Two political scientists with top-notch reputations -- Charles Franklin of Pollster.com and Political Arithmetik fame, and Ken Goldstein, director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project -- have teamed together to conduct a series of polls for the Wispolitics.com empire, and their first effort has a surprising result: Barack Obama is up by double digits in the state. The two find that Democrats have a substantial voter identification edge in the state -- 12 points. In 2004, party attachment measures were equal. The two surveyed 506 probable Wisconsin voters; the margin of error is +/- 4.5%.
« Johnson's Departure And Obama's Campaign | Main | NJ Poll: Obama + 6 » WI Poll: Obama + 1312 Jun 2008 06:43 am Comments (18)
Actually, what's surprising is that MA seems surprised. There's a pretty clear post-Hillary swing of her supporters to Obama (like the boost he got from Edwards supporter after Edwards)and it's showing up in places like Washington (what is he now, up 17 in the latest Rasmussen poll?)and Wisconsin, places where he has long been pretty popular and where the war is decidedly not. These polls mayt be overstating things or not--but this is where the +5 or so post-Hill in the national polls seems to be showing up, yes? Oh, also, Obama is popular in the midwest, something east coast observers haven't quite cottoned on to--look at results in Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, and Wisconsin primaries, if you believe in that sort of thing. Somehow white working class voters in such places aren't behaving the way Patrick Buchanan is telling them to. The bottom line here; the Johnson flap that has been obsessing MA (and frankly the comments I've read here) is utterly irrelevant to the real dynamics of this election, which seem to me to have more to do with the desire that so many people in the Midwest (and I suspect the country at large) have to get the heck out of Iraq by any means necessary, a desire which McCain's 'gaffe"--which was no gaffe at all, merely an expression of his reality-challenged belief that Iraq can be made to resemble post-war Germany or Korea by some magical means--will only accentuate. The Beltway crowd, enablers of that particular disaster, are never going to see or acknowledge the strength of that sentiment; they'll focus instead on emphemera like the Johnson thing. And act surprised at polls like this one. 
Actually, what's surprising is that MA seems surprised. There's a pretty clear post-Hillary swing of her supporters to Obama (like the boost he got from Edwards supporter after Edwards)and it's showing up in places like Washington (what is he now, up 17 in the latest Rasmussen poll?)and Wisconsin, places where he has long been pretty popular and where the war is decidedly not. These polls mayt be overstating things or not--but this is where the +5 or so post-Hill in the national polls seems to be showing up, yes? Oh, also, Obama is popular in the midwest, something east coast observers haven't quite cottoned on to--look at results in Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, and Wisconsin primaries, if you believe in that sort of thing. Somehow white working class voters in such places aren't behaving the way Patrick Buchanan is telling them to. The bottom line here; the Johnson flap that has been obsessing MA (and frankly the comments I've read here) is utterly irrelevant to the real dynamics of this election, which seem to me to have more to do with the desire that so many people in the Midwest (and I suspect the country at large) have to get the heck out of Iraq by any means necessary, a desire which McCain's 'gaffe"--which was no gaffe at all, merely an expression of his reality-challenged belief that Iraq can be made to resemble post-war Germany or Korea by some magical means--will only accentuate. The Beltway crowd, enablers of that particular disaster, are never going to see or acknowledge the strength of that sentiment; they'll focus instead on emphemera like the Johnson thing. And act surprised at polls like this one.
"I'll let Ambinder do the heavy lifting" That's a pretty damning quote, given its location.
Could we have a poll on how long we think comments will remain up? I'm guessing until the end of the month, otherwise it looks a bit too knee-jerk.
That's great news for John McCain!
I'm not too surprised by this result. I have a lot of family in the suburbs of Milwaukee, who voted for Bush in 00 and 04, attend an evangelical church, some have anti-abortion stickers on the back of their car, and they hunt and fish on the weekends. For reasons they can't explain they hate McCain and just plain like Obama.
I'm not too surprised by this result. I have a lot of family in the suburbs of Milwaukee, who voted for Bush in 00 and 04, attend an evangelical church, some have anti-abortion stickers on the back of their car, and they hunt and fish on the weekends. For reasons they can't explain they hate McCain and just plain like Obama.
I'm not too surprised by this result. I have a lot of family in the suburbs of Milwaukee, who voted for Bush in 00 and 04, attend an evangelical church, some have anti-abortion stickers on the back of their car, and they hunt and fish on the weekends. For reasons they can't explain they hate McCain and just plain like Obama.
Like others, I'm just not surprised by these numbers. I never took seriously the argument that Wisconsin was a battleground state this year. Yeah, Obama's numbers during the primary were weaker, but that was because of the primary fight. I suspect that you see a similar gap in Obama's favor in Minnesota and that his margin over McCain in Michigan will continue to grow. There's also a new poll that shows Obama WAY ahead of McCain in both NY and MA. Remember not that long ago when, based on Hillary's primary victory's in both states, people were saying that McCain might actually put both those states in play, maybe not to the point he'd win but to the point that Obama would have to spend more time than expected in those states. Didn't believe it then and the numbers are validating my doubts. I mean, I remember folks actually arguing the McCain could be CA in play, again, simply based on the fact that Hillary trounced Obama in the primary in that state. Here's the thing. McCain doesn't create any new swing states by virtue of being the GOP candidate. Dem candidates in 2000 and 2004 had to campaign hard in places like Iowa and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida and New Hampshire, just like Obama will this year. But Obama does create new swing states, forcing the cash strapped McCain to campaign harder than he'd like in states like Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, New Mexico, North Carolina...and maybe even places like Georgia and Mississippi. McCain will win some of thoese states and he'll lose some. But the thing is that he can't just blow them off and assume a win. And that, my friends, is why Obama was and is the stronger candidate. Hillary may be stronger than Obama in states like NY and California and New Jersey, but there was and remains no way that McCain could ever win those states. But Hillary just doesn't put states like Colorado and Nevada and Virginia in play the way Obama does. And all of these benefit downticket Dem candidates in the new battleground states I noted above, even those in which McCain will likely win (e.g. - MS and GA).
I think McCain has no shot in the upper midwestern swing states of MN, IA, and WI in a Democratic year with a midwesterner like Obama as the Dem nominee.
But Marc, What does this have to do with Jim Johnson? Come on, let's get back to something that really matters...what did Jim Johnson have for breakfast this morning and what can Obama do about it? This place is a little like David Gregory and Joe Scarborough...Obama's myriad problems all day, every day...and yet those pesky polls keep popping up...maybe you and Gregory and Scarborough should yell a little louder. Good luck.
Live here. Not suprised. I can't go half a block without seeing an Obama sign.
As a Wisconsin-to-NYC transplant, I have to vouch to the extent I can for WI as Obama territory. The category "working class whites" is just simplya mash of amny many different kinds of people, even more than such categories always are, I mean. I don't think the Clinton brand was ever in WI what it was in places farther east and south, and the way the Clinton years ended I think just made people want to forget the 90s to some extent. I don't know what is taught elsewhere, but in the University of Wisconsin political science department (home of the distinguished professors whom Marc cites), I learned that the president gets way too much blame when the economy is bad and way too much credit when it's good. I think Wisconsinites in general know this intuitively, and certainly the tech explosion didn't really have so much impact in WI as the gutting of Milwaukee's industrial base continued apace throughout the 1990s. Upshot: people want something new. Wisconsin Republicans would have stumbled over themselves to go for McCain in 2000, but they know it's a different time now, and a different McCain. For my money, after the Wisconsin primary was when we rationally knew who would be the nominee, and because it was an open primary, it's one case where perhaps a primary result's predictive power should be less discounted than we usually would.
Myehh....they didn't include Brett Favre in the poll. Johnny Mack and Crack would be lucky to reach double digits in that scenario.
To Jonathan Freedman, what post-Hillary swing are you talking about? Maybe in Wisconsin. But Gallup's tracking has only shown Obama move from 46% yto 48% since Clinton dropped out, within the margin of error. McCain has dropped, but Obama has not moved up.
John: Check out Rasmussen and NBC.
John: Check out Rasmussen and NBC.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Hey Marc,
How does it feel to be the water carrier for the McCain campaign? They don't need to actually do any work themselves because they just quote you.
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=f419ee41-f72d-4f85-bf1c-0b62d70f1593
The funny thing is, I never remember you arguing for "context" or any sort of generosity when you had post after post after post about "bittergate" and you decided that Tuzla was not a big deal. I never remember you ever filling in the blanks for any comment Obama has ever made. Why don't you let McCain's statements speak for themselves? I thought that is what "journalism" was. And we all heard what he said.
Hey Marc, guess what? Your bullshit is showing.
Posted by Bubba | June 12, 2008 7:49 AM