I said elsewhere that Feingold v. Ron Johnson "feels" closer that polls suggested...and that feeling is correct: https://law.marquette.edu/poll/ Today (Nov 2) Feingold 45 RJohnson 44 Oct 6-9 Feingold 46 RJohnson 44
Is there a particular reason you went with Marquette to confirm your feeling and not, say, the poll from Emerson that was released last week that had Feingold up by 5? *shrug* Not enough polling in Wisconsin to confirm whether or not there has been any narrowing. This is particularly true when you're using a pollster to confirm your feeling that had a 2% gap a month ago and now has a 1% gap.
I'm certainly not going to disagree that Marquette is a better pollster. Just noting he picked a single poll that showed little movement over the last month to support his claim that Wisconsin was closer than the polls indicate. If Marquette is the benchmark, then a one point change from their previous poll would indicate that either the assertion that polls showed the race wasn't close is wrong, or the assertion that it shows the race is closer than the polls show is wrong. It's also an appeal to rely more upon polling averages over single polls.. While it is hard to do so with a race like the WI Senate race since there are so few recent polls there, it should probably be avoided. I would think we'll start seeing more WI polls coming out as we get closer to the weekend since it is one of the opportunities for Dems to flip a seat.
I just gave a month v. month, but have been following the Marquette poll for quite a while. What it has shown is the gap between the two narrowing ever so slightly month over month. Yes, it is one poll, but the numbers have not been outside the norm for the presidential poll portion, so that suggest a good reliability. Additionally, since I have been following, there has been no single huge jump in percentages month over month, which also suggests a reliability. Yes, I know it is a single set of data, but everything suggests it falls within the norm. And the numbers suggest that the race between Feingold and RJohnson are closer than you or Brummie are saying.
I get that this isn't a pure democracy. But if this projection comes to pass, this sucks. I'm not saying that if the Dems win by 1 point they should control the House. But they shouldn't be 43 mother********ing seats behind.
Don't really have one. Federal legislation would, I think, run into pretty serious constitutional problems. It would be nice if states set up non-partisan commissions. As a practical matter, it would have to be done in concert; I don't expect the GOP to unilaterally disarm, to just give up their gerrymanders without the Dems giving up theirs. Maybe there's a VRA issue here. IANAL.
I'll start a thread on this in a few days once this madness calms down, but there are two good ways to solve this problem. 1) Have a computer draw lines based on objective rules. One way to do this is the shortest split line method. 2) Introduce proportional representation of some sort. One way to do this is the d'Hondt method. Ways to not accomplish this: 1) A non-partisan commission. That's a great way to protect the status quo. Also somehow these commissions aren't non-partisan, but rather bi-partisan, made up of the same parties that got us into this mess in the first place.
Unless districts are drawn with the primary consideration being race, there isn't really a VRA issue. Partisan gerrymandering is pretty much fine. Proportional representation is really the only logical way to go, and there's nothing stopping any individual state from setting things up that way. Nonpartisan districting commissions along the lines of what they do in Iowa is a decent middle ground. In Iowa, they make no efforts to protect incumbency, which helps with the status quo issue @MasterShake29 mentioned above. Other states with commissions don't do it that way.
Given the era of racial identity politics we're accelerating into, it'll take the wisdom of 10 Solomons to separate partisanship from racism.
That's the thing. It has to be pretty explicit to actually be a violation and some Republican legislatures STILL can't avoid it.
Looking like Bayh failed in Indiana.. Dems taking the Senate is starting to slip away.. Need to take New Hampshire to have a chance.
Did someone suggest earlier the Portman/ Strickland race was "a tossup"? CBS called it for Portman 30 seconds after the polls closed.
CNN has zero percent reporting from dade County outside the early vote. Hillary Clinton is winning with out Miami. She got Florida.
MSNBC saying "too early to call" in Pennsylvania. Given the turn-out and numbers, I'm pretty sure that means they're pretty sure McGinty will win. Gonna be a 50/50 split in the senate.