Rasmussen polled of public opinion about Clint Eastwood.

Because the poll was conducted before and after his unusual performance at the convention, you get some insight:

While Republican officials were uncertain about Eastwood, 78% of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of him. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that Democrats are evenly divided: 42% favorable and 44% unfavorable. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 58% view Eastwood favorably, and only 21% have a negative view....

The survey was conducted on the night Eastwood gave his speech and the night after.  Interviews conducted on the first night were mostly completed before the actor’s prime time speech. Comparing the two nights shows virtually no change in perceptions of Eastwood among Republicans voters.

However, on the first night, 49% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of Eastwood. That fell to 34% on the second night after news coverage of the fact that Eastwood was making jokes at President Obama’s expense. The number of Democrats with an unfavorable opinion of Eastwood grew from 31% to 56%.  Put it together and the Democrats’ net assessment of Eastwood went from a +18 before the speech to a minus 22 after. 

Among unaffiliated voters, positive reviews of Eastwood showed little change over the two nights. However, negative views of the star grew from 12% before the speech to 29% after.

So, what does this mean? Why did only the Democrats' opinion shift — and shift so much? I would conclude that Eastwood's performance was successful. Democrats feel bad about that. It's also possible that some Democrats were unaware of Eastwood's political preference, and having found out, they don't like him anymore. The quality of the performance — in that light — doesn't matter.

Bloomberg polling has Obama 13 points ahead of Romney.

"Can that possibly be true?"

The firm that conducted the Bloomberg survey, Selzer & Co., is well regarded by polling experts. The margin of error for its likely voter results was 3.6 percentage points.

The poll did not include an over-representation of Democrats, or African-Americans – both groups that skew heavily toward the incumbent. One thing that might account for its result, as compared with other surveys, is that it shows Obama doing better among white voters. The Bloomberg survey has him with 43 percent of the white vote, as opposed to 50 percent for Romney.

"The Whupping in Wisconsin: Seven Key Conclusions."

'It's time to reflect. My own instincts are to enjoy the security of knowing things have not been upset. We're not going back. Peace has arrived. It's a beautiful morning. Or, as Meade just said: "It's morning in Wisconsin." But if the recall election had gone the other way, there would have been lusty gloating and aggressive interpretation of what it all means. What a stern repudiation of conservative politics it would have been!

So I want to look at some things like Erick Erickson's 7 conclusions. (The parentheticals are my reactions.)

1. "[D]efense of public sector unions is now a non-starter..." (This was known after the primary, when Barrett defeated Falk. Then Barrett had nowhere, really, to go. But he tried, with vague themes like bringing back "Wisconsin values" and making it possible for neighbors to speak to neighbors. The whole idea of the recall stopped making sense. )

2. The "coalition of disaffected independent voters, tea party activists, and Republicans held together." (Disaffected? I'd say the independent voters — e.g., me — coolly assessed the situation in Wisconsin and decided it's best to keep going in this direction.)

3. "[T]he Republican Party’s use of technology in its GOTV efforts really paid off.... The Democrats handed the GOP a marvelous gift of a recall that went on and on and on. By the time everyone got to the gubernatorial recall, the GOP had its GOTV tweaked perfectly." (Interesting. I kept hearing about how amazing the Democrats were on getting out the vote. The GOP never contacted us. We got 2 in-person visits from Democrats in the days before the election — in addition to Dem robo-calls — but on election day, we got nothing. I think one of the individuals who encountered Meade at the door — I never answer the door — figured out we were people who shouldn't be gotten out.)

4. We can discern that "Barack Obama is extremely nervous." (He was nervous and he showed it. That tweet-only contact with Wisconsin was an embarrassing display of nervousness. It made me think of that old 2008 theme: He voted present.)

5. "[E]xit polling does not work well for recall elections." (I'd say exit polling is so deeply defective that it should be ignored. I saw CNN using exit polling to make a show out of the night, to push ratings. They have these spiffy displays, to show numbers, which John King purports to explain to Wolf Blitzer, but the numbers are — I will presume from now on — bogus. It's like finding out "American Idol" doesn't count the phoned-in voters. No. It's worse. At least "American Idol" contestants are actually singing. But John King explaining the meaning of things that are not real? Why are we watching that? Is that independently entertaining? I can imagine a reality show where contestants are given ridiculous and false factoids and then they are judged by how much we enjoy their efforts to explain them. Actually, I used to play a little game like that with my sons when they were little. It was called "What if you had to argue...?")

6. "Barack Obama is still the favorite" in Wisconsin. (Is he relying on the exit polls?! I think the Obama people are completely freaked out now. And the better Walker does over the next 5 months, making things work — or making us feel that things are working — without the static or protests and recall and with economic numbers improving, the more the people of Wisconsin may get the impression that Romney can do things like that at the national level and save us from the depredations of liberal policy.)

7. "MSNBC is consistently the most entertaining news network in America when things go badly for the left.... I was actually concerned that Ed Schultz might have a medical episode on live television last night. It was … surreal." (I didn't watch much MSNBC. I get my fill of lefty acting-out in real life here in Madison. But maybe it is a fun TV show. Lord knows the CNN attempts at explaining nonexistent things are useless.)

Erickson has an 8th item, but he won't fully commit to it as a conclusion: "Anger does not win elections." (Anger... what exactly are we talking about? Dumb rage is unappealing, but some kind of fervor is needed. I think Barrett was a bad candidate because he was basically bland on the issues, he claimed he would restore good feeling, but he would rear up with angry talking points intermittently. This doesn't convince people that it's worth ousting somebody who's in the middle of doing a job that seems to be working and who seems reasonably steady and competent.)

Scott Walker crushes the competition...

... in the Daily Kos's Public Policy Polling poll.

These numbers show a drop for Democrats from PPP's last survey of the race, which of course makes you ask, why? What's changed? Our pollster, Tom Jensen, offers his thoughts:

The biggest change is probably that this was our first time using a likely voter screen...

Ah ha ha ha! They finally polled likely voters. Oh, how lovely it was living in fantasy land. What's changed??!!! They decided to try... the real world.

What an embarrassment!

Marquette Law School gets into the political polling business...

... with Charles Franklin, who is a University of Wisconsin political science professor.

"There are a host of things we'll be able to look at from time to time to paint a much deeper and broader picture of how people feel about the direction the state is headed in, both good and bad," says Franklin.

"It's not a state of one mind," he adds of Wisconsin, a perennial swing state in elections. "It's also not a state of two minds. There are a lot more mixed feelings in both parties."

"It's not a state of one mind... It's also not a state of two minds..." It's a state that has lost its mind.

Many have questioned why a law school is getting into the polling business, Franklin says. But he notes Marquette Law School has already become a "public policy crossroads" by hosting political debates and issue forums. The polling project is an extension of that, he says.

Franklin says Wisconsin is poorly served by the limited polling currently done. Most media organizations are no longer willing or can't afford to conduct polls. And the few polls done by partisan organizations are quickly dismissed by critics as biased, even when they are solid.

Should a law school be in the polling business? If so, and if the polling expert is a UW prof, why is that law school Marquette and not Wisconsin?  Questions, questions. Some of which can be answered through polling. Anyway, I'm excited by the prospect of getting uniquely high quality polls about our uniquely weirdly political state, Wisconsin.