A dive into battleground Wisconsin, and a national survey

Marquette Law School is among 538's three most highly rated polling operations. Its latest, wide-ranging survey of likely voters, conducted 28 Aug. to 5 Sept., was of the essential swing-state of Wisconsin.  

Good numbers considering that about half the respondents apprehend political doings blindfolded and earplugged. 

Trump's current favorability is 43%; Harris' is 47%. The pests Jill Stein and Cornell West's are 8% and 9%. When respondents were asked who they believe will win the election, 48% said Harris and 41% said "the creature from the Floridian swamps" (verbatim). 

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin's reelection prospects are mixed: Her favorability is 48%; Republican opponent Eric Hovde's is 35%. The spread narrows in the "If the election were held today" category, with all candidates included: Baldwin, 51%; Hovde, 45%. 

The Marquette poll also strongly suggests that 64% of Wisconsins haven't read a mainstream newspaper or watched a responsible news network for about two years, that being the percentage of respondents who believe the economy is "not so good" or "poor." I call these "waterco0ler beliefs" — the workplace filtration and dissemination of electoral ignorance.  

And then there's the jokester voting bloc. Asked the "too old to be president" question, 14% said the phrase "somewhat well" or "very well" describes Harris. Next, first recall that Trump's current favorability is 43%. Now hear this: 63% said he's "corrupt." Hence a fair portion of the state's voters favor corruption. Only 19% of respondents said they attend services once a week. That could be an indicator of Harris' +4/+5, which I suggest in all seriousness.   

To close this poll's chapter, I must first apprise the recently arrived of a somewhat dated but long-running minor dispute — one that plays a major role in elections, preliminary surveys thereof and this site's welfare. The conflict has withered in neglect since the emergence of a common enemy-in-orange. Its consequent fallout persists. On to the point.

Against progressive writers' argument that Americans on average are of the writers' ideological beliefs, or liberal or left-leaning, I counter-argued that Americans are mostly moderate or conservative. And I did so at the grievous loss of abundant readers; ergo, a whopper of a continuing hit to financial support.

Because ... in the land of the internet, if a reader disagrees with, or is dismayed by even one opinion piece sired by some particular commentator, the reader need't be troubled nor disheartened again. He or she can simply stop reading that commentator, which is what he or she promptly does.   

Anyway, my displeasing counter-arguments were objectively based, that being the ultimate point. Take our surveyed swing state of Wisconsin. Seventy-two percent of respondents described themselves as "very conservative," "conservative" or "moderate," the last having the largest share at 33%. Those saying they're "liberal" or "very liberal" accounted for 27% of self-describing ideologues. 

***

In the interest of space and your patience, this chapter shall be brief. The Economist's YouGov national poll of registered voters — released one week ago but just yesterday landed in RealClearPolling's update, as it were — found a 45%-to-45% race when all candidates were included. Half of respondents expected Harris to win the popular vote; overall, respondents were split 36 to 36 in their expectations of the vastly unjustifiable Electoral College's winner.

Finally, here's RCP's national average of mostly highly reliable polls bunched together, 22 Aug. to 10 Sept.:  

Comments

[Anne J]

Wait, someone actually said "the creature from the Florida swamps"?

I am not disagreeing with you about Americans being moderate to conservative, but I am asking what do people mean when they say they are moderate or conservative anymore? I honestly have no clue what defines conservatism anymore since a lot of Trump radicals call themselves conservative.

I might add that very few people turn down help from the government when it's offered to them. Maybe moderate to conservative with socialist tendencies?

[PM]

As to your last remark, Anne, spot on. Mine, "creature," was merely a spoof.

[ssdd]

So Fred Clark had a post over at slacktivist the other day in which he made the point that within evangelicalism, it’s possible to be kicked out for going too far left, but not for going too far right. In other words there are boundaries on the left, but not on the right.

I think that’s applicable to politics and media coverage in the U.S. as well. Most of what passes for “left versus right” is actually “far right versus center right”. At best you get “ far right versus center left” and by center left think Warren/Bernie/AOC.

That isn’t to say there aren’t people left of Bernie, for example, but they have no access mainstream politics or media on anything other than a trivial level. So I think you are right, most people fall into that “far right to center right” area, but how much of that is because it’s the only area treated seriously? What if, to use a current event, “Nippon Steel should not be allowed to buy US Steel because the USW should toss out management and take over the company themselves” was treated as a serious policy alternative by politicians and media?

That might make a difference. Or not, I dunno. Anyhow, sorry so many people got touchy about this question and enjoy the beer money!

[PM]

So that was you with the most recent donation, ssdd. Again, my sincere thanks. Readers' financial support is essential. It's the secondary lifeblood of this site — second only to its readers. On the other, why "so many people get touchy" about an objective fact is something that has bewildered me since Reagan. I don't understand how a known falsehood could be so important to a person's self-identity. But those persons are legion, more so on the right yet embedded plentifully in the left as well.