bullshit because some of us are not. That we are sick and tired of you and yours doesn’t make us liberals just more concerned about this country and its citizens than you apparently are or have been. Now go take a nice gloat bath and forget to surface. Dipwad. Crud always has to be one that just doesn’t know when to shut the hell up.
-
#56 written by Jean 1 year ago
-
#58 written by parksie555 1 year ago
-
#59 written by Jean 1 year ago
Well, in the Darling/Pasch race, the conservatives and teapers over at redstate aren’t real confident:
“But my simple projections based on outstanding districts coming in at the percentages and sizes of their county cohorts shows On Wisconsin losing to Off Wisconsin by ~550 votes.
I’d think victory is still well within the MOE, but it doesn’t look great.
avg dist/outstanding/total in size/districts/ProjDem/ProjGop
28667 735 12 5716 3104
6391 913 4 1222 2430
597 597 10 2000 3970outstanding totals 8938 9504
pickup 566
projected totals 32742 32197 -
#60 written by rgbact 1 year ago
-
#61 written by Mainer 1 year ago
-
#62 written by Jean 1 year ago
Whether or not the Dems win all of the recall races they would like to win, the results are amazing. Remember, this is goodbye to Republicans who — until today — held a seat in the Wisconsin legislature. This may be less goodbye than we’d like to see, but is definitely a step in the right direction.
And as I’ve heard voiced many times from my own Republican friends and relatives, it drives those Republican nuts that Dems take the long view, celebrating what may appear to be small victories, but gain ground overall, albeit sometimes in smaller incremental steps.
And as of 12:12 am:
State Senate — District 32 — General
August 10, 2011 — 12:12AM CT
Wisconsin — 119 of 119 Precincts Reporting — 100%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Shilling , Jennifer Dem 33,192 55%
Kapanke , Dan (i) GOP 26,724 45%and State Senate — District 18 — General
August 10, 2011 — 12:12AM CT
Wisconsin — 108 of 108 Precincts Reporting — 100%
Name Party Votes Vote %
King , Jessica Dem 28,188 51%
Hopper , Randy (i) GOP 26,937 49% -
#63 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
#64 written by Wally 1 year ago
Jean,
Be careful what you glean from this. We had 6 GOP seats up for grabs, and depending on past voting, including cycles going back farther than 2008, it may be that we should expect that even under normal (ie. no major labor dispute, not a special election) circumstances a couple of these seats would be lost.
This is the kind of thing we’d have to actually do the regression analysis, and see what kind of regression to mean we would normally expect, and then see if that went beyond it. I’m not saying I know the answer, but I’m guessing when six GOP seats are we should probably assume they’d lose at least 1 or more, almost no matter what. And if you take a look at Nate Silver’s site, all of these districts went for Obama in 2008. District 32, which was won by a D, even saw a 60–37.6 split for Obama. And in 2010 the vote was what I’m sure was a statistical tie at 49.5–48.8. Obviously a D is going to stand a pretty good chance of taking that seat in ANY election.
District 18 might be a bit of a surprise, given the vote in 2010, but Obama did carry that district 51.3–47.3.
So, I get, take what you can. But this was not an impressive night for Ds by any means. Especially given all the grandstanding we’ve seen over the unions.
-
Wally
Be careful what you glean from this.
Again, Hochul defeating Corwin in the NY-26 special election in a heavily conservative district mainly because Corwin stupidly answered a direct question re: Ryan’s kill SS/Medicare plan.
Indeed, a Rep being honest about what they want to do w/older folks safety net was quite enlightening.
>
Plus of course, congress’s approval ratings being at historic lows, in particular Reps er boehner/cantor’s job approval rating being at an all-time low gives much info to “glean” er analyze.
take care
-
#66 written by parksie555 1 year ago
AW — I think you are reading a bit much into this. Look at it this way — about 300,000 Wisconsinites voted yesterday. 53% voted for Republicans. And this is in districts where the Dems were actually able to demand a recall, and where there enthusiasm for recall should have been at it’s highest.
How do you think the voting would have turned out in districts where Dems were unable to mount a recall?
Or put it this way — the Dems picked the six districts where they thought they could flip control and lost four of them. Not very encouraging.
-
No, parksie. These were the six districts where Republicans were available for recall, according to the Wisconsin Constitution. It’s not like the Democrats cherry-picked the best possibilities. The WI Constitution requires that it must have been at least a year since the last election, for an elected official to be eligible for recall, These were the six possibilities for the state Senate (there only are 17 total Republican state Senators in Wisconsin).
These were all heavily Republican districts. And as I pointed out last night, at least one of them had last been reëlected with over 98% of the vote.
For the Democrats to have done as well as they did — and even taking two seats away — is an incredibly good showing.
-
#68 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Fair point DC — I did not realize the constitutional issue — I thought all were eligible. But the fact remains that R’s hold the Senate. Plus one of the R losses was somewhat of a flawed candidate — apparently was having an affair with a staffer. I probably would have voted against this bum myself.
Plus lots of turnout distortion — summertime, off-year election, etc. I want to go read Nate’s take from yesterday — looks from the header like lefty Nate trying to soften the blow.
And let’s see how the Dems do in their two recalls.
-
-
parksie,
looks from the header like lefty Nate trying to soften the blow
I think a more accurate assessment is that he shies away from making solid predictions of election outcomes in special elections, because of the small sample sizes available, of both historical results and current-cycle poll types.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post





Just so you know, we are reading the comments down here too.