***UPDATED TOTALS****
WISCONSIN--FINAL
TOTAL D VOTE (INCLUDING R crossover votes): 669,278
TOTAL WALKER VOTE: 626,558

TOTAL BARRETT VOTE: 390,109
TOTAL FALK VOTE: 228,940
COMBINED F+B 619,049

If you accept Marquette Law's poll showing 17% of the Democratic turnout was actually Republicans, those numbers are even worse for Barrett and the Unions. Half of that figure would be over 57,000 votes, far beyond the 43,000-odd margin of total D vs total Walker Primary turnout.

******************************
Hello and welcome morons and moronettes to coverage of today's primaries.
I will be here blogging results through the evening, from now until Waukesha decides to post it's results for the Walker recall primary sometime mid-2017.

Busy night for poll-hungry numbers hounds like myself. While the Presidential primaries are over, the Mourdock-Lugar Battle reaches its epic conclusion, the fight over Amendment One in North Carolina is do or die, and today is the day for the Democrats to pick their candidate against Scott Walker, for bold Republicans to cross over and try to throw that, and for the remainder of Republicans to turn out and vote to show the Governor some strength.

Indiana results here

I will be live blogging results below for WI and a bit for NC. WI turnout for R's may be just as important as for Ds- if it's a lot higher than expected can squash the notion of which side has more momentum.

Pre-results predictions:
Upping total #WIRECALL turnout to 1.55 million. I expect 950,000 on D side but a surprisingly strong showing on the R's as wellm, about 600,000. Heh, boy did I miss that one on D turnout. With 930,000 signatures to recall the evil Fuhrer Walker, surely Democrats could have approached that turnout, right? Good to see R turnout slightly exceeded estimate.
Barrett will beat Falk by 10 in Wisconsin.heh, blew this one. Barrett crushed her by 20 points, even with Republican crossover vote to help her out.
Mourdock over Lugar by 8 beat EVERYONE'S expectations and crushed Lugar 61% to 39%
Amendment One will pass by a substantial margin (>15) got it more...

Posted by: CAC at 06:30 PM | Comments (555)
Post contains 530 words, total size 4 kb.

He can't even find a real person he's helped, Romney says. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:35 PM | Comments (167)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Update: CAC, as usual (good man), has an election thread ready to go.

I'm asking him to publish that one and make this thread a "pre" results thread.

Mourdoch's campaign slogan was "It's time," as in "Time to go."

Earlier, Lugar had sought Democratic votes:

“So I’m appealing to all of the people of Indiana — I emphasize all — to ask for a Republican ballot today and to vote for me,” Lugar added.

Hot Air links a poll showing it 48-38, Mourdoch's favor, when leanders are included (43-35 without leaners).

Chuck Schumer says he's super-exited that a Mourdoch wins open the possibility of a Democratic pickup, which it does, a little, just because guys like Lugar, once they get elected for 36 years straight (yes, 36 straight years) pick up an aura of inevitability about them.

But Mourdoch's not a bad candidate, I don't think.

Meanwhile, two other races of import:

[I]n Wisconsin, Democrats will choose a recall challenger for Scott Walker. Labor’s candidate is Kathleen Falk but Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is favored; the contest is bitter enough that a post-election party unity rally has been canceled, so sit back and enjoy as Trumka and his pals in Wisconsin fume. The other big contest is the North Carolina vote that would ban gay marriage — and civil unions. If the last poll is right, the vote won’t be close: It’s 55/39 in favor of the ban in a state O won in 2008, which helps explain why he’s keeping his head down on this subject this week.

Here's the Indiana Department of Elections for returns, though we might have a call well before a lot of votes are officially tabulated.

Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM | Comments (92)
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Trayvon's Law purports to overturn all stand-your-ground laws.

Which part of the Constitution they believe gives Congress the power to draft state's criminal codes (historically one of the most you-can't-touch-this parts of state power), I couldn't reckon.

Posted by: Ace at 12:59 PM | Comments (311)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Experts: The Government must impose further mandates on you in order to force you to be healthy and thus reduce its own costs.

I'm beginning to think Shakespeare erred. First, kill all "experts" who want to empower government. Do the lawyers afterwards.

Federal agencies should step in if industries that promote high-calorie foods to children do not implement common nutrition standards within two years, the influential Institute of Medicine (IOM) said Tuesday.

The recommendation came as part of a 478-page IOM report on the U.S. obesity epidemic that outlined broad policy changes the panel says are necessary to stave off a healthcare crisis.

The changes are aimed at a complete overhaul of the United States's "obesogenic" environment, the panel wrote.

"People have heard the advice to eat less and move more for years, and during that time a large number of Americans have become obese," panelist Shiriki Kumanyika of the University of Pennsylvania said.

...

"The average person cannot maintain a healthy weight in this obesity-promoting environment," she said.

Strategies like a possible soda tax and new zoning laws to encourage walking and biking are designed to "reinforce one another's impact to speed our progress," said panel Chairman Dan Glickman, a former secretary of Agriculture.

The food and beverage industry, as well as its marketers, must cooperate or face possible federal intervention on issues like childhood nutrition standards, the panel warned.

I'm currently pro-health. That may sound funny, but a few months ago I was anti-health. No, seriously. I was pretty much like "The hell with it, we're all gonna die, who cares."

That's not a healthy attitude (ahem).

That said, I managed to change some behaviors without the coercive power of Big Wellness forcing me to.

I don't floss. I know I should. But I don't.

Will the government start forcing me to do that?

These are not hypothetical questions, nor silly ones. We spend all of our childhood yearning to be free of parental control.

Our parents are (by and large) benevolent. They want what's best for us. Sum up everything your parents ever told you, and odds are, 93% of it is good advice. Stuff you should do and should not do. They were right.

Nevertheless, I, and most other adults (especially American adults), expected that parental control and authority would end sometime between 17 and 21 years old.

We did not expect that the government would not arrogate to itself the power to step in and be our new Parental Authority until the day we die.

Everyone should eat better and exercise more. And floss, for that matter. And stop smoking. And limit drinking. And the rest of it.

And yet -- what business is it of anyone else's that we should do that?

Yes, we should do these things.

But a government empowered to force us to do them would make life unlivable.

I do not wish to be controlled by a distant bureaucratic parent, and in fact I would rebel against it, and I mean "rebel" in the non-metaphorical sense.

We have not created a government to control us. Whether we want to live self-destructive lives, or healthy lives, that is our own decision to make.

This dovetails perfectly with the truism that a government big enough to give you everything is a government big enough to take everything away, including your most precious gifts of all, freedom, dignity, and personal autonomy.

As the government takes more care of us -- as it more and more steps in as an ersatz parent, spending money on us -- it begins to demand the what parents typically do of children who cost so much: That the children behave in a manner which will cost it less money.

"You'll live by my rules while you're living under my roof!" many frustrated parents have exclaimed in frustration.

And they have a valid point-- as they are subsidizing the child's lifestyle, they feel they are entitled to some input into that lifestyle, especially as regards the cost of it.

And with the government now acting as the national pater (father), we now here the government bristling the same as any parent:

"So long as you're under my roof you'll live by my rules!"

You cannot have a pater without paternalism -- otherwise it begins to bankrupt the pater.

And thus, your weight is now not just your problem but the government's, and Big Daddy Government is going to require you to slim down if you're under his roof.

Even A Small Slowdown In Obesity's Rise Would Save Big Money

Slowing the rising rates of obesity in this country by just 1 percent a year over the next two decades would slice the costs of health care by $85 billion.

Keep obesity rates where they are now — well below a 33 percent increase that's been expected by some — and the savings would hit nearly $550 billion over the same 20 years.

Those are two attention-grabbing conclusions from an analysis released this morning at the Weight of the Nation conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers from Duke University, RTI International and CDC prepared the analysis, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

It's the latest work that shows the health care costs associated with obesity, and the stark financial consequence of the epidemic.

In an important way, this is the public's fault. They have gladly signed on for a policy of increasing infantilization of the populace -- of themselves -- and now find that if they've accepted Infant Status (legally incompetent; others in loco parentis having legal power over them) in terms of taking Big Daddy Government's allowance, they're going to have to start doing Big Daddy Government's chores to earn it.

There's a way out: End this endless cycle of government dependency which in turn requires (experts say) further government control.

Americans are too fat. They ought not be fat.

But it is far more important that they be free than they be thin.

A life lived without freedom is not worth living. We are not animals, born for the cage and our master's choice of feeding schedule.

We should all be better than we are.

But no one is better than they are without freedom. Without freedom, we are nothing but animals.

This is a dangerous step the government is taking. If the cost of paying for the health care for so many unhealthy Americans is too dear, then stop paying for it.

Do not repeal human beings' basic dignity and autonomy to live their lives as they will.

It is better to die than to live under such a horror.

My roof, my rules?

It's time to Man Up and move the hell out of Big Daddy's basement.

The Tyranny of a Well-Meaning Parent: As Justice Kennedy said of the mandate: It fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state.

It changes the relationship from free man with power over government to child beneath the Father-State's protection-- and control.

Parents are well meaning-- but they're worrying never ends, does it?

We do not need a state without the love of a true parent, which imposes its will, ultimately, through trained men with guns, to take on the powers and responsbilities of a parent.

As C.S. Lewis wrote, benevolently-intended tyrannies are the worst of all:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

via fixerupper.

Indecent: Do they even realize what they're suggesting?

From the New York Times:

When the biologist Daniel Lieberman suggested in a public lecture at Harvard this past February that exercise for everyone should be mandated by law, the audience applauded, the Harvard Gazette reported.

Not even a more-in-sadness-than-anger resignation to the idea that freedom must be abolished -- no, they're positively giddy about it!

They would strip the freedoms away from Americans to vindicate a busybody impulse to slim people down?

If they're willing to jettison freedom over so trivial a reason -- what reason wouldn't justify ending the American birthright of freedom?

What would not, in their eyes, justify the coercive power of the state squashing individual autonomy?

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (393)
Post contains 1454 words, total size 9 kb.

I don't know how you say schadenfreude in smoke signal, but Granny Warren's "Native American" ancestor probably did:

For over a quarter of a century, Elizabeth Warren has described herself as a Native American. When recently asked to provide evidence of her ancestry, she pointed to an unsubstantiated claim on an 1894 Oklahoma Territory marriage license application by her great-great grand uncle William J. Crawford that his mother, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford, Ms. Warren's great-great-great grandmother, was a Cherokee.

After researching her story, it is obvious that her "family lore" is just fiction.

As I pointed out in my article here on Sunday, no evidence supports this claim. O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford had no Cherokee heritage, was listed as "white" in the Census of 1860, and was most likely half Swedish and half English, Scottish, or German, or some combination thereof. (Note, the actual 1894 marriage license makes no claim of Cherokee ancestry.)

But wait, there's more ...

Jonathan Crawford, O.C. Sarah Smith CrawfordÂ’s husband and apparently Ms. Warren's great-great-great grandfather, served in the East Tennessee Mounted Infantry Volunteer Militia commanded by Brigadier General R. G. Dunlap from late 1835 to late 1836. While under DunlapÂ’s command he was a member of Major William LauderdaleÂ’s Battalion, and Captain Richard E. WaterhouseÂ’s Company.

These were the troops responsible for removing Cherokee families from homes they had lived in for generations in the three states that the Cherokee Nations had considered their homelands for centuries: Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. (emphasis added)

The Trail of Tears, Warren. You own it.

Now, it's pretty obvious that people in the stands at a Braves game doing the "tomahawk chop" are as Indian as Elizabeth Warren, yet she had no problem making this claim for decades, based on nothing more than a rumor, to take advantage of the Democrats' check-the-box system of racial spoils.

Of course, she couldn't be bothered to keep up even the vaguest of appearances. She's crusading for Social Justice™, man. Don't bring her down by asking her to powwow with actual Indians. Besides, she lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and they aren't exactly easy to find around there. Oh, wait ...

Senatorial wannabe Elizabeth Warren, aka Fauxcahontas, said she listed herself as a minority in law school directories because she was hoping to meet others with Native American roots. So isnÂ’t it a shame that Liz took a pass on last weekendÂ’s 17th annual Harvard Powwow????

The Harvard Law School prof was campaigning on the North Shore last Saturday while HarvardÂ’s Native American Program filled Radcliffe Yard with Native American singers, dancers and drummers.

Why would they have such a thing at Harvard, you ask? Well, according to the school's 1650 charter:

WHEREAS, through the good hand of God, many well devoted persons have been, and daily are moved, and stirred up, to give and bestow, sundry gifts, legacies, lands, and revenues for the advancement of all good literature, arts, and sciences in Harvard College, in Cambridge in the County of Middlesex, and to the maintenance of the President and Fellows, and for all accommodations of buildings, and all other necessary provisions, that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and godliness: ... (emphasis added)

My, how far we've fallen from such noble purposes. Somewhere along the way, Harvard, which refuses to comment on whether Warren is the person listed as their sole Native American professor, forgot about both godliness and the Indians. In all but a thin veneer, anyway.

On a related note, the Warren campaign recently offered the photo below the fold as conclusive proof of her Native American ancestry, but I'm not buying it. more...

Posted by: andy at 10:32 AM | Comments (402)
Post contains 842 words, total size 6 kb.

NC is voting on an anti-gay-marriage referendum today. As this causes some complications for the GCMOTUS (Gutsy Call Maker of the United States), he's chickening out.

President Barack Obama was scheduled, albeit briefly, to visit North Carolina on Election Day to make an speech in Asheville about the economy.

But the White House sent the notice Wednesday last week but reversed course about five hours later, saying the trip wasn’t taking place, according to a North Carolina congressional office notified about the trip. The false alarm isn’t unprecedented — but the fact the White House even considered visiting the state on primary election day is interesting.

This is a big old sticky wicket for Obama. The press corps is openly laughing at Jay Carney's absurd insistence that Obama is still "evolving," and doesn't know if he'll endorse gay marriage... after the election.

Hey, he needs some "space" on this issue. He'll have more flexibility after the elections, you know.

Ed Rendell says he should just "man up" and admit what's obvious to everyone.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (126)
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember to vote for Walker today in the Republican recall primary.

It would be great to see turnout nearly equal that on the Democrats' side, for once.

Not to mention ruin any assumption that Barrett, Falk or whoever wins has any momentum.

That's all!

Results later tonight.

Posted by: CAC at 09:31 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Gallup Moves... 47-44. Still registered voters.

Incidentally, Gallup has changed its track again -- now it's a seven day rolling average. So the weekend numbers are always included. On the other hand, there are no huge swings day-to-day.

...

Is this something?

The uptick for Romney comes as investor confidence has fallen six points in the wake of last weekÂ’s disappointing jobs report. Looking ahead five years, just 44% of Americans believe the nationÂ’s economy will be stronger than it is today. ThatÂ’s the lowest level of long-term optimism ever measured.

That said, Rasmussen has had Obama and Romney trading leads for 12 days, each taking the lead six times.

A USAToday/Gallup poll of swing states has the race tight.

Or does it?

The president and the former Massachusetts governor start their head-to-head contest essentially even among registered voters — Obama 47%, Romney 45% — in the dozen battleground states likely to determine the election's outcome. That's closer than the lead of 9 percentage points for Obama in the Swing States survey in late March.

...

Among those surveyed, 60% say a President Romney would do a good or very good job handling the economy over the next four years; 52% say that of Obama. Even among the president's supporters, four in 10 predict Romney would do a good job. In a direct comparison, Romney edges Obama, 47%-44%, as the one who would do a better job.

And, in a Politico/GWU poll:

The former Massachusetts governor has opened up a 10-point lead, 48 percent to 38 percent, among independents in a poll conducted Sunday, April 29 through Thursday, May 3 and a 6-point lead among those who describe themselves as “extremely likely” to vote in November. Obama led Romney by 9 points overall in POLITICO’s February’s poll.

Pollsters can goose the Democratic fraction of the sample, but on voting day, is there any chance that Obama will turn out so many more Democrats than Republicans that he can overcome a 10 point gap with independents?

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (233)
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.

Instapundit talks about a certain kind of psychological trick the mind plays on you.

If you know anything about a subject matter, when you read the media's reportage of that subject matter, you will constantly see errors, childish oversimplifications, and sheer hackery. You will realize the media simply doesn't know what the hell it's talking about, at least as regards the subject matter you know a lot about.

But then you will turn the page and read the media writing about other subject matters, and kinda-sorta completely forget that you already know they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

There's a similar psychological thing that happens in politics.

How many people do you know that are actually good at their jobs? Mentally divide everyone you know into "outright incompetent," "semi-competent," "competent but limited and just hanging on," "actually completely competent" and "very competent."

What percentage of the people you work with (or hear about from others) are in the last two categories? 40%? 50%, if you're lucky?

And yet when a mid-level RNC diversity hack says something like this:

RNC National Hispanic Outreach Director on Romney just now: "He's still deciding what his position on immigration is."

...most of us spring to the notion This guy must know his onions; he must know Romney's mind intimately; he is probably in frequent communication with Romney and well-informed about what he's saying; he's also probably a highly-disciplined man, who speaks only when he knows the confirmed truth of the matter, and does not just sort of talk just to hear himself talk.

Why would we assume that? Of what percentage of the working population, in your experience, would those things be true of?

Again: What, 40%? Maybe 50% if you're in a very well-run organization?

This guy has probably spoken to Romney three times in the past year, never alone, and never for any lengthy period of time. He is not a close adviser. He's a mid-level PR guy in an affiliated organization (the RNC).

Let's not assume he's doing anything except what he thinks his job is supposed to be, "outreach" to Hispanics, and let's not assume he's doing it competently.

If half or more of the people you work with aren't very good at their jobs, it makes no sense to assume that someone in the oddball, sketchy job of political flacking is good at his.

Maybe he is.

But then again, maybe he was doing what most people do: Running their mouths without any idea what they're talking about.

Posted by: Ace at 08:48 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.