May 30, 2012

"Walker leads Barrett 52% to 45% in new Marquette Law School poll."

Likely voters. Margin of error +/-4. In early May, Walker led by 50% to 44% in this poll.
The same Marquette poll that showed GOP incumbent Walker leading in his recall fight also showed Democratic President Barack Obama leading in his re-election fight against Republican Mitt Romney, 51% to 43%. The two were tied in Marquette’s early May poll.   
That's a big advance for Obama. Not surprising Obama wants nothing to do with the Wisconsin recall election.

ADDED: More here:

Majorities supported increases in public employee contributions to health and retirement benefits, with 75 percent in favor and 22 percent opposed.... A smaller majority, 55 percent, said they favored limiting collective bargaining for most public employees, while 41 percent opposed such limits. A subsequent question found a closer division on collective bargaining, with 50 percent wanting to keep the current law on bargaining and 45 percent wishing for a return to the previous law prior to last year.
So on main issues that fired the protests last year, the people clearly support Walker.

84 comments:

Original Mike said...

It's early yet, President-wise.

Lincolntf said...

After all this time, the Great Fail is finally upon the Wisconsin Liberals. What a huge waste of money, energy and dignity this whole tantrum has been.

Brandon Finnigan, the ConArtCritic said...

Crosstabs are a killer.
Walker is crushing Barrett everywhere outside of Milwaukee City and Metro Madison. Only losing metro Mad by 13.

Walker is getting 37% of the STATE WORKER vote per the crosstab file.

Independents are going for Walker by 15pt margin 53-38 and Walker even snags 16% of Democrats. Barrett is at 81% of his own party.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

MOE of 4 in WI and they don't give a spread on D/R/I.

Other polls beg to differ as to POTUS. Mr Rove sees the Badger State as doable for the Romster.

Jay said...

Are you ABSOLUTELY going to vote? 2 weeks ago: Republicans 91%. Now: 92%

Are you ABSOLUTELY going to vote? 2 weeks ago: Democrats 83%. Now? 77%.

But, but, but, early voting!!!

Union busting is unpopular!

John Doe!!!!

leslyn said...

"...the people clearly support Walker." Oh, CLEARLY. Ha ha ha. You're begging the question of the meaning of the comparison of 50% v 45% with a margin of error of 4%.

Brandon Finnigan, the ConArtCritic said...

Wrong, ed. they do give a spread.
R/D/I

R 28% D 33% I 38%

W/ heavy leaners, R 43% D 48% True I 8%

The poll is D+5 and STILL shows Walker winning. Reasons are Indies break for Walker, D's aren't solid for Barrett (81% ceding 16% to Walker).

If you actually read through the tabs available on the site instead of defensive points, you might find something interesting.

Brandon Finnigan, the ConArtCritic said...

And the margin is +7 with MOE 4%
Everyone keeps shouting MOE MOE MOE

But we have had 6 public polls with Walker leading from 5 pts to 12 pts. The polls showing Walker with a larger margin all have a smaller margin of error -WAA Walker+12 is just under 3% MOE.
Compare to the "tighter" polls with bigger MOEs.

Including even the ridiculous D push polls and internals, the avg of 9 polls (6 public, 3 Dem- Barrett, DGA, Lake) STILL gives Walker a +5.2 margin and over 50% of the vote.

This is like what Rs were doing in October 2008 to try to convince themselves Obama wasn't ahead. MOE! MOE! but he lead again again and again. They even started pointing to "internals". Tell me how big a win did McCain get in 08?

leslyn said...

Lincolnwtf said...
"After all this time, the Great Fail is finally upon the Wisconsin Liberals. What a huge waste of money, energy and dignity this whole tantrum has been."

I'm continually astonished (though I shouldn't be, I should remember with whom I'm dealing) at the hostility of cons toward a section of the free voting public exercising their constitutional right.

MadisonMan said...

Conclusion from the two polls: Nothing has changed.

Jay said...

I'm stunned this guy isn't leading in the polls!


Here's a transcript from a press conference at Barrett's campaign headquarters in Milwaukee Wednesday morning:

TWS: On collective bargaining, mayor, the governor and his campaign have pointed to a number of... schools across the state that heave benefited from the reforms in Act 10. Which school districts have been hurt in particular, in your view, by Walker's policies and his reforms? Are there any that stand out in your mind?

BARRETT: Well, I support the restoration of collective bargaining rights. And that's what this is all about--whether you support workers' rights. And I support workers rights.

TWS: But are there any school districts in particular, though, that have been hurt by Act 10?

BARRETT: I have talked to prison guards, I can tell you that, who are concerned about their own public safety because of the changes in the law, and I'm very concerned about that as well

TWS: But no school districts—

BARRETT: We can do an analysis and get back to you on that.


I axiously await this "analysis"!

Jay said...

leslyn said...
Oh, CLEARLY. Ha ha ha. You're begging the question of the meaning of the comparison of 50% v 45%


Except the poll isn't 50-45.

You should learn to read.

JohnBoy said...

Question - are the Rs going to keep the Senate?

Jay said...

leslyn said...
I'm continually astonished (though I shouldn't be, I should remember with whom I'm dealing) at the hostility of cons toward a section of the free voting public exercising their constitutional right.



Yes, because pointing out something is stupid = "hostility"!!

And, you and your silly ilk are like so big on excercising constitutional rights when it comes to guns! And free-speech too!

Idiot.

Rocketeer said...

I'm continually astonished (though I shouldn't be, I should remember with whom I'm dealing) at the hostility of cons toward a section of the free voting public exercising their constitutional right.

Well, that's just precious.

Original Mike said...

"I'm continually astonished (though I shouldn't be, I should remember with whom I'm dealing) at the hostility of cons toward a section of the free voting public exercising their constitutional right."

Maybe the fact that this do-over election is costing us $18M bears on the question.

leslyn said...

Jay said,

"You should learn to read."

Oh, right. Let me read for you:

a. "Majorities supported increases in public employee contributions to health and retirement benefits, with 75 percent in favor and 22 percent opposed." Not a surprise, since the contribution increases were already bargained by the unions BEFORE the so-called "Budget Bill."

b. "A smaller majority, 55 percent, said they favored limiting collective bargaining for most public employees, while 41 percent opposed such limits."

c. Directly following b.: "A subsequent question found a closer division on collective bargaining, with 50 percent wanting to keep the current law on bargaining and 45 percent wishing for a return to the previous law prior to last year."

Can you reconcile b and c for me, except to say that 45% CLEARLY favor a return to the status quo, and 41% CLEARLY favor no limits on collective bargaining at all (none of which Barret is promising), plus or minus 4%, and CLEARLY Scott Walker is no Ronald Reagan.

leslyn said...

Jay said,

"And, you and your silly ilk are like so big on excercising constitutional rights when it comes to guns! And free-speech too!

Idiot."

A confusing conjunction of the constitutional rights of guns with free speech. Like, weird, dude. Regardless (you would probably say "irregardless"), I like all my constitutional rights.

If that makes me an idiot, bury me with the Founders.

ndspinelli said...

leslyn, You have a beautiful and unique name. What's the derivation?

leslyn said...

Original Mike said,

"Maybe the fact that this do-over election is costing us $18M bears on the question."

Really? That's what you really believe? A constitutional right is outweighed by the cost of an election? An election that people just didn't wake up a decide one day that they decided to do just for the hell of it? Well then let's just get the party contributors to pay for the cost. Then Scotty could come home for a while. Oh, wait...bad idea. On the Scotty part.

You're saying you'd hold the same position if the shoe was on the other foot?

Rocketeer said...

A confusing conjunction of the constitutional rights of guns with free speech. Like, weird, dude. Regardless (you would probably say "irregardless"), I like all my constitutional rights.

See Jay? Leslyn likes all her constitutional rights.

Just not yours.

Rocketeer said...

You're saying you'd hold the same position if the shoe was on the other foot?

No, you dope. He's saying the shoe would never be on the other foot.

We respect democratic elections, and don't constantly demand do-overs, regardless of who foots the bill.

leslyn said...

ndspinelli:

Thank you. But I don't trust you. Too many comments by chainsaw.

edutcher said...

Brandon Finnigan, the ConArtCritic said...

Wrong, ed. they do give a spread.
R/D/I

R 28% D 33% I 38%


Didn't see it, clicked on the link and it lead me back to the same page. Take your word for it.

But the one stats class I ever had told me be skeptical of anything with an MOE of >3

leslyn said...

Sigh. Rocketeer, I believe it would positively contribute if you didn't put words in other peoples' mouths. Or mine.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RonF said...

I propose an amendment to the recall process in Wisconsin. If a recall is attempted against an incumbent and fails, the incumbent's term is extended until the general election subsequent to the one that they would normally have had to stand for re-election.

James said...

Not a surprise, since the contribution increases were already bargained by the unions BEFORE the so-called "Budget Bill."

That what the unions claim but any such decisions would have to be made by the individual locals and bargaining units. Can you name any locals that voluntarily agreed to increased contributions?

Original Mike said...

"You're saying you'd hold the same position if the shoe was on the other foot?"

I would oppose (strongly oppose)the recall of a Democrat governor who committed the sin of governing.

Curious George said...

"leslyn said...
Lincolnwtf said...
"After all this time, the Great Fail is finally upon the Wisconsin Liberals. What a huge waste of money, energy and dignity this whole tantrum has been."

I'm continually astonished (though I shouldn't be, I should remember with whom I'm dealing) at the hostility of cons toward a section of the free voting public exercising their constitutional right."

How are lincoln's comments hostile?

Rocketeer said...

Sigh. Rocketeer, I believe it would positively contribute if you didn't put words in other peoples' mouths. Or mine.

And I believe it would positively contribute if you didn't dodge or otherwise try to deny the implications of your words, or the words of others.

Own what you mean, leslyn, and don't try to wriggle out and run away when you get called on it.

Old Dad said...

Garage hardest hit!

leslyn said...

@James: They were in the contract extensions, which were later unilaterally canceled by the Dept of Administration just at/before the "Budget Bill."

leslyn said...

Rocketeer said, "And I believe it would positively contribute if you didn't dodge or otherwise try to deny the implications of your words, or the words of others.

"Own what you mean, leslyn, and don't try to wriggle out and run away when you get called on it."

Keep on keepin' on then, Rocket. Imply away.

damikesc said...

I'm continually astonished (though I shouldn't be, I should remember with whom I'm dealing) at the hostility of cons toward a section of the free voting public exercising their constitutional right.

Never would've guessed that conservatives might frown on wasting $18M on a temper tantrum.

a. "Majorities supported increases in public employee contributions to health and retirement benefits, with 75 percent in favor and 22 percent opposed." Not a surprise, since the contribution increases were already bargained by the unions BEFORE the so-called "Budget Bill."

BWA HA HA HA!

Explains that rush to sign contracts with Progressive districts locking in their old benefits, huh?

Can you reconcile b and c for me, except to say that 45% CLEARLY favor a return to the status quo, and 41% CLEARLY favor no limits on collective bargaining at all (none of which Barret is promising), plus or minus 4%, and CLEARLY Scott Walker is no Ronald Reagan.

You mean with a year of non-stop demagoguing, a plurality STILL support the law?

Man, your side sucks.

A constitutional right is outweighed by the cost of an election?

Given that nobody thinks a difference in policy desires is a justifiable reason for a recall anyway ... yes, the cost matters a lot.

How much do Progressives bitch about military spending --- and unlike their special little programs, that actually is specifically in the Constitution?

You're saying you'd hold the same position if the shoe was on the other foot?

Basically, yes. The entire exercise is stupid. A recall should be done for criminal actions or rather serious ethical infractions.

Do you see conservatives demanding a recall of Jerry Brown, who is (it needs to be noted) a 'tard?

Thank you. But I don't trust you. Too many comments by chainsaw.

Clearly, asking where your name is from is the first step in an aggressive stalking campaign.

They were in the contract extensions

Which unions and which districts?

Clearly you are claiming to have evidence. Provide it.

Mr. D said...

You're saying you'd hold the same position if the shoe was on the other foot?

Remind me how many times Jim Doyle was recalled? Or Tony Earl, or Pat Lucey, for that matter?

James said...

@James: They were in the contract extensions, which were later unilaterally canceled by the Dept of Administration just at/before the "Budget Bill."

Who is "they?"

Roger J. said...

I think Leslyn is a very attractive name FWIW. Unless, of course, Leslyn is a dude.

Jackson said...

Charles Franklin is just a good old country pollster. Mmmhmm. 16% of Dems support Walker? Walker +15 w/ indies? Every other poll has Barrett +5-7. Hehe.

Neat things can happen when you predict a 2010 turnout model and poll old Republicans from Milwaukee suburbs.

Big Mike said...

I hope Wisconsin Republicans don't get cocky. If I were on whatever committee Walker has set up, I'd be working get-out-the-vote as hard as I could, and I'd be lining up volunteers to get shut-ins to the polls.

Methadras said...

Lincolntf said...

After all this time, the Great Fail is finally upon the Wisconsin Liberals. What a huge waste of money, energy and dignity this whole tantrum has been.


That's what leftards do best. They spend money that isn't theirs on things that never work and they call it progressive. In this case, they thought they could bully someone out of his duly elected job. Fail again.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

If Walker wins the recall what happens next? Do the libs "move on" and concentrate on the next regularly scheduled election or do they still fight? What's next if they fight? Boycott of the state?

Rocketeer said...

Keep on keepin' on then, Rocket. Imply away.

I believe you mean "infer." I don't imply. You do (and then deny it).

Jay said...

leslyn said...


A confusing conjunction of the constitutional rights of guns with free speech. Like, weird, dude. Regardless (you would probably say "irregardless"), I like all my constitutional rights.


Except there was no "conjunction" and I wasn't tying guns to free speech, idiot.

And yes, a proud member of the party of Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, endless EPA regulations, handgun bans, smoking bans, speech codes, endless whining about Citizens United, is like so big on the constitution and stuff!

You're so believable, clown. Really, you are!

Jay said...

Not a surprise, since the contribution increases were already bargained by the unions BEFORE the so-called "Budget Bill."

This is a lie.

You can provide no evidence to support this idiotic contention.

purplepenquin said...

Remind me how many times Jim Doyle was recalled?

It was attempted at least twice, if not more.

Also, Walker helped lead recall attempts against at least two other elected officials...both of which failed.


That aside, it is kinda funny how so many of the people who are complaining about the cost of this recall election don't say a word about...or even whole-heartedly support...the primaries that had to be held because the GOP wanted more time to raise funds.

Jay said...

Can you reconcile b and c for me, except to say that 45% CLEARLY favor a return to the status quo,

Except the "status quo" directly conflicts with the budget repair bill, which is clearly supported.

In other words idiot, you're ignoring facts to pretend what you wish were true actually is.

Kind of like you being a big believer in that constitution!

Jay said...

purplepenquin said...


Also, Walker helped lead recall attempts against at least two other elected officials...both of which failed.


This is an utter lie.

Everything you post is a lie or in service to a lie, you ignorant partisan hack.

purplepenquin said...

This is an utter lie

Everything you post is a lie or in service to a lie, you ignorant partisan hack.


Well, gee...since you put it that way I reckon it proves that there never have been any other recall attempts in the history of Wisconsin, and if there had been then Scott Walker would nothing-at-all to do with 'em.

*rolls eyes*

Seriously...if you think that someone is saying something that ain't true, then correct it rather than just call names. Simply claiming that "everything" I say is untrue (with nothing at all to back up that outrageous claim) only makes you look immature and emotional.

Then again, that might be your whole schtick...perhaps people are right when they say you're just a moby.

Jay said...

By the way I love this.

This statement:

leslyn said...
Oh, CLEARLY. Ha ha ha. You're begging the question of the meaning of the comparison of 50% v 45%


Is allegedly supported by:

A subsequent question found a closer division on collective bargaining, with 50 percent wanting to keep the current law on bargaining and 45 percent wishing for a return to the previous law prior to last year."

Hysterical!

I mean, when you totally ignore the other questions, and the fact that Walker is ahead of Barrett and Barrett used Walker's reforms to save over $20 million, you're CLEARLY correct little jeremy!!!

Idiot.

Jay said...

purplepenquin said...


*rolls eyes*

Seriously...if you think that someone is saying something that ain't true, then correct it rather than just call names.


Alternatively,

How about you provide some evidence to support you bullshit claim, clown?

James said...

It was attempted at least twice, if not more.

Also, Walker helped lead recall attempts against at least two other elected officials...both of which failed.


Proof?

Jay said...


Then again, that might be your whole schtick...perhaps people are right when they say you're just a moby.


Except nobody says I'm a "Moby" and it is quite clear that you're not that bright and easily misled.

But I look forward to you providing factual evidence of your silly claims.

I really do.

Original Mike said...

"It was attempted at least twice, if not more."

And how close did they come?

Original Mike said...

"That aside, it is kinda funny how so many of the people who are complaining about the cost of this recall election don't say a word about...or even whole-heartedly support...the primaries that had to be held because the GOP wanted more time to raise funds."

Once there is a recall, you fight to win.

purplepenquin said...

But I look forward to you providing factual evidence of your silly claims

Fir enough. One of my so-called "silly claims" is that you are wrong to state that everything I say is a lie or a service to a lie.

Please tell me exactly what is untruthful about my comments in this post

Remember, simply saying "It is a lie!!1!" doesn't count...please show your work.

purplepenquin said...

Proof?

I'm not sure what part of my statement you don't beleive. Others have said it is an "utter lie", which would imply nothing at all about it is true.

So I have to ask...are you needing proof that recall attempts have taken place in Wisconsin before? Or are you disputing that Scott Walker had a role in any of those? Or are you aware of his participation in those recall attempts, but you question the use of the word "lead"?

'cause I'm willing to concede that Scott wasn't probably actually a "leader" in that movement, but rather just a very visible face who supported it....the actual leadership was mostly an out-of-state organization.

James said...

I'm asking for proof of your claim that "Walker helped lead recall attempts against at least two other elected officials...both of which failed."

Should be easy enough to prove.

Jay said...

purplepenquin said...


Also, Walker helped lead recall attempts against at least two other elected officials...both of which failed.


This is the 5th request for you to provide proof of this.

Gee, I wonder why you're taking so long.

Oh, you're busy obfuscated. Note:

re you needing proof that recall attempts have taken place in Wisconsin before?

Um, no. So you can stop obfuscating any time now.

'cause I'm willing to concede that Scott wasn't probably actually a "leader" in that movement, but rather just a very visible face who supported it.

Actually, you're willing to simply type silly lies on the Internet.

Of course you could source all you claims and prove me wrong.

AllieOop said...

Walker claims he has no memory of signing Feinold-Kohl Recall petitions

Jackson said...

It takes about two minutes to google and find out if Scott Walker was supportive of recalls in the past. He was certainly supportive of recalls to get on the ballot himself after all. Walker did support recalls of Feingold/Kohl. He even collected leftover monies from the recall group First Breath Alliance after they closed shop.

Ann Althouse said...

It's obviously beyond the power if the state to recall a US Senator.

Michael Haz said...

Bad week for Tom Barrett.

The only thing that'll be left to debate Friday night is whether Scott Walker's balls are made of titanium or unobtanium.

Roadkill said...

I'm extremely curious to see how many of those 900,000 recall signatures translate into anti-Walker votes next Tuesday.

Jay said...

HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA

JANESVILLE (AP) -

Gov. Scott Walker's administration says the job-growth numbers he made public earlier than normal have been verified by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Another meme dies...

Jackson said...

"Gov. Scott Walker's administration says .." is no source.

Conserve Liberty said...

I'm continually astonished (though I shouldn't be, I should remember with whom I'm dealing) at the hostility of cons toward a section of the free voting public exercising their constitutional right.

Pray, tell, good Sir, to which Constitutional right you refer.

Nathan Alexander said...

If lincolntf's comment is considered hostility to the constitutional right of voting by Leslyn, then if Leslyn were consistent and honest, s/he would admit that his/her own comment is even more overtly hostile to the constitutional right of free speech.

But then, I'm no longer surprised that liberals don't support free speech for those they disagree with, and even less surprised (if possible) to see a liberal being dishonest in an exchange of ideas in order to try to seize a perceived moral high ground

purplepenquin said...

It takes about two minutes to google and find out if Scott Walker was supportive of recalls in the past.

Exactly. I truly don't understand why so many folks are claiming that is a lie.

In fact, Scott Walker made a TV commercial where he said that he personally "stood up and led the grassroots movement" that was trying to recall elected officials.

Tho, like I said before, if some folks wanna say that he was actually just a follower rather than a leader then I won't argue with 'em about that. After all, it ain't as if Walker is a credible source....

tim in vermont said...

"Like, weird, dude. Regardless (you would probably say "irregardless")" - leslyn

"Sigh. Rocketeer, I believe it would positively contribute if you didn't put words in other peoples' mouths" - leslyn

Unknown said...

I hope the Marquette pollsters included graveyards in their sample.

tiger said...

purplepenquin said...
Remind me how many times Jim Doyle was recalled?

It was attempted at least twice, if not more.

Also, Walker helped lead recall attempts against at least two other elected officials...both of which failed.


That aside, it is kinda funny how so many of the people who are complaining about the cost of this recall election don't say a word about...or even whole-heartedly support...the primaries that had to be held because the GOP wanted more time to raise funds.

1) You write this in seriousness?
Dems always bitch about raising money except when it's their candidate. Obama PLEDGED to work within federal matching funds guidelines UNTIL he realized he could raise almost a BILLION DOLLARS outside of them.

2)There were 'at least' TWO recall attempts against Doyle? Are you high? There were no serious attempts and you know it. And if anyone deserved to recalled it was that liar-in-thief Doyle.

But Reps don't consider their being in power as the natural order of things the way Dems/the Left do.

If there had been serious attempts against Doyle I would have gladly signed the petition and worked to get his influence-peddling ass out of office. He was and is a disgrace to this state and to the governor's office.

crosspatch said...

Other polls beg to differ as to POTUS. Mr Rove sees the Badger State as doable for the Romster.

It just seems strange to me that people will vote for Walker and then turn around and vote for Obama.

Really odd.

purplepenquin said...

There were no serious attempts and you know it.

Link says otherwise.

And if anyone deserved to recalled it was that liar-in-thief Doyle.

I've disliked him ever since he was the Attorney General. Haven't voted for him at anytime, for any office.

If presented with the opportunity I would probably have signed a recall petition against Gov. Doyle, but they never seemed to be anywhere near me.

Mr. Forward said...

"I'm continually astonished"

The clueless usually are.

Rusty said...

AllieOop said...
Walker claims he has no memory of signing Feinold-Kohl Recall petitions




Nowhere in that article is there proof that that Walker said he didn't remember. We just have the authors word. As a matter of fact the whole article is based on the the authors memory of events of 1998 and speculation. Hell. I don't even remember what I signed in 1998. It's an opinion piece.
An interesting publication though. It gives insight into how progressives think. I've got it bookmarked.

Jay said...

Nice:

Marquette Univ Wisconsin poll: Do you favor or oppose requiring gov't-issued photo ID to vote? Favor 61%, oppose 37%

Jay said...

ckson said...
"Gov. Scott Walker's administration says .." is no source.


Hilarious.

Yes, but asserting that you found "facts" on Google is!

Because every allegation that turns up on google is true!

Jay said...

purplepenquin said...
Link says otherwise.


It does?

Where does it say it was a "serious attempt" exactly?

How many signatures were collected?
Were they ever turned it?

Or you just can't bother yourself with critical thinking, I'm assuming?

AllieOop said...

Walker claims no memory of signing Kohl-Feingold recall petition


Rusty said,
"Nowhere in that article is there proof that that Walker said he didn't remember."

This stuff isn't hard to look up. Lazy.

leslyn said...

Conserve Liberty said...
I'm continually astonished (though I shouldn't be, I should remember with whom I'm dealing) at the hostility of cons toward a section of the free voting public exercising their constitutional right.

Pray, tell, good Sir, to which Constitutional right you refer.

5/30/12 7:34 PM

Section VIII of the Wisconsin Constitution. That's why I referred to "constitutional right" without a capital C. I believe that's normally how state constitutions are referenced.

leslyn said...

Sorry, that's Article VIII. Section 12.

purplepenquin said...

Where does it say it was a "serious attempt" exactly?

Right where it said they started raising money.

Just because they utterly failed at their goal doesn't mean they weren't serious in their attempt.