Image 01 Image 03

Operation Chaos – Wisconsin Recall Primary Edition

Operation Chaos – Wisconsin Recall Primary Edition

Hey, they’ve run fake Tea Party candidates against us to siphon off votes from Republicans, so I can’t get upset over the fact that Republicans are running “fake” Democrats in the primaries for the Wisconsin special elections in which Republican Senators are targeted.

By requiring Democrats challenging sitting Republican Senators to have a primary, the Republicans bought time for the Senators who have not been able to campaign because the legislature was in session.

But in a move which is reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos, it appears that the rules and timing open up the possibility that the “fake” Democrats could win the primaries, particularly if Republicans show up in force in the open primaries.

As reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

But could any of them actually knock off a Democrat in the July 12 primaries, saving a GOP incumbent from having to face a serious challenger in the Aug. 9 general election?

At first glance, it’s not out of the question. And at least one close political observer sees it as a real possibility, though others are skeptical.

There are no GOP primaries that day, so under Wisconsin’s open primary system, Republican voters can cross party lines and vote for the fake Democrats.

And each of the six Senate districts where the primaries will be staged was won by a Republican in 2008, a strong Democratic year, so presumably there are plenty of Republican voters out there.

In addition, says Mordecai Lee, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the primary elections are likely to have very low voter participation, and low-turnout elections tend to attract more conservative voters than high-turnout races.

The article indicates the likelihoood of success still is low, and that the Wisconsin Republican Party will not be helping the “fake” Democrats.  But that does not prevent outside groups from getting involved, or prevent another “Operation Chaos” organized via the radio and blogosphere.

Not that I ever would suggest such a thing, I’m just saying.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Gee. My irony meter just blew apart. Heh.

    shortwave8669 in reply to K.J. Hinton. | June 26, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    So did the GAB make these spoiler candidates more likely by scheduling the GOP and Dem recalls on different dates?

      No because they’re separate districts.

      Fun fact – unlike a “normal” primary, where the party with just one candidate is also represented on the ballot along with a space for a write-in, only the party with multiple candidates vying for the nomination will be on the ballot. That eliminates the one check Wisconsin has against full-fledged Operation Chaos – the inability to vote in more than one party’s primary.

They are going nuts over to Huff Po about the Prosser story …..I sure as hell hope it turns out its a Weiner ….but anyway I find it Odd ( not really ) that this pops up right before these recall elections

The most they will likely gain from this will be to force the party-line Democrat candidates to go out and spend some of their money in the primary to ensure a sufficiently high enough turnout to secure the nomination, potentially leaving less resources available for the August vote for the Democrats to spend against the Republican.

If an outside group runs ads promoting an independent Democrat, it could be a factor in the primary race. Of course, the press will likely openly assist the party-line Democrats.

Professor, this maybe be overthinking but do you realize that putting the initials LI as the primary heading in the corner has unfortunate associations and connotations. I.E. a declaration to LIe.

I would leave the logo at the original phrase of the second heading Le gal In sur rec tion.

Then no sophomoric jokes and jibes can be flung. (or at least not as easily.)

Sounds reasonable to me; if they don’t like it, let them change the rules. The other side has already demonstrated its willingness to fight by any means available; and I have never been a fan of unilateral disarmament.

Aggie95, it looks to me like John Hinderaker of Powerline has the best take on the Prosser Bradley brouhaha so far. In particular, the exact timing of the incident, coupled with the fact that no one has brought any charges (but have instead leaked the pro-Bradley version to the press) suggest that John’s suggested version of how the events unfolded likely spot-on.

From his post (with an indented quote from the Journal Sentinel story):

A third source apparently supports the claim that Bradley began the encounter by attacking Prosser. The incident occurred when six of the seven Wisconsin Supreme Court justices were gathered in Bradley’s chambers, discussing the appeal of the circuit court decision that purported to invalidate legislation redefining certain public employees’ collective bargaining rights.

The incident reportedly occurred on June 13, the day before the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision was published. That timing is interesting, given the topic that precipitated the incident:

Another source said the justices were arguing over the timing of the release of the opinion, which legislative leaders had insisted they needed by June 14 because of their work on the state budget. As the justices discussed the case, Abrahamson said she didn’t know whether the decision would come out this month, the source said.

At that point, Prosser said he’d lost all confidence in her leadership. Bradley then came across the room “with fists up,” the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back.

Given that the decision was released the following day, the justices obviously had voted and the majority and dissenting opinions were written by the time the justices had this conversation on June 13. Yet Chief Justice Abrahamson said “she didn’t know whether the decision would come out this month.” That sounds like a threat to deliberately stall release of the decision in order to impact the legislative process. If the Journal Sentinel’s report is correct, it is no wonder that Justice Prosser said he had lost confidence in Abrahamson’s leadership.

I love it. The democrats will be employing dead voters, numerous “Mickey Mouse [Mice?]” and “Donald Ducks” and illegal aliens against each other. I can see ACORN registering phantom voters so that democrat A will beat democrat B.
They will be reduced to suing each other which will show everyone what dirty tricks the democrats are capable of.

Somehow, in posting my comment above, I managed to inadvertently link back here to LI in an effort to post to John Hinderaker’s take on Powerline regarding the Wisconsin judicial jostling incident.

Here was the appropriate link to John’s take from yesterday evening . . . A New Low In Wisconsin.

Also, Ann Althouse is having fun citing efforts to try to track down exactly how many unnamed sources provided the “basis” for the first highly charged and pretty obviously skewed version of the story, written by its original peddler, one Bill Lueders of what Ann refers to as the “mysterious outfit that calls itself the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.” She likens the mystery to a game of Clue.

You can’t call Republican candidates in this primary “Fake Democrats” because that’s based on the false premise that the purpose of a recall election is to permit one major party to reverse the election of an opponent. Not so. The purpose is so that an elected official who is doing a horrible job can be replaced. What constitutes a horrible job is up to each individual voter.

Unlike a general election (or the primaries that lead up to them) it’s a non-partisan election. You can vote for recalling a Democrat because you don’t think they’re liberal enough just as well as because you think they’re too liberal. You could have a group of Tea Party Movement members trying to get rid of a RINO.

Thus, you cannot assume that the opposition candidate is automatically to be of the other party. As a matter of law this election was not organized to replace a member of one party with a member of another, it was to overthrow an incumbent for whatever reason the electorate desires.

No one party can be presumed to own the challenger spot. You cannot assume that the primary in a recall election is to pick an opponent from Party X if the incumbent is a member of Party Y. I’m sure the members of Party Z would vociferously protest that concept.