In the race for the White House, Democrat Hillary Clinton led Republican Donald Trump by 42% to 37% among registered voters. Clinton also led Trump, 45% to 42% among voters who said they are certain to go to the polls in the fall.
In the Senate rematch, Democrat Russ Feingold led Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson by 46% to 42% among registered voters. Feingold's lead narrowed to 48% to 45% among likely voters.
"An apparently close race and inside the margin of error," poll director Charles Franklin said of the Senate race.
Three weeks ago, Clinton held a 10-point lead over Trump among registered voters and a 15-point lead among likely voters. Essentially, the presidential race is close to where it was before the two parties held their national conventions, Franklin said.
August 31, 2016
"The presidential race and U.S. Senate contest have tightened in Wisconsin..."
"... according to Wednesday's Marquette University Law School Poll."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
Romney lost Wisconsin by 7 points.
How does this go from a 15% lead down to 3%? Was one an outlier to the high side while another to the low side? MU polls are usually very good, but a 12% move in a month seems odd.
Feingold needs a job. All he can do is run for office, prepare to run for office or hold office.
The race is tightening, but either the earlier or the current poll for Wisconsin is an outlier. A 12-point gap closed while nationally the narrowing has been more like two points? We can hyperventilate all season with poll swinging.
Still, the state to watch is Florida. It trends slightly GOP compared to the national numbers, and if Trump cannot win it he's out of the running.
@The BubFather I agree with you. I think that change illustrates how useless most of the polls being taken today are. I have no idea what the problems are, but I certainly would not like to arrange my life based on today's pollsters' results. I can see WI having trouble with Trump ( a diminishing amount) but polling showing a has-been like Feingold ahead makes me seriously wonder who the hell they are polling. WI has been demonstrating good sense over the last few elections I wonder why it should be expected to abandon that now.
Is it possible that the race is within 3?
If you say yes, then riddle me this. Why is the bias in the polling always in the same direction? If a +3 for Hillary can come out in some polls as a +12 for Hillary, then why don't polls ever accidentally get it at +9 accidentally for Trump? Why aren't the errors ever in the other direction?
Trump losing Wisconsin will surprise no one, and is probably (sadly) inevitable.
Ron Johnson losing Wisconsin would be surprising, and disastrous.
I if the polls are to be believed, there are a ton of likely voters out there who have changed their minds multiple times. It certainly seems weird, but then again people are weird. I don't think anything is impossible, even polls.
Feingold needs a job. All he can do is run for office, prepare to run for office or hold office.
@David, I assert that for Feingold "hold office" is a subset of "prepare to run for office."
Blogger David said...
Feingold needs a job.
--
Right..because his net worth and Fed pension might find him starving.
He can always pull down some easy $$ from any number of Unis.
khesanh0802 said...
WI has been demonstrating good sense over the last few elections I wonder why it should be expected to abandon that now.
8/31/16, 3:20 PM
Remind me again, who is the junior senator from Wisconsin?
Bill; that would be Tammy Baldwin. Not that there's anything wrong with Tammy Baldwin.
...aaaaand, I just realized what a rhetorical setup Bill's question was. My bad. Sorry Bill. Well played.
Ron Johnson losing Wisconsin would be surprising, and disastrous.
Do you honestly think so (the surprising part, that is)? Johnson has been making all sorts of unforced errors.
For calibration sake..
Ron Johnson is the Senator being responded to when Hil' delivered her "What diffenernce does it make?" Benghazi line.
Feingold said of Hil' a couple days go she's "reliable and trustworthy" .
In the last few weeks or maybe a month, Jay Weber (Mornings AM 1130) and Mark Belling (Afternoons AM 1130) have both stated they will vote for Trump, and that they were never #nevertrump, even though they have criticized him. Especially during the week of national attention during the Wisconsin GOP primary; Ted Cruz's last good moment.
Those guys have big audiences in the Republican WOW counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington). I would imagine the thought of a Hillary Presidency is settling in and startling the voters that have elected Scott Walker three times.
Let's not forget Walker endorsed Trump at the convention, and sat behind him at the Milwaukee town hall a few weeks ago. Where are the Bernie voters breaking? Not the ones in Madison, but elsewhere in the State.
Charlie Sykes (AM 620)seems to be the #nevertrump local holdout still clinging to his MSNBC / Meghan Kelly guest fame,
"If you say yes, then riddle me this. Why is the bias in the polling always in the same direction? If a +3 for Hillary can come out in some polls as a +12 for Hillary, then why don't polls ever accidentally get it at +9 accidentally for Trump? Why aren't the errors ever in the other direction?"
Because Hillary is winning. That's not a hard one. She is winning by avoiding the press, avoiding unscripted events, raising money from a bubble and depending on Trump to destroy himself.
So far that has worked pretty well for her. So well that she might avoid debates too.
But if Trump stops destroying himself (he may have taken a big step toward that today) the game will change.
Gusty,
I've been amazed at the number of Gary Johnston ads running on 1130 today. Pretty much every break.
Because Hillary is winning. That's not a hard one. She is winning by avoiding the press, avoiding unscripted events, raising money from a bubble and depending on Trump to destroy himself.
I don't dispute this.
The premise of my question is, if you accept that she is only 3 ahead, then why the swings always in her direction? Noise should be both ways.
Former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold — long a champion of campaign finance reform — founded a political action committee that has given a mere 5% of its income to federal candidates and political parties.
Instead, nearly half of the $7.1 million that Progressives United PAC has spent since 2011 has gone to raising more money for itself, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets.org. The data also show the group has paid another sizable chunk of money on salaries or consulting fees for Feingold, his top aide and eight former staffers.
A top GOP official said it was incredible that Feingold's fund spent so little helping candidates and so much aiding his personal associates. Feingold is taking on Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican, in 2016 to try to win back his old U.S. Senate seat.
"Time and again, Feingold arrogantly says one thing and does another," said Joe Fadness, executive director of the state Republican Party, suggesting the Wisconsin Democrat's reform rhetoric doesn't match his political actions.
Feingold officials countered by saying that his PAC was responsible for raising much more money for the candidates it endorsed through a fundraising portal. While that bolsters the bottom line, it means Feingold's PAC still spent more than $3.50 for every $1 that a candidate received in direct or indirect funding over the past four years.
In 2011, shortly after losing his Senate seat, Feingold announced that he was setting up his PAC and a political nonprofit called Progressives United Inc. The two groups have raised and spent $10 million over the past four years.
The PAC was created with the aim of "directly and indirectly supporting candidates who stand up for our progressive ideals."
But campaign records show that Feingold's PAC did little to help candidates directly, donating a mere $352,008 to federal candidates and political parties since 2011.
Most of the rest of its budget went to overhead.
http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/russ-feingolds-pac-funded-salaries-for-former-staffers-himself-b99518602z1-307322531.html
So would Russ bring his current wife at Oxford to live in Wisconsin?
Chuck said...
Bill; that would be Tammy Baldwin. Not that there's anything wrong with Tammy Baldwin.
8/31/16, 4:12 PM
Life. Long. Republican.
(whoosh)
That's the sound of something going right over your head.
"The premise of my question is, if you accept that she is only 3 ahead, then why the swings always in her direction? Noise should be both ways."
Noise does go both ways about the mean. The easy explanation here is that she is likely more than 3 and less than 12 points ahead.
"Johnson has been making all sorts of unforced errors."
He just keeps digging, too.
It's remarkable how little he understands even after 6 years.
eric " The premise of my question is, if you accept that she is only 3 ahead, then why the swings always in her direction? Noise should be both ways."
Perhaps Hillary is up by 8 percent and the swings are +12 to +3.
Or not.
Gonna be a tough senate choice for Madison Man who historically has said he is against the incumbents.
The presidential race and U.S. Senate contest have tightened in Wisconsin?
You wanna know what else has tightened?
My balls!
" Johnson has been making all sorts of unforced errors."
What are the top two or three Johnson errors?
Bill: it took me an extra moment to get your joke. But I don't think you got mine at all. NTTAWWT.
Madison Man: if the Senate ends up swinging four votes and one of those is Johnson-to-Feingold... yeah that is the biggest deal of the year.
Can someone explain the Tammy Bladwin joke to the vast majority of Althouse readers who do not live in WI?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outing_(Seinfeld)
The joke is that Baldwin's gay, not that there's anything wrong with that.
"The joke is that Baldwin's gay, not that there's anything wrong with that."
The joke is that Tammy Baldwin is a United States senator.
Post a Comment