Wisconsin Court Election 3

Mickey Kaus notes that "the opposite of a smoking gun," i.e., an obviously exonerating detail, has been present in the Brookfield blunder story all along. From the Brookfield Patch:

On election night, the City of Brookfield reported that Prosser received 10,859 votes from city residents, or 76 percent of the vote, compared to the 3,456 votes cast for challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. The Brookfield Patch reported those numbers in a story with chart posted about 12:30 a.m. election night.

Schmidt said her office also posted the results on the city's web site before going home on election night.

So the numbers reported for Brookfield by Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus on Thursday are the same as those reported in Brookfield and posted in the Patch and on the town's web site on election night. That clears Ms. Nickolaus of any suspicion that she made the numbers up. Without that, there is no story.

Short of some new, equally large error in the unofficial reporting, it is clear that Prosser won by a small but convincing margin. At this point the Kloppenburg camp would have to pay for a recount. That is up to Kloppenburg. I doubt that a total recount is likely. A cheaper alternative would be a partial recount. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

The campaign manager for Justice David Prosser said Saturday he was open to a recount of votes in Waukesha County.

"If you need to do a recount in Waukesha (county) and Waukesha (county) alone to satisfy heightened interest, that's fine," said Brian Neimor. "We believe it will only affirm the margin of victory we now enjoy."

The purpose of such a limited recount would be to assure everyone that the count from Waukesha County is genuine, which I think would be a good idea. Assuming the count is accurate, it is very unlikely that corrections elsewhere would change the outcome.

The Journal-Sentinel has a list of the unofficial (April 6^th) and certified (April 8^th) vote counts from all Wisconsin counties. Two things stand out.

One is that there were a lot of corrections, though none nearly as big as Waukesha County. In Milwaukee County, Prosser picked up 99 votes and Kloppenburg 665. That would have cemented a Kloppenburg victory, but for the news from Waukesha. There is a reason why unofficial reports are called "unofficial".

The other is that Kloppenburg ran away with two counties. She beat Prosser by almost 30,000 votes in Milwaukee County. In Dane County, she beat Prosser 3 to 1 for a gain of about 80,000 votes. Without those two, she wouldn't have come close to winning.

The judicial elections split Wisconsin into the party of government and the party that has to pay for government. Make what you want of that.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

And without Waukesha, Washington and Ozaukee counties (essentially the Milwaukee suburbs) Prosser wouldn't have won. What's your point?

And be careful about that stuff about who pays for government. South Dakotans live off the taxes paid by Wisconsin's middle class. If the right destroys the middle class here, who's going to be left to keep your state afloat?

[Ken Blanchard]

That IS my point, Donald. The "middle class" ain't one thing, it's at least two. One half and a bit more outvoted the other.

As for South Dakotans, state employees have gone without a raise for three years now; otherwise some of us would be making well over half what a teacher in Milwaukee makes.

[Mark Anderson]

Common Ken, you aren't a real South Dakotan, South Dakota takes in $1.54 for every dollar they send to the federal government, I would hope as a real libertarian you would go for a dollar to dollar split. I left South Dakota 25 years ago, a born South Dakotan, to Florida, leaving the state, unfortunately, to people like Ken. I used to live in Aberdeen, when I went to USD, South Dakota was represented by the two most liberal people in the senate, George McGovern and James Abourezk. Oh well, welcome to the Mississippi of the north. I would hope that the Red Willow Band is still appreciated.

[William]

Just curious, how much of the Federal funds that "South Dakota takes in" goes to Federal lands and reservations that aren't controlled by the state?

[George Mason]

William you nailed it again. And some of those federal dollars do go to maintain infrastructure that sustains the economies of other states and all the states. We have dams in this state that prevent flooding in downstream states (including Mississippi) and generate large amounts of inexpensive electricity (more than enough to power all of South Dakota) that we gain very little from. The liberals have never understood that the economy does not rely on the federal government, the federal government relies on the economy.

[Jimi]

Mark,

"South Dakota takes in $1.54 for every dollar they send to the federal government"

It is actually $1.59....but I digress. Your making a huge mistake by claiming that South Dakota is getting more money that it than it has earned in relation to the others states.

1.) South Dakota ranks very low on yearly per-capita income (bottom 5% of the country)

2.) South Dakota has a very low corporate tax structure (bottom 5% of the country)

3.) South Dakota has a very small population (bottom 5% of the Country)

4.) South Dakota's second largest employer is Ellsworth Airforce Base. The Federal Spending in the $1.59 : $1.00 ratio is accounted for in this spending.

5.) South Dakota has a large portion of the land owned by the Federal Government. The federal spending can be realted to the amount of land owned by the Federal Government, this would include subsidies to the Reservations.

6.) The young leave early. Populations are older and thus Social Security and Medicare outlays are bigger compared with the overall economy than states with more young people.

When you add all this up it appears South Dakota is getting a better deal than other states. It couldn't be further from the truth. The end result really ends up being that the ratio doesn't mean anything, because what it comes down to is whether or not the particular state spends the money wisely in realtion to the benefit of the country as a whole. If you do the math you can see that a state with a good ratio, may be getting to much money, and then that State Government just ends up waisting the money, when in reality maybe that money may have been better spent in another states.

[DDC]

"If you do the math you can see that a state with a good ratio, may be getting to much money, and then that State Government just ends up waisting the money, when in reality maybe that money may have been better spent in another states. "

This bears repeating.

A lot of the "free" money that the state gets is wasted. A lot gets spent on roadwork that isn't needed (turning SD 37/34 into four lanes is an example)and other things that are done only because there are "available" federal funds (or matching funds).

I would also contend that a very large percentage of that $1 that we send to D.C. evaporates into the bureaucracy, never to be seen again and producing nothing of value. It would be much more efficient to send less money to D.C. and decide what local projects are worth funding with our own tax dollars instead of sending it to D.C. and begging to get it back for projects that the D.C. bureaucracy thinks are worthy.

[Ken Blanchard]

Mark: I am sorry that you feel guilty for leaving South Dakota 25 years ago. I can offer you no comfort. I wasn't born here, as you were. I came here shortly after you left. I have lived here, raised children here, attended church here, worked here, and paid taxes here for more than twenty years. Readers of this comment can decide who is the real South Dakotan: me or some Floridian with a guilty conscience.

I am not a libertarian, I am a conservative. Whether it makes sense for the federal government to transfer money among the states is a good question, but not an important one. How to restore fiscal solvency to the federal and state governments is the important question. I am sorry to bother you with that.

[Ron]

I can't figure out Mr. Anderson. Is he claiming that somehow we were better off when we had Senators McGovern and Abourezk? And is he complaining about Mr. Blanchard not being a South Dakotan when he himself was younger than 25 when he left and contributed nothing to the state? Typical liberal. On some high horse complaining about everyone else not doing their share and the condition of our state (Mississippi of the north?) when he has done nothing to help.

[Ken Blanchard]

Thanks, Ron.