Wisconsin, a Barack Obama stronghold?
Whatever it is Barack Obama has going in Wisconsin, his campaign would be well advised to bottle it and ship it.
The state, with its 10 electoral votes, is a mainstay on lists of this year's battlegrounds because of the results there in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races.
Eights years ago, Al Gore carried it over George W. Bush by 5,708 votes out of almost 2.6 million cast. Four years ago, John Kerry did slightly better, winning it in his matchup with Bush by 11,384 votes out 
of almost 3 million cast.
How could it not be achingly close again?
But if a new poll is to be believed, it won't be.
The survey, a joint venture by the University of Wisconsin and WisPolitics.com conducted Sunday through Tuesday, gave Obama a 13-percentage-point lead over John McCain, 50% to 37%.
Perhaps it isn't to be believed. A poll earlier this month by Rasmussen Reports showed the contest more in line with the past barnburners -- Obama led by only 2 percentage points, 45% to 43%.
The Obama camp could be excused for having faith in the more recent numbers, given that Wisconsin already has come through for him. The state gave him one of his most impressive primary wins: He thumped Hillary Rodham Clinton by 17 percentage points in the Feb. 19 contest.
Exit polls showed that he walloped Clinton among male voters, held his own among female voters and carried the lower-income voters that proved so elusive for him in the primaries that closed out the Democratic race.
The new poll served as a welcome mat for Obama: It was released as he traveled Thursday to Kaukauna, Wis., where he attracted about 1,500 people for a town-hall meeting (pictured above) on a topic he currently is dwelling upon, the struggling economy.
-- Don Frederick
Photo credit: Getty Images
The poll numbers in Wisconsin this early in the campaign would suggest that Barack Obama can do well in the states that were close but went for Bush in 2004. If Obama does raise much more money than John McCain, he will be very competitive in all the swing states.
Posted by: Sheldon | June 12, 2008 at 09:16 PM
"The state, with its 10 electoral votes, is a mainstay on lists of this year's battlegrounds because of the results there in the 2000 and 2008 presidential races."
Mr. Frederick, do you know something the rest of us don't? Do you have a source at Diebold or something?
Posted by: Larry | June 12, 2008 at 09:25 PM
Obama manipulates the truth instead of presenting the truth and is a master of propaganda. It worked in the early days of Nazi Germany.
All the while the Middle East is trying to discredit the Republican administration by raising oil prices so that Obama will be a shoe in.
I think this is the end of our great country. The Islamist are not going to destroy America from the outside but from within. And they are betting on the uneducated and unthinking American who follows Obama like lemmings to the cliff, despite the fact that we do not know who Obama is while turning a blind eye to Obama’s nefarious affiliations from Ayers who kicked off Obama’s senate campaign in 1995 to the mobster Rezko.
Posted by: Carol Stavor | June 12, 2008 at 09:39 PM
RON PAUL 4 EVAH!!!1!
Posted by: Andrew Malcolm | June 12, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Wisconsin is traditionally a well balanced state that adhere to basic democratic ideas and traditional principles of equality and equal rights of everybody. This despite a few conservative republican racists and bigots misled by some evangelical types. After all it is the Birth Place of the Republican Party, but not these current neo-conservative and their hog wash perversity of inequality, hate, fear, rights only of their kind and republican patriotic feeding frenzy to control the hearts and minds of a misled and gullible nation.
One has to live there or be from there to understand.
Posted by: winemaster2 | June 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Just wait until Old Man McSame, the dottering old fool, really starts getting attention by the general public. Put him and his drug-addicted trophy wife next to him, get him babbling about something--anything really, and that will make his present Wisconsin lead look like nothing!
Posted by: Tony | June 12, 2008 at 10:53 PM
@Carol Stavor
Oh Please! I see the neocon criminals in the White House have really done a number on you--yeah it seems their hard work at fear mongering has paid off--a tactic that the Nazi's were much more familiar with I believe.....
Please show me some proof that "...the Middle East is trying to discredit the Republican administration by raising oil prices".... a link to the facts or it's BS.
I think the "Republican administration" is doing just fine in discrediting themselves, thank you.
Perhaps President Obama will show some compassion at GWB & the rest of his regime's war crimes trial and pardon him....but I hope not.
Posted by: Tony | June 12, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Obama is going to surprise a lot of folks as this election unfolds. I am not surprised about his strength in WIsconsin.
There is another angle to an Obama victory that hasn't been much discussed, but is worth considering.
"Obama: It's the Name, Stupid"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Mitchell Aboulafia | June 12, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Carol Stavor says,
"Obama manipulates the truth instead of presenting the truth and is a master of propaganda. It worked in the early days of Nazi Germany. All the while the Middle East is trying to discredit the Republican administration by raising oil prices so that Obama will be a shoe in. I think this is the end of our great country."
I couldn't stop laughing -- still can't, actually.
Can that post be serious? She gives no examples of Obama "manipulating the truth" or being "a master of propaganda".
Then she suggests that the Middle East is raising the oil prices in a conspiracy to undercut Republicans. And, all this time I actually thought the market determined oil prices.
And, finally, she says, "I think this is the end of this great country." Rah, rah, rah, rah.
"Great country?" Have you lost your mind!?
Have you been hiding under a rock for the past 8 years? Haven't you seen what George Bush and the Corporate Repugs have done to this country?
Obama's your only hope of saving this country, lady.
Posted by: Neal Delfeld | June 13, 2008 at 01:07 AM
I'm proud to be from Wisconsin, and even prouder that as a state we are favoring Barack Obama.
Posted by: jeff | June 13, 2008 at 01:18 AM
At a time when regular Americans are struggling to pay for food and gas, McCain is proposing to make Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy PERMANENT and proposing to decrease taxes for corporations. A full one-puarter, 25%, of the money saved under his proposals would benefit the most wealthy making over $2.8 million dollars a year. Those are not the people that need help. No wonder Carly Fiorina is working so hard for John McCain. It is multimillionairs like her who would benefit most under John McCain tax plan.
Posted by: carolyn | June 13, 2008 at 03:32 AM
On Wisconsin! Go Obama!
Posted by: stan | June 13, 2008 at 05:37 AM
McCain actually believes that he will win just because he is Caucasian. To him it is inconceivable that Americans on a whole will vote for a black man over him. He is offering the American people nothing except his" non-colored skin". He practically says he is not going to give us anything. He, like Bush, is all about taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Like a reverse Robin Hood. He can't be allowed to get away with that. His race is not going to put gas in your tank or food on your table or a better education for your children. Not only will Barack Obama improve your life but we will looked upon with respect, finally, by the rest of the world. We will be viewed as real people instead of a bad Hollywood movie that has been running way too long.
Posted by: Redphilly | June 13, 2008 at 05:42 AM
"Obama's your only hope of saving this country, lady."
Oh please grow up.
Just because you are so arrogant that you think everything you say will magically come to pass, it's just not true.
Maybe your momma told you you were special, but she lied. You are no better than anyone else.
No wonder you are a 'GaffeMachine" Obama supporter.
Come on back to this thread in November and say you are sorry to this lady. I dare you.
Obama is a flawed candidate and even worthless "Shamnesty" McCain will beat him.
You can thank Howard Dean (that sleazeball) and the DNC for that.
Posted by: RoBoTech | June 13, 2008 at 06:38 AM
I find so much irony in the fact that Obama supporters go out and basically shout down or drown out any contrary opinions. Isn't the Obama Campaign supposed to support open dialog and active debate? Instead, we get the opposite which is exactly what I'm scared about if Obama is elected president. And I cannot afford to pay any more taxes.
Posted by: ToughCrowd | June 13, 2008 at 07:27 AM
As with everything you have to look at the source before believing it. I would never trust a poll from the University because Madison is very liberal.
I live in Wisconsin and the beliefs in Madison don't echo that of the whole state.
The only difference this time around is the black vote in Milwaukee which may be enough to give him the edge.
Posted by: Robert | June 13, 2008 at 07:30 AM
Wow! The Republican trolls are totally out in force. Obviously they have nothing better to do. Unlike you trolls, most of us democrats will be registering more voters and volunteering wherever we can. You can count on this election being a landslide in favor of Obama. The more troll comments I see, the more it makes me aware of the neccesity of contributing to both the DNC and Obama's campaign (which I already have done), but also, I plan on making as many calls as I can in addition to recruiting as many family and freinds to the American cause.
Obama08!
Posted by: steven | June 13, 2008 at 09:03 AM
Obama is the real man. His 'Change you can believe' is worth supporting. I urge all to give hime to give hime the chance.
Posted by: ERIC ABBEY | June 13, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Inspirational people do move the world and the world can't do without them. Obama by all standard is an inspirational person. He towers above John McCain in this regard. America needs Obama to change things around.
Posted by: ERIC ABBEY | June 13, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Yeah, trolls on the Republican side, keep it up! Every time you do this, it drives more people to Obama. Maybe people are sick of your mean-spirited garbage, have you ever thought about that? Your efforts don't solve anything in this country. Why don't you change your ways & do something more positive for this country?
Posted by: tlsmith1963 | June 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Isn't Wisconsin one of those States that voted before Rev. Wright reared his ugly head? If so, might the voting have changed? It remains to be seen I guess, in November.
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around Barack and especially his wife, Michelle.
Posted by: Justice | June 13, 2008 at 10:53 AM
John McCain left his first wife because she got fat and got crippled in an accident. He was fooling aroung with lots of women, then he decided to settle for trophy Cindy with her rich father who could help him politically. Even his first wife said that '' McCain did not want to be 40, he wanted to be 25! and that is why he left me because l was too old for him!! senator McCain''s moral principles are wrong for women!
Senator McCain does not understand family values! Senator McCain is WRONG for America at this crucial moment in American.
Senator McCain understand nothing but war, he thinks it is romantic and build character. If you vote for McCain its the end of ROE, 100 years in Iraq and war with Iraq. His war experience made his career, he thinks sending your kids to torture camps will make them better people.
Vote for the right kind of change, vote for a person with good vision, character, good judgement, vote for a strong leader, Vote Barack Obama for president!!!
Obama understand our America values.
obama understands what women are facing (sexism).
obama understand the sufferings and struggles of the middle class.
Obama for a good and strong America!!!
Say NO to Bush McClone, no more third term for Bush! McCain is a Bush camouflag!
Posted by: Julie | June 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by: mvymvy | June 13, 2008 at 12:13 PM
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by: mvymvy | June 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM
The state, with its 10 electoral votes, is a mainstay on lists of this year's battlegrounds because of the results there in the 2000 and 2008 presidential races."
Mr. Frederick, do you know something the rest of us don't? Do you have a source at Diebold or something?
Posted by: Larry | June 12, 2008 at 09:25 PM
-----------------------------------------------------
Larry, why are you so cynical?? it is quite clear the author of this article is basing an Obama win in 2008 on the facts the electoral votes went to VP Gore in 2000 and to Senator Kerry in 2004---Wisconsin favors the Democrat Party.
Posted by: NinaK | June 13, 2008 at 12:41 PM