MN Mason-Dixon: Walz +6

[IceSpear]

It should be noted that Mason-Dixon and SurveyUSA always underestimate Dems in MN in Dem wave years by about 5-10 points.

So, Walz wins by about 10-15 in the end and Smith by at least 10-15 as well.

I was curious about this so I went to check.

2016: Both overestimated Dems
2014: Both were spot on
2012: SUSA overestimated Dems, Mason Dixon overestimated Reps
2010: SUSA was spot on, Mason Dixon didn't have a poll
2008: Both overestimated Reps
2006: Both were pretty close to the mark

Certainly doesn't seem to be any consistent trend there.

[IceSpear]

It should be noted that Mason-Dixon and SurveyUSA always underestimate Dems in MN in Dem wave years by about 5-10 points.

So, Walz wins by about 10-15 in the end and Smith by at least 10-15 as well.

I was curious about this so I went to check.

2016: Both overestimated Dems
2014: Both were spot on
2012: SUSA overestimated Dems, Mason Dixon overestimated Reps
2010: SUSA was spot on, Mason Dixon didn't have a poll
2008: Both overestimated Reps
2006: Both were pretty close to the mark

Certainly doesn't seem to be any consistent trend there.

Did you read what he said? In Dem Wave Years?

Literally one example in the past decade does not a trend make. And the fact that you actually believe Nevada polls makes it even funnier that you of all people are arguing this.

[IceSpear]

This poll doesn't mesh with the RGA pulling out all their money here.

My guess is that Walz wins by more than 6, but even if he doesn't, it's pretty clear why the RGA would pull their money. For one, they're butthurt that their anointed candidate Pawlenty lost the primary. Secondly, 6 is still a pretty big gap to close in a state that even voted for Hillary and hasn't voted for a Republican statewide in ages. If they see it as unwinnable, it doesn't really matter whether Walz is ahead by 6 or 16. And third, they're playing so much defense this year that they'd rather focus on prospects where the money could actually make a difference.