Spare us the conspiracy theories in the Supreme Court election
I understand liberal frustration right now. Believe me, I do. Here is what I wrote in 2006:
Let me be blunt. I think Kathy Nickolaus is in over her head. I think the County Board should drag her before a committee before she screws up the November election. And I’m beginning to think it’s a real shame she ran unopposed in the Republican Primary, because it seems like every election there’s another issue with the vote tallies.
Nothing ever changes, except a vote count in Nickolaus’ office.
I see a few liberals advancing conspiracy theories. To believe them means disregarding the eyewitness testimony of the Democratic observer who confirmed the corrected numbers. It means that the city of Brookfield clerk would have to be in on the conspiracy theory, too, since her numbers match up with the corrected numbers.
But the conspiracy theories are great fundraising fodder for the liberals at One Wisconsin Now, right? (By the way, someone might want to mention to Scot Ross it’s really tacky to bring up the Caucus Scandal.)
Speaking of fundraising, JoAnne Kloppenburg is asking for donations for a recount that may never happen. If it doesn’t, will she have to refund the donors? Will she have to pay the legal expenses already incurred out of her own pocket?
After all, that Impartial Justice Act was pretty strict about the $20,000 limit.
Update! The always interesting Nate Silver tweets:
@fivethirtyeight The numbers being floated about missing votes in Brookfield seem reasonable. Would be ~11% of Waukesha vote, same as in Prez election in 08.
@fivethirtyeight Before missing votes were found, Waukesha’s turnout had been 7.5% of WI’s. Versus 7.8% in Pres ’08, 8.7% in Gov ’10, 8.7% in Feb. election.
@fivethirtyeight So I don’t think there’s any conspiracy here … Waukesha’s vote total had been slightly lower than you might expect.