WPRI has a new poll out showing former governor Tommy! Thompson with a lead over Sen. Russ Feingold in the race for Feingold’s U.S. Senate seat. Shortly after the poll was released, Sen. Feingold’s campaign issued a statement :

As has been widely reported, WPRI is a group with strong Republican ties, most prominently to Tommy Thompson. As the Associated Press reported last week there have been serious questions about WPRI manipulating polling results so the media and voters should think twice about the credibility of WPRI’s polling.

As Xoff notes, WPRI’s poll brings bad news for Republican Senate candidate Terrence Wall, whose name recognition slipped from 69% in a recent Rasmussen poll to only 18% in the WPRI poll. Clearly something’s fishy about those numbers, so it’s hard to put much stock in either poll, given how dramatically different the results are.

Speaking of WPRI, earlier today I came upon a piece (of what I can’t say here) written by Dave Blaska, who argues WPRI is nonpartisan:

Yeah, with a list of commentators that includes Charlie Sykes, George Lightbourne, and Christian Schneider, I can see how Dave Blaska thinks WPRI is “nonpartisan.”

H/T to illy T .

Tagged with:

23 Responses to A few thoughts on WPRI and its latest poll

  1. Zach,

    Do youself a favor, shut the fuck up about WPRI and Tommy until you get honest about OWN, John Kraus, and Russ Feingold.


  2. Nathan says:

    Kevin, you really aren’t helping Mr. Walker and Mr. Thompson, or those of us that support them.

  3. Tom says:

    Take a psychology class and any professor will tell you that for every study, you will be able to find one that refutes it making them polar opposites of each other. Frankly any poll is irrelevant. The only count that matters is the one in November – provided ACORN doesn’t push people to vote illegally, or Gwen’s nasty looking kid doesn’t slash tires again.

  4. Proud Progressive says:

    Hmmmmmm, seems that Kevin has a problem with Zach offering his opinions/comments on his own blog. Apparently more than a problem given the language he used telling Zach to “shut up”. Kevin, if Zach’s comments get so enraged why do you continue to visit this blog? Maybe you would do better to stick the Koolaid offered by Beck, Rush, Hannity, and the blogs that don’t cause you such aggravation.

  5. Proud Progressive says:

    Zach, I’m not suggesting that Kevin withhold his comments (even though he has nothing constructive to add). However, suggesting that you should shut the f*&k up when you express your comments seems over the top. After all, this is your platform. What I am suggesting is that perhaps he should avoid visiting this site if it brings out such rage in him. That can’t be healthy . . .

  6. Tim says:

    Does this mean Kevin is finally going to become honest? Fat chance of that.

  7. Locke says:

    Did you seriously make a post ripping on WPRI for being partisan barely half an hour after a post referring to an organization led by Mike McCabe to as nonpartisan? Really?

    • Zach W says:

      The post you referenced was simply a cut and paste job, so those are their words, not mine. I was asked to post an announcement, and that’s what I did.

      • forgotmyscreenname says:

        Would you blindly post an announcement I sent you?

        • Zach W says:

          I never said I “blindly posted” it.

          I read it, and then I posted it. I don’t ever “blindly post” anything.

          • forgotmyscreenname says:

            So do you think McCabe’s organization is non-partisan or not?

            Because in the first reply you imply you don’t (as it was simply a cut and paste job and being asked to post it), and in your second reply you imply that you do (read it and posted it).

            • Zach W says:

              No, in the second I simply clarified that I read it before posting it, since you assumed I just “blindly posted” it. However, to answer your question, I don’t really pay much attention to McCabe’s group, but I find it hard to believe that any group that seems to focus its attention on individuals from one party or another is truly “nonpartisan.”

  8. […] Zach Wisniewski, who cites Xoff’s piece and then goes on to point out the rogues’ gallery of shady characters, including one of my biggest fans, Charlie Sykes. (Also note Kevin Binversie’s intellectual contribution to the discussion [NSFW]) […]

  9. Wow, I drop one “F-Bomb” on you all cling to that, but none of you focus on what I was saying.

    Good to know that none of you have a clue that the man who started One Wisconsin Now is now the Campaign Manager for Feingold 2010.

    • John Foust says:

      Heavens! You’re kidding? I guess this means we should stick with fine, upstanding Republicans in cloth coats who are not interconnected, back-slapping, corporately funded, incestously hiring their buddies, or cross-promoting each other’s press releases.

    • Zach W says:

      I never knew George Aldrich started One Wisconsin Now; I always thought John Kraus did.

    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      Well you shouldn’t have given them the opportunity to go off on your “F bomb.” It detracts from your argument and allows for easy criticism.

      • Zach W says:

        Exactly. I don’t mind a good argument, even if it disagrees with mine, but let’s try and be civil. There’s more than enough blogs out there that deal in personal attacks and nasty language; I don’t want my little slice of the intertubes to be one of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.