So I've looked over the results, and taken a first look at the blogosphere reaction, and so I think I'm ready to provide my own.

Wauwatosa Mayor:  As I said in my separate Wauwatosa Now post, I voted for Didier, but with reservations.  Given the fund raising 8-Ball that she was behind, I figured she was going to lose anyway.  Surprise, surprise.  Now don't make me look like an April Fool now that you've won Jill.

McGee Losing:  To be honest, I could give two figs if he won or lost, though I am a little surprised he lost.  But, I don't live in Milwaukee, and I don't live in his district.  He doesn't represent me.  If you think that this is a sign of major changes in that area of Milwaukee, then you are naive.

Walker Winning:  I figured it would be closer, but nice to see it wasn't.  I agree with some other commentators in that it surprises me that he got re-elected, but that people vote for the exact opposite type of candidate when it comes to the board itself.  I think there are two reasons for this.  First, how many of those positions go unopposed?  If you don't have someone running against a bad supervisor, how do you expect change?  And second, in contested races, I think people fall into the fallacy that even though the board is bad, somehow my supervisor isn't.

Frankenveto:  I'm both happy and sad that the referendum passed.  Happy for obvious reasons, and sad because I can't use the line "It's alive" today.

Gableman:  One of my favorite readers emailed me after Monday's post, and asked me some questions regarding my rationale for voting for Butler.  This person said that they understood why I couldn't vote for Gableman, but at the same time didn't understand why I couldn't leave that slot blank on the ballot.  It's a fair question.  This is how I answered in part:

What it would seem you're saying is that you approve of a philosophical stance to not vote for Gableman, but only so far as it doesn't hurt his chances at getting elected in the end using other people's votes.  I reject that idea.  If I thought he should be on the bench based on his behavior, then I'd vote for him.  Based on his actions, he should not be on the bench.  If you have a loser, then that means that someone else has to win, and that would be Butler in this case.  So I'm going to vote for him.

I understand that a lot of people like the idea of Gableman on the court from a philosophical standpoint... but look at what he did to get there.  To be honest, looking around the Conservative blogosphere, I don't understand the gloating.  I think it was a sour victory.