"Democrat Conor Lamb clings to lead in too-close-to-call Pennsylvania House race" in a "very Trumpy district."

"On the other hand, Conor Lamb is a conservative former Marine who ran, basically, as the kind of conservative Democrat Pennsylvania used to elect routinely. If this is Dems’ formula for taking back the House, it might work, but it will mean abandoning the party’s activist base."

Writes Glenn Reynolds.

I have 4 thoughts, from least to most frivolous:

1. Lamb's presence in the House is disruptive, and hence more Trumpian than Saccone. As Trump himself put it, Saccone would be a reliable vote for Republicans. Just another Republican. But Lamb is a force for change within the Democratic Party. I'd like to see the Democrats challenged from within like that.

2. Trump asserted that Lamb, once elected, would turn into nothing more than a vote on the Democratic side — basically, the kind of nonentity that was Trump's characterization of Saccone. But Lamb faces another election in the fall, less than 8 months from now. He'll be monitored. He needs to prove that he didn't lie to the people in his district. He can't hide.

3. If the looks were switched, Saccone would have won. Obviously.



4. Even though the vote is too close to call, Lamb took the stage 12:45 a.m., introduced as "Congressman-elect," and he was all: "It took a little longer than we thought, but we did it!" That sent me on a memory trip back to that amazing Wisconsin year, 2011, when Scott Walker antagonists pinned their hopes on a state supreme court election. One of my favorite videos from the Wisconsin protests was, "April 5, keep hope alive, vote Kloppenburg":



On the day after the vote, with a 200 gap between Kloppenburg and Prosser, Kloppenburg — expressing elation and gratification — declared victory. Here's video, which you should watch knowing that within a day, in the re-canvassing, Prosser picked up over 7,000 more votes. The joy you see here is about something that did not happen:

A new Marquette poll has Cruz way up in Wisconsin at 40%, with Trump at 30% and Kasich at 21%.

The poll was completed before Scott Walker's endorsement of Cruz. (The previous Marquette poll, done last month, had Trump at 30% and Cruz at 19.)

The new poll also showed Walker's job approval up, so if the GOP primary is (as some have said) sort of a referendum on Walker, Cruz ought to do even better.

Also in that poll, Feingold's lead over Ron Johnson is down to 3 points, and — in the state supreme court race — Rebecca Bradley is up 5 points over JoAnne Kloppenburg (despite an effort to portray Bradley, based on her college essays, as a homophobe).

"It’s a question every candidate for state Supreme Court is asked: Which U.S. Supreme Court justices do you most admire?"

Writes the left/liberal Bill Lueders at the end of his Isthmus piece "Battle for the [Wisconsin Supreme] court/Bradley v. Kloppenburg is a classic contest between two visions of the role of law":

Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg...  has picked Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor. Her rival, Justice Rebecca Bradley, finds this highly objectionable. These two justices, she accuses, “espouse a judicial philosophy that believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it should change to reflect changing social and political conditions.”

But here is what Kloppenburg actually says about Ginsburg and Sotomayor: “They seem to share my view of the Constitution as protecting individual rights and promoting a more fair and equal society.”

Does Bradley disagree that the Constitution calls for protecting individual rights and promoting equality? “There are individual rights that are protected under the Constitution,” Bradley replies. “But when she talks about a more equal society, that’s a very subjective statement,” one whose meaning can vary from judge to judge.

Bradley named Antonin Scalia, before his recent death, as the U.S. Supreme Court justice she most admires, along with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. “These three justices have the judicial philosophy I follow,” she says, she says, including their embrace of originalism: the notion that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the Founding Fathers’ original intent. She notes that Scalia exhibited qualities that surprised others, such as being “protective of the rights of criminal defendants.”

The question is not who's correct about how to interpret the Constitution. We're having an election. The people get to vote on how they think the Constitution (and all the other law) should be interpreted. Kloppenburg and Bradley have clearly stated what you need to know, Wisconsin voters. Pick!

Who's right about interpretation and who would you pick?

I'd pick Bradley — not because she's right but because I think I'll like the results.

I'd pick Kloppenburg — not because she's right but because I think I'll like the results.

You pick the one whose methodology is correct, so: Bradley.

You pick the one whose methodology is correct, so: Kloppenburg.

I'd pick Bradley, with a vague sense that she's right and I'll like the results.

I'd pick Kloppenburg, with a vague sense that she's right and I'll like the results.

These answers are making me feel that I shouldn't be voting for a state supreme court justice.

 

pollcode.com free polls

About those Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates....

1. Rebecca Bradley wrote a column when she was a college student 24 years ago in which she said that Camille Paglia had "legitimately suggested that women play a role in date rape." Paglia had used the words "fools" and "idiots" to refer to women who get drunk at frat parties and said: "Feminists will call this 'blaming the victim.' I call it common sense." Bradley also wrote (all those years ago): "I intend to expose the feminist movement as largely composed of angry, militant, man-hating lesbians who abhor the traditional family."

2. JoAnne Kloppenburg, speaking at a candidate forum last month, said: "Any president that you might name would highlight how internally complex every person is. President Lincoln had slaves and yet he led this country in emancipating black people from slavery." Obviously, Lincoln never owned slaves.

Here's that whole forum, where you can see both candidates speaking at length. The 2 tidbits above are what's viral today, but it's probably a good idea to go beyond that sort of material as you decide how to vote. I know that sounds absurdly pedantic, and what I really believe is that people can tell that there is a liberal and a conservative candidate and they will vote based on their political preference.

4 weeks before the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, opponents of Walker-appointee Rebecca Bradley turn up some nasty writing she did as a college student 24 years ago.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. Among the choice quotations from 1992:

"How sad that the lives of degenerate drug addicts and queers are valued more than the innocent victims of more prevalent ailments."

"Either you condone drug use, homosexuality, AIDS-producing sex, adultery and murder and are therefore a bad person, or you didn't know that he supports abortion on demand and socialism, which means you are dumb. Have I offended anyone? Good — some of you really need to wake up."

"But the homosexuals and drug addicts who do essentially kill themselves and others through their own behavior deservedly receive none of my sympathy."

"[W]hy is a student government on a Catholic campus attempting to bring legitimacy to an abnormal sexual preference?"

You know, if Bradley were Donald Trump, her popularity would surge. Maybe the voters are hungry for outrageous tough talk and the flouting of political correctness.

But Bradley has apologized. She issued a written statement assuring us that the old remarks "have nothing to do with who I am as a person or a jurist." This is, in her view, a "blatant mudslinging campaign to distract the people from the issues."

Her opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, rejects the apology and connects the old remarks to who Bradley is now: she's allied herself with Scott Walker and Scott Walker is "against gay rights." (Scott Walker opposed same-sex marriage, even in the era after which Barack Obama evolved into support for it.)

There's only been one poll, and it shows the candidates at 37% (Bradley) and 36% (Kloppenburg). The election is April 5th, the same day as the presidential primary, so I'd been thinking the result will be affected by what's happening in the 2 presidential races. If Hillary has it locked up on the Democratic side, maybe Democrats won't bother to come out. And yet I think there are quite a few people who would want to vote for Bernie Sanders anyway or who'd cross over to the GOP side to vote against Donald Trump. (It's an open primary.) If Trump has clinched or all but clinched the nomination, will Republicans drag themselves to the polls? I'm seeing an advantage for Kloppenburg, quite aside from this new controversy.

Anyway, here's one of Bradley's old writings. I read the whole thing and was struck by the appearance of the old Nancy Reagan slogan, "Just say no":

I respond to comments to yesterday's evening's post "I walked down to State Street to get a cup of coffee and ran into a gay pride parade."

Chuck said: "Professor Althouse, having lived briefly in your lovely neighborhood myself, I happen to know that for you to 'walk down to State Street for a cup of coffee,' you'd have had to bypass three or four other pretty wonderful coffee shops. Are you being coy about why you walked at least two miles, the better part of an hour, to the scene of the Gay Pride Parade at the very moment it was starting?"

I like to go for walks, and I usually motivate myself by setting a destination and a reward, like ice cream at the Union Terrace or coffee at Colectivo on Monroe Street. There's a new Colectivo on State Street, and I decided to go there again and make it a longer walk. On the way I stopped at the Chazen Museum...



... and I arrived on State Street just as the paraders were amassing in the staging area. I walked up a couple blocks, positioned myself on a corner and waited a mere 5 minutes before the parade began. Got my planned coffee about 20 minutes later.

Humperdink said: "Yep, throw your sexuality in my face (and others) again and again and again. That'll win us over."

Their sexuality is firmly entrenched on the other side of your face, in your head. No sexuality was thrown in anyone's face. In fact, the parade was completely unsexy. There were people in matching T-shirts indicating membership in some good-doing group. There were hockey players. The dressed-up folks looked rather bored. Some tamely danced. The liveliest float was the one for the Methodist church — not included in the edit — with a little band playing "When the Saints Go Marching In." There were a couple vote-for-me politicians at the front of the parade, right after the lead-off motorcyclists. Near the back of the parade — what symbolism! — was a "black lives matter" group and a Latino group. Seriously, it was the polar opposite of in-your-face sexuality.

David said: "Overwhelmingly white, as usual in Smugsville...."

It's Madison. And my iPhone ran out of space before the "black lives matter" group arrived.

Curious George said: "Hey was that justice fora day JoAnne 'I won' Kloppenberg at :05? I think it was. Same 'Deer in the headlight' stare. I'm guessing she got lost and decided to follow the shiny things."

That was, indeed, JoAnne Kloppenburg. She's running for Supreme Court Justice again. I don't know why politicians are put at the front of a parade like this. It bugged me, especially since the "black lives matter" political cause was relegated to the back.

JZ said: "Gay seems like the wrong word to me...."

That has got to be the tritest observation on the subject. Maybe if you'd said that 40 years ago, it would be fresh.

lgv said: "Why are they proud. They say they were born that way. It's like being proud of being left handed. One can be proud of their accomplishments, but I'm not sure that being proud of something you cannot control, like genetics, is illogical. Anyone's pride is not worthy of a parade to advertise it, either."

I didn't see the word "pride" anywhere or hear anyone proclaiming pride. I used the term "gay pride" because it's traditional, originating, I assume, in a desire to cancel the shame that had been culturally imposed. Now that the culture has changed, the word is perhaps a relic that could be discarded, but it's not yet the case that everyone who finds himself to be gay is free of shame, and there's something to be said for tradition.

Renee said: "Honestly, it wasn't that bad. No corporate sponsors. Just people who come in support ina peaceful manner."

Maybe you were distracted by the cute Pomeranian, but the man on the other end of the leash was holding one end of a sign that read: "American Family Insurance/Proud Sponsor."

walter said: "[T]hey clearly need to get the word out if Ann encountered it through happenstance. So why not join the parade, Ann?"

I'm not good at keeping track of Madison events. I just stumble into them sometimes. People who care about events check Facebook and Isthmus and whatever. I prefer places on normal days. I can't imagine actually being one of the paraders... in any parade. 

Recount in the recall election that would shift the balance of power in the Wisconsin senate.

WisPolitics reports:

GOP state Sen. Van Wanggaard today requested a recount in his 834-vote loss to Dem John Lehman, raising questions about the integrity of last week's results and arguing a second count is needed to help move the state past the "schisms caused by the recalls."...

In his petition, Wanggaard alleges numerous challenges by election observers were not properly documented or acknowledged, individuals were allowed to register and vote without proper proof of residence, individuals voted in more than one location and some were given incentives to vote, among other things.

The Racine County Sheriff's Department is investigating claims that suspicious voter registration documents were found last week in a trash bin outside a polling place.

The other side criticizes Wanggard for trying to delay the power shift to the Democrats, but he defends himself, noting that the voter ID law was not in force, and "so many people [are] suspicious of the election result." Without a recount, "bitterness and division will only grow."

State Senate Democratic Committee executive director Zac Kramer calls the recount "some sort of political game."

Kramer also questioned the timing of yesterday’s announcement by Racine officials that they are looking into allegations suspicious voter registration documents were found in a trash bin outside a polling place last week. The announcement came one day before the deadline Wanggaard faced to request a recount....

“That just seems too convenient for me,” he said.

Here's a report about the suspicious documents: Somebody found a bag of "various election materials" outside the Cesar Chavez Community Center, which was a polling place in Racine.

ADDED: Let's remember how excited Democrats were when JoAnne Kloppenburg announced that she want a recount in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race last year: "A recount benefits everyone..."

One year ago at the Wisconsin protests: Protesters redirect hopes to the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

"April 5, keep hope alive, vote Kloppenburg."

I photographed damage done to the door plates and hinges by the protesters.

And the Smithsonian sends a curator to Madison to select protests signs "to document, in general, occasions when American citizens interact with their government and petition... for change."

And Meade removes another war monument desecration — the "Solidarity" T-shirt on the Heg statue.

I do my "won — duh! — in the rotunda" poem.

25 most-watched Althouse/Meade videos of 2011.

1. Wisconsin Capitol protesters disrespect the Veterans Memorial. 66,919 views.

2. Wisconsin protesters get children to chant. 37,011 views.

3. Gov. Scott Walker compared to Hitler. 28,944 views.

4. 14-Year-Old Girl at Tea Party Rally in Madison Drowned Out by Chants and Boos. 26,219 views.

5. First-hand View of the Attack on Althouse at the Wisconsin Capitol Singalong. 25,674 views.

6. Attack on Althouse at the Wisconsin Capitol Singalong. 24,054 views.

7. Protest at the Wisconsin Capitol, Saturday, Part 15. 15,359 views. (Doctors give excuse notes to protesters.)

8. Protesters re-take the Wisconsin Capitol. 12,111 views.

9. Sarah Palin in Madison, Wisconsin. 11,766 views.

10. Anti-Scott Walker protesters get aggressive. 11,657 views.

Will the Wisconsin GOP senators all survive the recalls?

Early results say yes!

UPDATE: Here's the Twitter feed #Wirecall. AND: Here are the AP results, showing the precinct totals.

UPDATE 2: "Sen. Luther Olsen has been declared the third GOP incumbent to hold his seat today by a Madison TV station."

"Sen. Luther Olsen is on his way to his election night party, his campaign manager announced."

If 4 of the 6 GOP incumbents win, then the Democrats have not taken over the Senate. It looks as though Kapanke will lose, so the question is what happens with Hopper and Darling. All 3 of those incumbents must go down, or the Democratic cause is lost. Darling is expected to win, though if you look at the numbers right now — 9:57 CT — she's down. But only 1 of 11 Waukesha precincts have reported. This is a flashback to the Prosser-Kloppenburg results reporting. You can try to make some predictions by looking at the final results from the Prosser-Kloppenburg race.

UPDATE 2, 12:22 a.m. CT — There are still 13 precincts remaining in the recall against incumbent Alberta Darling, but I did the math, assuming the remaining precincts have a proportionate number of votes and that the percentages in the remaining precincts are the same as in the rest of the county. With those assumptions, Darling wins by about 2500 votes, so I'm predicting Darling will win, leaving the Democrats picking up only 2 seats and not the needed 3. The majority in the Wisconsin senate will, if that pans out, stay with the GOP (without regard to what happens in the 2 recall elections next week).

"Sounds like Wisconsin needs to clean house in its Supreme Court... the state legislature should start probing this case to determine exactly what happened..."

"... and whether the Chief Justice has conducted a leak campaign against Prosser as payback. I’d say at least one resignation is due in this case — and maybe a few of them, whatever happened. It’s doubtful that Wisconsin’s citizens can put much confidence in a court that can’t behave itself in a mature and professional manner, and especially one where such poisonous partisan and personal politics are in play."

Says Ed Morrissey. Of course, the state legislature is conservative, so there's a question whether the legislature would have great credibility if it were to purport to delve into the facts. But what are you going to do? Right now, we've got the Dane County Sheriff investigating the matter and...

Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney... endorsed Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg in her challenge to Prosser in the April 5 election. Mahoney and Kloppenburg also use the same campaign manager, Melissa Mulliken, who has worked on many state and local campaigns.

Mahoney took over the investigation Monday at the request of Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs. Tubbs said he consulted with the court before turning over the investigation to Mahoney.

UPDATE: Mahoney says: "As the Sheriff, I have no role in the assignment of detectives and supervisors or overseeing the investigation."

Kloppenburg concedes!

At last! Good decision. Thank you.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recount is finally over, Prosser has won by over 7,000 votes, but Kloppenburg may move the battle for judicial power into court.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

Former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske said she saw little chance that a court challenge to the recount would succeed. "I think it's going to be a very, very difficult road for Ms. Kloppenburg to upset Justice Prosser, unless there are things we do not know about," said Geske, now a professor at the Marquette University Law School. Any evidence is "going to have to be extensive to overcome that number of votes."...

Prosser attorney Dan Kelly said earlier this month he was concerned a legal challenge would take months and lead to a temporary vacancy on the court. The next 10-year term on the seven-member Supreme Court begins Aug. 1.

It would seem that the only reason for taking this into the courts would be to delay in order to produce this vacancy. The vacancy has special value because of the hot controversy over the budget-repair bill:

Unions rallied behind Kloppenburg in the hope that she would vote to overturn the law, while conservatives stepped up their support for Prosser in the hope that he would vote to uphold it. Now that bill has been passed by the Legislature but blocked from taking effect by a court challenge....

Ultimately, the issue could be decided by the Supreme Court - unless a temporary vacancy in Prosser's seat produces a 3-3 tie, in which case a lower court might have the last word.

So Kloppenburg failed to win a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an election that focused on the budget-repair bill, but she could try, by initiating a futile lawsuit about the election, to affect the way the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides the budget case and to affect it in a way that is contrary to what the voters voted for. And, if she does that, expect to hear her say lofty-sounding things about protecting the interests of the voters.

Politicizing the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

2 women at the protest march yesterday chant "April 5, keep hope alive, vote Kloppenburg":



There's an election coming up, and JoAnne Kloppenburg is the challenger to the incumbent David Prosser. There are many Kloppenburg signs at the march and, as I've noted before, although it's supposed to be a nonpartisan election, some people try to make it very political. I've seen many people out at the protests stressing the need to make Kloppenburg a Supreme Court Justice so that she can vote against the GOP budget repair bill and do other things that will help the party that lost the elections last fall get something back in the judicial process.

"April 5, keep hope alive, vote Kloppenburg"... I'm sorry but I find that chant quite appalling. And I hope Kloppenburg does too.