Vote for JoAnne Kloppenburg (Wisc. Supreme Court) breakdown.

[joshcryer]

This is extraordinarily disappointing.

[Dale Neiburg]

1. Curious age breakdown...

Among Bernie supporters, the oldest age contingent were most likely to vote for Bradley (by 2-to-1 or more), while among Hillary supporters it was the youngest group.

[joshcryer]

2. 40% of millennials not voting in that election is worse to me.

What's the point.

[yardwork]

3. So 10% of Bernie supporters voted for the raging homophobic bigot.

And another 11% of Bernie supporters didn't even bother to vote against the raging bigot. Just voted for Bernie and ignored the other races.

Thanks for nothing, assholes.

[joshcryer]

4. The justices wouldn't have a D or R by their name.

So it's actually better not to vote if you don't know who you're voting for / against. Not defending the no votes here, just describing a legitimate strategy. It tells me more that there was a huge gap in understanding in a certain group about this race more than anything. And it's extremely disappointing on so many levels.

A lot of people vote incumbent. That's why I like mail in balloting because in Colorado I vote straight D and incumbent if I can't find something bad about the incumbent (and L if there's no D). But it gives me time to do the research. In the polling both I wouldn't have that leisure (might pull out my phone but someone might think I was doing something naughty).

[Hortensis]

7. When I lived in Los Angeles, the LA Times provided

reasonable, bipartisan recommendations for the typical long lists of judgships, etc., I knew nothing about (pre- internet). The populace wasn't so extremely divided then, and the recommendations were typically of the "done a good job, well regarded, no reason to replace" sort.

Now, in a major knuckledragger of a Georgia county with almost all hard-right candidates who promise to stop the Democrats from ruining our country, and all guaranteed to win, it's even easier. A quick sweep down the Democratic side of the ballot.

As for this, don't know what on earth Bernie's young Bradley voters were thinking, but those who didn't vote reminds me of reading a mathematical explanation of why only a 5% increase in the young vote across America would tilt the entire table enough left to make a tremendous difference.

[joshcryer]

10. Colorado sends out a voter guide but it doesn't have a list of candidates.

I think newspapers or other organizations send them out but you have to subscribe to them. Never really had to deal with it in the age of the internet.

edit: the voter guide has a list of state proposals, amendments, stuff like that. Amendment 64 was a whopper when the voter guide came in!

[dembotoz]

5. or the shill for hil effort by the state dem party refused to recognize it as a legitamate race

i am in wisconsin do not lay this bs down at bernies feet....

cause that would be BULLSHIT

[Zynx]

9. Hillary told her supporters to kick out Bradley.

She said so in explicit terms.

[dembotoz]

12. on the street bernie camp was similar

[yardwork]

25. Then why did 10% of those who voted for Bernie also vote for the bigot?

[yardwork]

18. Did you read the exit polls in the OP?

Read it. Read how the people who voted for Bernie voted in the judge's election.

[joshcryer]

28. To be fair, my disappointment is in NOT voting.

10% could be easily explained by incumbent votes, people ignorant in the process. It's obvious one campaign got the message out better.

Had those younger voters broke at the same percentage across the board it could've been different. The irony is the people most affected by this are the very ones who didn't vote. The youngest voters will be almost 30 before they can oust them.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Actually the segment of Democratic voters most strongly voting for the Republican are Hillary voters

age 18-34 of which 10.85% voted Bigot.

Of course Hillary voters already have their homophobic worldview thing covered well:
"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."

The Reagans did everything for us while we LGBT refused to do anything about the crisis until Ronnie showed us how.

I won't vote for that.

[Zynx]

8. You apparently didn't read/can't read this table.

Older Sanders supporters went over 16% for Bradley. And 10% of his supporters overall plus the ones who didn't vote.

Only 3.8% of Hillary's supporters went for Bradley and many fewer didn't vote at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. You are right, I misread that. I find those attitudes more startling in younger voters than in those

over the age of 75. Hillary herself was stridently anti equality for LGBT until a couple of years ago. Her age group also more prone to that sort of thing. It just makes me sad to see it in the younger groups.

People in general tend to vote lazy on judges. This is one of the benefits of vote by mail, which is also 'Vote with the internet available to research the lines that need researching'.

I'm disappointed in all of those voters. Particularly those who did not vote at all.

[yardwork]

19. Perhaps you will delete or edit your post above.

This is actually very important. I don't give a damn how Bernie or Hillary acted in the dark ages - nether of them were profiles in courage when it comes to gay rights.

I care VERY MUCH that Bernie Sanders appears to be attracting troglodytes whose votes for an extremist homophobic judge indicate clearly that they will cut and run for Trump or Cruz in the general election.

[Zynx]

26. This is a particular problem with Bernie supporters.

They think that the whole system is changed by just sweeping him into office. We need to do much better than that. We need to be electing people up and down the ballot. That's why parties matter. That's why we need to be a little more open on particulars provided that the overall movement is the same.

[joshcryer]

11. That's a subgroup.

And my guess is they voted incumbent because they didn't know what they were voting for. As a share of the vote, I'll differ to the other posters.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. This is why vote by mail is so useful, any candidate you don't know about can be researched and

then voted on. People do not pay attention to judicial elections, sometimes to other lesser offices as well. If they have internet while voting, they can find out what they need to know and vote accordingly.

[yardwork]

23. That's a very good point and explains why Republicans are against it

The Republicans pass laws against anything that expands access to voting and increased information about candidates.

[FSogol]

13. And yet they talk about coattails?

[1939]

16. Coattails only apply

When there is a partisan choice. Most judgeships are "non-partisan" where you have to research to find out their politics.

[FSogol]

17. While we don't vote for judges in my locality, the party does tell us who they prefer in the non-

partisan races like Soil and Water comish and school board. That way we don't end up with Science-hating, Bible-spouting wing nuts on our board. Voting is a responsibility. Don't make excuses for being uninformed.

[yardwork]

20. The vast majority of people who voted for Hillary weren't confused.

The enormous disparity between the voters for Hillary v. Bernie indicate that this was not a problem of ignorance. Well, a certain kind of ignorance, yes.

[FSogol]

21. Yup. n/t

[yardwork]

24. And I meant to respond to the post above yours.

[1939]

22. We vote for judges and local city commissioners on a non-partisan ballot

I have yet to see anything from the local Democratic party with regards to these races, though they flood my mailbox with appeals for money and to promote the partisan races. Of course the local party chair thinks that a GOTV effort means running buses to the local condos and loading up elderly retired New Yorkers and hauling them to the polls.

[Zynx]

27. I thought Sanders supporters were the well-informed ones.

[gratuitous]

29. What does it mean in terms of numbers of voters?

If we add 11.53% of Sanders voters and 4.06% of Clinton voters, how many Democratic primary voters didn't mark a ballot in the state Supreme Court race, and would that number have changed the outcome?

I suppose for consistency's sake, we should make that 78.67% of that 11.53% of Sanders voters, and 92.33% of that 4.06% of Clinton voters, assuming that that undervoters would have voted in the same proportions as those who did mark a preference in the race. Assuming 10,000 voters each for Sanders and Clinton (just because it makes the numbers easier), that would be a net addition of 661 votes from the Sanders people, and 344 votes from Clinton voters, or slightly more than 1,000 additional votes gained by Kloppenburg for every 10,000 Democratic ballots.

[joshcryer]

31. I did some very very dirty math, looks like we still come 20k shy with best case.

Sanders: 567936 votes with 16% under 30 = 90869 votes.

Clinton: 432767 votes with 4% under 30 = 17310 votes.

Now we know from the exit poll that 25% of Sanders voters (in the 18-34 range) didn't down vote the ticket: 22717

15% didn't vote down the ticket for Clinton: 2596

That's 37430 young people that didn't vote at all for the justice. For fairness, lob off 10% voting for the wrong candidate or the incumbent because they don't know better, that's 33687.

Now, moving on to the older age bracket, 55-74:

Sanders: 567936 votes with 23% 45 or older = 130625 votes. 16% of whom voted for Bradley: 20900

Clinton: 432767 votes with 28% 45 or older = 121174 votes. 4% of whom voted for Bradley: 4846

Assuming the youth vote of 33687, and assuming Sander's older independents voted against Bradley by 93% like they did for Clinton with a vote of 18854, that brings us to 52541 votes.

Bradley won by won by 91247 votes. So we're 38706 votes shy. I was going to continue doing this with the other age brackets, but I don't see them making up the lions share of the vote totals because these were the largest discrepancies in the vote (younger people not voting, and some Sanders older supporters, probably independents, going strong for Bradley).

I'm going to guess and say, if everything went with the optimal scenario (assuming that everyone voted like Clinton's older vote, and no younger voters messed up by voting for the incumbent), we'd still have lost by 20k votes.

Of course, the easy math is dumb and this exercise was for naught, 1000703 voted on the Democrats side, 1017083 voted for Bradley. So we didn't even have the votes if 100% of the people voting in the Democratic primary voted for Kloppenburg.

Just goes to show though that even pulling out the numbers, we lost some 52k votes which were very important to that election, and all for what, why. Utterly disappointing on so many levels.

I based my numbers on this: http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/wi/Dem

[OilemFirchen]

32. Your summary is incorrect.

... 1000703 voted on the Democrats side, 1017083 voted for Bradley. So we didn't even have the votes if 100% of the people voting in the Democratic primary voted for Kloppenburg.

The 1,017,083 who voted for Bradley includes some Democrats - as we know from the chart. So, if 100% of the Democratic voters had selected Kloppenburg, Bradley's total would have been lower. It's all worthlessly academic, nonetheless.

Does the Wisconsin Democratic Party not send out sample ballots? They're quite useful here in Ohio for non-partisan and minor races.

[joshcryer]

33. Doh, didn't think about that.

Just the youth voters alone would've made up that, should've been obvious. All those percentages were melting my mind. I also should've shifted the Bradley voters against her so the original numbers would've been 18k difference. Doing a further analysis, then, might be able to pull out a win if Sanders voters voted similarly to Clinton's. It's too late at night for me to give it another attempt though. My intuition is still no, though.

No idea how their primaries work as far as sample ballots but there's obviously a huge information gap there. And 40% of Democratic voting millennials not voting in that race is still terrible even if we would've still lost by of 60k votes or whatever.

I know that in Colorado we get a voter guide but it doesn't mention candidates, which I think it should (at least the last few major cases for judges and whatnot and how they decided).

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Maybe they thought debbie Wasserman Schultz had endorsed the pot prohibitionist judge

Easy enough mistake to make, given that she supports sending both recreational and medical marijuana users to prison.