April 5 Election Results Thread #4

12:05am: Move along, move along, like I know you do.

12:05am: Prosser is now up by about 2,200 votes.  With most of the precincts in Dem-leaning territory…but these precincts have to be substantive, and not empty, as we’ve seen plenty tonight.

12:01am: Eau Claire County may not give us as much of a boost as expected – most of the city of Eau Claire is reporting, with 11 of the 21 outstanding being from the city.

11:56pm: Looking at Marathon County, there could be good news left for KloJo – most of the outstanding precincts appear to be in the City of Wausau, which should help her recover her lead, or at least be empty (which is better than the 54-46 margin Prosser has there thus far).

11:53pm: Bad advance news from Racine County, which based on the County website is fully reporting and has KloJo losing by 6K votes, not 3k.  This moves the needle to 4.90%.

11:46pm: Waukesha is now entirely reporting, with the last 68 precincts being all empty.  The needle stands at 4.98% away from Prosser…or a 182 vote Prosser lead when all is said and done.

11:42pm: The Las Vegas Mayoral runoff spot has been called for Chris G, evidently.

11:40pm: We’re at 94.6%. It comes down to something as simple as this: how much of Waukesha and Ozaukee are actually reporting? Just think, if Waukesha is indeed all reporting, that brings us to a final projected margin of 175 votes for Prosser.

11:33pm: FUCK. A bunch of Dane precincts just reported, with no votes. This likely owes to the various tendrils of the city of Madison that have their own precincts…but no residents.  This moves the needle to 3.87%…count me pessimistic.

11:26pm: Waupaca County just reported in bulk, showing a 7% swing to KloJo as has been characteristic of the Fox Valley/northeastern Wisconsin. The needle’s at 4.45%…where’s still just a little bit short of where we need to be.

11:23pm: I’ve been neglecting Las Vegas…where the Clark County is not showing any results for me.  But, Carolyn Goodman is out in front, with Chris G and Larry Brown separated by 30 votes!

11:15pm: 90.4% reporting now, and KloJo is clinging to a 4K vote lead.  The wildcard is still the Milwaukee burbs, which are lagging at 65% reporting…but who knows what’s actually reported.

11:11pm: Looking at FDL County, KloJo’s swings in the Fox Valley continue to be apparent: after having given Prosser 72% in the first round, FDL only gave him 61% this time around….a big improvement.

11:07pm: Before Professor Jeff gets into precincting procedures, it could be relevant that Wisconsin draws election precincts (which it refers to as “wards”), and that many of these precincts left could be empty.  I’ll also note that very few MKE precincts are empty…and that the empty ones Milwaukee precincts are actually part of Waukesha (2) and Ozaukee (1).



The sucker in me likes being optimistic.

Results:

Wisconsin: AP | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Chicago: AP

SC: SC SEC

Nevada: Clark County

April 5 Election Results Thread #3

11:06pm: Keep it moving, folks.

11:01pm: This will come down to the Milwaukee suburbs…and depending on how many precincts are actually counted. Based on this last set, the swing away from Prosser is 4.9%….which is getting VERY close to what we need.  Turnout in the Dem strongholds isn’t particularly outstanding – 2.2x in MKE and 3.3x in Madison, slightly behind the 3.6x statewide.

10:52pm: A big batch of Milwaukee precincts…with votes, and a swing to KloJo, no less. This last batch brings the swing in MKE county from 9.28 to 11.78%. The swing away from Prosser is now 4.66%…which is getting close to the neighborhood of what is needed.

10:47pm: A huge batch of MKE suburban precincts….but no more votes.  Waukesha jumped from 52 to 119 and Ozaukee from 16 to 26.  This change alone brings the swing away from Prosser to 3.87%.

10:38pm: No progress yet from the MKE suburbs, but a cursory review of county websites would suggest that at least half are in and not the 27% reported.  Also interesting is that nothing has reported yet from Fond du Lac County, which could be a good source of swing toward KloJo.  The rest of the Fox Valley + Green Bay (defined to be Outagamie, Winnebago, Calumet, and Brown counties) has swung 7.3% away from Prosser.

10:32pm: 68% in now, and Prosser is about 2.27% underperforming his primary performance (which is calculated using a weighted average).  Turnout differentials are not particularly helping us – across the state, it’s about 3.9x the primary total, but only 2.2x in Milwaukee and 3.1x in Madison. (However, this includes the absurd Waukesha/Ozaukee/Washington results [Ozaushingsha County?], where turnout based on these numbers is 8.4x the primary).

10:24pm: KloJo is back in the lead, thanks to a Madison vote dump.  We’re still looking for some insight into the MKE suburban numbers, which seems overly inflated.

10:21pm: A similar effect is being seen in Washington County, where the current precinct numbers suggesting 73% of the population voting.

10:17pm: Nominally, the MKE suburbs are only 27% reporting. …but, the numbers right now would suggest 311K votes from Waukesha, or 80% of the total population. It would also suggest 60K votes from Ozaukee – 71% of the total population.  This should signal some overestimating of the effect of the Milwaukee burbs.

10:16pm: That last update wasn’t great for KloJo, who’s now 10,000 down; Prosser is only 2.27% underperforming now.



Let’s keep going…

Results:

Wisconsin: AP | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Chicago: AP

SC: SC SEC

Nevada: Clark County

April 5 Election Results Thread #2

10:13pm: Thread trois.

10:10pm: A few more votes from Madison have trickled in, bringing KloJo back into the lead. However, the swing is still only 2.84%, less than what we need.

10:01pm: At the halfway mark now, and Prosser is now underperforming by about 3.5%. That number needs to clear 5% for KloJo to win.  The Milwaukee burbs, however, are still the laggards here, at 23% reporting.  However, the number of votes in Waukesha seems a little out of wack, as taking them at face value suggest that turnout is 8 times higher today than in the primary.

9:56pm: With 65% reporting for Milwaukee County Exec, Chris Abele is leading 61-39.  I think we can chalk this one up for Team Blue.

9:48pm: With 42% reporting now, Prosser’s assembled a 52-48 lead, or 19,000 votes.  “Outstate” – if there is one – is reporting and not being the friendliest to KloJo. Potential areas of improvement include the college towns in La Crosse/Eau Claire/Stevens Point and Madison. Despite their repugnant redness, the Milwaukee burbs are swinging 8.36% towards KloJo – more than what’s needed.

9:39pm: Back to Chicago for a second, a few incumbents lost tonight: Bernie Stone and John Rice for sure, and possibly Fredrenna Lyle in the 6th.  The Republicans might be going 0-for-50, with both would be GOPers losing, by 260 votes in the 41st and by 31 votes in the 45th. [And Sharon Denise Dixon in the 24th. No love for Rhymefest though, who loses to incumbent Wilie Cochran.]

9:29pm: Things continue to move slightly in KloJo’s favor, with Prosser doing 3.2% worse than before.  Hopefully, the trend continues.  Prosser is underperforming in all areas except Dane County – which is explained by the fact that Madison has yet to report.

9:22pm: Prosser’s doing 2.4% worse than in the primary. However, the MKE suburbs’s are only 8%…which leaves plenty of room for him to pad his lead, sadly.

9:17pm: Chris Abele continues to crush for MKE County Exec, now 61-39 with 28% in.



It’s a progressive party.

Results:

Wisconsin: AP | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Chicago: AP

SC: SC SEC

Nevada: Clark County

April 5 Election Results Thread #1

9:15pm: Follow the party here.

9:10pm: More of Milwaukee’s reported now, which is enough improvement such that Prosser’s now 1.5% below his primary performance.  KloJo will still need more to win this though.

9:06pm: According to Journal-Sentinel, Chris Abele now has a 60-40 lead over Jeff Stone with 10% reporting. Hopefully, this means we can expect some swings towards KloJo in Milwaukee County.

9:01pm: More results now – 12% in. Prosser’s underperforming everywhere…except Milwaukee County, Dane County, and the not contiguous “College Towns”, comprised of Eau Claire, La Crosse, and Portage counties.  Hopefully, this will change.

8:56pm: Clarendon County has reported in South Carolina, and the Dem is now leading 52-47.

8:45pm: More of Wisconsin in now, and Prosser is now slightly underperforming (-0.23%). KloJo has a 202-vote lead, but the disgustingly Republican Milwaukee burbs haven’t reported just yet. (Keep in mind, Waukesha + Ozaukee + Washington gave Bush a larger margin than Milwaukee gave Kerry).

8:40pm: With our first Milwaukee County precincts, Jeff Stone is up by 1%. Prosser at par with his primary performance now (+0.06%).

8:34pm: Kenosha County is going 64-36 for Prosser, but it’s also quite heavily polarized. With the last dump, Prosser is doing 1% better than in the primary, about 6% over what he needs overall.

8:30pm: 2.5% reporting now, with Prosser doing about 2% better than in the primary (assuming uniform counties). It’s still early – this is plenty likely to change.  We need Prosser to do about 5% worse for KloJo to win.

8:19pm: Ten precincts in now (does this mean I have to stop using just my fingers to count?). Prosser’s doing about 5% better than he did in the primary, but turnout in Dane County is 2x.

8:13pm: Hey, one precinct in Dane County (Madison)!  Kloppenburg’s at 60%.  Turnout in this one precinct is 2.5x what the average Dane County precinct was in the primary. (The flipside is that Prosser is doing 8.6% better in this one precinct than he did throughout Dane County in the first round.)

8:02pm: In South Carolina, heavily Dem HD-64 currently has a Republican lead of 5 votes, but only one of two counties has reported. (And I’m guessing not the Dem one, either.)

7:51pm: Checking out these Chicago results real quick – Rahm’s picks aren’t doing too well in the 24th and 25th wards.  Crusty old jackass Bernard Stone is losing quite handily in the 50th, and Che “Rhymefest” Smith (co-writer of Kanye West’s “Jesus Walks”) is holding incumbent Willie Cochran to 53% in the 20th.

Once again, Central Time shall prevail!


And so it is, 15 minutes to takeoff.

On the docket:

  • The marquee event, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race between the conservative-leaning incumbent David Prosser and Dem-leaning JoAnne Kloppenburg.

  • Milwaukee County Executive, which Scott Walker kindly left open between Walker crony Jeff Stone and  Dem Chris Abele.

  • The first test of Mayor Emanuel’s clout, with numerous City Council runoffs in Chicago, which Rahm hasn’t been shy to wade in.

  • Various local offices throughout Las Vegas and Clark County.

Results:

Wisconsin: AP | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Chicago: AP

SC: SC SEC

Nevada: Clark County

Multivariate analysis of Wisconsin polling data

(This is cross-posted at Daily Kos)

A couple weeks ago, Kos/PPP polled all the Wisconsin Republicans up for recall and found some very interesting results. However, he did not poll the Dem races up for recall, as well as the statewide upcoming Supreme Court race. In an attempt to rectify this fault, although I’m no Poblano, I decided to try to use multivariate regression to try and model the Wisconsin polling data using information from each district.

Fortunately, the dynamics of the race were much simpler than Clinton vs. Obama 2008, and I found in the end that the polling results could be described by only two variables (which is very nice, as we only had eight data points, so the model shouldn’t be overfitted):

1. Obama: The percentage of the vote Obama received in 2008 (Courtesy of SSP)

2. Incumbency: The number of years the person has been in office (for instance, someone elected in 2008 would have an Incumbency of 2 years.) – Numbers from SSP above.

I also experimented with other variables (which I discarded in the end as being not statistically significant):

3. Barrett: The percentage of the vote Tom Barrett received in 2010. (Thanks to the Journal-Sentinel)

4. Scandal: A 1/0 value describing the unique circumstances of the aptly named Randy Hopper, and perhaps Mr. Prosser as well.

5. Kerry: Percentage of the vote Kerry received in 2004

I also decided on using percentages rather than margins as there was a better correlation between the two.

In the end, my 2-variable model describes very accurately (within +/- 1.5%) the percentage of voters who would commit to voting for a Democrat in a hypothetical election this year; the spreadsheet is included below.



(The main prediction is highlighted in red. There are other columns to the right which include the additional variables that did not turn out to be significant.)

In short, the vulnerability of each Senator is based mostly off of Obama’s performance in the state in 2008, along with a small bonus from incumbency (about 0.3 points per year in office.) Thus, Hopper is quite vulnerable simply from being a freshman (the scandal had not impacted his poll numbers at that point yet), while Alberta Darling has built up goodwill from being in office for 18 years.

Extrapolating this model for the three Democrats who are considered semi-vulnerable, we find they are mostly safe. The only one who’s really vulnerable is Mr. Holperin, who was first elected by 2.5% in 2008 and represents a seat Obama won by single digits. Note that I give the Democrats negative incumbency so it gives a bonus to the D #s (rather than a penalty), and since the model considers undecideds, anything 48% or up is probably leaning D.

Examining Justice Prosser, who gets elected by the State of Wisconsin as a whole, we find that the seat is probably somewhat leaning D at this point, but I would put the margin of error much higher on this estimate – the race is still developing, and a Supreme Court race is very different from a Senate one.

Wisconsin recall: 3 GOP State Senators Trail Generic Dem, More at Risk

(Cross-posted from Daily Kos.)

We asked our pollster, Public Policy Polling, to test the waters in all eight Republican-held state Senate districts in Wisconsin which are currently the target of recall efforts. PPP went into the field over the weekend, and the numbers we got back are very interesting. I’ve summarized the key results in the table below.





































































































Dist. Incumbent Approve Dis-
approve
Support
Recall
Oppose
Recall
Vote
Incumbent
Vote
Democrat
Number of
Responses
2 Rob Cowles 32 40 36 39 45 43 2,199
8 Alberta Darling 51 42 38 54 52 44 1,333
10 Sheila Harsdorf 43 43 38 47 48 44 2,385
14 Luther Olsen 32 42 40 39 47 49 2,307
18 Randy Hopper 38 47 44 33 44 49 2,550
20 Glenn Grothman 49 30 28 53 60 32 2,561
28 Mary Lazich 35 29 26 44 56 34 2,471
32 Dan Kapanke 41 55 52 44 41 55 2,759

We asked a battery of questions in each poll (links to full results are at the end of this post). One basic question asked whether respondents approve of the job performance of each senator-those numbers are in the first two columns after each incumbent’s name. Four senators have negative ratings, and one is even-not particularly welcome news for Republicans.

a non-exclusive worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display your work(s)

We also asked whether respondents support or oppose the idea of recalling their senators. As you can see in the next pair of columns, this question doesn’t test as well-pluralities say they favor recall in just three districts-but in a way, it’s the least important question we asked. As long as canvassers collect enough valid signatures, a recall election will happen automatically under Wisconsin law. So while this is helpful information to have, it is far from dispositive, especially when contrasted with the next pair of columns.

“Vote Incumbent” and “Vote Democrat” summarize data from our most critical question. We asked poll-takers whether, in a hypothetical election that would be held later this year, they’d support the incumbent (whom we mentioned by name), or his/her “Democratic opponent.” (This sort of question is often described as testing a “generic Democrat.”) Here, the results give us reason to be cautiously optimistic.

Three Republican incumbents actually trail “generic Dem”: Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, and Dan Kapanke. Two more have very narrow leads and garner less than 50% support: Rob Cowles and Sheila Harsdorf. And one more, Alberta Darling, holds a clear lead but is still potentially vulnerable. (Two recall-eligible senators, Mary Lazich and Glenn Grothman, sit in extremely red districts and look to have safe leads.) These numbers suggest we have a chance to make five and possibly six recall races highly competitive.

But a key thing to remember, though, is that if any of these senators have to face a recall election, we’ll need an actual candidate to run against each of them. In that regard, Wisconsin’s recalls are very different from California’s, where in 2003 voters were simply asked if they wanted to remove Democratic Gov. Gray Davis from office. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected (with less than a majority) by means of a separate ballot question. In my view, California’s system makes it easier to boot an office-holder, because at bottom, the first question simply asks if you’d prefer some other-any other-alternative. If your answer was “yes,” you then had your choice on the second question, whether it was Arnold (R) or Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D) or Gary Coleman (?). In Wisconsin, if a recall election makes it on to the ballot, there is no California-style first question-we go directly to a head-to-head between candidates (with a possible stop along the way for primaries). So for a recall to succeed, we’ll need to convince voters to support a real live Democrat-and that means we’ll have to recruit some good candidates.

As the recall process moves forward, you’ll want to bookmark this link and keep it handy. It’s a chart of the 2004 & 2008 presidential results in each state Senate district in Wisconsin. While not a perfect measurement, the presidential numbers offer a clear baseline for a rough-cut assessment of how competitive each district is likely to be. Of course, many other factors are involved, but if you click the link, you’ll understand immediately why Kapanke is in such trouble – he’s in the bluest district held by a Republican, one that went 61% for Obama and 53% for Kerry. A little further down the list, you’ll see that Olsen, Cowles, Hopper, Harsdorf, and Darling all occupy districts with roughly similar presidential results that hover in swingy territory, so you can see why at least the first four are at risk. Darling’s stronger performance is somewhat surprising, given that senators in comparable districts all do worse, but even she is not out of the woods. Bringing up the rear are Lazich and Grothman, who holds the most Republican seat in the entire state. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which either of them could fall.

One final detail: You’ll notice that in the table up above, the last column reads “Number of Responses.” That refers to how many people actually completed our poll when we called them. If you’re familiar with electoral polling at all, those numbers are simply eye-popping, particularly for state senate districts. Our target was 600 to 800 respondents per poll, and yet we got well into the two thousand range for all but one of them (and even that outlier had over 1,300). What does this mean? The only reasonable conclusion is that an unusually high proportion of Wisconsinites are tuned into this conflict, and when given the opportunity to make their opinions heard, they jumped at the chance. While we can’t yet say for sure whether the enthusiasm gap has been erased, we do know that folks in Wisconsin are very definitely paying attention.

And so, of course, are we. As the situation warrants, we’ll revisit these districts and test the poll numbers again. For now, though, we wait on the outcome of the petition drive to force these recall elections in the first place. Then the battle will really begin.

Full Results: Cowles | Darling | Harsdorf | Olsen | Hopper | Grothman | Lazich | Kapanke

WI-State Senate: Population by District

With the release of census data for Wisconsin, we can also crunch population numbers by State Senate district – and to see potentially how redistricting could affect the various senators with recall campaigns mounted against them.

Without further ado, here’s the table – the eight rows highlighted in green are the eight recallable Republican senators.

As also shown in the data by Congressional district, there’s a shift from Milwaukee to Madison, population wise.  The Milwaukee County based districts (3rd – 8th) are all quite underpopulated, while the Madison-based 16th, 26th, and 27th are now overpopulated.  The MSP exurbs – now expanding into St. Croix County – have also grown, as shown in the overpopulation in the 10th (Harsdorf, R).

Will this affect the Recallable 8?  I’m skeptical – it’s unlikely, IMO, that we’ll get anything friendly from an unfriendly trifecta. Likely, the relative stability means that not too much will have to change – most of the recallable eight have districts that were stable population wise.  Harsdorf’s 10th will have to lose some – but that could be easily some Dem-leaning territory given to Robert Jauch’s 25th (D).

The Milwaukee County districts will need to expand outward…which could conveniently remove the Dem-leaning North Shore from Alberta “anything but” Darling’s 8th.  Additionally, given that Milwaukee County is surrounded on three sides by heavily Republican suburbs, it’s pretty easy to slice that pizza.  On the flip side, the growth in Dane County hasn’t reached a point yet where that would have to be sliced four ways.

So, unless we actually manage to recall Hopper, Darling, Kapanke, et al., the census numbers don’t necessarily indicate any help to come from Senate redistricting…especially not with an unfriendly legislature drawing the maps.

AZ, ID, and WI: Population by CD

Arizona is gaining one seat, from eight up to nine, and that means that its new target is 710,224, up from 641K in 2000. Interestingly, despite the fact that it’s gaining a new seat, there are still three currently-composed districts that are in a deficit and need to pick up people from elsewhere: the 3rd, 4th, and 5th. These are the three central districts in the Phoenix area that are essentially built out and can’t expand in any direction (except up); meanwhile, the 2nd, 6th, and 7th can continue to expand every which way into the desert, which is precisely what they did over the decade, so look for one additional GOP-friendly seat to be carved out of Phoenix’s endless suburbia (although whether it’s centered in Phoenix’s west or east suburbs remains to be seen… between the commission’s role in deciding, and possible multiple incumbents opening up seats to run for the Senate, there really aren’t any clues what will happen).

Like the other border states, Arizona has become signficantly more Hispanic over the decade, up to 29.6% Hispanic now compared with 25.3% in 2000. The Hispanic growth wasn’t concentrated any one particular place: that 4% increase was closely mirrored in all the districts. The 2nd had the biggest Hispanic shift, at 7% (from 14% to 21%), while the 1st had the smallest shift, at 3% (from 16% to 19%). That dissipation of the Hispanic vote means that it’s not terribly likely that a third VRA seat will be carved out, despite the fact that Hispanics are close to 1/3 of the state’s population.



































District Population Deviation
AZ-01 774,310 64,086
AZ-02 972,839 262,615
AZ-03 707,919 (2,305)
AZ-04 698,314 (11,910)
AZ-05 656,833 (53,391)
AZ-06 971,733 261,509
AZ-07 855,769 145,545
AZ-08 754,300 44,076
Total: 6,392,017

I’m not the first one to observe that Idaho redistricting is pretty much drama-free. Nevertheless, there’s at least something interesting going on here in this small but fast-growing state: growth is very heavily concentrated in suburbs and exurbs west of Boise. For instance, the state’s 2nd and 3rd biggest cities used to be Pocatello and Idaho Falls; now they’re Meridian (a large suburb west of Boise) and Nampa (in Canyon County, the next county to the west). That means that the districts are kind of lopsided, and it looks like much of Boise proper, currently split down the middle, will wind up being given to ID-02. While Boise is certainly the most urbane part of the state, and it should tip the balance a bit in the blue direction (as for the past decade, the two districts have had almost identical PVIs), the 2nd should still be a long way away from somewhere the Dems can compete. (Idaho’s target is 783,791, up from 646K in 2000. Look for it to get a 3rd seat in 2020.)

















District Population Deviation
ID-01 841,930 58,139
ID-02 725,652 (58,139)
Total: 1,567,582

Wisconsin held steady at eight seats this year, and even its districts held pretty steady, too. Its target is 710,873, up from 670K in 2000. That means the only district that lost population is the Milwaukee-based 4th and even it only lost a few thousand since 2000. The main area of growth is the state’s other blue stronghold, the Madison-area 2nd (must have something to do with THE BLOATED STATE GOVERNMENT AND THOSE GREEDY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MULTIPLYING LIKE LOCUSTS!!!!1!!), which needs to give about 40,000 people to the 4th (although they’ll have to pass through the suburban 5th, which sits smack dab between them). Also, it looks like Dairyland is gaining a little at the expense of the North Woods, as the 3rd will need to pick up 20K from GOP freshman Sean Duffy’s 7th. Although the GOP controls the redistricting process here, thanks to their House gains in 2010 and the overall uniform swinginess of the rural counties, they’re probably just going to be playing defense with their map.



































District Population Deviation
WI-01 728,042 17,169
WI-02 751,169 40,296
WI-03 729,957 19,084
WI-04 669,015 (41,858)
WI-05 707,580 (3,293)
WI-06 705,102 (5,771)
WI-07 689,279 (21,594)
WI-08 706,840 (4,033)
Total: 5,686,986

WI-Gov results by state senate district

You may remember my quick calculation of PVI-based vulnerability estimates for the recall-eligible state senators of Wisconsin.  There, I used the Obama numbers for my calculations.

Well, the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Journal Sentinel has the gubernatorial numbers by senate district.  As a bonus finding, they also mention that Darling, Kapanke, Hopper, and Holperin had close races in 2008.

Enjoy.  One of you should go do a quick PVI calculation using the gube results as well, for each of the 16 recall-eligible districts.  I’m heading to bed for now since it’s past 1:30 AM.

Wisconsin Presidential Results by State Senate District

In recent days, there has been some talk of attempting to recall WI Gov. Scott Walker over his attempts to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees. However, by law, Walker could not become the subject of a recall effort until 2012, and it would take over 500,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot. (Wisconsin’s total population is just 5.65 million.)

But the state senate is elected in alternating cycles, and eight Republicans – all of those in even-numbered districts, i.e., who last ran in 2008 – are eligible for recall now. That’s state Sens. Robert Cowles, Alberta Darling, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich and Dan Kapanke. (Of course, Dems elected in 2008 are potentially subject to recall as well.) And it would take about 15-16K signatures apiece for a successful recall petition, according to ThinkProgress.

So here’s a look at the presidential vote breakdown in all 33 Wisconsin state senate districts to help gauge who might be most vulnerable to such an effort. The “Margin” column is the incumbent’s margin of victory in his or her last election. Remember, you can click on each column header to sort the table, so you can see which incumbents had the narrowest victories, or which Republicans sit in the bluest seats, and so forth. (You can find our original spreadsheet here.)




























































































































































































































































































































































































































































District Senator Party Age First
Elected
Margin Seat Up Obama McCain Kerry Bush
1 Frank Lasee (R) 49 2010 20.2% 2014 53% 45% 44% 55%
2 Robert Cowles (R) 60 1987 99.4% 2012 52% 46% 42% 57%
3 Tim Carpenter (D) 50 2002 22.5% 2014 63% 36% 58% 42%
4 Lena Taylor (D) 44 2004 98.8% 2012 86% 13% 80% 19%
5 Leah Vukmir (R) 52 2010 4.5% 2014 51% 47% 46% 53%
6 Spencer Coggs (D) 61 2003 98.9% 2012 89% 11% 83% 16%
7 Chris Larson (D) 30 2010 14.4% 2014 61% 38% 56% 43%
8 Alberta Darling (R) 66 1992 1.0% 2012 51% 47% 46% 53%
9 Joe Leibham (R) 41 2002 46.3% 2014 53% 46% 47% 52%
10 Sheila Harsdorf (R) 54 2000 12.9% 2012 50% 48% 48% 51%
11 Neal Kedzie (R) 55 2002 50.8% 2014 40% 59% 33% 66%
12 Jim Holperin (D) 60 2008 2.5% 2012 53% 46% 46% 53%
13 Scott Fitzgerald (R) 47 1994 38.4% 2014 48% 51% 41% 59%
14 Luther Olsen (R) 59 2004 99.4% 2012 52% 47% 43% 56%
15 Tim Cullen (D) 66 2010 18.0% 2014 63% 35% 57% 42%
16 Mark Miller (D) 68 2004 99.3% 2012 66% 32% 58% 41%
17 Dale Schultz (R) 57 1991 25.2% 2014 61% 38% 51% 48%
18 Randy Hopper (R) 45 2008 0.2% 2012 51% 47% 42% 57%
19 Michael Ellis (R) 69 1982 99.0% 2014 54% 44% 45% 54%
20 Glenn Grothman (R) 55 2004 60.6% 2012 36% 63% 30% 69%
21 Van H. Wanggaard (R) 58 2010 5.1% 2014 55% 43% 50% 49%
22 Robert Wirch (D) 67 1996 33.4% 2012 57% 41% 51% 48%
23 Terry Moulton (R) 64 2010 8.5% 2014 55% 43% 49% 50%
24 Julie Lassa (D) 40 2003 35.4% 2012 59% 39% 51% 47%
25 Robert Jauch (D) 65 1986 2.6% 2014 59% 40% 56% 43%
26 Fred Risser (D) 83 1962 99.1% 2012 81% 17% 75% 23%
27 Jon Erpenbach (D) 50 1998 23.7% 2014 67% 32% 59% 40%
28 Mary Lazich (R) 58 1998 99.2% 2012 39% 60% 35% 64%
29 Pam Galloway (R) 55 2010 4.6% 2014 53% 45% 46% 53%
30 Dave Hansen (D) 63 2000 32.2% 2012 56% 42% 47% 52%
31 Kathleen Vinehout (D) 52 2006 0.7% 2014 58% 41% 52% 46%
32 Dan Kapanke (R) 63 2004 2.9% 2012 61% 38% 53% 46%
33 Rich Zipperer (R) 36 2010 99.5% 2014 37% 62% 32% 67%

One name which stands out here is Dan Kapanke. He’s in the bluest district held by a Republican, and he won by less than 3% last time he faced voters. If his name sounds familiar, that’s because he waged a pretty high-profile challenge against Dem Rep. Ron Kind (WI-03) last year, losing narrowly. I’m sure Kind has a pretty fat oppo file on Kapanke he’d be willing to share….