PDA

View Full Version : Wisconsin Supreme Court Election



ColonialMarine0431
04-05-2011, 09:58 PM
It appears that the incumbent Prosser, who union thugs are trying to oust in favor of their lackey Kloppenburg, is pulling ahead. Although it's still early....

http://www.notundertaxed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Prosser-v.-Kloppenburg-returns-5.jpg

Apocalypse
04-05-2011, 10:29 PM
latest
Supreme Court REPORTING 32%

David Prosser (inc) 256,303 50%

Joanne Kloppenburg 254,174 50%

Some stations are trying to put a positive spin on JK's loss already.

I for one will wait till its official. 2K separating them, and we know the Dims are known for cheating in Wisconsin. Especially the Milwaukee area.

ColonialMarine0431
04-05-2011, 10:44 PM
I'm already expecting a recount. That's when the democRATs will suddenly pull out boxes of "misplaced" ballots.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Liberal%20Baiting/tombstone.jpg

NJCardFan
04-05-2011, 10:46 PM
Prosser still has a 2K lead.

Apocalypse
04-05-2011, 10:55 PM
Supreme Court REPORTING 46%

David Prosser (inc) 384,772 52%

Joanne Kloppenburg 355,327 48%

Looking bit better. Its bouncing up and down a lot right now.

ColonialMarine0431
04-05-2011, 11:12 PM
Definitely gonna be close

If you click refresh on this page it gives an instant update....

http://elections.todaystmj4.com/G8801.htm

Apocalypse
04-05-2011, 11:13 PM
Supreme Court REPORTING 58%

Joanne Kloppenburg 447,930 50%

David Prosser (inc) 443,961 50%

And now she is leading.

ColonialMarine0431
04-05-2011, 11:18 PM
Now he's leading!! :p

Arroyo_Doble
04-05-2011, 11:19 PM
I know I may be committing some sort of heresy but this is why the Judicial Branch should not be subject to the whims of the electorate.

Voting for judges just entrenches the concept that the third branch is just a partisan political power center.

PoliCon
04-05-2011, 11:21 PM
I know I may be committing some sort of heresy but this is why the Judicial Branch should not be subject to the whims of the electorate.

Voting for judges just entrenches the concept that the third branch is just a partisan political power center.

and how do you propose selecting judges otherwise?

malloc
04-05-2011, 11:23 PM
and how do you propose selecting judges otherwise?

Appointment by the executive followed by ratification by the Senate?

That has been known to place some partisan hacks behind the bench as well.

Going by this, AP site (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2011/by_county/WI_Supreme_Court_0405.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS), Prosser is about 19,000 votes in the lead right now. Still a nail biter though.

ColonialMarine0431
04-05-2011, 11:24 PM
I know I may be committing some sort of heresy but this is why the Judicial Branch should not be subject to the whims of the electorate.

Voting for judges just entrenches the concept that the third branch is just a partisan political power center.

In many ways it is. Supreme Court rulings are often divided among ideological lines.

Apocalypse
04-05-2011, 11:24 PM
and how do you propose selecting judges otherwise?
I hate to agree with AD, but it does add to the special interest in a job that should be completely impartial. Only problem is, there really is no better way. And this one allows the removal of bad judges. Some thing we don't enjoy in the Supreme Court its self where they are appointed for life.

Arroyo_Doble
04-05-2011, 11:26 PM
In many ways it is. Supreme Court rulings are often divided among ideological lines.

That wasn't the case until Bush v Gore. Or at least it wasn't so baldly on display.

Apocalypse
04-05-2011, 11:28 PM
Man this thing will be very close. She leads, he leads. I just hope in the end we don't take it in the rear.

Arroyo_Doble
04-05-2011, 11:29 PM
Appointment by the executive followed by ratification by the Senate?

That has been known to place some partisan hacks behind the bench as well.


I like that. Along with a defined tenure, that at least smooths out the passions of the moment.

PoliCon
04-05-2011, 11:31 PM
Appointment by the executive followed by ratification by the Senate?

That has been known to place some partisan hacks behind the bench as well.

Going by this, AP site (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2011/by_county/WI_Supreme_Court_0405.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS), Prosser is about 19,000 votes in the lead right now. Still a nail biter though.

EXACTLY.

PoliCon
04-05-2011, 11:33 PM
That wasn't the case until Bush v Gore. Or at least it wasn't so baldly on display.:rolleyes: Oh fuck you. :rolleyes: You really need to learn a little history because it was political and OBVIOUSLY political long before bush v gore.

Rockntractor
04-05-2011, 11:33 PM
That wasn't the case until Bush v Gore. Or at least it wasn't so baldly on display.

Get over it space boi!:rolleyes:

PoliCon
04-05-2011, 11:34 PM
I like that. Along with a defined tenure, that at least smooths out the passions of the moment.

You mean you like that it has been so successful for the left and you all dominate the federal bench as a result. That's what you really like. :rolleyes:

malloc
04-05-2011, 11:34 PM
If only there were some "not a partisan hack" definition we could hold nominees up against before they were allowed to be raised to the courts. That way we could ensure that they decided on the law, and didn't play in party politics.

Of course this would never do with Democrats, because most decisions would come down on the conservative had we such a automatons as judges. The rule of least restrictive legislation would see to that.

Arroyo_Doble
04-05-2011, 11:37 PM
:rolleyes: Oh fuck you. :rolleyes: You really need to learn a little history because it was political and OBVIOUSLY political long before bush v gore.


Get over it space boi!:rolleyes:

It is what it is. Ignoring history is another form of political correctness.

Eye rolls and "Get over it" is no different to me than the guy who changed Huckleberry Finn by removing the word "******."

PoliCon
04-05-2011, 11:38 PM
It is what it is. Ignoring history is another form of political correctness.

Eye rolls and "Get over it" is no different to me than the guy who changed Huckleberry Finn by removing the word "******."

right - no go and investigate the warren court if you wanna see blatant politicization of the court. :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
04-05-2011, 11:39 PM
It is what it is. Ignoring history is another form of political correctness.

Eye rolls and "Get over it" is no different to me than the guy who changed Huckleberry Finn by removing the word "******."

Too funny.

My point was reinforced by mindless software.

Rockntractor
04-05-2011, 11:39 PM
It is what it is. Ignoring history is another form of political correctness.

Eye rolls and "Get over it" is no different to me than the guy who changed Huckleberry Finn by removing the word "******."

Wait till we get you in the reeducation camp!:cool:

PoliCon
04-05-2011, 11:40 PM
If only there were some "not a partisan hack" definition we could hold nominees up against before they were allowed to be raised to the courts. That way we could ensure that they decided on the law, and didn't play in party politics.

Of course this would never do with Democrats, because most decisions would come down on the conservative had we such a automatons as judges. The rule of least restrictive legislation would see to that.

we have one - its the exact opposite of a strict constructionist.

fettpett
04-05-2011, 11:58 PM
The biggest problem is Dane and Milwaukee Counties, both bastions of idotcy...I mean cronyism...er...Liberalism....Progressivism..w/e the fuck you wanna call it. I saw that the city of Madison voted 97-3% for Kloppenburg

AP is showing her up 594,300 49% 612,116 51%

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 12:01 AM
Supreme Court REPORTING 84%

Joanne Kloppenburg 640,660 51%

David Prosser (inc) 605,734 49%

This is not looking good...

malloc
04-06-2011, 12:01 AM
The biggest problem is Dane and Milwaukee Counties, both bastions of idotcy...I mean cronyism...er...Liberalism....Progressivism..w/e the fuck you wanna call it. I saw that the city of Madison voted 97-3% for Kloppenburg

AP is showing her up 594,300 49% 612,116 51%

I'm seeing the Union Butch with the too long name up 20K votes now, but a big portion of Milwaukee just reported in, and Milwaukee's almost all reported now. Washington is not, and it's been going overwhelmingly for Prosser and it has a decent population. I should have popcorn for this.

Edit: Waukesha looks the same of Washington, these two counties could make or break Prosser. I just wish he'd fared a little better in Dane in Milwaukee so this wasn't down to the wire.

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 12:08 AM
I'm seeing the Union Butch with the too long name up 20K votes now, but a big portion of Milwaukee just reported in, and Milwaukee's almost all reported now. Washington is not, and it's been going overwhelmingly for Prosser and it has a decent population. I should have popcorn for this.

Edit: Waukesha looks the same of Washington, these two counties could make or break Prosser. I just wish he'd fared a little better in Dane in Milwaukee so this wasn't down to the wire.
I hope your right

Needless to say, this election will affect every state fighting the Unions. Iowa is gearing up now. And we need it here.

malloc
04-06-2011, 12:23 AM
I hope your right

Needless to say, this election will affect every state fighting the Unions. Iowa is gearing up now. And we need it here.

I hope so too.

Right now there is a less than 6K vote spread between the two. Dane & Milwaukee make up just 54 of the 382 precincts yet to report, but probably a little less than half of the population represented in these precincts. Washington and Waukesha make up 92 of the unreported precincts and probably the lions share of the population not claimed by Dane & Milwaukee, and so far these counties have gone Prosser by a 75-25% margin.

This one is too close to call.


On Edit: Prosser is back in the lead with < 500 votes separating the two.

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 12:29 AM
He just retook the lead, still about 7% left to report. But it is so damn close it may go to a run off.

ColonialMarine0431
04-06-2011, 12:32 AM
He just retook the lead, still about 7% left to report. But it is so damn close it may go to a run off.

How can you go to a runoff with just 2 candidates running? This is winner take all.

Novaheart
04-06-2011, 12:38 AM
This would be a stunning result in Florida. As a rule, incumbent judges can phone it in and still be retained by a huge majority.

I always vote against incumbent judges.

malloc
04-06-2011, 12:41 AM
This would be a stunning result in Florida. As a rule, incumbent judges can phone it in and still be retained by a huge majority.

I always vote against incumbent judges.

Not quite this time. The Tea Party on one side and the Unions on the other spent a boatload of cash on this election. I can't find the article because I'm too busy running numbers and chewing popcorn over the election, but this was the most spent on a judicial election in Wisconsin ever.

A lot of campaigning went on for this I think. I'm no local though, so maybe they can shed some light on it. However, if you believe there aren't as many people in Wisconsin who want to do away with Unions as there are people who want to keep them, that's just insane talk.

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 12:43 AM
This would be a stunning result in Florida. As a rule, incumbent judges can phone it in and still be retained by a huge majority.

I always vote against incumbent judges.
In most states Nova, voters don't care about Judges unless they make a massive ruling the votes don't like. As a result, they tend to vote for the incumbent as its been fine so far and why replace a judge most people have never heard of before.

Case in point, look at Iowa last election where the Supreme ordered same sex marriage, it pissed off the voters, and as a result, people payed attention and voted them out. Up till that point, no one cared one damn about them. Even where one was very soft on crime.

malloc
04-06-2011, 12:44 AM
How can you go to a runoff with just 2 candidates running? This is winner take all.

I just assumed he meant recount.

Dane & Milwaukee have only 3 precincts apiece to report and Prosser is up by about 3K votes. Washington is all in, but Waukesha has 68 precincts left to report.

No matter who wins, I'd almost like this to be close enough to go to recount. You know the recount process sheds a lot of light on individual ballots, light that would spotlight union involvement in less than above the board voting practices.

ColonialMarine0431
04-06-2011, 12:48 AM
The Tea Party on one side and the Unions on the other spent a boatload of cash on this election.

I heard the figure was over $5 million.

That's alot for a state Supreme Court election with just 2 candidates.

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 12:58 AM
How can you go to a runoff with just 2 candidates running? This is winner take all.
I just got off work not long ago and I'm tired. Not thinking correctly trying to catch up with all the news of the day before bed.

Any-who. Just checked Althouse who lives in Wisconsin. This is what she has just blogged.





UPDATE, 11:35: Concentrating on the AP number (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2011/by_county/WI_Supreme_Court_0405.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS)s, looking at which counties still need to report, I'm irritated by the way Waukesha (strong for Prosser) and Dane (strong for Kloppenburg) seem to be holding out, like it's a game of chicken. Right now the candidates are 50-50%, with Prosser up 6,000+. It's been seesawing back and forth, with Kloppenburg up some of the time. To my eye, it looks as though there are more votes left to report in the places that are pro-Prosser, so I think in the end Prosser will squeak by.

UPDATE, 11:43: Dane (Madison's county) is nearly all in. I don't see how Kloppenburg can net more than about 3,000 with what's left of Dane. Waukesha is now shown as completely in, but the numbers didn't change, so I think something may have been misreported. I took the trouble to do a calculation and was going to predict that Prosser would net 40,000 more votes in Waukesha. What happened?

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 01:01 AM
There will be a recount

ColonialMarine0431
04-06-2011, 01:02 AM
This is almost as bad as the McCain/Obama or Bush/Algore election.

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 01:04 AM
Maybe Bush/Gore. But I think we all knew McCain was toast going into that night.

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 01:09 AM
Well its after Midnight here, and I work again tomorrow late... again...

Time for bed

Less then 2K separate them, with Pross in the lead. Hopefully he gains on that when I wake tomorrow. So the real circus with the recount can start...

ColonialMarine0431
04-06-2011, 01:11 AM
Beddie bye for me too.

marv
04-06-2011, 07:15 AM
6:09AM cdt.........

Supreme Court REPORTING 99%

David Prosser (inc) 733,074 50%
Joanne Kloppenburg 732,489 50%

fettpett
04-06-2011, 07:20 AM
heres the story about how much money was spent

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/119288379.html

it was 3.5 million

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 11:44 AM
From Ann Althouse


As of 9:45 this morning, the Associated Press had results for all but 7 of the state's 3,630 precincts and Kloppenburg had taken a 140 vote lead after Prosser had been ahead most of the night by less than 1,000 votes.

That close margin had political insiders from both sides talking about the possibility of a recount, which Wisconsin has avoided in statewide races in recent decades. Any recount could be followed by lawsuits - litigation that potentially would be decided by the high court.

Seems the dirty tricks are in play as we speak.

fettpett
04-06-2011, 12:48 PM
She's ahead by 220 votes-ish with all but one precinct counted. There has also been reports of wide spread irregularities, like in Dane Co. there were 10,000 ballots that were cast for ONLY the Supreme Court election, really weird. also of one county sending out 5 boxes for ballots and coming back with 4 (and it not being the first time with this particular person)


going to be a LOOOONNNG process

malloc
04-06-2011, 02:26 PM
It's going to be a long hard recount with the Unions getting caught cheating left and right, and acting childish and indignant when they do. What's really going to demoralize the DUmmies is how bad the Union Butch is going to lose after all the bogus ballots are discarded. With their being a Republican governor I feel assured that Unions members won't be having a free hand with the recount process.

There's one precinct left to report. This precinct *should* report about 550 votes if it follows the trend of other precincts in it's county. 58% of those 550 votes will go to Prosser, if it follows this trend which is 319/231 respectively which puts the Union Butch 248 votes ahead.

I'm actually pretty confident that Prosser will win after a recount. I think thousands of ballots cast for the Union Butch will be discarded while very few cast for Prosser will fail validity checks.

On Edit: I also hope Walker and his administration use this recount as an opportunity to study and publicize union cheating and ballot stuffing. Doing so can only help thwart future union attempts at this bull shit in the face of all the recall efforts going on.

Does anyone on this board, moonbats included, honestly think that a recount isn't going to find at least 1,000 bogus votes for Kloppenburg?

PoliCon
04-06-2011, 10:45 PM
here is the important question - who's in the sec of state job there in wisconsin?

Apocalypse
04-06-2011, 11:05 PM
It's going to be a long hard recount with the Unions getting caught cheating left and right, and acting childish and indignant when they do. What's really going to demoralize the DUmmies is how bad the Union Butch is going to lose after all the bogus ballots are discarded. With their being a Republican governor I feel assured that Unions members won't be having a free hand with the recount process.


I wouldn't get too excited yet. This is not going to be easy to prove they did any thing wrong. And the Unions and left will fight to seat her as fast as they can.

The fights just begun, and the dirty tricks will only get dirtier.

fettpett
04-06-2011, 11:09 PM
here is the important question - who's in the sec of state job there in wisconsin?

Douglas J. La Follette (grandnephew of Bob) a Libtard.


however it's probably J. B. Van Hollen (R) the Attorney General that will do any investigation