Lot of attention from yesterday's PPP poll on the recall election. And like other previous polls, it showed a slight Walker lead at 50-47. However, like most other polls, it has its flaws and skews, and a closer look will show this thing is dead even.
Like most other polls, the crosstabs tell the real story, and a couple of figures jump out at you. First of all is the traditional questions on Party ID and ideology.
Party ID, PPP Poll
Democrat 32%
Republican 34%
Independent/Other 34%
Ideology, PPP Poll
Very liberal 9%
Somewhat liberal 17%
Moderate 35%
Somewhat conservative 24%
Very conservative 16%
Both of these numbers do not jibe with the reality of the 2010 Wisconsin exit poll, and this time, I'll use CNN's 2010 Governor exit poll, which was right on with a prediction of Walker by 6.
Party ID, 2010 Wisc exit poll
Democrat 37%
Republican 36%
Independent 27%
Ideology, 2010 Wisc exit poll
Liberal 21%
Moderate 42%
Conservative 37%
Both show a smaller GOP turnout, but a mixed picture with a lower Dem number, but a higher liberal number. But there's a second variable in play here. Given that the GAB has indicated that turnout will be well above the 2010 turnout of 50%, and closer to the 2008 turnout number of 69%. If that's the case, you get a very different electorate, as the 2008 Wisconsin presidential election poll shows.
Party ID, 2008 Wisc exit poll
Democrat 39%
Republican 33%
Independent 29%
So instead of the GOP +2 in the PPP Poll, you have 2010 polls with Dem +1, and 2008 with Dem +6. With this in mind, and with turnout expected to be closer to the 2008 turnout than even the 2010 turnout, that poll sample should be adjusted for who will actually be in the polls. So let's use figures between the 2008 and 2010 turnouts as a general rule of thumb, and use that as a predictor for tomorrow. In Party ID cases, this would make the turnout Dem 37, GOP 34, Independent 28. So put that in with the same PPP crosstabs and what do we get?
Barrett 48.38, Walker 47.45
And even though we don't have a 2008 ideology stat, let's use the 2010 figures and bump liberal up 2 and moderate down 2, turning it to 23-40-37 liberal-moderate-conservative. Then we'll run PPP's numbers on that., and we get...
Walker 49.25, Barrett 47.80
So even though Walker leads, it's cut in half to a virtual toss-up. In addition to political preferences, there are demographics that the PPP was off in, and a regular turnout would swing these votes toward Barrett. Here's a couple to go over.
Age of respondents, PPP Poll
18 to 29 10%
30 to 45 26%
46 to 65 39%
65 and over 25%
Now compare it to turnout history.
Age of voters, 2010 exit poll
18 to 29 15%
30 to 44 23%
45 to 64 46%
65 and over 16%
Age of voters, 2008 exit poll
18 to 29 22%
30 to 44 29%
45 to 64 35%
65 and over 15%
So the PPP poll oversamples young voters and oversamples elderly voters. This is a big difference that favors Walker in the poll, as Scotty's base of support in the PPP Poll are people on Social Security.
18 to 29 53-39 Barrett
30 to 45 52-46 Barrett
46 to 64 51-47 Walker
65 and over 58-39 Walker
So let's use an average of age turnout for the 2008 and 2010 exit polls, which basically slides 8% of the voters from the old to the young, and see what the results become.
Walker 48.66, Barrett 48.10
I also want to bring up minority voting. The PPP poll shows Walker getting a surprising number of minority votes, with Barrett only winning 58-36 among non-white voters (who are correctly listed as around 11% of the vote). Except that Barrett won the non-white vote 69-31 in 2010, and Obama won it approximately 75-25 in 2008. I'd guess 70-30 is a more likely number tomorrow, particularly given Walker's Milwaukee-bashing and J.B Van Hollen's race-baiting "voter supervision" acts, as well as with people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton holding turnout rallies in Milwaukee's inner city. That 10-to 12-point addition in minority voting share would allow Barrett to gain 2-3 points on this alone.
Also, the PPP poll has an unusual response to the following question:
Who did you vote for in 2008?
Obama 49, McCain 42. Actual vote: Obam 56, McCain 42.
It doesn't ring true that all 7% that drop off from the 2008 election would be Obama voters, especially when it likely that some of McCain's voters WOULD BE DEAD, given how old the average GOP voter is. A more realistic figure would be 51-40, if you think about 9% have dropped off. Turn that change into the PPP Poll and you get:
Barrett 48.50, Walker 47.98
The common thread in all of this, Barrett gains when you look at how the demographics tend to play out on Election Day, and that this race is as close as you can get. And if Barrett and the Dem groups are successful in turning out their voters, they have far more upside vs. Walker, who's pretty much going to get the same amount of votes regardless of the total turnout, just based on the type of person that votes for Walker (old white men outside of Milwaukee and Madison- Barrett wins practically every other demo).
With that in mind, my prediction for tomorrow is straightforward. If there are more voters in the City of Milwaukee than Waukesha County, and if the youth and minority turnouts are anything close to their 2008 levels, Tom Barrett will be the new govenror of Wisconsin. That's not a guarantee, but it's also an outcome that I think has a good chance of happening. I'd be shocked if the Obama people, unions, and Barrett's campaign do not execute tomorrow, regardless of the tricks that the GOP will try to pull.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Election notes Part 2- The swings and places that will decide things
And now here's the companion piece to the first part of my election analysis, which discussed the turnout changes for the last 4 large statewide elections from 2004 to 2010. This time, instead of going over HOW MANY people vote, we'll look to see who they VOTED FOR in these elections, and to see which areas would be harbingers for a Barrett or Walker win.
To give you an example of how certain places swing from one election to the other, check out Craig Gilbert's excellent article from 2011, showing the votes for president in 2008 and governor in 2010 in every Senate district in Wisconsin. From that, we can analyze the districts that had the largest swings from Democrat to Republican in the state between the 2 elections. Statewide this swing was +19.68 GOP, going from Obama +13.91 to Walker +5.77.
Largest swings and party of Senate seat 2008 vs. 2010
District 9- R (Sheboygan-area) 28.1%
District 17- R (SW Wisconsin) 26.8%
District 23- R (Eau Claire/ Chippy Falls- RECALL) 25.2%
District 29- R (Wausau and rural NC Wisc.- RECALL) 24.6%
District 24- D (Stevens Point- Rapids, etc.) 24.0%
District 32- R/D (La Crosse area- RECALL 2011) 23.9%
District 12- D (Northwoods- RECALL 2011) 23.6%
District 1- R (NE Wisconsin near Green Bay) 23.5%
So it looks like the areas that Barrett could see the largest swings back into his direction would be up the northeast Wisconsin coast, on and along Hwy. 51 from Stevens Point all the way up North, and in SW Wisconsin. Remember, a 6-point swing statewide with the same turnout gives Barrett the election, so if Barrett could grab half of this swing in these areas, that would pretty much do it. It would also help Kristin Dexter and Donna Seidel in the Senate recall districts of 23 and 29, as both of these districts went for Walker by 13-16 points, but also went for Obama by significant margins as well.
By comparison, look at the places that changed very little from 2008 to 2010, and you'll see a commonality.
Smallest swings, 2008 vs. 2010
District 6- D (Milwaukee) 3.3%
District 26- D (Madison) 4.7%
District 4- D (Milwaukee) 7.3%
District 8- R (North suburbs Milwaukee) 13.0%
District 7- D (Milwaukee Lakeshore and south burbs) 13.1%
District 5- R (Tosa, Brookfield) 13.3%
District 16- D (Sun Prairie, Monona, east side Madison) 13.4%
District 27- D (Middleton, Verona, W. Dane County) 14.5%
All in the Madison and Milwaukee areas, which means that the bigger benefit here for both the GOP and (especially) the Dems is to maximize turnout and run up total votes instead of changing the minds of those who do.
Let's go back to the swings, and do a bit of math to see how much of the voters would have to swing back to Barrett in order for Tom to become governor. This is assuming the same proportion of votes come from these districts as they did in 2010 (this is a bit different than what I measured in part 1, which indicates that increased turnout alone should help Barrett). I'll define this as a "springback", which would be a percentage of the swing that went from Obama to Walker in 2010. For example, if the swing in a district was 20% in 2010, say from Obama +10 to Walker +10, a 25% springback would be 5% back toward Barrett in the recall election (or 1/4 of 20%), which would be make the result Walker +5 in this district. Voter turnout also matters in these districts, as a high-turnout district will mean more votes, as will a high-swing district.
Statewide springback in every district
25% springback- 102,914 votes (Walker wins by 21,700 votes)
40% springback- 164,662 votes (Barrett wins by 38,000 votes
50% springback- 205,827 votes (Barrett wins by 81,200 votes)
But some places are swingier with more turnout than others, so let's look and see where the Barrett Administration would get the best payback from getting a portion of the electorate to spring back. And the places appear to be in mostly red territory.
The number of the side is the margin that would swing to Barrett in each district, and the number on the bottom is the State Senate district that the change would take place in. (click to make bigger)
In other words, the places with the biggest payoffs in switching voters back for Barrett, and the places Walker needs to defend are-
District 11- R Elkhorn, Lake Geneva, etc.
District 9- R Sheboygan
District 1 R- outer GB
District 20 R- Grothmann's district! West Bend, Ozaukee County
District 33 R- More 262 Bagger Land, Waukesha, Hartford, etc.
District 17 R- SW Wisconsin, which is likely to swing back if the Kloppenburg/ Prosser election is any indication.
And right after that are 3 Senate recall districts (Seidel/Petrowski, Moulton/Dexter, and Fitz/Compas!) as well as college town Stevens Point. All of these are useful territory for Barrett to try to make up.
So with this analysis, the key swinging area codes are 920 and 715, and Walker will have to defend his huge margins in the reddest of the red districts in the 262. Even if Barrett only gets a third of the votes in those 262 districts, it wuld probably be enough for him to win. For the 608 and 414, Barrett needs turnout (and Walker needs to prevent it), as those districts are less likely to change who they vote for, and their low turnouts make it doubly less worthwhile to convince people of one candidate vs. another.
Let's also look at the areas that seem to tell you what the final vote will be statewide. The most "bellweather" districts would be the ones that most closely match the results for both the 2008 and 2010 elections. Here's who seem to fit the bill.
Bellweather Senate districts, Wisconsin
District 22 (Kenosha) Obama +15.8% (+1.9% vs rest of state), Walker +6.3% (+0.5%)
District 30 (GB and north) Obama +14.4% (+0.5%), Walker +8.6% (+2.8%)
District 31 (Western Wisconsin) Obama +17.2% (+3.3%), Walker +5.9% (+0.1%)
District 21 (Racine area- RECALL) Obama +11.9% (-2.0%), Walker +8.3% (+2.5%)
Very different districts than above, except for the Wangaard- Lehman showdown in the Racine area, (which helps explain why that race and the voting around it is so big, it could decide the Senate and Guv races). And it also illustrates a Dem opportunity, as Part 1 pointed out that Kenosha County is an area that has a huge bump in turnout in presidential year elections, and with the turnout expected to be high on Tuesday, Kenosha would seem to be a place to reflect that. Seems like Kenosha is a key place to watch on Tuesday with these two factors in mind.
So there you go. It's a long, geeky analysis, but I think it'll give you some things to look for. And chances are that your vote will matter greatly, either due to helping "run up the score" in turnout, or in helping to swing (or not swing) certain parts of the state back toward its 2008 levels. So GET YOUR ASS OUT TO THE POLLS ON JUNE 5 and cast that vote!
To give you an example of how certain places swing from one election to the other, check out Craig Gilbert's excellent article from 2011, showing the votes for president in 2008 and governor in 2010 in every Senate district in Wisconsin. From that, we can analyze the districts that had the largest swings from Democrat to Republican in the state between the 2 elections. Statewide this swing was +19.68 GOP, going from Obama +13.91 to Walker +5.77.
Largest swings and party of Senate seat 2008 vs. 2010
District 9- R (Sheboygan-area) 28.1%
District 17- R (SW Wisconsin) 26.8%
District 23- R (Eau Claire/ Chippy Falls- RECALL) 25.2%
District 29- R (Wausau and rural NC Wisc.- RECALL) 24.6%
District 24- D (Stevens Point- Rapids, etc.) 24.0%
District 32- R/D (La Crosse area- RECALL 2011) 23.9%
District 12- D (Northwoods- RECALL 2011) 23.6%
District 1- R (NE Wisconsin near Green Bay) 23.5%
So it looks like the areas that Barrett could see the largest swings back into his direction would be up the northeast Wisconsin coast, on and along Hwy. 51 from Stevens Point all the way up North, and in SW Wisconsin. Remember, a 6-point swing statewide with the same turnout gives Barrett the election, so if Barrett could grab half of this swing in these areas, that would pretty much do it. It would also help Kristin Dexter and Donna Seidel in the Senate recall districts of 23 and 29, as both of these districts went for Walker by 13-16 points, but also went for Obama by significant margins as well.
By comparison, look at the places that changed very little from 2008 to 2010, and you'll see a commonality.
Smallest swings, 2008 vs. 2010
District 6- D (Milwaukee) 3.3%
District 26- D (Madison) 4.7%
District 4- D (Milwaukee) 7.3%
District 8- R (North suburbs Milwaukee) 13.0%
District 7- D (Milwaukee Lakeshore and south burbs) 13.1%
District 5- R (Tosa, Brookfield) 13.3%
District 16- D (Sun Prairie, Monona, east side Madison) 13.4%
District 27- D (Middleton, Verona, W. Dane County) 14.5%
All in the Madison and Milwaukee areas, which means that the bigger benefit here for both the GOP and (especially) the Dems is to maximize turnout and run up total votes instead of changing the minds of those who do.
Let's go back to the swings, and do a bit of math to see how much of the voters would have to swing back to Barrett in order for Tom to become governor. This is assuming the same proportion of votes come from these districts as they did in 2010 (this is a bit different than what I measured in part 1, which indicates that increased turnout alone should help Barrett). I'll define this as a "springback", which would be a percentage of the swing that went from Obama to Walker in 2010. For example, if the swing in a district was 20% in 2010, say from Obama +10 to Walker +10, a 25% springback would be 5% back toward Barrett in the recall election (or 1/4 of 20%), which would be make the result Walker +5 in this district. Voter turnout also matters in these districts, as a high-turnout district will mean more votes, as will a high-swing district.
Statewide springback in every district
25% springback- 102,914 votes (Walker wins by 21,700 votes)
40% springback- 164,662 votes (Barrett wins by 38,000 votes
50% springback- 205,827 votes (Barrett wins by 81,200 votes)
But some places are swingier with more turnout than others, so let's look and see where the Barrett Administration would get the best payback from getting a portion of the electorate to spring back. And the places appear to be in mostly red territory.
The number of the side is the margin that would swing to Barrett in each district, and the number on the bottom is the State Senate district that the change would take place in. (click to make bigger)
In other words, the places with the biggest payoffs in switching voters back for Barrett, and the places Walker needs to defend are-
District 11- R Elkhorn, Lake Geneva, etc.
District 9- R Sheboygan
District 1 R- outer GB
District 20 R- Grothmann's district! West Bend, Ozaukee County
District 33 R- More 262 Bagger Land, Waukesha, Hartford, etc.
District 17 R- SW Wisconsin, which is likely to swing back if the Kloppenburg/ Prosser election is any indication.
And right after that are 3 Senate recall districts (Seidel/Petrowski, Moulton/Dexter, and Fitz/Compas!) as well as college town Stevens Point. All of these are useful territory for Barrett to try to make up.
So with this analysis, the key swinging area codes are 920 and 715, and Walker will have to defend his huge margins in the reddest of the red districts in the 262. Even if Barrett only gets a third of the votes in those 262 districts, it wuld probably be enough for him to win. For the 608 and 414, Barrett needs turnout (and Walker needs to prevent it), as those districts are less likely to change who they vote for, and their low turnouts make it doubly less worthwhile to convince people of one candidate vs. another.
Let's also look at the areas that seem to tell you what the final vote will be statewide. The most "bellweather" districts would be the ones that most closely match the results for both the 2008 and 2010 elections. Here's who seem to fit the bill.
Bellweather Senate districts, Wisconsin
District 22 (Kenosha) Obama +15.8% (+1.9% vs rest of state), Walker +6.3% (+0.5%)
District 30 (GB and north) Obama +14.4% (+0.5%), Walker +8.6% (+2.8%)
District 31 (Western Wisconsin) Obama +17.2% (+3.3%), Walker +5.9% (+0.1%)
District 21 (Racine area- RECALL) Obama +11.9% (-2.0%), Walker +8.3% (+2.5%)
Very different districts than above, except for the Wangaard- Lehman showdown in the Racine area, (which helps explain why that race and the voting around it is so big, it could decide the Senate and Guv races). And it also illustrates a Dem opportunity, as Part 1 pointed out that Kenosha County is an area that has a huge bump in turnout in presidential year elections, and with the turnout expected to be high on Tuesday, Kenosha would seem to be a place to reflect that. Seems like Kenosha is a key place to watch on Tuesday with these two factors in mind.
So there you go. It's a long, geeky analysis, but I think it'll give you some things to look for. And chances are that your vote will matter greatly, either due to helping "run up the score" in turnout, or in helping to swing (or not swing) certain parts of the state back toward its 2008 levels. So GET YOUR ASS OUT TO THE POLLS ON JUNE 5 and cast that vote!
Election numbers to look for Pt. 1- Clues from past turnout
I'm going to do a 2-part series on historical Wisconsin turnout, as a prelude to another post that'll go over what to look for on Tuesday.
First of all, let's look at the last 2 gubernatorial elections, in 2006 and 2010. What I'll do is first show the turnout % for the state, based on the GAB's numbers for all Wisconsin elections in the last 65 years, and then show the top 10 Wisconsin counties for number of voters. This comes to between 52 and 55% of total votes cast for the state.
Total votes, Governor 2006 2,166,671
Turnout percentage, 2006 50.9%
% of overall state vote, Governor 2006
Dane County 9.90%
Waukesha County 8.15%
City of Milwaukee 7.99%
Rest of Milwaukee Co. 7.00%
Brown County 4.33%
Racine County 3.30%
Outagamie Co. 3.23%
Winnebago Co. 3.00%
Rock County 2.55%
Washington Co. 2.47%
Total votes, Governor 2010 2,171,331
Turnout percentage, 2010 49.7%
% of overall state vote, Governor 2010
Dane County 10.19% (+0.29% vs. 2006)
Waukesha County 8.71% (+0.56%)
City of Milwaukee 8.69% (+0.70%)
Rest of Milwaukee Co. 7.09% (+0.09%)
Brown County 4.09% (-0.24%)
Racine County 3.37% (+0.07%)
Outagamie Co. 3.02% (-0.21%)
Winnebago Co. 2.83% (-0.17%)
Washington Co. 2.73% (+0.26%)
Rock County 2.42% (-0.13%)
This shows that the pro-Walker counties of Waukesha and Washington (and the City of Milwaukee, interestingly!) made significant gains in their percentage of the vote in 2010, while lean-Dem Rock County fell down the list, and the Fox Valley counties of Brown, Outagamie and Winnebago also declined in significance.
Now let's turn this over to the last 2 presidential elections, as turnout is expected to be between the governor and presidential-year numbers at 60-65% (which would be somewhere between 2.6 million and 2.8 million votes), and see if the breakdown changes. 2004 was the tight race between Bush and Kerry that Kerry won by just over 11,000 votes (and could be a good guide for Tuesday's breakdown), while 2008 was an Obama blowout that he won over McCain by 56-42.
Total votes, 2004 3,016,288
Turnout percentage, 2004 72.9%
% of overall state vote, President 2004
City of Milwaukee 9.26%
Dane County 9.15%
Waukesha Co. 7.69%
Rest of Milw. Co. 6.83%
Brown County 4.11%
Racine County 3.39%
Outagamie Co. 3.00%
Winnebago Co. 2.96%
Rock County 2.69%
Kenosha County 2.55%
Washington Co. 2.42%
Total votes, 2008 2,996,869
Turnout percentage, 2008 69.2%
% of overall state vote, President 2008
Dane County 9.48% (-0.71% vs. 2010)
City of Milwaukee 9.22% (+0.53%)
Waukesha County 7.81% (-0.90%)
Rest of Milw. Co. 6.71% (-0.38%)
Brown County 4.18% (+0.09%)
Racine County 3.37% (same as 2010)
Outagamie Co. 3.07% (+0.05%)
Winnebago Co. 2.94% (+0.11%)
Rock County 2.65% (+0.23%)
Kenosha County 2.64% (+0.37%)
Washington Co. 2.49% (-0.24%)
A few interesting differences to ponder:
First is who moves up the list- the City of Milwaukee passes Waukesha County, and in 2004 even passed Dane County for total votes. They also see their share of the vote go up quite a bit, which is pretty important when you see that the City of Milwaukee went 78-21 for Obama in 2008, as well as 72-27 for Kerry in 2004, and 74-25 for Barrett in 2010. Waukesha County is also neutered a bit, as their share goes down nearly 1% from the share it had when it helped elect Walker in 2010.
No wonder D-B Van Hollen wants to have DOJ officials in Milwaukee on Tuesday to give a closer look to those voters - if we have turnout near presidential levels, it's likely that a good amount of the gain will be in Milwaukee, which would be a major help for Barrett and would hurt Walker. (Keep this one-sided move in the back of your mind when you consider Van Hollen coming up for another term in 2014.) On the flip side, Dane County's influence is also neutered a bit, but not quite to Waukesha County's levels (probably in no small part to Dane County's large student population, who are more likely not to vote in non-presidential elections).
Also notice that Kenosha County appears on the list, and passes Washington County for 10th place. Washington County's huge GOP vote is also neutered some in this case vs. 2010 by about 0.25%. Given that Kenosha County has run around 2% more Democratic than the rest of the state, this would again help Barrett, and between Washington and Waukesha Counties, that's about 30,000 to 35,000 votes that would be dispersed across the state instead of staying in the 262, going to more Democratic areas. It would also be big for Barrett if Rock County would return to the 2.6% level it was at in 2004 and 2008 instead of the 2.42% it was at in 2010, given that Rock County gave 52.5% to Barrett last time (6 points above Tom's statewide total), and was 8% above the statewide Dem percentage in both 2004 and 2008.
So this should give you some good benchmarks to check for on Tuesday - if Waukesha County is getting more votes than the City of Milwaukee and Washington County is casting more votes than Rock or Kenosha Counties, Walker's in great shape. But if we're seeing over 10% of the total vote coming from Dane County (which means total votes are around their 2008 levels of 282,000), 250,000 votes from the City of Milwaukee, and Rock and Kenosha are outvoting the Grothmann supporters, then Barrett's already gone a long way to winning.
P.S- Tweet out from PPP poll- Lists Walker leading 50-47, but adds: "Our projected WI electorate voted for Obama by 7. He won the state by 14. Close that enthusiasm gap in the last 36 hours and Barrett wins." And I would concur with that. If 2008 Obama voters and turnout happens, Scotty's going home.
First of all, let's look at the last 2 gubernatorial elections, in 2006 and 2010. What I'll do is first show the turnout % for the state, based on the GAB's numbers for all Wisconsin elections in the last 65 years, and then show the top 10 Wisconsin counties for number of voters. This comes to between 52 and 55% of total votes cast for the state.
Total votes, Governor 2006 2,166,671
Turnout percentage, 2006 50.9%
% of overall state vote, Governor 2006
Dane County 9.90%
Waukesha County 8.15%
City of Milwaukee 7.99%
Rest of Milwaukee Co. 7.00%
Brown County 4.33%
Racine County 3.30%
Outagamie Co. 3.23%
Winnebago Co. 3.00%
Rock County 2.55%
Washington Co. 2.47%
Total votes, Governor 2010 2,171,331
Turnout percentage, 2010 49.7%
% of overall state vote, Governor 2010
Dane County 10.19% (+0.29% vs. 2006)
Waukesha County 8.71% (+0.56%)
City of Milwaukee 8.69% (+0.70%)
Rest of Milwaukee Co. 7.09% (+0.09%)
Brown County 4.09% (-0.24%)
Racine County 3.37% (+0.07%)
Outagamie Co. 3.02% (-0.21%)
Winnebago Co. 2.83% (-0.17%)
Washington Co. 2.73% (+0.26%)
Rock County 2.42% (-0.13%)
This shows that the pro-Walker counties of Waukesha and Washington (and the City of Milwaukee, interestingly!) made significant gains in their percentage of the vote in 2010, while lean-Dem Rock County fell down the list, and the Fox Valley counties of Brown, Outagamie and Winnebago also declined in significance.
Now let's turn this over to the last 2 presidential elections, as turnout is expected to be between the governor and presidential-year numbers at 60-65% (which would be somewhere between 2.6 million and 2.8 million votes), and see if the breakdown changes. 2004 was the tight race between Bush and Kerry that Kerry won by just over 11,000 votes (and could be a good guide for Tuesday's breakdown), while 2008 was an Obama blowout that he won over McCain by 56-42.
Total votes, 2004 3,016,288
Turnout percentage, 2004 72.9%
% of overall state vote, President 2004
City of Milwaukee 9.26%
Dane County 9.15%
Waukesha Co. 7.69%
Rest of Milw. Co. 6.83%
Brown County 4.11%
Racine County 3.39%
Outagamie Co. 3.00%
Winnebago Co. 2.96%
Rock County 2.69%
Kenosha County 2.55%
Washington Co. 2.42%
Total votes, 2008 2,996,869
Turnout percentage, 2008 69.2%
% of overall state vote, President 2008
Dane County 9.48% (-0.71% vs. 2010)
City of Milwaukee 9.22% (+0.53%)
Waukesha County 7.81% (-0.90%)
Rest of Milw. Co. 6.71% (-0.38%)
Brown County 4.18% (+0.09%)
Racine County 3.37% (same as 2010)
Outagamie Co. 3.07% (+0.05%)
Winnebago Co. 2.94% (+0.11%)
Rock County 2.65% (+0.23%)
Kenosha County 2.64% (+0.37%)
Washington Co. 2.49% (-0.24%)
A few interesting differences to ponder:
First is who moves up the list- the City of Milwaukee passes Waukesha County, and in 2004 even passed Dane County for total votes. They also see their share of the vote go up quite a bit, which is pretty important when you see that the City of Milwaukee went 78-21 for Obama in 2008, as well as 72-27 for Kerry in 2004, and 74-25 for Barrett in 2010. Waukesha County is also neutered a bit, as their share goes down nearly 1% from the share it had when it helped elect Walker in 2010.
No wonder D-B Van Hollen wants to have DOJ officials in Milwaukee on Tuesday to give a closer look to those voters - if we have turnout near presidential levels, it's likely that a good amount of the gain will be in Milwaukee, which would be a major help for Barrett and would hurt Walker. (Keep this one-sided move in the back of your mind when you consider Van Hollen coming up for another term in 2014.) On the flip side, Dane County's influence is also neutered a bit, but not quite to Waukesha County's levels (probably in no small part to Dane County's large student population, who are more likely not to vote in non-presidential elections).
Also notice that Kenosha County appears on the list, and passes Washington County for 10th place. Washington County's huge GOP vote is also neutered some in this case vs. 2010 by about 0.25%. Given that Kenosha County has run around 2% more Democratic than the rest of the state, this would again help Barrett, and between Washington and Waukesha Counties, that's about 30,000 to 35,000 votes that would be dispersed across the state instead of staying in the 262, going to more Democratic areas. It would also be big for Barrett if Rock County would return to the 2.6% level it was at in 2004 and 2008 instead of the 2.42% it was at in 2010, given that Rock County gave 52.5% to Barrett last time (6 points above Tom's statewide total), and was 8% above the statewide Dem percentage in both 2004 and 2008.
So this should give you some good benchmarks to check for on Tuesday - if Waukesha County is getting more votes than the City of Milwaukee and Washington County is casting more votes than Rock or Kenosha Counties, Walker's in great shape. But if we're seeing over 10% of the total vote coming from Dane County (which means total votes are around their 2008 levels of 282,000), 250,000 votes from the City of Milwaukee, and Rock and Kenosha are outvoting the Grothmann supporters, then Barrett's already gone a long way to winning.
P.S- Tweet out from PPP poll- Lists Walker leading 50-47, but adds: "Our projected WI electorate voted for Obama by 7. He won the state by 14. Close that enthusiasm gap in the last 36 hours and Barrett wins." And I would concur with that. If 2008 Obama voters and turnout happens, Scotty's going home.
Those to our south might find Walker's quotes familiar
Tell me if these quotes sound familiar to you.
"I am dying to show you how innocent I am."
"I am absolutely certain that I will be vindicated."
"I have the most powerful ally on my side - and it's the truth....And besides, I have the personal knowledge that I have not done anything wrong."
Scott Walker talking about John Doe? Not exactly.
Somehow I'm thinking Scotty will have more in common with Roddy than just being a governor of a Midwestern state and having bad hair.
Illy-T was all over this more than 10 days ago - there is nothing stopping Walker from commenting on the case, other than on things that he has already testified to. If he's innocent, he can say so. If he's cleared, he can ask for and get a letter saying so, much like how real estate broker Andrew Jensen got after giving testimony in John Doe.
It's only if you're at risk of being guilty that makes not answering the question or releasing the emails a good move. Which means one thing...
"I am dying to show you how innocent I am."
"I am absolutely certain that I will be vindicated."
"I have the most powerful ally on my side - and it's the truth....And besides, I have the personal knowledge that I have not done anything wrong."
Scott Walker talking about John Doe? Not exactly.
Somehow I'm thinking Scotty will have more in common with Roddy than just being a governor of a Midwestern state and having bad hair.
Illy-T was all over this more than 10 days ago - there is nothing stopping Walker from commenting on the case, other than on things that he has already testified to. If he's innocent, he can say so. If he's cleared, he can ask for and get a letter saying so, much like how real estate broker Andrew Jensen got after giving testimony in John Doe.
It's only if you're at risk of being guilty that makes not answering the question or releasing the emails a good move. Which means one thing...
Why are we having an election on Tuesday?
Leave it to the great Stuart Carlson to explain why. Needless to say, this type of honesty explains why he doesn't work for the Journal-Sentinel anymore.
Union rights are definitely a key part, but it's about a lot more than that. It's about the deceptions, power-grabs and legislating on the behalf of corporations over people. And it's about the huge wreckage that Tom Barrett would already have to make a huge effort cleaning up, and making sure it stops now before this little boy burns the house down.
Vote June 5, and make sure others do too.
Union rights are definitely a key part, but it's about a lot more than that. It's about the deceptions, power-grabs and legislating on the behalf of corporations over people. And it's about the huge wreckage that Tom Barrett would already have to make a huge effort cleaning up, and making sure it stops now before this little boy burns the house down.
Vote June 5, and make sure others do too.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Badgercare and Family Care- two more bombs Walker is waiting to set off
Hidden in the campaign heat is this release from Rep. John Richards and Legal Action of Wisconsin, who are suing the state's DHS for illegally denying BadgerCare Plus to two Dane County women.
Remember, the Walker Administration has already set up a plan to kick off 17,000 people from Badgercare, and it might have been 65,000 except that the Obama Administration told them they'd lose federal matching funds. If somehow Walker wins on Tuesday, you can bet they'll care a lot less about the consequences of throwing people off of the state system, and tens of thousands more Wisconsinites will fall through the cracks.
And the other bomb wating to go off is Family Care, which was given a third (and probably final) extension to July 23 to have the state comply with Obama Administration rules in order to get nearly $900 million in funding. DHS Secretary Dennis Smith has been consistently slow to release information required by the feds, such as notifying possible Family Care recipients that they can get services, and it's why the state hasn't been in compliance with the Fed requirements on Family Care so far. But again, this is not surprising either, because the only reason the Family Care cap was lifted was due to requirements from D.C. (Remember that cock-up by the Walker folks and Walker's lying press conference at the end of 2011?) Don't believe for a second that a Walker Administration with 2 more years in office wouldn't screw over tens of thousands of Wisconsinites just to cosmetically balance the budget and allow their campaign contributors in the assisted living community to have a larger client list, which they certainly would if Family Care were to be capped or removed.
Much like I pointed out last week, there are a large amount of fiscal bombs set by the Walker Administration that are waiting to go off over the next 2 years, and if they do, the damage will be so great that it may never be able to be adequately fixed. Or the effort will be so great to fix them that many other areas of the state will have to suffer (much like how the nation still hasn't recovered from the Bush Administration's malfeasance). So let's stop the damage on Tuesday and defuse these explosives, both for our health, as well as the health for our family members, some of whom probably use or need these services in the near future.
The Medicaid program for childless adults, which started in January 2009, capped enrollment that October because demand exceeded the budgeted participation of about 54,000 people. A waiting list was started, which now has more than 130,000 names.But wait, I thought we had a surplus and all needs were met and there shouldn't be a problem with this? That tells you we don't, but the denial of service to deserving individuals shouldn't surprise you, because Walker's DHS has consitently tried to use a Medicaid deficit as a reason to kick people off of the rolls and into the more-expensive private insurance market.
Only 26,000 people remain in the program, as enrollment has dropped through attrition. People on the waiting list should be enrolled, advocates say.
"The assumption was that the freeze would be removed," said Jon Peacock, research director for the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families.
Stephanie Smiley, spokeswoman for the state health department, said the freeze remains because the state has a projected Medicaid deficit of $82 million in state funds and $204 million overall.
Remember, the Walker Administration has already set up a plan to kick off 17,000 people from Badgercare, and it might have been 65,000 except that the Obama Administration told them they'd lose federal matching funds. If somehow Walker wins on Tuesday, you can bet they'll care a lot less about the consequences of throwing people off of the state system, and tens of thousands more Wisconsinites will fall through the cracks.
And the other bomb wating to go off is Family Care, which was given a third (and probably final) extension to July 23 to have the state comply with Obama Administration rules in order to get nearly $900 million in funding. DHS Secretary Dennis Smith has been consistently slow to release information required by the feds, such as notifying possible Family Care recipients that they can get services, and it's why the state hasn't been in compliance with the Fed requirements on Family Care so far. But again, this is not surprising either, because the only reason the Family Care cap was lifted was due to requirements from D.C. (Remember that cock-up by the Walker folks and Walker's lying press conference at the end of 2011?) Don't believe for a second that a Walker Administration with 2 more years in office wouldn't screw over tens of thousands of Wisconsinites just to cosmetically balance the budget and allow their campaign contributors in the assisted living community to have a larger client list, which they certainly would if Family Care were to be capped or removed.
Much like I pointed out last week, there are a large amount of fiscal bombs set by the Walker Administration that are waiting to go off over the next 2 years, and if they do, the damage will be so great that it may never be able to be adequately fixed. Or the effort will be so great to fix them that many other areas of the state will have to suffer (much like how the nation still hasn't recovered from the Bush Administration's malfeasance). So let's stop the damage on Tuesday and defuse these explosives, both for our health, as well as the health for our family members, some of whom probably use or need these services in the near future.
Friday, June 1, 2012
More Wisconsin media fails
In the short time I have between now and today's rally at the Madison Labor Temple with Tom Morello and friends, gotta go over some more unacceptable failures by our 4th Estate over the last few days.
1. Far too many headline writers took the Walker Administration's word for granted this week when they said the the BLS had confirmed Walker's job growth numbers as accurate. Fortunately, Uppity Wisconsin actually made the effort to contact the BLS itself, and found Walker's claims to be a complete LIE.
But since when did reality faze the Walker folks? The Hooters girl was doubling down on the deception today, demanding that the Barrett Administration take down an ad that dared to question the numbers, and saying that the numbers had been "verified" by the BLS. Me think the lady doth protesth too much, but as I've said before, why does it take bloggers to expose this when our media should be skeptical and asking this question of the BLS in the first place?
2. Walker's friends at Politi-crap have tried to blunt the money shot landed by Barrett in yesterday's debate when Tom said "I have a police department that arrests felons, [Walker] has a practice of hiring them." Barrett went on to say that none of his staff of 28 years has been charged with a crime, and Politi-crap tried to play the "gotcha" game, saying Barrett's claim is "false" because the Mayor's Office receptionist was arrested in 2010 and convicted for beating and suffocating his girlfriend.
Politi-crap rating is absurd false equivalency move for 2 reasons. First is because Tom Barrett isn't the one interviewing for and deciding on the office receptionist, and Barrett's office immediately put the guy on leave and removed him after the arrests, if I remember right. By comparison, it is well-documented that Scott Walker went out of his way to hire Walkergate criminals like Tim Russell and Kelly Rindfleisch. Second, how is someone getting into a domestic dispute related to his office duties, and how could Barrett have done anything to prevent that? The answer is nothing of course. Compare that to Walker's "smoking gun" email to Tim Russell the day Darlene Wink got arrested, showing both his knowledge and direct interest in the crimes, and it's not even in the same galaxy of sketchiness.
Also interesting, Politi-crap ignores the second part about Barrett's statement never having to set up a criminal defense fund. Walker would have been given a "half-true" if the shoe was on the other foot. How do I know this? Because Politi-crap just gave a "half-true" to Walker on the jobs claim, arguing that the BLS's mention of receiving the data makes it half-true. COME ON, MAN!
3. But then again, we know Politi-crap is cozy with the Walker Administration, and would take these steps to protect their boy. Uppity Wisconsin gets another hat tip for revealing an exchange between Wisconsin Politifact editor Tom Kertscher and Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie where Kertscher is actively asking Werwie for Politfact ideas.
In addition to being a clear violation of an indepedent press, Werwie uses the conversation to try to dig up dirt on State Sen. Dale Schultz when Schultz was objecting to the mining bill. I would not doubt if the same situation played itself out here, where Werwie or some other Walker campaign staff contacted Politi-crap staff to come up with this false equivalency move, knowing that Barrett's receptionist had been arrested 2 years ago.
So down the stretch of this historic and close race, we still have our media playing into Walker's hands through acceptance of his spin and through his friends at Politi-crap allowing false equivalencies to give negative stories to his opponent. Too bad for them it only fools the dingbats who support Walker in the first place, and fires people like me up even more to make sure the average Joe and Jane gets the real truth about these stories.
And on that, it's time to head to the Labor Temple, and feel the full blast.
1. Far too many headline writers took the Walker Administration's word for granted this week when they said the the BLS had confirmed Walker's job growth numbers as accurate. Fortunately, Uppity Wisconsin actually made the effort to contact the BLS itself, and found Walker's claims to be a complete LIE.
Communications Director Gary Steinberg, reached by phone said, with his emphasis on numbers and methods:In other words, we got their info, now we're checking to see if it's bullshit or not. And with good reason, because if one state is able to front-run on this data, it puts everyone else at a disadvantage, along with covering up any chance for an apples-to-apples comparison.
"The Bureau can not comment on the fourth quarter numbers because they haven't been released. I can say that we would not have confirmed the numbers yet, but would only have confirmed the methods used.
We can’t confirm fourth quarter or later data and would not have confirmed it to the governor’s office either."
But since when did reality faze the Walker folks? The Hooters girl was doubling down on the deception today, demanding that the Barrett Administration take down an ad that dared to question the numbers, and saying that the numbers had been "verified" by the BLS. Me think the lady doth protesth too much, but as I've said before, why does it take bloggers to expose this when our media should be skeptical and asking this question of the BLS in the first place?
2. Walker's friends at Politi-crap have tried to blunt the money shot landed by Barrett in yesterday's debate when Tom said "I have a police department that arrests felons, [Walker] has a practice of hiring them." Barrett went on to say that none of his staff of 28 years has been charged with a crime, and Politi-crap tried to play the "gotcha" game, saying Barrett's claim is "false" because the Mayor's Office receptionist was arrested in 2010 and convicted for beating and suffocating his girlfriend.
Politi-crap rating is absurd false equivalency move for 2 reasons. First is because Tom Barrett isn't the one interviewing for and deciding on the office receptionist, and Barrett's office immediately put the guy on leave and removed him after the arrests, if I remember right. By comparison, it is well-documented that Scott Walker went out of his way to hire Walkergate criminals like Tim Russell and Kelly Rindfleisch. Second, how is someone getting into a domestic dispute related to his office duties, and how could Barrett have done anything to prevent that? The answer is nothing of course. Compare that to Walker's "smoking gun" email to Tim Russell the day Darlene Wink got arrested, showing both his knowledge and direct interest in the crimes, and it's not even in the same galaxy of sketchiness.
Also interesting, Politi-crap ignores the second part about Barrett's statement never having to set up a criminal defense fund. Walker would have been given a "half-true" if the shoe was on the other foot. How do I know this? Because Politi-crap just gave a "half-true" to Walker on the jobs claim, arguing that the BLS's mention of receiving the data makes it half-true. COME ON, MAN!
3. But then again, we know Politi-crap is cozy with the Walker Administration, and would take these steps to protect their boy. Uppity Wisconsin gets another hat tip for revealing an exchange between Wisconsin Politifact editor Tom Kertscher and Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie where Kertscher is actively asking Werwie for Politfact ideas.
In addition to being a clear violation of an indepedent press, Werwie uses the conversation to try to dig up dirt on State Sen. Dale Schultz when Schultz was objecting to the mining bill. I would not doubt if the same situation played itself out here, where Werwie or some other Walker campaign staff contacted Politi-crap staff to come up with this false equivalency move, knowing that Barrett's receptionist had been arrested 2 years ago.
So down the stretch of this historic and close race, we still have our media playing into Walker's hands through acceptance of his spin and through his friends at Politi-crap allowing false equivalencies to give negative stories to his opponent. Too bad for them it only fools the dingbats who support Walker in the first place, and fires people like me up even more to make sure the average Joe and Jane gets the real truth about these stories.
And on that, it's time to head to the Labor Temple, and feel the full blast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)