WI: Rasmussen: Romney now leads

[AmericanNation]

Obama has to defend Wisconsin.  
The state isn't relative to the rest of the country like it's historically been.  
You could have a Romney win here in a 50/50 national race.  You have for the first time a large-to-massive mobilized + motivated republican base.  
The traditional blue collar half of the base of the wisdem party is completely orphaned by the radical leadership of the state party (and national orgs) right now.  Madison based lunatics pretty much call all the shots.  Good luck winning in Manitowoc (like they need to) or anywhere out-state with graeme zielinski as your spokesman.     
Obama's betrayal of the man he forced to run for Governor twice might play a role in this poll.  Also you have the most incredibly wonkish policy hawks elected to office as republicans in Wisconsin, contrast that with the jaw dropping lack of any intelligent policy proposal by the president and you have a striking juxtaposition that doesn't exist anywhere else.                       

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

 this poll is more trashy than Taylor Momsen

[pepper11]

This is not a loaded or partisan question, but what is with the trashing of Rasmussen. In 2008, they were 2nd behind CNN in predicting the Nation numbers (they were 1 point off with 52-46 predicted 53-46 actual) yet their polls are slandered as trash. What gives?

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

This is not a loaded or partisan question, but what is with the trashing of Rasmussen. In 2008, they were 2nd behind CNN in predicting the Nation numbers (they were 1 point off with 52-46 predicted 53-46 actual) yet their polls are slandered as trash. What gives?

Their track record for the most recent cycle (2010) was horrendous and had a noticeable house effect in favor of the Republicans. Their polls seem to be Romney's best, so it seems the house effect is still present.

[Lincoln Republican]

Interesting that so far it is only the GOPers who are poo-pooing.  You guys have reason for optimism here - it definitely looks like the trend is towards a narrow Romney lead in WI, and the trends generally are towards a map something like this:

I love your election map.

May it prove to be prophetic.

[LastVoter]

+3 is a cause for concern though, it could actually be even if you factor out the variable hack bonus of about 4-5 to Romney from Rasmussen. To republicans, it's about time we start just taking the average of PPP and Rasmussen to find what the non-biased polling would be instead of stupid bickering over whether PPP or Ras is more correct.

[opebo]

Interesting that so far it is only the GOPers who are poo-pooing.  You guys have reason for optimism here - it definitely looks like the trend is towards a narrow Romney lead in WI, and the trends generally are towards a map something like this:

I love your election map.

May it prove to be prophetic.

The pessimists in one's among one's opponents are invariably the most cheering of companions, Winfield.  If you thought the country was turning socialist in a handbasket, perhaps we could hang out.

[Tender Branson]

Polls in the next 2.5 months are useless.

[Holmes]

Polls in the next 2.5 months are useless.

Not exactly, I think. It helps with fundraising and momentum, and also media narrative.

[pbrower2a]

Today Rasmussen has the President up 8 in Michigan... so how much do you believe that the President is down in Wisconsin now?

[krazen1211]

Today Rasmussen has the President up 8 in Michigan... so how much do you believe that the President is down in Wisconsin now?

It's certainly possible given the dominance of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

[Ljube]

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

[timothyinMD]

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

2000 was close only because of Nader. 1992 and 1996 are also problematic comparison years because of Perot.

Wisconsin margin compared to national margin.
2008 D+8
2004 D+3
2000 R+0
1996 D+2
1992 R+1
1988 D+11
1984 D+7

There ain't gonna be a significant third party candidacy this year.  While I don't expect Wisconsin to be D+8 this year, neither do I expect it be R+anything.  D+2 to D+4 is what I expect.  Wisconsin is not likely to provide Romney with his 270th EV.

[nkpatel1279]

WI-10 is an Obama-D state but it will come after OR-7,MN-10,NM-5,MI-16,PA-20,and NV-6. WI-10 is Obama-D 253ev. and before IA-6,CO-9,NH-4 and VA-13.
Romney-R 270ev will be either NH-4 or CO-9.
After IN-11,NC-15,MO-10,FL-29,OH-18,and VA-13=266ev. then it's CO-9,

[AmericanNation]

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

2000 was close only because of Nader. 1992 and 1996 are also problematic comparison years because of Perot.

Wisconsin margin compared to national margin.
2008 D+8
2004 D+3
2000 R+0
1996 D+2
1992 R+1
1988 D+11
1984 D+7

There ain't gonna be a significant third party candidacy this year.  While I don't expect Wisconsin to be D+8 this year, neither do I expect it be R+anything.  D+2 to D+4 is what I expect.  Wisconsin is not likely to provide Romney with his 270th EV.

So republicans winning an election here every 60 days for the last year is irrelevant then? 

[mondale84]

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

2000 was close only because of Nader. 1992 and 1996 are also problematic comparison years because of Perot.

Wisconsin margin compared to national margin.
2008 D+8
2004 D+3
2000 R+0
1996 D+2
1992 R+1
1988 D+11
1984 D+7

There ain't gonna be a significant third party candidacy this year.  While I don't expect Wisconsin to be D+8 this year, neither do I expect it be R+anything.  D+2 to D+4 is what I expect.  Wisconsin is not likely to provide Romney with his 270th EV.

So republicans winning an election here every 60 days for the last year is irrelevant then? 

Frankly, no.

[timothyinMD]

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

2000 was close only because of Nader. 1992 and 1996 are also problematic comparison years because of Perot.

Wisconsin margin compared to national margin.
2008 D+8
2004 D+3
2000 R+0
1996 D+2
1992 R+1
1988 D+11
1984 D+7

There ain't gonna be a significant third party candidacy this year.  While I don't expect Wisconsin to be D+8 this year, neither do I expect it be R+anything.  D+2 to D+4 is what I expect.  Wisconsin is not likely to provide Romney with his 270th EV.

So republicans winning an election here every 60 days for the last year is irrelevant then? 

Damn straight.  Winning governor and senator races in 2010, flipping the legislature, winning a supreme court race and a recall race.

Conservative good-governance is reigning in Wisconsin

[AmericanNation]

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

2000 was close only because of Nader. 1992 and 1996 are also problematic comparison years because of Perot.
Wisconsin margin compared to national margin.
2008 D+8
2004 D+3
2000 R+0
1996 D+2
1992 R+1
1988 D+11
1984 D+7
There ain't gonna be a significant third party candidacy this year.  While I don't expect Wisconsin to be D+8 this year, neither do I expect it be R+anything.  D+2 to D+4 is what I expect.  Wisconsin is not likely to provide Romney with his 270th EV.

So republicans winning an election here every 60 days for the last year is irrelevant then? 

Damn straight.  Winning governor and senator races in 2010, flipping the legislature, winning a supreme court race and a recall race.
Conservative good-governance is reigning in Wisconsin

SE Wisconsin now has the #1 best job outlook in the country AND we have the #1 financially sound State pension system (the only one that is fully funded).  ...Recall Walker! The more time goes by, the more Obama, democrats, and public employee unions look like complete idiots.  Guess what?  ..Time WILL GO BY and they can't change that.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

2000 was close only because of Nader. 1992 and 1996 are also problematic comparison years because of Perot.

Wisconsin margin compared to national margin.
2008 D+8
2004 D+3
2000 R+0
1996 D+2
1992 R+1
1988 D+11
1984 D+7

There ain't gonna be a significant third party candidacy this year.  While I don't expect Wisconsin to be D+8 this year, neither do I expect it be R+anything.  D+2 to D+4 is what I expect.  Wisconsin is not likely to provide Romney with his 270th EV.

So republicans winning an election here every 60 days for the last year is irrelevant then? 

No, that's why I expect a 4 to 6 point swing towards the Republicans in Wisconsin above and beyond any national swing.  But unless Walker replaces Romney as the GOP presidential nominee, it ain't gonna be more than that.

[phk]

Something like ~20% of committed Obama supporters backed Walker and were anti-recall.

[AmericanNation]

Something like ~20% of committed Obama supporters backed Walker and were anti-recall.

No.  The flawed exit poll might say that, which is flawed.  Most probably didn't "back" Walker, but simply didn't vote.  You might be talking 1 to 2 percentage points for Walker, which is what he improved from 2010. 

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

2000 was close only because of Nader. 1992 and 1996 are also problematic comparison years because of Perot.
Wisconsin margin compared to national margin.
2008 D+8
2004 D+3
2000 R+0
1996 D+2
1992 R+1
1988 D+11
1984 D+7
There ain't gonna be a significant third party candidacy this year.  While I don't expect Wisconsin to be D+8 this year, neither do I expect it be R+anything.  D+2 to D+4 is what I expect.  Wisconsin is not likely to provide Romney with his 270th EV.

So republicans winning an election here every 60 days for the last year is irrelevant then? 

No, that's why I expect a 4 to 6 point swing towards the Republicans in Wisconsin above and beyond any national swing.  But unless Walker replaces Romney as the GOP presidential nominee, it ain't gonna be more than that.

So, Republicans won the only open state wide race in 2006
VanHollen  2006  AG       R + 0.41
Doyle         2006 Gov      D + 7.39
Kohl unopposed Sen      D + 37.83

Walker      2010  Gov      R + 5.77
Johnson    2010  Sen      R + 4.8
VanHollen 2010  AG        R + 15.6

Prosser     2011 S.C.     NP + 0.47
*I include this Non partisan race because it was hyper partisan. 

Walker      2012  Gov      R + 6.8
(polling Thompson Sen =R + 10 minimum)

So, republicans have won every statewide race since 2010 (5of5), will add another US senator in November (6of6), and if you want to go back to 2006 they still won an open race (7of9).  How you translate that to D+1, I don't understand.  Looks more R+2 to me.  The prospect of Tommy on the ballot at the same time as the Presidential election for the first time ever, is bringing a smile to my face.  Hard to see Romney losing if Thompson wins by 10+.         

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Something like ~20% of committed Obama supporters backed Walker and were anti-recall.

No.  The flawed exit poll might say that, which is flawed.  Most probably didn't "back" Walker, but simply didn't vote.  You might be talking 1 to 2 percentage points for Walker, which is what he improved from 2010. 

Wisconsin is only in play because of Walker's success.

Did everyone get amnesia about how close Wisconsin was in 2000 and 2004?  Wisconsin is very much in play.  2008 was an anomaly

2000 was close only because of Nader. 1992 and 1996 are also problematic comparison years because of Perot.
Wisconsin margin compared to national margin.
2008 D+8
2004 D+3
2000 R+0
1996 D+2
1992 R+1
1988 D+11
1984 D+7
There ain't gonna be a significant third party candidacy this year.  While I don't expect Wisconsin to be D+8 this year, neither do I expect it be R+anything.  D+2 to D+4 is what I expect.  Wisconsin is not likely to provide Romney with his 270th EV.

So republicans winning an election here every 60 days for the last year is irrelevant then? 

No, that's why I expect a 4 to 6 point swing towards the Republicans in Wisconsin above and beyond any national swing.  But unless Walker replaces Romney as the GOP presidential nominee, it ain't gonna be more than that.

So, Republicans won the only open state wide race in 2006
VanHollen  2006  AG       R + 0.41
Doyle         2006 Gov      D + 7.39
Kohl unopposed Sen      D + 37.83

Walker      2010  Gov      R + 5.77
Johnson    2010  Sen      R + 4.8
VanHollen 2010  AG        R + 15.6

Prosser     2011 S.C.     NP + 0.47
*I include this Non partisan race because it was hyper partisan. 

Walker      2012  Gov      R + 6.8
(polling Thompson Sen =R + 10 minimum)

So, republicans have won every statewide race since 2010 (5of5), will add another US senator in November (6of6), and if you want to go back to 2006 they still won an open race (7of9).  How you translate that to D+1, I don't understand.  Looks more R+2 to me.  The prospect of Tommy on the ballot at the same time as the Presidential election for the first time ever, is bringing a smile to my face.  Hard to see Romney losing if Thompson wins by 10+.         

You're comparing apples and oranges.  First off, statewide and national races often have a disconnect.  Second, my figure of D+2 to D+4 is not a statement that Obama will win Wisconsin by 2 to 4 percentage points.  I'm saying I expect him to do 2 to 4 points better in Wisconsin than he does nationally.  If Romney wins nationally by 6 points then I expect Romney to win Wisconsin by 2 to 4 points.  If Obama wins nationally by 6 points, then I expect Obama to win Wisconsin by 8 to 10 points.

[Gass3268]

Something like ~20% of committed Obama supporters backed Walker and were anti-recall.

Exactly

[AmericanNation]

You're comparing apples and oranges.  First off, statewide and national races often have a disconnect.  Second, my figure of D+2 to D+4 is not a statement that Obama will win Wisconsin by 2 to 4 percentage points.  I'm saying I expect him to do 2 to 4 points better in Wisconsin than he does nationally.  If Romney wins nationally by 6 points then I expect Romney to win Wisconsin by 2 to 4 points.  If Obama wins nationally by 6 points, then I expect Obama to win Wisconsin by 8 to 10 points.

We don't know if their will be a disconnect, like their has been in the past.  So, I could just as easily say you are comparing apples and oranges.  I'm taking that point into account.  Local statewide races look+feel more like R+3to5 right now.  Romney will preform below that at something like R+1ish.  Although it isn't a typical situation in that Wisconsin will not be much affected by the national vote, due to an extraordinary politically mobilized populace.  So in a sense, a comparison to the nation doesn't work.  Romney might well win by 2 points if he gets 50% or 54% nationwide.