Among the Democrats to lose were Majority Leader Russ Decker, who was the most powerful man in the Legislature, as well as President Pro Tempore Pat Kreitlow, many state observers have touted as one of the rising stars of the Democratic Party and a possible statewide candidate

Russ Decker lost? Haha, damn.

And Kathleen Vinehout won! Yeah, Decker's loss is minus 1 to the Dems, but if someone had to lose, well it might as well be Decker.

My thoughts exactly.

Census data for Wisconsin was delivered/released http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117675068.html late this past week. What are the odds this will be one of the quickest redistricting plans passed and signed into law?

Looking at the maps... I'm not saying Republicans won't be able to help protect their own (or make Democrats more vulnerable) but there options will be limited. Frankly, I don't see them being able to help Kapanke, who's possibly the most vulnerable as he's in a generally blue part of the state that went for Kerry. There best bet is redistricting around Milwaukee and the suburbs, where the suburbs are staunchly Republican and the city is staunchly Democratic. The more rural areas/smaller cities are a much bigger gamble as they're much more prone to swinging and not nearly as "locked in" for either party. Darling is probably one of their best shots at protecting through redistricting if they shift her district to include more of Waukesha county and away from Milwaukee county.

I imagine Randy "Bed" Hopper is pretty vulnerable too.

Hopper won his seat in 2008 - which was a blow-out year for Democrats. He may still be vulnerable in a low-turnout recall election, but he did survive a very tough election already in 2008. Ditto with Darling and Kapanke. Jim Holperin, on the other hand, barely survived in 2008, so he has to be considered vulnerable in a recall or redistricted seat in 2012.

Hopper won his seat in 2008 - which was a blow-out year for Democrats. Well according to Hopper's wife, Hopper now lives in Madison with his 25-year old mistress, so it's possible that this might cause some issues for him.

How can you recall Senators under the new lines? That could create some citizens having two Senators and others having zero.

That's what I was saying the other day, but it just occurred to me: how does it work when half of the Senate class will be up in 2012 on the new lines with the other half still representing the old lines until 2014? Looking through a few of the race containers to 10 years ago, it doesn't look like WI does what MN does and has everyone go up for election in the first post-redistricting election.

A poll will be released tomorrow night on all the GOP WI Senators and recall.

Anyone else not digging the philosophy of recalls over policy differences?

That would depend on one's definition of "policy differences."

Why else are they being recalled?

I don't like recalls for any reason, but this is going to happen whether I like it or not.

It does seem like it will, I agree.

Anyone else not digging the philosophy of recalls over policy differences? I'm with you on this one. Whether or not it goes anywhere and whether or not it removes politicians I may not be fond of, this recall business is absurd.

The threshold is pretty high with a short time frame. It's not easy to recall someone unless a lot of people are really pissed. ...which I think is a fine system to have. If you believe in accountability and all that...I mean, it's not like Governor Scott Walker campaigned on ending collective bargaining for public employees.

Anyone else not digging the philosophy of recalls over policy differences? How is violating Wisconsin law a policy difference?

If you believe in accountability and all that...I mean, it's not like Governor Scott Walker campaigned on ending collective bargaining for public employees. If doing things you didn't campaign on is good enough to get you recalled then we need to go on a 50-state road trip followed by a visit to D.C. and throw them all out.

I know that back in the 1950s in Wisconsin, it commonly happened after redistricting that some areas had two senators, while others had none. I guess I assumed that kind of inequity would be vulnerable to a court challenge that would force the state to elect senators from all the new districts at once. (Of course, we've all seen things that continued for years just because nobody challenged them: the NYC Board of Estimate, for example.)

How is violating Wisconsin law a policy difference? What law was violated?

What law was violated? Wisconsin Open Meetings Law Wis. Stat. § 19.81-19.98

Wisconsin Clerk of the State Senate (non-partisan person) said the vote was fine and no laws were broken.