November 2, 2016

New Marquette poll has Ron Johnson closing the gap on Russ Feingold.

It's Feingold 45%, Johnson 44%. In early October, it was Feingold 46%, Johnson 44%.
Other public polls of the race in October have shown Feingold leading by between two and 12 points.
But Trump isn't closing the gap on Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin. Marquette has Trump at 40% and Hillary at 46%. I note that the belief that Hillary will win can work as a reason to support Johnson, to balance the federal government and position the Congress as a brake on the President.

32 comments:

AprilApple said...

Why would anyone want that corrupt horror show?

As bad as Trump is, nothing is worse than the institutionalized corruption she will usher in.

Rick said...

How many points of the Hillary vote want a brake on her, maybe 2?

Unknown said...

This is still Wisconsin, right? Land of the "We don't like your politics so we will bust your door down and arrest you, John Doe?" I can easily see people not admitting to voting Trump where the left has been proven to attempt to destroy you.

Feingold, not so much. How could you vote against Feingold but for Hillary?

--Vance

mikee said...

I look forward to the post-election reporting of actual vote counts (and most likely, fraudulent vote counts, too) and analysis of who, exactly, among politicians, campaign staff, reporters, and potential voteres, really was lying their patooties off before the election.

A detailed report showing who lied this time might be useful next time around.

mikee said...

I look forward to the post-election reporting of actual vote counts (and most likely, fraudulent vote counts, too) and analysis of who, exactly, among politicians, campaign staff, reporters, and potential voteres, really was lying their patooties off before the election.

A detailed report showing who lied this time might be useful next time around.

Achilles said...

Any internals? I couldn't find any.

The poll is completely worthless without base results and weighting criteria.

mockturtle said...

I'd be surprised if the GOP didn't hold both houses. Question is: If Hildebeeste gets elected, will they show some cojones? Have they learned anything?

Warren Fahy said...

I have to grin when you do that thing that you did with that last sentence, Althouse.

Achilles said...

Blogger mockturtle said...
I'd be surprised if the GOP didn't hold both houses. Question is: If Hildebeeste gets elected, will they show some cojones? Have they learned anything?

Are you serious or joking? The GOPe is on the other side and will happily work with Hillary.

This is as much about the republicans as it is about the democrats.

eddie willers said...

I note that the belief that Hillary will win can work as a reason to support Johnson, to balance the federal government and position the Congress as a brake on the President.

I can't imagine voting for Johnson to check Hillary without voting for Trump to check Hillary.

Not telling the pollster that though...THAT I can believe.

MikeR said...

Margin of error. No meaningful change.

mockturtle said...

Achilles questioned: Are you serious or joking? The GOPe is on the other side and will happily work with Hillary.

This is as much about the republicans as it is about the democrats.


I did ask it as a rather rhetorical question. The GOP still thinks Mitt Romney would have been a better candidate than Trump. They seem to have forgotten that is was largely the working-class Democrats crossing over that elected Reagan.

Static Ping said...

1% changes do not mean anything in an election poll. It does indicate that the election is a toss-up. It was also a toss-up when the difference was 2%.

Johnson does have the advantage of being the incumbent which is usually worth a few points of support, assuming he hasn't completely alienated the voters. I suppose it is possible that the voters are strategically using split tickets as well.

As to Trump campaigning in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, either his team knows or thinks they know something that the public polls are not reflecting or he's going down the Romney path of plastering the pie-in-the-sky swing states with late minute ads (which didn't work). There is a difference between showing up in person and TV ads, though.

mockturtle said...

Trump will lose Wisconsin but will likely win Pennsylvania and almost certainly will win Ohio, Iowa and Florida.

Brando said...

"Trump will lose Wisconsin but will likely win Pennsylvania and almost certainly will win Ohio, Iowa and Florida."

If he wins PA, I figure he'd be winning all the swing states, and then some. PA is Hillary's "must win" the same way FL is Trump's.

320Busdriver said...

RoJo has really closed the gap on Foolsgold. If you go back 6 to 12 months the Marquette poll consistently had Johnson down more than 10 points. Feingold had his 18 years in the Senate to make his mark. He didn't. Now he wants a do over. If Wisconsinites are so dim as to return mr fake campaign finance reform to the Senate I will have lost all hope.

Feingold likes to brag about his vote for Obamacare.

Own it Russ

Big Mike said...

@mockturtle, I don't see why Republicans should be "the party of big business" when the CEOs of big businesses are throwing their money in the direction of the Democrats. The GOP should focus on small businesses and ordinary working people. There are a lot more small business owners trying to cope with onerous regulations than CEOs of Fortune 500 firms.

cubanbob said...

A vote for Johnson is a vote to convict Hillary. There is your balance.

mockturtle said...

Per Big Mike: There are a lot more small business owners trying to cope with onerous regulations than CEOs of Fortune 500 firms.

Exactly! One of the many reasons I voted Trump.

Achilles said...

Farrakhan calls Hillary hitler.

No, seriously Louis Farrakhan. This is going to be glorious.

Achilles said...

Blogger mockturtle said...
Trump will lose Wisconsin but will likely win Pennsylvania and almost certainly will win Ohio, Iowa and Florida.

The only thing that is clear is trump will get many more legal votes. States that fall to Hillary will be the states with better fraud infrastructure.

traditionalguy said...

It's Cheese Town, Jake.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Ok, I get it. I see the WI logic: elect HRC and then elect a dude who's floating the idea of impeaching HRC.

I guess that's what passes for logic in WI. Quite a special place y'all got there.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Or, instead of this being a WI-wide thing, maybe Althouse is just projecting.

I dunno.

Yancey Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

barring obstruction Hillary indictment is almost certain.

Everyone voting for Hillary Clinton is complete and total scum and has no soul.

Achilles said...

Greater than 99% certainty that Clinton server was hacked by at least 5 foreign intelligence services also.

If you vote for Hillary and she is not making you wealthy you are also stupid.

MadisonMan said...

Today I am leaning towards Feingold. Which is different from other days.

I am unenthused with Johnson's anti-Science viewpoints. Maybe the forecasts for the jet stream up to 65 N (in November!!) have something to do with that. Honestly, the more he talks, the less I like him, sort of like Hillary. He's very gaffe-prone.

I am unenthused by Feingold's vote for Obamacare and professional politicianing.

Which is more unenthusing?

If Trump were to win, I'd prefer Feingold in the Senate, but if Hillary is President-elect, Johnson I think would be a better check on whatever idiocy she might try to legislate (although frankly I think she'll go the Obama route and Executive Decision her way to ruling).

I will have a coin with me as I vote. The problem now is that you're not in a booth when voting, so everyone in the Church Basement will see me flipping the coin.

tim in vermont said...

Isn't this supposed to be the best election for Democrats out of the 6 year cycle? If they can't win this, they are headed for a permanent minority in the Senate. Hillary's negative coattails will be no help. But the billionaires can all have their boners for forcing their candidate on the American people with their filthy lucre, so there's that.

tim in vermont said...

If you are so pro science, how about you explain why this paper is wrong:

Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always non-unique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic.

It was written by Naomi Oreskes. Author of Merchants of Doubt.

How long have we been measuring how far north the Jet Stream goes? Since about 1979. My personal benchmark is when the stratosphere starts to cool, you know, like they predicted so long ago? If heat goes one place, it has to come from someplace else, so their prediction makes sense. If the oceans are warmer, then the heat must be coming from someplace else, unless you "pro science" types believe that CO2 can create heat by itself, not just trap it.

Well, to save you any further suspense, the stratosphere is not cooling in any way measurable by the best satellite technology, yet during this time, we are supposed to have experienced a huge warming. Far less by the harder to massage satellite data than by the easily manipulated hand collected land temperature data, BTW.

Do you really believe, after this election, that you can believe press reports about what the actual state of the science is? Or is being "pro science" defined by blind acceptance of whatever the press tells you scientists are saying?

MadisonMan said...

How long have we been measuring how far north the Jet Stream goes? Since about 1979.

Um, no. You are so obviously not a weather geek. (Here's the sounding from Fairbanks in 1973, for example).

A natural consequence of less ice in the Arctic will be warmer (than normal) temperatures near the Poles in early Autumn -- until a good ice cover forms. Thus, you get things like Barrow (or whatever name it goes by now) having a latest-ever occurrence of only a Trace of snow on the ground.

Meanwhile, Ron Johnson says something like "The climate hasn't warmed in quite a few years. That is proven scientifically"

Observations of tropospheric warming are something quite different from simulations, which you seem to be focusing on.

MadisonMan said...

I really like this paper, by the way, that shows the contraction of the Cold Pool over the Northern Hemisphere over the past 60+ years. Simple and elegant work, based mostly on observations. (I'm not sure the link works outside .edu domains -- sometimes Journal Articles are hard to share).