1) I am legitimately interested/confused by this. I checked, and the top number is indeed Wisconsin's active registered voter number as of Nov. 1. The bottom is approx. what has been counted. That is a (not feasible) 89% turnout.
2) The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is claiming a 71% state turnout. I'm not sure where it gets this, but that would make more sense, given even populous Milwaukee didn't exceed 83% turnout, and Dane lower. (Do math on what rest of state wud need to bump up state avg to 89)
3) True, Wisconsin has same day voter registration. But to be at 71%, WI would have yesterday needed 900k same-day registrations. ( If I'm doing my math wrong--please tell me. 3,288,771 divided by 4,588,771 equals 71% . 4,588,771 minus 3,684,726 =900k)
4) Is that possible/conceivable? That would be akin to increasing WI's registered voting population by up to 30%--in one day. It would also suggest that if those same-day registrations hadn't happened, WI would have had a ridiculously LOW turnout.
5) I suppose it is possible WI's turnout was higher than 71% (again, not sure where MJS gets that). But that would be wild, given the state's own history and what we saw elsewhere yesterday. An even an 80% turnout would still require HUGE same-day registration.
6)Surely a record/tally of those same-day registrations must exist. It would therefore seem a straightforward proposition to set the numbers/record straight?
Again, explain if I'm missing something. @WI_Elections
7) So, more. I compared some vote totals to voter registration--by county. Nearly every county i've looked at so far--left and right--registered turnout of 89% or higher. (several at 93%) I suppose its possible--but still seems extraordinary.
8) I think high voter turnout is great, and if WI truly did this, wow. I only question it because it is so strikingly at odds with any other state.
9)One thing that makes more sense is if MSP number of 71% if referring to voting-eligible population (rather than registered voters). But still, wow--89% turnout of registered voters....

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kimberley Strassel

Kimberley Strassel Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KimStrassel

7 Nov
1) It is something to watch Democrats express shock that Republican voters won't just trust the ballot counting. Especially because it was Democrats who set the stage for this lack of trust in the system. Remember . . .
2) It was Hillary/DNC that coopted FBI to try to run out a duly elected president last time. Ds insisted Rs should trust the system (the FBI would NEVER do anything bad!!!) until all the appalling details came out. It was one of the dirtiest political tricks in history.
3) It was Ds who for months prior to Election Day worked overtime to get courts/officials to override legislatures and change/water down election law. They said this was in the name of COVID, even as it was transparently to their political benefit.
Read 4 tweets
5 Nov
1) Lot of folks saying (incorrectly) GOP wants to both "count" and "stop" ballots at same time. Let's be more precise. There are three categories. a) Rs calling to count votes that came in by election day or before, per state law. This is obvious.
2) b) R's calling to halt votes until GOP observers given access to vote counting. No one is suggesting these votes not be counted, only that Rs be allowed to witness the counting. Why not? Transparency is good. Will raise confidence in outcome.
3) c) Rs questioning states that want to count votes that contravene state-law on deadlines, etc. Left claiming this is disenfranchisement, but why? Laws are laws. We are all expected to follow them. And why shud some states get extra ( judicially granted) privileges, not others?
Read 4 tweets
27 Oct
1) I'd note a curious double-standard, namely that @Twitter hasn't slapped a warning label on the partisans/media outlets that falsely claimed WSJ news side had "debunked" the WSJ edit side on the Hunter Biden/China story.
2)The word the partisans were searching for was "confirmed." Our editpage column went up first, then the news side story. Both pieces explain that: the China negotiations were real; Hunter was involved; a document suggests a stake was envisioned for Joe; the deal fell through.
3) The only substantive difference: the news side correctly said Joe's name wasn't on official records. Our column correctly said emails/docs existed suggesting a deliberate effort to ensure his name wasn't on official records. We invited Joe to clear up the confusion.
Read 6 tweets
23 Oct
1) On this question of Joe Biden being somehow exonerated on the China deal, how so? WSJ news story correctly notes that his name isn't on documents. But those docs also suggest special care had been taken to make sure his name WASN'T visible.
2) The doc w/proposed equity stakes said Hunter was going to hold 10% for the "big guy." Tony Bobulinski, Hunter's partner, says the big guy is Joe--and Bobulinski presumably told that to the FBI today. Got to wonder why he'd risk a false statement charge if that wasn't true.
3)Note that Hunter's two other partners (Gilliar and Walker)did not respond to WSJ news question about who was "the big guy." A 2017 text from Gilliar warns Bobulinski: "don't mention Joe being involved."
Read 5 tweets
8 Oct
1) @realDonaldTrump should do a virtual debate, but only under this condition: No moderator. The only rule: Trump's camera will be on for two minutes, then Biden's camera will be on for two minutes. Back and forth. 90 minutes.
2) That might prove one of the fairer and more illuminating debates in the history of the silly CPD. No moderator cutting people off or leading with loaded questions. No interruptions. And the format is one that works perfectly in a virtual setting.
3) If CPD is going to throw out the rules at this late stage, let's throw out the moderated format too. Let the American people hear both candidates speak to them and to each other for 90 minutes, equal time, equal footing.
Read 4 tweets
30 Sep
1) There are two ways to think of debates.
a) Did you excite/enthuse base? On this, Trump wins. He was consistent, and made the points that he is running on in this election--law/order; economy; D corruption in terms of FBI investigation/Hunter; handling of virus. #Debates2020
2) Biden didn't help himself with base. Performance was OK, but he was forced several times to distance himself from policies that are baseline progressive demands--Medicare for All, defund police, Green New Deal. Never forget the D party is seriously divided. #Debates2020
3)Then b) Did u persuade anyone not already decided? WSJ recent polls suggests there weren't many persuadable watching this debate. Most have made up minds. Still, on that front, legitimate question if Trump steamroller style won him points with, say, suburban women. #Debate2020
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!