Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

You also have to remember, once the recount is done, either candidate will have 5 business days to file a judicial appeal, which will first be heard by a reserve (retired/defeated for re-election) judge appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, with any appeal going to the Madison-based 4th District Court of Appeals. If neither candidate appeals, the GAB, after a canvass of the results, will declare a winner.

You know Abrahamson will appoint a Liberal, then an appeal of the Liberals ruling would go to the Madison 4th District, and I would bet money that court is Liberal, so if they rule in Kloppy's favor, Prosser takes it to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, now Prosser has to recuse himself, it is now 3-3.

1. Iirc the margin was a factor of ten or twenty more than what any previous WI recount has changed. How then could Kloppenburg hope to prevail?

Answer: Get the votes disqualified in batches.

2. The goal is to try to create the appearance of impropriety as a justification either for court challenges...

In other words, per ptcontracting, steal the election via the courts?

...or at least to taint the Prosser win.

And to delegitimize any Supreme Court decisions in which Prosser's vote makes the difference.

3. Hopefully we are not watching the unfolding of the most flagrant American political fraud in modern times.

Porsser 598,495 +296
Kloppy 572,451 +548

That is approximately 82 percent of the of the 3,602 total Reporting Units.

So far, counties have recounted 1,172,117 votes, which is approximately 78 percent of the original votes cast in the State Supreme Court race.

There was an update last Saturday, so we may get an update today.

Also, if they are able to get some of the wards thrown out for Brookfield, all Prosser has to do is get 3-of-24 to be OK, and that should be enough to win. Each ward he won by 120-500, most he won by more than 200 votes.

Sure does seem that Bush v Gore would apply here. Cherry-picking your recount is supposed to be a problem. Wonder if all the bags in, say, Milwaukee are perfectly maintained.

Of course, it would be racist to go throw out batches of minority votes.

BTW, I think it unlikely that all liberal judges/justices would go along with a blatant BS end-run around vote results. Besides outdated bourgeois values like integrity and ethics, the backlash would be catastrophic if the public took offense.

"The goal is to try to create the appearance of impropriety as a justification......... or at least to taint the Prosser win."

I think that's how it's going to be played.

Kloppenburg campaign raises security concern in Waukesha recount

Here's what the Kloppenhag camp said:

"Kloppenburg campaign manager Melissa Mulliken, who stopped by the recount Thursday afternoon, said in an interview that the concerns raised about open ballot bags in Waukesha County were different from what's been reported in other counties.

She also said Kloppenburg remains confident in her decision to request the recount in order to make sure all votes are counted fairly and accurately. The process is also important, she said, because it is identifying election problems that should be fixed."

Parse those words: "remains confident in her decision"; "in order to make sure all votes are counted fairly and accurately"; "it is identifying election problems that should be fixed"

Notice that nothing is being said about winning, and the rationale for doing this is as a "public service".

Besides tainting the Prosser win, this could serve a future purpose in "get-out-the-vote" efforts.

@caseym54: You are absolutely correct - the backlash would be catastrophic. I'm in WI, people are really getting fed up with this crap - there is a "silent majority" holding their feelings close to their vests. Not anymore, if a court drama would be put into play.

It's actually a lot worse than de-legitimizing this election. What the Dems want to do is de-legitimize the whole electoral process and just declare themselves the winners in perpetuity. I mean they are the "Good" people aren't they?

If I recall correctly, the part of Bush vs. Gore invalidating a cherry picked recount was 7 to 2.

The Left continues to recognize that democracy is not going to trend its way. So it must control the judiciary and impose its will on the nation through radicalized judges. It must therefore control the judiciary at all costs and by any means necessary.

Of course if voting results are not honored, then we can move straight on to revolutionary violence.

Optimists buy gold, pessimists buy brass and lead.

Even the most biased judge would realize that a protracted court battle over the recount would bring the entire judiciary into disrepute. The public would show very little patience over a "family" squabble among judges. I therefore don't see the losing side's legal arguments getting too much traction.

The "Democratic" process in close elections... Keep counting until the Democrat wins. That is unless adults step up and say enough is enough.

"Even the most biased judge would realize that a protracted court battle over the recount would bring the entire judiciary into disrepute. The public would show very little patience over a "family" squabble among judges. I therefore don't see the losing side's legal arguments getting too much traction."

Even the most biased judge would also realize they couldn't inject themselves into the legislative process to effectively veto a bill. That didn't stop Sume. She still is stringing along hearings before actually explaining her justification for the TRO, the Appeals Court effectively refused to hear an appeal and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has also made no move to intervene.

If they feel confident putting legislative process under their thumb, why wouldn't they do the same with vote counting?

I warned about this scenario, subtracting Prosser votes rather than "finding" Kloppy votes, in the thread announcing the recount.

Yes, I agree it is a bridge too far, aside from the outrage the disenfranchised voters would feel, I think judicially throwing out that many ballots would raise Establishment Clause issues (take that with a grain of salt -- I'm not a lawyer). That doesn't mean they are incapable of misjudging how far they can push.

If they judge that it gives them the ability to block Walker's bills, and with the redistricting looming on the horizon, they may feel pulling it off warrants the political capital expended in the attempt.

In thinking how far they'll push it -- bear in mind they haven't backed down yet. Don't count on them not being determined to change the vote with the recount.

This is not a Democratic or Republican thing. This is about keeping our voting system clean. It is about making sure those in charge are honest and trustworthy and if not then they should be held accountable. If it is a rule/law that all bags must be sealed properly or they are rejected then so be it. What is the explanation to why those bags looked tampered with? I, myself, find this unsettling. At the least it is all very, very suspicious and questionable. The whole thing stinks and certainly looks tainted.

Count every vote! Um, except from areas that voted for my opponent. And nuns. And...

Every voter in Wisconsin, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be dismayed at the blatant attempts by the Kloppenburg campaign to disenfranchise the state's voters.

@caseym54 . . . May 7, 2011 12:23 PM -- You know, the thought actually did cross my mind at one point that their strategy might be to raise a weak attack against the ripped bags in Waukesha County, and when they lost on the issue, suddenly a number of "ripped bags" would be discovered during the Milwaukee County (or in Dane County) recounts, and a whole slew of freshly-planted votes for Kloppenburg would be found therein.

In other words, I considered the possibility that the ripping of the bags in Waukesha bags might have been intentional in order to set up for a similar situation to suddenly be discovered in Milwaukee County, or Dane County, or maybe in both, which the R’s couldn’t object to because they defended it in Waukesha. The problem, of course, would be that the known number of sign-ins to vote would not match the number of ballots cast, as it did in Waukesha.

I still think the rips in the bags were likely intentionally done to help raise suspicions, but for a slightly different reason. I think this post by the Professor is correct -- it seems pretty clear that the purpose of the Democrat insistence on a recount is simply to undermine and cast a pall over the entire election process by focusing their attack pretty exclusively on the Waukesha recount effort, dubbing it as an effort by Rs to steal the election.

JoAnne Kloppenburg knows she lost, and she has known that from at least the day the AP reporting error was discovered (maybe she knew election night). But if there are enough voters stirred up by false claims that Prosser "stole" the election, she and the Democrats probably think it could benefit their team in future elections.

And, don't forget that 2012 is right around the corner. Getting a solid handle on exactly where votes for Prosser came from; how the intricacies (and vulnerabilities) of the recount process work (or don't work); and, precision planning for how to concentrate their efforts in the coming Presidential election, are all important considerations that were taken into account in deciding to insist on this recount. Wisconsin may well shape up as a key battleground State.

I still think it is likely that Obama people were somehow involved (at a minimum through consultation) in the Kloppenburg efforts on both the canvassing and recounting levels.

If Prosser is seen as having had a clear (untainted) win, and the Walker administration moves forward on further efforts to tighten up on, among other things, fraudulent voting practices which are inherent in "same day" registration & voting, that could do damage to Obama's chances in Wisconsin in 2012.

Reading this comment thread makes me shake my head wondering why ad hominem snark has become the goto weapon in the right's rhetorical quiver !
Perhaps some of you might consider how whatever valid points you raise are diminished by the poor communicative value of that type of speech.

"If they feel confident putting legislative process under their thumb, why wouldn't they do the same with vote counting?"

You may be right, but there is a difference in the two instances. Reviewing legislation is what judges do. People accept that (sometimes grudgingly) as a proper role for the judiciary. But judges taking sides over a bitter contest for a judgeship would not be looked on kindly by the public. Still, there is no law of nature that constrains the chutzpah some people have.

I find it interesting that Kloppenburg's side is demanding perfection by WI election officials in their handling of the ballot bags. Contrast that with the recount in Gore v. Bush in the 2000 election, in which Democrats neither asked nor expected perfection of Florida's voters, whose dimpled ballots and hanging chads were deemed sufficient to divine each voter's intentions. The level of perfection needed to satisfy Democrats is elastic, depending only on the extent to which it helps their cause.

Wait a second . . . @JoAnn May 7, 2011 5:36 PM Hmmmm . . . where have I heard that name before?

Oh! Son of a gun! Is that you Kloppy? Heh!

Boy, it sure sounded like a brief rehash of the "Kloppenburg election doctrine" to me! What . . . thought you'd try it out by runnin' a coupla those bad boys up the flag pole here, and see if anyone salutes 'em?

'Frinctance:

"This is not a Democratic or Republican thing. This is about keeping our voting system clean."

Oh sure . . . that one is rich! You could do "stand up" with lines like that, as long as you could keep a straight face.

Or this:

"It is about making sure those in charge are honest and trustworthy and if not then they should be held accountable."

By the way, JoAnn, you do know that the full GAB investigation into the Waukesha County matter concluded that there was no wrongdoing?

And, do you recall that it identified (as possible changes) a grand total of only three extremely minor "anomalies" county-wide, which might have resulted in a change of either one, two or three votes altogether! If all three were changed, the result would have been a net pick up of ONE vote by JoAnne Kloppenburg (two for her, one for Prosser).

And how about this howler?

"If it is a rule/law that all bags must be sealed properly or they are rejected then so be it."

Really? So, if someone on Kloppenburg's team got to just ONE person in the chain of custody and convinced them to slightly "mishandle" them in any way -- like, to rip them just a little teenie bit while moving them -- then you think all those votes should be thrown out and JoAnne Kloppenburg should win? Are you nuts?

Then . . .

"What is the explanation to why those bags looked tampered with? I, myself, find this unsettling. At the least it is all very, very suspicious and questionable. The whole thing stinks and certainly looks tainted."

As far as I'm concerned, the best explanation is that somebody in the Kloppenburg got to ONE person handling, perhaps convincing them to rip them a little while moving them out for the recount, or in storing them. I agree that the whole thing stinks, but for reasons that have nothing to do with what you seem to be suggesting.

What really stinks is the willingness on the part of Democrats to do ANYTHING to upset and/or undermine our elections processes when they don't win.

@wrisky May 7, 2011 7:21 PM

You say in your profile that one of your favorite blogs, one that you personally follow is "Palingates" . . . a site which I think we can all agree is exclusively dedicated to ad hominem personal attacks on Sarah Palin.

Yet, your sole comment above was critical of the commenters here because of their "ad hominum" attacks, to wit:

"Reading this comment thread makes me shake my head wondering why ad hominem snark has become the goto weapon in the right's rhetorical quiver !"

Gee, is that because you've gotten your fill of all the "ad hominem" snark aimed at Sarah Palin over a Plaingates?

Or, are you just demonstrating how to be hypocritical?

@Trochilus

I think Henry Cooper would have deservedly won his fight against Muhammad Ali, (Cassius Clay, at the time) in 1963 after knocking Ali down, ... if you had been the referee that night. Instead, Angelo Dundee, Ali's trainer, knew he had to buy time for Ali to recover from the devastating hook, so he tore open Ali's glove and pointed it out to the referee. The referee was duped and the fight was put on hold until new gloves were found, allowing Ali to recover.

Anyway ... I like you better as a fighter than a referee, so keep taking the fight to the JoAnns and the wriskys. They are completely outclassed.

P.S. What timing. Henry Cooper just passed away this week. Hopefully the dishonest "ripping tactic" used against him to steal the fight will pass away soon in Wisconsin.

"makes me shake my head wondering why ad hominem snark has become the goto weapon in the right's rhetorical quiver"

You mean the wingnuts, teabaggers and Brownshirts?

Adding "guilt by association" to the list alongside "ad hominem snark".

By my count 15/23 of the comments contain "ad hominem snark". Some may quibble over including one or two of the ones I included but still that's a pretty high percentage. The remarkable element is that supposedly political aware adults are the ones doing this. Perhaps it is just this blog that attracts the angry, sputtering, inarticulate sort ? Actually Trochilus' reply, which pretty much boils down to the "that's what you are, but what am I" schoolyard taunt, is probably as introspective a response one would expect.

Oh gosh. @Wrisky has now completely ignored the fact that he was taken down for abject hypocrisy, and in reply has substituted his generic, dry and meaningless numerical analysis of the snark of the comments here.

Come on, man . . . don't make it so easy!

I and others have posted snarky comments on this thread about folks like JoAnne Kloppenburg and her team of losers because she deserves it! She is wasting the Wisconsin taxpayers money on a recount she cannot win, and she is doing it for purely partisan purposes.

And by the way, wrisky, it is generally considered indecorous in comment threads to attempt to haughtily correct the way in which other people express themselves, particularly when you say it in a stilted and confusing sentence.

Consider the second half of your first offering above, on May 7, 2011 at 7:21 PM.

"Perhaps some of you might consider how whatever valid points you raise are diminished by the poor communicative value of that type of speech."

Huh? Say again?

Don't know why that link didn't work. Let me try this one.

"Ali’s trainer Angelo Dundee brought the referee’s attention to a tear on his fighter’s glove, causing a delay to the start of the next round. Cooper said years later that Dundee admitted to deliberately sabotaging the glove."

Hey wrisky, you know what makes it obvious this isn't a left-wing site? Because not every other word is "f*ck." Actually, I'm sure the Professor wouldn't allow any profanity at all. (That's one way to discourage potty-mouthed lefties.) Your attempted digs at Trochilus are laughable. His are all content, your two comments nothing but whining. 15/23 comments contain "ad hominem snark"? Would calling you a lesser Alan Alda qualify and make it 16/24?

I can't believe it ... I was a teenage Lefty!

**Horror**

Pssst. Wrisky?

Beam. Massive one. Sticking out of your eye.

Might want to get it checked.