I don't care how wide the spending gap is in a campaign, election results do not swing 7-12 7.2 points from consistent exit polling in a hotly-contested race where the guy facing recall is a man who has repeatedly and criminally interfered in democratic processes. It just does not happen - elections do not radically exceed the margin of error in polling results just days before. Scott Walker and his people gave new meaning to the word "brazen" long before this election, so until someone I trust tells me this result came anywhere near to the actual will of the people of Wisconsin, I withhold conceding anything. Barrett doesn't have that luxury, but I do - and so do the rest of us. Badgers, you have your work cut out for you: Neither of the two possibilities is exactly encouraging, but you need to know what kind of situation you face in order to know how to proceed. I make no accusations at this point, but when something smells this bad on its face, the jury is out until there's been time to look into the details of events.
Beyond a certain threshold of authoritarianism, people in power aren't satisfied with total dominance of the media - they demand guaranteed results. That's why, no matter how preposterous such outcomes are on their face, people like Fidel Castro and until recently Hosni Mubarak would hold "elections" where they win 99% of the vote. Pettier versions of the same system deliver slightly less absurd results, with town Boss thugs and gangster governors in various third-world countries winning by twenty points or more when large majorities of the people are against them. Even when they would actually win fair and square, such people just can't stop themselves from insisting.
We know as a matter of documented fact from previous elections that the Republican Party is willing to cross that threshold, and we also know Scott Walker doesn't have anything resembling scruples...but is he dumb enough to Be That Guy in an election in which he held narrow leads and had a real chance to win fair and square? Once again, the jury is out until we get some credible, comprehensive word on how the election process unfolded - hopefully the Justice Department that's been monitoring at least parts of the election will have something to say about it one way or another.
But I would further hope that we don't have to rely exclusively on the findings of authorities who are hamstrung by narrow focus and geographic limitations to specific areas. So I want to urge people who volunteered and took a direct role in the process to come forward if they personally witnessed irregularities, intimidation, vote suppression, vote tampering, or other compromising events. I would also like for people with the proper skills to pursue a statistical study to determine whether the official outcome falls within credible boundaries in the context of polling data. If possible, it would be ideal to submit the data to UN experts and seek their opinion, if they're willing to give it. If proverbial Shit has been Pulled, better we uncover and confront it now than after a nation-wide application of the same tactics in November.
Once again, I make no accusations at this time - I just will not accept such an outlier result given the people involved until credible people tell me that the process which produced it was both kosher and statistically plausible. Republicans can yell "sore loser" and "sour grapes" until their hyena faces prune from soaking in their own blood-tinged spittle - I couldn't give a fuck if they paid me to. We need to know these things, and we need to know them before November.
1:19 AM PT: As late as 6 pm, the results based on exit polling were "too close to call," which aligned well with early exit polling that showed strong union turnout and a much higher level of Democratic turnout than expected. Half an hour to 45 minutes later, Walker was being declared the winner by a margins of 6-7 points, and ultimately with an official margin of 8 points. This gets less and less credible the more I look at it.
1:27 AM PT: The following questions need to be answered:
1. Why did pre-election polls that substantially underestimated Democratic turnout produce Walker victory margins significantly lower than the official result?
2. Why did exit polling as late as 6 pm indicate a race too close to call, but within an hour have Walker breaking away to an ultimate margin of 7-8 points?
3. Has this kind of result ever been seen before, where a massive tsunami of votes for one candidate suddenly appear in force late in the evening with results still too close to call?
1:48 AM PT: I don't know how much credibility to invest in the source, but there is a Wisconsin group called "Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op" that made a pretty intensive report on the state's voting machines and found they were controlled by a shady outfit registered as a P.O. box in the same offices as Michele Bachmann in a sleazy strip mall in Minnesota. Apparently 3,000 Wisconsin voting machines are under the control of this company, and are of the same kind that have been shown to "flip" votes. Source:
http://wcmcoop.com/...
Credit goes to Clytenmnestra for publicizing this source and its information in a comment to another diary.
1:57 AM PT:Another question that needs to be answered: What proportion of the late Walker surge came from areas using these voting machines? On casual inspection, the answer seems to be "nearly all." But further scrutiny is needed to be conclusive.