Errr....figured this was big enough to warrant creation. Its certainly has higher implications than just Wisconsin.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/reading-the-wisconsin-recall-vote/ So far the 1st incumbent stayed (D).
Also a point to remember, all these GOP state senators were elected during the 2008 Democratic wave when Obama won the state by almost 14%. Olson and Cowles (I think) didn't even have opposition in that election.
Waukesha County Clerk is sitting on the votes for her precincts...this is the woman who found 5,000 votes for Republican James Prosser in the April state Supreme Court race three days later in her laptop. It is not a coincidence that she has refused to release any of the major municipal precincts...if the Democrat Sandy Pasch loses because she tampers again with the ballots, it will incite protests as you have never seen before.
2 of the biggest players in the state senate got ousted and narrowed the balance of power down to 17-16. Not too bad, actually. Pretty historic. More important, you have an organized, galvanized Democratic base ready to move onto the next project: recalling Walker, and from there keeping the state in Obama territory. How did the last few bonehead GOP over-reaches work out? (Impeaching Clinton for getting a BJ, going to war in search of Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc.) Oh that's right: they galvanized the left, forced them to get organized and it paid off w/ getting Obama into office and nationalized health care. Given the nearly century long boner the GOP has had to try to get rid of popular Democrat entitlement programs, I think that the health care thingy is quite hopey changey and will be difficulty to votey outey of existency.
The conventional wisdom is that, while the Democratic platform may reflect popular opinion on most issues, the Republicans are much, much better at messaging. And they're so good that the they even create the messaging for the Democrats. This time around, it's "The Republicans want to kill Medicare and unions". The Democratic Party wouldn't win a single election without help from the GOP. So yeah, it was, at best, a partial win for the Democrats and it cost a pretty penny. But the party now has a blueprint for the 2012 ground game (which the Dems absolutely killed in 2008).
I think the biggest part of this election is that the GOP and its affiliated outside groups outspent Democrats and only managed to maintain parity in two districts with the 2010 election numbers, lose 3% and 5% of the vote in two others they won, and outright lose two elections, one on very friendly GOP turf. If this doesn't galvanize Democrats - while their union strength will be turning out massively in Wisconsin, the GOP nominee may have to withdraw resources from the state completely given Obama's current approval rating in the state at 50%, 5-10% ahead of his national average. You may call this spin, but the GOP has got to be wondering how they recoup their losses - they did lose two more special elections despite a torrential downpour of money coming in. Overall, the districts (which Nate had averaged at about 3 points more GOP than the state average) went 48% DEM, 52% GOP. So if they go 48-52, and we assume virtually none of Obama's supporters turn out in 2012, Obama still gets the state 51-49...I'd like to think that's got Scott Walker nervous.
I would appreciate the version the GOP sees. I see +2 Democrats from Republican-friendlier districts after both sides spend a lot of money but the GOP spends more. Yes, the Democrats did raise expectations for themselves by saying they would win all six, but truth of the matter is that all six of the GOP seats were "safe" - even if you look at Kapanke's district he remained personally popular in the run-up to this vote. I already linked to Nate Silver's analysis. I have also already suggested that these portend a close recall election battle for Gov. Walker if indeed they receive enough signatures. It's very easy to deride the other side's interpretation of events but another entirely to interpret them with stats, data, references yourself. Give it a whack.
Aren't they expected to retain those? Just like the Dems were expected to win the recall elections a couple of weeks ago. I personally think it's hysterical that you spin the loss of 2 senators as somehow a Reep victory. The GOP started off the year w/ a 5 vote advantage; it's down to 1. But congrats on "winning" Charlie Sheen style. No wonder Palin called her movie "Undefeated". Reality doesn't matter at all to Reeps. Got it.
Our CEO's mom voted for Green Party last election. He's worth $1.5 billion. He said, "Good thing she didn't win."
I'm just going to post this for the benefit of anybody trying to make spin out of it, read the whole thing, not just the parts your side prefers. The graph at the heart of Nate Silver's piece: Food for thought.
More food for thought: ppl on the ground reported difficulty in getting ppl out to vote b/c they didn't hold the individual senators responsible but Walker. They anticipate it being easier to go after Walker.
Democrats win both tonight and hold off recall. They now have 16 members in the state senate plus one republican who voted against Walker's union busting agenda.
Most importantly, the Democrats have enough support to make a recall election against Scott Walker a very close race, and not so close if Russ Feingold runs against him.