Dane+WOW and Wisconsin polls

[lfromnj]

Dane  and WOW are some of the highest turnout areas in the entire nation and probably one of the post politically charged areas. This means the people here are most likely to answer polls. In 2012 Dane +WOW was basically even. However by 2016 it was like D+7 and this year they even moved further left compared to the state.

In 2018 Gov there was a snapback with WOW which might have allowed high quality pollsters to atleast nail the race like Marquette. But in this year Marquette held a steady +5 lead for Biden all year. They didn't fail but not great either. For Wisconsin I feel the proper way to poll it from now is to weigh it as Dane+WOW+non city parts of Milwaukee county as one whole part due to their likelihood of at a much higher rate.

Anyone else agree?

In 2012 Dane+all milwaukee burbs including in the county itself was +1 obama, the rest of the state minus the actual city was +2 Obama

In 2016 it went to +7 Clinton and +13 Trump.

In 2018 gov it went to +5 Evers and +9 Walker which atleast reduced this gap. Midterm turnout also favors the WOW+Dane area so it even reduced the error less.

However in 2020 I think the rest of Wisconsin swung R while Dane+Milwaukee burbs continued to move left.

[mileslunn]

Biden essentially won state much like Evers by running up margins in Dane and Milwaukee counties while cutting Trump's margins in WOW counties.

Wisconsin will be one to watch in future.  While rural areas voted GOP unlike under Obama where close to even, not to same extent as other states.  If GOP starts getting in 70s and 80s in rural counties, Wisconsin will become a safe state, similar to Missouri and Indiana.  By same token if WOW counties start voting like Collar counties of Chicago, then it will become a safe state.  And lets remember up until 2008, Collar counties were also fairly reliably Republican, but now go Democrat.

I do think of blue wall states, Wisconsin is one most at risk of losing long term.  Michigan is slightly more urban while has a much larger African-American community (6% vs. 14%).  Yes Milwaukee has a large African-American community, but not too many elsewhere in state while many smaller industrial cities in Michigan also have large African-American communities.  Pennsylvania is more urban and more diverse than Wisconsin.  Big difference is GOP has much bigger blowouts in the rural parts than they do in Wisconsin.  But at same time GOP probably maxed out in Pennsylvania whereas still have room for growth in Wisconsin.

[lfromnj]

Biden essentially won state much like Evers by running up margins in Dane and Milwaukee counties while cutting Trump's margins in WOW counties.

Wisconsin will be one to watch in future.  While rural areas voted GOP unlike under Obama where close to even, not to same extent as other states.  If GOP starts getting in 70s and 80s in rural counties, Wisconsin will become a safe state, similar to Missouri and Indiana.  By same token if WOW counties start voting like Collar counties of Chicago, then it will become a safe state.  And lets remember up until 2008, Collar counties were also fairly reliably Republican, but now go Democrat.

I do think of blue wall states, Wisconsin is one most at risk of losing long term.  Michigan is slightly more urban while has a much larger African-American community (6% vs. 14%).  Yes Milwaukee has a large African-American community, but not too many elsewhere in state while many smaller industrial cities in Michigan also have large African-American communities.  Pennsylvania is more urban and more diverse than Wisconsin.  Big difference is GOP has much bigger blowouts in the rural parts than they do in Wisconsin.  But at same time GOP probably maxed out in Pennsylvania whereas still have room for growth in Wisconsin.

I'm not really talking about trends here, just about the polling in Wisconsin. Marist Trash will continue to be trash but Marquette is holding ok.

[AGA]

Interesting how the first map is an R win, but the second is a D win.

[GALeftist]

Interesting how the first map is an R win, but the second is a D win.

FRAUD!

[forsythvoter]

Dane is also the fastest growing county in WI and it has a sky high turnout rate, so it's overall pull on the state is growing each cycle. I could see a scenario in a few more cycles where Dems win WI just by winning Dane (and mayube some immediately adjacent counties), plus Milwaukee alone, if they can keep the margins low in WOW. This strategy doesn't quite work though unless Ds can get the WOW margins into the single digits, and maintain a respectable showing in the BOW counties.

[walleye26]

My take on this is that if the WOW margins hold where they are indefinitely (unlikely, but for sake of argument) then the Dems will have a good shot at holding the state, especially in midterms. Why? Dane keeps growing, and shifting left (along with the MSP exurbs in St Croix and Pierce counties) and the rurals are all losing people, in some cases quite fast. Price, Rusk, Langlade, and Lincoln are really losing people at good clip.

[lfromnj]

Guys I just want to talk about the polling errors for WI in this thread, not about the trends. The trends are just a reason for my theory on the polling error.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yep, this is why I knew the Wisconsin polls were going to be worse than in 2018. Marquette nailed 2018, in part because Walker's coalition is a more traditional Republican coalition, he did worse in the driftless and Northwoods areas of the state and better in the Milwaukee metro (every R or R-aligned candidates gets killed in Dane no matter what, it's really the Milwaukee area that has a lag). The Milwaukee metro is easier to poll and has a decent number of Republicans to draw from, but they have a disproportionate amount of Romney/Clinton types that still gave Walker one last nod. These rural areas of the state are harder to poll, and the people who are the least representative of these areas respond first. It is very difficult to get the Obama/Trump voters. You are much more likely to get a high school teacher in rural Wisconsin than a construction worker, let's just put it that way. Because it's difficult to get Republicans and R-leaning Independents from these rural areas, the Republican and Independent sample skews suburban and less Trump-friendly than the state actually is. So that means even if you weight the poll by region or county, you're still going to get a more D-skewed poll result in the presidential race vs the 2018 gubernatorial race.  That is what is happening in these polls that were so badly off, everywhere, not just in Wisconsin*. That is why you constantly see in polls urban areas being more Republican and rural areas being more Democratic than they end up being.

*Marquette still did a decent job, but this factor is why I knew they were more likely to overestimate Biden than with Evers, which they actually underestimated by a point.

[Coconut Decider]

Yep, this is why I knew the Wisconsin polls were going to be worse than in 2018. Marquette nailed 2018, in part because Walker's coalition is a more traditional Republican coalition, he did worse in the driftless and Northwoods areas of the state and better in the Milwaukee metro (every R or R-aligned candidates gets killed in Dane no matter what, it's really the Milwaukee area that has a lag). The Milwaukee metro is easier to poll and has a decent number of Republicans to draw from, but they have a disproportionate amount of Romney/Clinton types that still gave Walker one last nod. These rural areas of the state are harder to poll, and the people who are the least representative of these areas respond first. It is very difficult to get the Obama/Trump voters. You are much more likely to get a high school teacher in rural Wisconsin than a construction worker, let's just put it that way. Because it's difficult to get Republicans and R-leaning Independents from these rural areas, the Republican and Independent sample skews suburban and less Trump-friendly than the state actually is. So that means even if you weight the poll by region or county, you're still going to get a more D-skewed poll result in the presidential race vs the 2018 gubernatorial race.  That is what is happening in these polls that were so badly off, everywhere, not just in Wisconsin*. That is why you constantly see in polls urban areas being more Republican and rural areas being more Democratic than they end up being.

*Marquette still did a decent job, but this factor is why I knew they were more likely to overestimate Biden than with Evers, which they actually underestimated by a point.

So polling, as well as Democratic Performance, could be better in non-presidential years?

[ElectionsGuy]

Yep, this is why I knew the Wisconsin polls were going to be worse than in 2018. Marquette nailed 2018, in part because Walker's coalition is a more traditional Republican coalition, he did worse in the driftless and Northwoods areas of the state and better in the Milwaukee metro (every R or R-aligned candidates gets killed in Dane no matter what, it's really the Milwaukee area that has a lag). The Milwaukee metro is easier to poll and has a decent number of Republicans to draw from, but they have a disproportionate amount of Romney/Clinton types that still gave Walker one last nod. These rural areas of the state are harder to poll, and the people who are the least representative of these areas respond first. It is very difficult to get the Obama/Trump voters. You are much more likely to get a high school teacher in rural Wisconsin than a construction worker, let's just put it that way. Because it's difficult to get Republicans and R-leaning Independents from these rural areas, the Republican and Independent sample skews suburban and less Trump-friendly than the state actually is. So that means even if you weight the poll by region or county, you're still going to get a more D-skewed poll result in the presidential race vs the 2018 gubernatorial race.  That is what is happening in these polls that were so badly off, everywhere, not just in Wisconsin*. That is why you constantly see in polls urban areas being more Republican and rural areas being more Democratic than they end up being.

*Marquette still did a decent job, but this factor is why I knew they were more likely to overestimate Biden than with Evers, which they actually underestimated by a point.

So polling, as well as Democratic Performance, could be better in non-presidential years?

Not really. Walker was unique as is he was one of the few figures up for re-election that pre-dated Trump in 2018. Therefore his performance was more of a throwback. Going forward, I would expect the Republican performance to look more like Trump's and less like Walker's, so the polls will continue to be more like 2020 rather than 2018 (if they don't do anything different).

[lfromnj]

Yep, this is why I knew the Wisconsin polls were going to be worse than in 2018. Marquette nailed 2018, in part because Walker's coalition is a more traditional Republican coalition, he did worse in the driftless and Northwoods areas of the state and better in the Milwaukee metro (every R or R-aligned candidates gets killed in Dane no matter what, it's really the Milwaukee area that has a lag). The Milwaukee metro is easier to poll and has a decent number of Republicans to draw from, but they have a disproportionate amount of Romney/Clinton types that still gave Walker one last nod. These rural areas of the state are harder to poll, and the people who are the least representative of these areas respond first. It is very difficult to get the Obama/Trump voters. You are much more likely to get a high school teacher in rural Wisconsin than a construction worker, let's just put it that way. Because it's difficult to get Republicans and R-leaning Independents from these rural areas, the Republican and Independent sample skews suburban and less Trump-friendly than the state actually is. So that means even if you weight the poll by region or county, you're still going to get a more D-skewed poll result in the presidential race vs the 2018 gubernatorial race.  That is what is happening in these polls that were so badly off, everywhere, not just in Wisconsin*. That is why you constantly see in polls urban areas being more Republican and rural areas being more Democratic than they end up being.

*Marquette still did a decent job, but this factor is why I knew they were more likely to overestimate Biden than with Evers, which they actually underestimated by a point.

So polling, as well as Democratic Performance, could be better in non-presidential years?

Not really. Walker was unique as is he was one of the few figures up for re-election that pre-dated Trump in 2018. Therefore his performance was more of a throwback. Going forward, I would expect the Republican performance to look more like Trump's and less like Walker's, so the polls will continue to be more like 2020 rather than 2018 (if they don't do anything different).

However even if Gubernatorial races follow this trend, turnout in WOW+Dane will be much higher relative to the state during a midterm than a presidential year, that could help midterm WI polls be relatively accurate at least for the high quality ones like Marquette.