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

Sep 2, 2021
1) I see @Liz_Cheney retweeted this. Someone ought to ask her how a conservative can justify a committee plan to rifle through the emails/voicemails/texts/calls of private citizens, including her colleagues--without giving them opportunity to litigate.
2) Last I knew, principled conservatives had issues with government that thinks it has a limitless right to secretly spy on its citizens--depriving them of the right to contest in court. Remember the whole FISA/Carter Page thing?
3) At least when Schiff pulled his secret subpoena stunt, he mainly obtained metadata--what phone number called what phone number, and when. The Jan. 6 snoops have asked companies to preserve a stunning amount of text/email/voicemail info, over a 10-month period.
Read 7 tweets
Sep 1, 2021
1) This article is so off base as to be laughable. cnn.com/2021/08/31/pol…
2) The Jan. 6 Committee hardly has an obvious right to this information. We have laws protecting American privacy. I know it is asking a lot that reporters should do their homework, but they can start with this statute, 47 USC 222.
3) That law does allow telcos to release information when required by "law," but it is far from clear the Committee meets this test. Just last year the DC circuit threw into doubt whether House even has the power to enforce subpoenas.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 26, 2021
1) Former GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner tells me the @nytimes willfully manipulated his words in its recent hit-job piece on @SenRonJohnson
wsj.com/articles/yello… via @WSJopinion
2) The piece asserted that Mr. Johnson’s “drumbeat of distortions, false theories and lies reminds some Wisconsin Republicans” of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It then quoted Sensenbrenner saying McCarthy's name.
3) But Sensenbrenner never said Johnson was like McCarthy. He’d made a general point about Wisconsin’s love of mavericks (he also talked about Dem Sen. Bill Proxmire--tho Times filed to mention that), and noted its voters appreciate that Johnson “thinks outside the box.”
Read 5 tweets
Jan 20, 2021
1) Speaking of morally bankrupt, this qualifies. And it is quite the stunning rewrite of (literally written) history. usatoday.com/story/opinion/… via @usatoday
2) WSJ editpage has consistently advocated "parliamentary procedure, the rule of law, and national unity." We in fact did it during the hardest time--when too many other institutions abandoned these principles cuz they despised the U.S. electorate's choice for president (Trump)
3) We consistently wrote the truth on the Russia collusion hoax and called out the dangerous abuses of FBI/DOJ; stood for due process during Kavanaugh; scored last year's politicized impeachment process; called for judicial norms.
Read 6 tweets
Jan 11, 2021
Imagine how helpful it would be if @JoeBiden were to show some grace, call on Democrats to stand down, practice the healing he keeps preaching. Why won't he?
2) I am struck by the responses to this from those on the left, insisting that Trump must be held "accountable"--no peace, no healing. Impeachment ho! That seems to forget the past three years, how we got here.
3) There are still tens of millions of conservatives still waiting for someone to be held "accountable" for three years of a Russia-collusion hoax--the Democrats' own effort to overturn the 2016 election. And yes, that is still on many, many Americans' minds.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 7, 2020
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

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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(