WI-SEN (CBS/YouGov): Johnson +1

[Pollster]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

[wbrocks67]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

The senate/gov vote is a likely voter model as far as I can tell. The rest seems to be RV

[GeorgiaModerate]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

The senate/gov vote is a likely voter model as far as I can tell. The rest seems to be RV

wbrocks67 is mostly correct. Looking at the poll details (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uclbIibNNAyy4EeQwzW_vo8J8ZihJ5IB/view) the horse-race questions are labeled "Among likely voters. Includes those leaning for either Barnes or Johnson" ("...Evers or Michel [sic]" for the governor's race)

Some of the other questions are also labeled "among likely voters".

[soundchaser]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

The infographic says “Likely Voters.” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Progressive Pessimist]

This is pretty good for Barnes, all things considered, and it might be a moral victory if he only loses by this much. However, I just don't see him clawing back to where he looked to have been shortly after the primary. There is a lot to work with against Johnson, but when the candidate detailing all that has already become tarnished, it's hard to see him overcoming that.

And that's not even considering the ever-present deserved skepticism of Wisconsin polling.

[wbrocks67]

This is pretty good for Barnes, all things considered, and it might be a moral victory if he only loses by this much. However, I just don't see him clawing back to where he looked to have been shortly after the primary. There is a lot to work with against Johnson, but when the candidate detailing all that has already become tarnished, it's hard to see him overcoming that.

And that's not even considering the ever-present deserved skepticism of Wisconsin polling.

I mean, Johnson is still considerably more tarnished here (-14) than Barnes (-2) is

[Pollster]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

The senate/gov vote is a likely voter model as far as I can tell. The rest seems to be RV

wbrocks67 is mostly correct. Looking at the poll details (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uclbIibNNAyy4EeQwzW_vo8J8ZihJ5IB/view) the horse-race questions are labeled "Among likely voters. Includes those leaning for either Barnes or Johnson" ("...Evers or Michel [sic]" for the governor's race)

Some of the other questions are also labeled "among likely voters".

Thanks for the correction - even more interesting (though I'm generally skeptical of registered voter polls that are pared down to likely voters).

[Pollster]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

The infographic says “Likely Voters.” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Apologies!

[wbrocks67]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

The senate/gov vote is a likely voter model as far as I can tell. The rest seems to be RV

wbrocks67 is mostly correct. Looking at the poll details (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uclbIibNNAyy4EeQwzW_vo8J8ZihJ5IB/view) the horse-race questions are labeled "Among likely voters. Includes those leaning for either Barnes or Johnson" ("...Evers or Michel [sic]" for the governor's race)

Some of the other questions are also labeled "among likely voters".

Thanks for the correction - even more interesting (though I'm generally skeptical of registered voter polls that are pared down to likely voters).

That's why I wish every pollster revealed both RV and LV this time around, since LV models this year could really go either way.

[Pollster]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

The senate/gov vote is a likely voter model as far as I can tell. The rest seems to be RV

wbrocks67 is mostly correct. Looking at the poll details (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uclbIibNNAyy4EeQwzW_vo8J8ZihJ5IB/view) the horse-race questions are labeled "Among likely voters. Includes those leaning for either Barnes or Johnson" ("...Evers or Michel [sic]" for the governor's race)

Some of the other questions are also labeled "among likely voters".

Thanks for the correction - even more interesting (though I'm generally skeptical of registered voter polls that are pared down to likely voters).

That's why I wish every pollster revealed both RV and LV this time around, since LV models this year could really go either way.

Polls of registered voters that are filtered down to likely voters tend to be based only on the "how likely are you to vote" question, and the likely voter samples that result from this usually overrepresent demographics that are more likely to answer questions with higher degrees of certainty (typically older men, and the most highly engaged partisans). Much better to do just one or the other.

[Yoda]

It's come down to a turnout game.

[wbrocks67]

All it takes is for YouGov’s LV screen to be slightly off.

This is a registered voter poll.

The senate/gov vote is a likely voter model as far as I can tell. The rest seems to be RV

wbrocks67 is mostly correct. Looking at the poll details (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uclbIibNNAyy4EeQwzW_vo8J8ZihJ5IB/view) the horse-race questions are labeled "Among likely voters. Includes those leaning for either Barnes or Johnson" ("...Evers or Michel [sic]" for the governor's race)

Some of the other questions are also labeled "among likely voters".

Thanks for the correction - even more interesting (though I'm generally skeptical of registered voter polls that are pared down to likely voters).

That's why I wish every pollster revealed both RV and LV this time around, since LV models this year could really go either way.

Polls of registered voters that are filtered down to likely voters tend to be based only on the "how likely are you to vote" question, and the likely voter samples that result from this usually overrepresent demographics that are more likely to answer questions with higher degrees of certainty (typically older men, and the most highly engaged partisans). Much better to do just one or the other.

Which I figured was the case of LV models cycling out younger voters, who are less likely to say "definitely will vote"; a good portion in these say "probably will vote", but I assume that answer gets them cycled out of the LV model

[MT Treasurer]

For what it's worth, I've yet to talk to a single Democratic strategist who thinks this race is lost.

What kind of overall result/House PV are those strategists expecting? I’m assuming a fairly D-leaning one, no?

I don't know anybody expecting a D-leaning year, most of the Dem strategists I talk to are more pessimistic about Democrats' chances than the Republican ones.

Then I don’t see how this race is realistically winnable (as opposed to "somewhat close") for Democrats, really. I think it would take a fairly D-leaning environment (driven in large part by a favorable turnout gap for Democrats) for Barnes to topple Johnson.

[wbrocks67]

For what it's worth, I've yet to talk to a single Democratic strategist who thinks this race is lost.

What kind of overall result/House PV are those strategists expecting? I’m assuming a fairly D-leaning one, no?

I don't know anybody expecting a D-leaning year, most of the Dem strategists I talk to are more pessimistic about Democrats' chances than the Republican ones.

Then I don’t see how this race is realistically winnable (as opposed to "somewhat close") for Democrats, really. I think it would take a fairly D-leaning environment (driven in large part by a favorable turnout gap for Democrats) for Barnes to topple Johnson.

Depends what you mean for D-leaning environment in Wisconsin terms. An R+5 environment, ala 2020, wouldn't really be considered "D-Leaning" (even for Wisconsin, but correct me if I'm wrong), but if it was, Barnes would win based on this poll. Unless we're talking about the national environment ala 2020, where R+5 in Wisconsin *would* be considered D-leaning.

[MasterJedi]

Sad to say but the west would be more competitive if it wasn’t Barnes at the top. Someone white would play a lot better in the burbs and rural. It’s bad out there for anyone with a darker complexion.

I'm not 100% convinced that's true. The only presidential candidate to win Wisconsin in a general election by more than 1% this century was a black man. Obviously coalitions have changed since then. Barnes isn't losing because he's black, he's losing because he's a Democrat in a red-leaning state in a red-leaning year.

Things are different in rural Wisconsin they were in 2008 and 2012. He would no longer get that support, you have many people saying they were “fooled by obozo and would never vote for a socialist again”.

[Sir Mohamed]

Lean R.

That said, I still feel like an R+8 sample is a bit over the top. I'm just not too confident Barnes is the man to dethrone Johnson. It's unfortunate the dude gets always lucky by running against B-tier candidates and in GOP-leaning cycles.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lean R.

That said, I still feel like an R+8 sample is a bit over the top. I'm just not too confident Barnes is the man to dethrone Johnson. It's unfortunate the dude gets always lucky by running against B-tier candidates and in GOP-leaning cycles.

Lol it's called Early voting a 1 pt lead is certainly not Lean R I have said it many times and neither is NV it's gonna be 52/48 Senate with a chance of OH, NC and UT, Nate Silver already said it's more than likely 52/48 the races in OH, NC, UT, WI, NV aren't gonna be called when polls close

Pat Ryan in blue NY 19 just as blue as WI came back from 8 pts down and won by 3 that's -5 Barnes can certainly do better than -1

[wbrocks67]

Lean R.

That said, I still feel like an R+8 sample is a bit over the top. I'm just not too confident Barnes is the man to dethrone Johnson. It's unfortunate the dude gets always lucky by running against B-tier candidates and in GOP-leaning cycles.

To play devils advocate, Barnes having a 49/51 favorability after a months+ long onslaught of negative ads doesn't signal to me he's necessarily a "B-tier candidate"

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lean R.

That said, I still feel like an R+8 sample is a bit over the top. I'm just not too confident Barnes is the man to dethrone Johnson. It's unfortunate the dude gets always lucky by running against B-tier candidates and in GOP-leaning cycles.

To play devils advocate, Barnes having a 49/51 favorability after a months+ long onslaught of negative ads doesn't signal to me he's necessarily a "B-tier candidate"

PPP just polled this race and had Evers +2 and Barnes tie, Sir Muhammad for some reason like Progressive moderate and Prez Johnson as Ds not Rs think Barnes is a loser, he's not

They already said since GA isn't gonna be a runoff, because Walker TANKED it's a 52/45 Sen OH, NC and UT gonna be close, NOT CALLED WHEN POLLS CLOSE

[Sir Mohamed]

Lean R.

That said, I still feel like an R+8 sample is a bit over the top. I'm just not too confident Barnes is the man to dethrone Johnson. It's unfortunate the dude gets always lucky by running against B-tier candidates and in GOP-leaning cycles.

To play devils advocate, Barnes having a 49/51 favorability after a months+ long onslaught of negative ads doesn't signal to me he's necessarily a "B-tier candidate"

Not sure, it may just seem conventional wisdom he's not the strogest possible candidate. I like him and would volunteer/vote for him, obviously. At least Johnson seems good at defining his opponents in a negative fashion.

[SnowLabrador]

Sad to say but the west would be more competitive if it wasn’t Barnes at the top. Someone white would play a lot better in the burbs and rural. It’s bad out there for anyone with a darker complexion.

I'm not 100% convinced that's true. The only presidential candidate to win Wisconsin in a general election by more than 1% this century was a black man. Obviously coalitions have changed since then. Barnes isn't losing because he's black, he's losing because he's a Democrat in a red-leaning state in a red-leaning year.

Things are different in rural Wisconsin they were in 2008 and 2012. He would no longer get that support, you have many people saying they were “fooled by obozo and would never vote for a socialist again”.

That's pretty sad, though I suppose I'm not too surprised. After all, lots of people talked about on r/QAnonCasualties, as well as Kari Lake, voted for Obama.

[Saint Milei]

Sad to say but the west would be more competitive if it wasn’t Barnes at the top. Someone white would play a lot better in the burbs and rural. It’s bad out there for anyone with a darker complexion.

Yeah I'm light skin but still a dark