Wait just a second here. Haven't 538 (and most election prognosticators, for that matter) endlessly opined about how likely voter polls are more reliable than registered voter polls, especially when the election is ~2 months away? And yet now we're supposed to disregard that, just for this specific poll mind you, for what reason? Because of Harry Enten's gut feelings? Because it shows a Democrat doing better, and that "can't be right"?
Plus, republicans clearly have an enthusiasm advantage this cycle, and midterm election turnout is ALWAYS lower than presidential election turnout regardless of whether a gubernatorial election exists or not in a given state, and the lower the turnout is, the likelier a republican victory becomes.
So likely voter polls are always better, except when they aren't. Well, that's certainly handy. Just the type of cogent and thought provoking analysis I can expect from neo-538. 
Sarcasm aside, why is it that we're only starting to see pollster-specific registered vs. likely voter comparisons now that one shows a Democrat outperforming? It seems until now, everyone was fine with peddling the "likely voters are always better" conventional wisdom. You're taking it for granted that Republicans are more enthusiastic than Democrats in Wisconsin, but Marquette says otherwise.
But Democrats are doomed....DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!
