Posts Tagged ‘John Lehman’
Do Your Civic Duty — Get Out And Vote!
Folks, it’s Election Day. I’m proud to say that I voted over an hour ago.
And even though it’s nearly 5:30 PM in the Central Time Zone, there’s still time for you to get out and do your civic duty by voting if you haven’t done it already.
Now why should you do this? It’s simple. Since we live in a democratic republic, the best way we have to affect the outcome is by voting.
Now, you might be saying, “Hey, Barb. I know I should vote, but I haven’t a clue who to vote for. Can you help me out a little?”
Well, sure. Here’s a quick-and-dirty summation of how and why I vote.
If I like what’s going on in my state, I tend to vote for incumbents.
If I do not like what’s going on — and I think I’ve made it clear over the past four years that I do not — I vote against the incumbents.
(Or in plain language: Yes, I proudly voted against Scott Walker for the third time. Let’s hope the third time is the charm.)
In the other races, I used the same strategy unless there was someone I truly wanted to vote for. (In this case, as I like John Lehman and Rob Zerban, I voted in their favor for Lieutenant Governor and U.S. Representative accordingly.)
And in the referendums, I used my best judgment.
As Robert A. Heinlein once put it (this being my best paraphrase), it’s better to go vote against than not to vote at all. So please, do go out and vote.
Voting matters, you see. Even if you vote against what I think — or used what I just said as a primer in how not to vote (which is another thing RAH said, long ago) — it’s still important.
Thus concludes tonight’s public service announcement.
Quick Lehman/Wanggaard Election Update
Folks, former D Senator John Lehman claimed victory last night in the District 21 Wisconsin state Senate recall race over current R Senator Van Wanggaard, as I wrote earlier. But as I’ve had a comment from someone who believes this particular race is nonsensical due to Walker winning the overall Racine County race, I thought I’d give a few more numerical particulars as I’ve already explained the case to vote against Van Wanggaard many times on this blog. (Click on the “Recall Van Wanggaard” category and you’ll find many posts explaining why I believed District 21 voters should first recall Wanggaard, then replace him.)
First, here’s an article by the Mount Pleasant Patch that shows the final vote totals. They have reported thusly:
The final vote totals were posted after 1:30 a.m., and by 2 a.m., district-wide unofficial results stood at:
- Wanggaard: 35,476
- Lehman: 36,255
As you see, there were 71,731 votes cast. Lehman leads by 779 votes. This is a margin of slightly over one percent.
How can this be when Racine County, overall, went for Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (as Gov. and Lt. Gov., accordingly)? Simple. The City of Burlington, which is heavily Republican, is not a part of the current District 21 boundaries. So they could play no part in this particular recall race, though they did play a small part in re-electing Bob Wirch to the District 22 seat last year (as Burlington is in 22 until November, 2012).
Also, according to unofficial reports, John Lehman won the City of Racine by a 2-to-1 margin. Van Wanggaard won the rest of Racine County, but not by enough of a margin to retain him.
And, finally, the City of Racine went out in record numbers — an 80% turnout has been estimated, which dwarfs any previous election including all Presidential elections. Which helped Lehman gain the advantage he needed.
In short — the City of Racine votes heavily Democratic. The county of Racine usually votes Republican. Keep Burlington, which is heavily Republican, out of the equation (as they’re not yet part of District 21), and you have a victory for John Lehman.
———
Oh, yes — if you’re really that keen on the history of Racine recalls, there are two other posts you need to look at that will explain this result. First, check out my commentary about the 1996 recall race between R George Petak and D Kim Plache here. Or take a look at a recent post where I discussed Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel writer Craig Gilbert’s analysis (a very, very good analysis) here.
John Lehman Ahead by 800 in WI Senate District 21 Race
Former Senator John Lehman, D-Racine, has declared victory tonight after apparently defeating Republican incument state Senator Van Wanggaard in the June 5, 2012, District 21 Senate recall race in Racine. But as this is a close election, where about 800 votes separates Lehman from Wangaard, I’m only willing to say that Lehman is ahead, though it looks very unlikely that Wanggaard will be able to best Lehman due to there being only one ward remaining in Mount Pleasant — with that ward being unlikely to have 800 votes total within it (much less all 800 potential votes going to Wanggaard).
Here’s the latest report from the Racine Journal-Times:
Note the link says “Wanggaard in a razor thin lead” but the article itself says, “Lehman Claims Victory.”
Here’s a bit from the article:
As of press time, former state Sen. John Lehman, D-Racine leads state incumbent Republican Sen. Van Wanggaard, with 34,834 votes to Wanggaard’s 34,038 votes, according to unofficial results with 59 of 60 precincts reporting. One Mount Pleasant precinct had yet to report. (numbers bolded by Barb Caffrey)
With there being an approximately 800 vote discrepency, this is not within the 1% margin where the state would pay for a recount — Wanggaard’s campaign would have to request one, and they would have to pay the bill.
Should this result hold up, this means the state Senate will be controlled by the Democrats, 17-16, as Wanggaard will have been recalled and replaced via election. But as all votes will have to be verified later today in a process called a “re-canvass,” this result could still change.
Once again, I’ll keep you posted.
Scott Walker Wins; Kleefisch (Maybe) Wins; Lehman-Wanggaard Race Too Close to Call
With 85% of the vote in, it looks like Republican Governor Scott Walker has held off Democratic challenger Tom Barrett; the current vote percentages are Walker, 55%, Barrett 45%. I say that it looks like Walker has won because there are a lot of votes yet to be counted; the last voter in Milwaukee County, for example, cast his or her vote at 9:30 p.m. So the current voting percentage probably will narrow significantly — but there most likely are not the votes remaining for Walker to be defeated, which is why Barrett has conceded.
In addition, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (R) leads challenger Mahlon Mitchell (D) 54% to 46%. This is an apparent victory, but as it’s a percentage point closer to begin with, it’s possible that Mitchell may pull within 1% of the vote once every vote has been counted in Milwaukee, Racine, and LaCrosse counties. If that happens, a recount may come into play. So keep an eye on this race.
Three of the state Senate races have been decided in favor of the Rs, including the Scott Fitzgerald-Lori Compas race (where Fitzgerald won handily over Compas, 60% to 39%); these races are over.
The only recall race outstanding is the John Lehman-Van Wanggaard race, which remains too close to call at this hour due to the extremely high turnout in the City of Racine wards (right now, most of the vote that’s in is from Racine County, especially the Town of Mount Pleasant, which trends Republican; the City of Racine trends heavily Democrat). Right now, less than 1/3 of the wards in the City of Racine have been counted, possibly due to incredibly heavy turnout.
If Lehman prevails once the City of Racine has been counted, the Democrats will re-take the Wisconsin state Senate. This is an extremely important race, especially considering the statewide outcome; I’ll do my best to keep you posted as more results become available.
According to the Racine Journal-Times, as of 10:50 p.m. CDT, here are the results:
Van Wanggaard (R): 14566
John Lehman (D): 11881
33% of wards reporting
If you wish to look at the overall Wisconsin map, the Huffington Post map is probably the best. Take a look at it here.
Now, as to how I feel about Walker and Kleefisch apparently being retained? One word sums it up: disgusted.
More tomorrow, once I’ve caught my breath.
Why Scott Walker is Still Bad For WI
It’s two days before the June 5, 2012, recall election against sitting Governor Scott Walker, sitting Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, and against four Republican state Senators (three sitting, one who has already resigned), including my own Republican state Senator, Van Wanggaard. Basically, everything that can be said about the recalls — why I favor them, why I believe they are necessary and are a form of democracy in action — has been said.
But one thing I realized when reading over my previous blog, “Scott Walker: Bad for Wisconsin” is this — for whatever reason, I didn’t define why I felt Walker was bad for Wisconsin. Instead, I reflected upon all of the divisive things Walker did early in 2011 which caused a great deal of harm to public discourse and civility in Wisconsin, and hoped my views would be clear.
But in case it wasn’t, let’s try again.
Since Scott Walker was elected in November of 2010, he has divided this state in harmful, self-aggrandizing ways. He has not used his “bully pulpit” to good effect, as he could’ve explained why he wanted the so-called reforms as propagated by Act 10 (which repealed collective bargaining for public employee unions, something Wisconsin had since the late 1950s) rather than just do it by fiat. After Walker used his power to make such a drastic change, he proceeded to get upset because the 14 Democratic Wisconsin Senators left the state in an effort to delay Act 10 by any means necessary as the Wisconsin Assembly had already shown indications of passing Act 10. The “Wisconsin 14” did this to promote civic — and civil — discourse, because if they hadn’t left the state, Act 10 would’ve been approved within days of Walker “dropping the bomb” on the state’s voters; by leaving the state, every single voter in the state was able to become informed.
At this point, Scott Walker and his Lt. Gov., Rebecca Kleefisch, went on various right-wing talk shows, including many at the Fox News Channel, to discuss these “modest reforms” — things that were no such thing — and to say that the “Wisconsin 14” were a bunch of low-lifes who refused to “compromise” with Walker, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, Scott Fitzgerald, or the Republican Speaker of the Assembly, Jeff Fitzgerald (brother of Scott). This was classic Orwellian doublespeak on the part of Walker and Kleefisch; while Kleefisch, to a degree, could be excused for this because her position as Lt. Gov. has very little power, there was no excuse for what Walker said, nor for how he said it.
As we all know now, the Wisconsin Republican Senators eventually passed SB 10 by the vote of 18-1 in order to make Act 10 the law in Wisconsin. (The lone dissenting vote was Dale Schultz of Richland Center.) Some of the Republican Senators, including my own Van Wanggaard, had strong ties to unions — Wanggaard being a former policeman and past union representative — yet apparently had no qualms about stripping other union members of their rights, probably because police and firefighters had been exempted from Act 10’s “union-stripping” provisions.
After the Senate Rs did this, the Wisconsin 14 came home to a deeply divided state, where Scott Walker, Rebecca Kleefisch, the Fitzgerald brothers, etc., still said one thing and did something else. But the people on the ground (like me) who at that time weren’t affiliated with either party were outraged. Nine Senators — six Republicans and three Democrats — faced recall elections. Of those, four Rs and all three Ds were retained, while two Rs were tossed from office and officially recalled.
That, of course, was far from the end of the story, as in November of 2011 four more Senate recalls and the recall of Walker and Kleefisch started. Recall petitioners were told that we’d “never get” enough signatures, but we proved the naysayers wrong; ultimately, Walker, Kleefisch, Wanggaard, Scott Fitzgerald, and two other state Senators were recalled.
If you’ve read my blogs thus far, you know all this. You probably also know that Scott Walker has gone to more out-of-state functions than any other one-year Governor in the history of Wisconsin. He’s raised 60 to 70% of his campaign donations from out-of-state donors, some from extremely wealthy men and women. You probably even know that in some quarters, Walker is viewed as a hero, of all things, because he “refused to back down” when the unions “told (him) where to go.”
The only part of those beliefs that’s true is that Walker refused to back down about anything. But what people who insist on “standing with Walker” fail to realize is that Walker set this whole thing into motion himself — it’s not just the way he did things, which was execrable, but what he did that caused this whole mess.
All of this leads me to only one conclusion: Scott Walker is still very bad for Wisconsin. Because Walker has shown that he cannot and will not compromise with anyone, he’s shown he’s incapable of being Governor — a job where compromise is a must. And if Walker is retained on Tuesday, we in Wisconsin will be looking at more pain, more problems, and more frustration, as Walker will view this election as yet another mandate to do whatever he likes, even if he wins by .0001% of the vote.
That’s why I urge my fellow Wisconsinites to vote for Tom Barrett on Tuesday, June 5. Vote for Mahlon Mitchell as your next Lieutenant Governor, and for those of you in Racine County’s District 21, vote for John Lehman as your next Senator. All three men are moderates who will work to restore civility to Madison, which is why we need all three of them to be elected on June 5.
*****************
Edited to add: John Nichols explains very clearly why Scott Walker should be recalled and replaced here. Here’s a few words from his compelling and cogent blog:
Elected officials weren’t supposed to campaign on one set of themes and govern on another. They weren’t supposed to “divide and conquer” the state. They weren’t supposed to collect $500,000 checks from billionaires, and gather most of their campaign money in other states. They weren’t supposed to have criminal defense funds.
Amen, brother!
Barb Caffrey's Blog 