.

Democratic Counties Outpoll GOP Strongholds in High Court Race

Prosser's margin in the suburban GOP counties not enough to overcome Kloppenburg's wins in Dane, Milwaukee counties.

In the battle of the partisan stronghold counties, Dane and Milwaukee were the winners in Tuesday's Supreme Court election.

Democratic challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg outpolled incumbent Republican David Prosser in Dane and Milwaukee counties by a wider margin that he beat her by in suburban Milwaukee counties, according to Patch's analysis of the state Supreme Court results compiled by the Associated Press.

Prosser received 91,043 more votes than Kloppenburg in Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee and Racine counties combined. But Kloppenburg received 114,597 more votes than Prosser in Milwaukee and Dane counties combined. That's a net difference of about 23,000 votes in a race that was decided by a few hundred.

Adding the total votes in the four suburban Milwaukee counties plus Milwaukee and Dane counties results in Kloppenburg outpolling Prosser, 52 percent to 48 percent, with 332,205 votes compared to Prosser's 308,651.

Dane County had a hotly contested mayoral race and Milwaukee County had the county executive tilt, while there were few major races in the suburban Milwaukee counties to help drive higher turnout.

These key counties have been critical in statewide and national elections, as reported last November by the Journal Sentinel's Craig Gilbert. Tuesday's sharply divided Supreme Court vote shows Wisconsin likely will continue to be up for grabs in the 2012 presidential race.

Statewide, Prosser received 70 percent or more of the vote in Waukesha, Washington and Ozaukee counties, while Kloppenburg reached that figure in Dane and Ashland counties.

State Supreme Court Election Results in Key Counties
County Prosser Kloppenburg Waukesha 81,255 29,332 Milwaukee 98,933 128,644 Dane 48,627 133,513 Washington 30,788 9,903 Ozaukee 20,844 8,295 Racine 28,204 22,518 Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, Racine 161,091 70,048 Milwaukee, Dane 147,560 262,157 Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, Racine, Milwaukee, Dane 308,651 332,205

Source: Associated Press

Ruthanne Rosser April 07, 2011 at 06:40 PM
Thank you Scott and David for your responses. It makes things much clearer. Unfortunately, my liberal friends and family were unable to give me any good reasons why they voted for Kloppenburg except that they wanted to promote an anti-Walker supreme court. I appreciate and greatly respect that you both have obviously taken a lot of time and effort to educate yourselves about the candidates. My beliefs do follow the conservative view but I really try to learn and be open to both sides. Sadly, I believe that both the federal and state governments are completely incapable of being bipartisan. The conservative and liberal beliefs appear so far apart on the spectrum that there is no happy medium. I also believe there are many people who share the anti-Walker mentality and that is what swayed their vote towards Kloppenburg and not the educated reasons you both gave me.
David Tatarowicz April 07, 2011 at 07:19 PM
Ruthanne As for bi-partisanship, please bear with me on my cynical perspective. One reason that there is so much angst involved in the workings of our elected officials, is that we transformed from a "party boss" system, to open primaries, and in many (maybe most states) no need to declare a party affiliation. I am not making a judgment on the old system vs the new system, but under the old system, the political bosses (smoke filled back rooms) controlled the party, the patronage, and the money flow. If you wanted to be elected, you almost always had to have the support of the bosses --- and get their money for your campaign. When we went to open primaries --- anybody could run, and if you look at many of the past elections, you will see that many of the candidates for a particular party never belonged to that party, or joined just to be a candidate. ie. Our Sheriff David Clarke ran as a Democrat and NEVER joined the Democrat Party. Once it was open to just candidates, with no need for a Party endorsement or money, anybody could run --- and they do. And that is also why we are seeing such a shift to Extremely Rich Folks running for office --- with court decisions on free speech, they can spend unlimited amounts of their own money and bury the other candidate --- ie. Ron Johnson With the Boss system, you had just a few Bosses in the backroom, making compromise and getting legislation passed. Factions, such as the Tea Party, did not have much sway.
Scott H April 07, 2011 at 08:04 PM
That's understandable. Ironically it's our system of electing representatives, which enforces a 2 party political process (and is now amplified by the media) that creates this divide. In parliamentary democracies there are multiple viable parties, and so you can more closely choose a mixed combination of values to support. Here in the U.S. if tax cuts are your biggest issue, you have to also select the party that opposes abortion. If you oppose privatizing social security, you have to pick the party that advocates (some forms of) gun control. And being human, we tend to associated with others of similar affiliation, and adopt the other planks in the platform over time. 20 years ago most evangelicals did not support lowering the maximum mean income tax rate, now the vast majority of them do - it's not that they got either smarter or dumber, it's just what happens over time when you start to all switch to the party with those views for other reasons (in this case stemming from their religious beliefs). Our political system creates polarization, and the media reinforces it and co-opts the very words we could use to discuss the issues until we literally lack the terminology to converse about these differences. Hence "liberal" and "conversative" are both insults now...depending on which side you are on.
James R Hoffa April 08, 2011 at 07:09 PM
You're joking, right? When did Prosser ever say that he would act as a compliment to anyone? Oh, that's right - he didn't. Those comments were made by his campaign manager who mispoke. When Prosser himself caught wind of this, he publically disavowed it. He did many times state that he was a judicial conservative, which is something very different from a political conservative. According to you and others (including herself), Kloppenburg (without saying the actual words) was also propagating herself to be a judicial conservative. Any "aura of neutrality" that Kloppenburg had went out the window during the debates when she claimed that everything that others had stated on her facebook page was true. At the time of those debates, such comments included "Prosser=Walker," "kick out the turd, vote Kloppenburg," "a vote for Kloppenburg is a vote against Walker," "a vote for Kloppenburg stops the bill," "Prosser against unions," etc. Clearly, I don't think that anyone can disagree, these are politically charged comments. So, doesn't this mean that if she gets voted in that she'll be an automatic vote against the bill, Walker, and many other things without even having to look at the specific facts of the case and the prevalent law? That's what the comments on her facebook page said, which she herself confirmed were all true (and yes, even the context is accounted for here). Non-partisan and neutral - I don't think so! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O72eTaEP4qU&NR=1
James R Hoffa April 08, 2011 at 07:10 PM
You're joking, right? When did Prosser ever say that he would act as a compliment to anyone? Oh, that's right - he didn't. Those comments were made by his campaign manager who mispoke. When Prosser himself caught wind of this, he publically disavowed it. He did many times state that he was a judicial conservative, which is something very different from a political conservative. According to you and others (including herself), Kloppenburg (without saying the actual words) was also propagating herself to be a judicial conservative. Any impartiality that Kloppenburg had went out the window during the debates when she claimed that everything that others had stated on her facebook page was true. At the time of those debates, such comments included "Prosser=Walker," "kick out the turd, vote Kloppenburg," "a vote for Kloppenburg is a vote against Walker," "a vote for Kloppenburg stops the bill," "Prosser against unions," etc. Clearly, I don't think that anyone can disagree, these are politically charged comments. So, doesn't this mean that if she gets voted in that she'll be an automatic vote against the bill, Walker, and many other things without even having to look at the specific facts of the case and the prevalent law? That's what the comments on her facebook page said, which she herself confirmed were all true (and yes, even the context is accounted for here). Non-partisan and neutral - I don't think so! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O72eTaEP4qU&NR=1

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »