PPP Wisconsin Obama 49-Romney 48

[MorningInAmerica]

Wow - if you didn't know any better, you'd think party ID all of a sudden meant something around here. I thought party ID was irrelevant, unrealiable, volatile, an amateur's game?

I always figured that once we got a favorable looking R sample from someone, a lot of those that thought so little of Party ID would start complaining. R+4 in Wisconsin is certainly no more ridiculous than that stupid D+10 sample of likely voters in Ohio from the Marist poll last week, but I didn't hear any Democrats complaining about that.

[MorningInAmerica]

I just think it's odd that when the party ID is obviously ridiculous, but in the Republicans' favor, the usual suspects don't seem to make a big deal of it.

And I find it odd for the opposite reason - the users who poo-poo party ID all of a sudden care on the 'once-in-a-blue-moon' occasion that Republicans get oversampled. And if I remember correctly Lief, you didn't seem to have any problems with that Ohio poll w/ the D+10 party ID.

[MorningInAmerica]

I just think it's odd that when the party ID is obviously ridiculous, but in the Republicans' favor, the usual suspects don't seem to make a big deal of it.

And I find it odd for the opposite reason - the users who poo-poo party ID all of a sudden care on the 'once-in-a-blue-moon' occasion that Republicans get oversampled. And if I remember correctly Lief, you didn't seem to have any problems with that Ohio poll w/ the D+10 party ID.

Because that's a reasonable party ID for Ohio given current circumstances. Ohioans don't like Mitt the Pioneer of Outsourcing and more and more of them are sticking with the current president.

It's disingenuous that you should buy this troll job in Wisconsin when you had a problem with the ID in Ohio. Party ID in Wisconsin is heading toward D + 6-8 given current trends.

Reasonable according to who? Look Mondale, it was D+8 in a year that shattered records for Democrats throughout the country. In 2004, it was R+5. In 2006, another strong Democratic year, party ID for the Ohio Senate race was D+3. (the 2010 numbers have disappeared from CNN's website)

So based on those figures, surely you can see how R+4 in Wisconsin (where it was recently R+1 just a few months ago in their recall, and was R+3 back in 2004), is really no MORE or LESS ridiculous than a D+10 electorate in Ohio this November will be. You're certainly allowed to think Dem turnout will be higher this November than it was four years ago, but that is a purely subjective belief. One that I don't think is very well grounded in reality. And not agreeing with your Ohio turnout assessment certainly doesn't make one "disingenuous" anymore than expecting D+10 turnout makes you crazy.

Edited to note that I was about to spit out my drink when I thought Mondale was going to write an entire two paragraphs without saying "troll." Then reality took hold.

[MorningInAmerica]

I just think it's odd that when the party ID is obviously ridiculous, but in the Republicans' favor, the usual suspects don't seem to make a big deal of it.

And I find it odd for the opposite reason - the users who poo-poo party ID all of a sudden care on the 'once-in-a-blue-moon' occasion that Republicans get oversampled. And if I remember correctly Lief, you didn't seem to have any problems with that Ohio poll w/ the D+10 party ID.

Because that's a reasonable party ID for Ohio given current circumstances. Ohioans don't like Mitt the Pioneer of Outsourcing and more and more of them are sticking with the current president.

It's disingenuous that you should buy this troll job in Wisconsin when you had a problem with the ID in Ohio. Party ID in Wisconsin is heading toward D + 6-8 given current trends.

Reasonable according to who? Look Mondale, it was D+8 in a year that shattered records for Democrats throughout the country. In 2004, it was R+5. In 2006, another strong Democratic year, party ID for the Ohio Senate race was D+3. (the 2010 numbers have disappeared from CNN's website)

So based on those figures, surely you can see how R+4 in Wisconsin (where it was recently R+1 just a few months ago in their recall, and was R+3 back in 2004), is really no MORE or LESS ridiculous than a D+10 electorate in Ohio this November will be. You're certainly allowed to think Dem turnout will be higher this November than it was four years ago, but that is a purely subjective belief. One that I don't think is very well grounded in reality. And not agreeing with your Ohio turnout assessment certainly doesn't make one "disingenuous" anymore than expecting D+10 turnout makes you crazy.

Edited to note that I was about to spit out my drink when I thought Mondale was going to write an entire two paragraphs without saying "troll." Then reality took hold.

Listen, you can continue to live in denial and reject the idea that the Democratic base is energized and that Mitt Romney is the most feared Republican nominee since Goldwater, but you can't seriously expect me to believe that you subscribe to the idea that Republican turnout in Wisconsin will result in an electorate that is R + 4. If you had been sincere about your comments about party ID, you would have complained about this poll in that vain.

Instead, you continue to attack a poll of Ohio that is D + 10 while completely failing to mention a poll that you call "equally ridiculous" in terms of party ID. That is the definition of disingenuous, especially considering that Wisconsin is a more Democratic state than Ohio. Ergo, you are implying that Ohio would probably have a party ID for greater than R + 4 which is completely ridiculous.

But, you can continue to spin, as long as you can sleep with yourself at night...

Haha, as long as I can sleep at night? That's comically dramatic. And your reading comprehension is nonexistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said I expected WI turnout to be R+4. I just noted that that figure is just as ridiculous as D+10 in Ohio.

I have to wonder if you roll your eyes this often in real life. They may get stuck that way.