MILWAUKEE \u2014With 14 months to go until the 2020 presidential election, former Vice President\nJoe Biden is favored by 51 percent and President Donald Trump by 42 percent\namong Wisconsin registered voters in a potential match. Four percent say they\nwould not support either candidate and 2 percent say they don\u2019t know. This is\nthe first Marquette Law School Poll of 2019 that has asked head-to-head vote\nchoices for potential 2020 nominees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a\nmatch with Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sanders receives 48 percent and Trump 44\npercent, with 5 percent supporting neither and 2 percent who don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When\nmatched against Trump, Sen. Elizabeth Warren is the choice of 45 percent and\nTrump is the choice of 45 percent, with 5 percent supporting neither and 5\npercent saying they don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sen.\nKamala Harris is supported by 44 percent to Trump\u2019s 44 percent, while 6 percent\nsupport neither and 6 percent say they don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A summary\nof the general election matches is shown in Table 1. Table 1: General Election Matches<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The poll\nwas conducted Aug. 25-29, 2019. The sample included 800 registered voters in\nWisconsin interviewed by cell phone or landline, with a margin of error of +\/-\n3.9 percentage points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Democratic\npresidential candidate preference items were asked of Democrats, independents\nwho lean Democratic, and independents who do not lean to either party. That\nsample size is 444 with a margin of error of +\/-5.3 percentage points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Four\nissue-related questions were asked of half the sample (Form A) and four were\nasked of the other half-sample (Form B). Questions on Form A have a sample size\nof 400 and a margin of error of +\/- 5.6 percentage points. Questions on Form B\nhave a sample size of 400 and a margin of error of +\/- 5.5 percentage points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Democratic Presidential Primary\nCandidates<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Among\nDemocrats, independents who lean Democratic, and independents who do not lean\nto either party (hereafter \u201cthe Democratic primary sample\u201d), Biden receives the\nmost support for the April 2020 presidential primary. Biden is the first choice\nof 28 percent, followed by Sanders at 20 percent, Warren at 17 percent and Pete\nButtigieg at 6 percent. Harris receives 3 percent, while all other candidates\nreceive 2 percent or less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complete\nresults for the Democratic primary are shown in Table 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the\nDemocratic primary sample, favorability of five candidates is shown in Table 3. Table 3: Favorability ratings of five candidates\namong Democratic primary sample<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Economic outlook and issues<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wisconsin\nregistered voters hold a net positive view of the performance of the economy\nover the past 12 months, with 37 percent saying the economy has improved over\nthe past year, 25 percent saying it has worsened, and 34 percent saying it has\nstayed the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By\ncontrast, the outlook for the next year is not net positive, with 26 percent\nsaying the economy will improve, while 37 percent think it will get worse and\n33 percent saying the economy will remain the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\noutlook for the coming year among those polled in 2019 is less favorable than\namong those polled in 2018 as more respondents now see the prospect of a\nworsening economy. The August poll is the second in 2019 that has seen net\npessimism about the economic outlook. The previous net negative reading was in\nJanuary 2019, during the federal government shutdown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2018,\nthe average future outlook was 14.7 percent net positive, while in 2019 the\naverage outlook has been net negative -3 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The full\nresults since February 2018 are shown in Table 4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4: Outlook for the economy over next year<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Forty-five\npercent approve of the job Trump is doing as president, with 53 percent\ndisapproving. That is little changed from April when 46 percent approved and 52\npercent disapproved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Forty-nine\npercent of those polled approve of Trump\u2019s handling of the economy, while 50\npercent disapprove.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Partisanship\nstrongly affects views of both the economy and Trump\u2019s handling of it. In Table\n5, 41 percent of Republican and independents who lean Republican think the\neconomy will improve over the next 12 months, 42 percent think it will stay the\nsame and 12 percent think it will worsen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\ncontrast, among Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, 12 percent\nthink the economy will improve, 23 percent think it will remain the same, and\n63 percent think the economy will worsen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Twenty-one\npercent of independents who do not lean to a party expect the economy to\nimprove, 37 percent think it will stay the same and 33 percent expect an\neconomic downturn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 5: Economic Outlook (Next 12 Months) by Party\nIdentification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6\nshows approval of Trump\u2019s handling of the economy by party. While Republicans\nand Democrats are near-mirror images of each other, independents on balance\ndisapprove of Trump\u2019s handing of the economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6: Trump Economic Job Approval by Party Identification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Tariffs\non Chinese imports were raised on Sept. 1, after the poll was completed, although\nthe tariff increase was announced by Trump on Twitter on Aug. 23 before\ninterviews began on Aug. 25. Respondents were asked if imposing tariffs or fees\non products imported from other countries helps the U.S. economy, hurts the\neconomy or doesn\u2019t make much of a difference either way. Thirty percent say\ntariffs help the economy, 46 percent say they hurt the economy, and 17 percent\nsay tariffs don\u2019t make much difference either way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7\nshows views of tariffs by party identification, including leaners as partisans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7: Impact of tariffs on economy by party identification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Gun\nlegislation and opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This poll\nwas completed after the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, on Aug. 3 and in\nDayton, Ohio, on Aug. 4, but before the mass shooting in Odessa and Midland,\nTexas, on Aug. 31. Opinion on potential changes to gun laws has changed little\nfrom previous polling on gun issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8\nshows the trend in support and opposition to universal background checks for\nfirearm sales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8: Trend in support or opposition to\nbackground checks<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Note:<\/strong> a<\/sup> Prior to 2019 options were \u2018Favor\u2019 or\n\u2018Oppose\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Households\nwith guns are only a little less supportive of background checks than those\nwithout a gun. Seventy-five percent of respondents from households with a gun\nsupport background checks, while 88 percent of those without a gun do so. Those\nwho refuse to say if there is a gun in the household are more opposed to\nbackground checks. Six percent of respondents refused to say if there was a gun\nin the household. These results are shown in Table 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 9: Support or oppose background checks by gun\nin household (August 2019)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cRed-flag\u201d\nlaws that would allow police to take away guns from people who have been found\nby a judge to be a danger to themselves or others are supported by 81 percent\nand opposed by 12 percent. Eighty-one percent of respondents in households with\na gun support such red-flag laws as do 86 percent of those without a gun in the\nhousehold. Those refusing to say if there is a gun in the household are less\nsupportive of red-flag laws, as shown in Table 10. This question has not been\nasked before in the Marquette Law School Poll.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 10: Support or oppose red-flag law by gun in\nhousehold (August 2019)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Support\nfor a ban on \u201cassault-style weapons\u201d is lower than support for background\nchecks or red-flag laws. Table 11 shows the trend in support or opposition to a\nban on assault-style weapons, and Table 12 shows the views of residents in\nhouseholds with or without a gun.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 11: Trend in support or opposition to ban on\n`assault-style weapons\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Note:<\/strong> a<\/sup> Prior to 2019 options were \u2018Favor\u2019 or\n\u2018Oppose\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 12: Support or oppose ban on `assault-style\nweapons\u2019 by gun in household (August 2019)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Feelings\ntoward the National Rifle Association (NRA) were measured on a 100-point\n\u201cfeeling thermometer\u201d where 100 means very warm or favorable feelings, zero\nmeans very cold or unfavorable feelings, while a score of 50 means neither\nfavorable nor unfavorable feelings. Respondents can assign any score between 0\nand 100.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall,\nthe average score for the NRA was 50.2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Average\nfeelings toward the NRA are shown in Table 13 for men and women in urban,\nsuburban and rural areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\naverage rating of the NRA is the approximately the same for urban and suburban\nmen, and several points higher among rural men. Women in urban areas are about\n10 points less favorable to the NRA than are urban men. Suburban women are 12\npoints less favorable than suburban men. Women in rural areas, however, are\nequally favorable to the NRA as are rural men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 13: Average \u2018feeling thermometer\u2019 score for\nthe National Rifle Association by gender and urban-suburban-rural residence<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Views of a diverse society and\nimmigrants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Sixty-five\npercent of respondents think an increasingly diverse population of different\nraces, ethnic groups and nationalities makes the United States a better place\nto live. Four percent think this makes the U.S. a worse place, and 27 percent\nthink it doesn\u2019t make much difference. When last asked in October 2016, 53\npercent said an increasingly diverse population made the U.S. better, 9 percent\nsaid it made the country worse, and 35 percent said it made little difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asked to\nrate immigrants on the 0-to-100 point \u201cfeeling thermometer,\u201d the average score\ngiven to \u201clegal immigrants\u201d was 78.8, while the average rating for \u201cillegal\nimmigrants\u201d was 42.5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\naverage thermometer score given to \u201cMuslims\u201d was 63.1, while that given to\n\u201cevangelical Christians\u201d was 58.6. Muslims were rated on average between 59 and\n68 on the \u201cfeeling thermometer\u201d by each of four religious groups, while\nevangelicals were rated over 75 by evangelicals, but at 33 by those without a\nreligion. Mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic respondents gave evangelical\nChristians similar 59 and 61 average ratings respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Views of racial disparity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A\nmajority of respondents, 53 percent, agree that there is a lot of\ndiscrimination against blacks in the U.S., while 45 percent disagree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A larger\nmajority, 62 percent, disagree with a statement that racial disparities are\nonly a matter of effort and that \u201cif blacks would only try harder they could be\njust as well off as whites.\u201d Thirty percent agree with a statement that black\ndisadvantage is a matter of effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A\nminority, 41 percent, agree with a statement that blacks have gotten less than\nthey deserve over the past few years, with 51 percent disagreeing with that\nstatement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A\nmajority of respondents, 58 percent, say that Hispanic people have the same\nchance of getting ahead as people from most other ethnic backgrounds.\nTwenty-seven percent say Hispanic people have a worse chance of getting ahead,\nand 10 percent say they have a better chance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Water-quality issues<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Forty-three\npercent of respondents say they are very or somewhat concerned about the safety\nof their community\u2019s water supply, while 57 percent say they are not too\nconcerned or not at all concerned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fifty-two\npercent say the state of Wisconsin is doing an excellent or good job protecting\nthe safety of public drinking water, while 39 percent say the state is doing a\nfair or poor job.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A\nsubstantial majority of respondents, 74 percent, say the state should provide\nfinancial support for replacing lead pipes between water mains and residences\nbecause of the health risks posed by lead pipes. Sixteen percent say this cost\nshould be paid entirely by the owner of the residence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Opinion of the governor and\nlegislature<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Governor\nTony Evers\u2019 job approval stands at 54 percent, with disapproval at 34 percent.\nTen percent say they don\u2019t have an opinion. In April, 47 percent approved, 37\npercent disapproved, and 15 percent lacked an opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Approval\nof the job the Wisconsin legislature is doing is 52 percent and disapproval is\n38 percent, with 8 percent saying they don\u2019t know. In April, 50 percent\napproved, 38 percent disapproved, and 11 percent lacked an opinion. State of the state<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Fifty-five\npercent of respondents say the state is headed in the right direction, while 37\npercent say it is off on the wrong track. In April, 52 percent said the state\nwas going in the right direction and 40 percent said it was on the wrong track.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 14\npresents the favorability ratings of elected officials in Wisconsin and the\npercentage of respondents who haven\u2019t heard enough or say they don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 14: Favorability ratings of elected officials<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n About the Marquette Law School Poll<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nMarquette Law School Poll is the most extensive statewide polling project in\nWisconsin history. This poll interviewed 800 registered Wisconsin voters by\nlandline or cell phone, Aug. 25-29, 2019. The margin of error is +\/-3.9\npercentage points for the full sample.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nDemocratic presidential candidate preference items were asked of Democrats,\nindependents who lean Democratic and independents who do not lean to either\nparty. That sample size is 444 with a margin of error of +\/-5.3 percentage\npoints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Four questions\nwere asked of half the sample (Form A) and four were asked of the other\nhalf-sample (Form B). Questions on Form A have a sample size of 400 and a\nmargin of error of +\/- 5.6 percentage points. Questions on Form B have a sample\nsize of 400 and a margin of error of +\/- 5.5 percentage points. (The small\ndifference in margin of error is due to rounding of the 2nd decimal point after\nweighting the half-samples.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Form A\nquestions were right direction or wrong track for the state and three items on\nwater quality issues. Form B questions were approval of the state legislature\nand three gun-related issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\npartisan makeup of the sample, including those who lean to a party, is 46\npercent Republican, 45 percent Democratic and 8 percent independent. The partisan\nmakeup of the sample, excluding those who lean to a party, is 26 percent\nRepublican, 28 percent Democratic and 46 percent independent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n Match\n <\/td> \n Pct\n <\/td> \n Match\n <\/td> \n Pct\n <\/td> \n Match\n <\/td> \n Pct\n <\/td> \n Match\n <\/td> \n Pct\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Joe\n Biden\n <\/td> \n 51\n <\/td> \n Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td> \n 48\n <\/td> \n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td> \n 45\n <\/td> \n Kamala\n Harris\n <\/td> \n 44\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Donald\n Trump\n <\/td> \n 42\n <\/td> \n Donald\n Trump\n <\/td> \n 44\n <\/td> \n Donald\n Trump\n <\/td> \n 45\n <\/td> \n Donald\n Trump\n <\/td> \n 44\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Neither\n <\/td> \n 4\n <\/td> \n Neither\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td> \n Neither\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td> \n Neither\n <\/td> \n 6\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td> \n 6\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n Table 2: First and second choice in the\n Democratic primary sample (Democrats, independents who lean Democratic and independents\n without a partisan lean).<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Response\n <\/td> \n First Choice\n <\/td> \n Second Choice\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Joe Biden\n <\/td> \n 28\n <\/td> \n 18\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td> \n 20\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td> \n 17\n <\/td> \n 20\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td> \n 6\n <\/td> \n 10\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Kamala Harris\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td> \n 11\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Andrew Yang\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Cory Booker\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Kirsten Gillibrand\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Tom Steyer\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Steve Bullock\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n John Delaney\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Michael Bennet\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Tim Ryan\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Bill de Blasio\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Wayne Messam\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Joe Sestak\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Someone else (VOL)\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Would not vote (VOL)\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Refused\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n \n <\/td> \n Favorable\n <\/td> \n Unfavorable\n <\/td> \n Haven\u2019t heard enough\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Joe\n Biden\n <\/td> \n 70\n <\/td> \n 20\n <\/td> \n 8\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td> \n 63\n <\/td> \n 21\n <\/td> \n 11\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td> \n 53\n <\/td> \n 12\n <\/td> \n 27\n <\/td> \n 7\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Pete\n Buttigieg\n <\/td> \n 37\n <\/td> \n 7\n <\/td> \n 45\n <\/td> \n 11\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Kamala\n Harris\n <\/td> \n 35\n <\/td> \n 14\n <\/td> \n 41\n <\/td> \n 10\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n Poll\n Date<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td> \n Get\n better<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td> \n Get\n worse<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td> \n Stay\n the same<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td> \n Net<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2018-02-25\n <\/td> \n 37\n <\/td> \n 20\n <\/td> \n 38\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td> \n 17\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2018-06-13\n <\/td> \n 35\n <\/td> \n 25\n <\/td> \n 37\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td> \n 10\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2018-8-15\n <\/td> \n 38\n <\/td> \n 25\n <\/td> \n 31\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2018-9-12\n <\/td> \n 37\n <\/td> \n 24\n <\/td> \n 34\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2018-10-3\n <\/td> \n 42\n <\/td> \n 20\n <\/td> \n 32\n <\/td> \n 7\n <\/td> \n 22\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2018-10-24\n <\/td> \n 38\n <\/td> \n 25\n <\/td> \n 29\n <\/td> \n 8\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2019-1-16\n <\/td> \n 29\n <\/td> \n 34\n <\/td> \n 30\n <\/td> \n 6\n <\/td> \n -5\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2019-4-3\n <\/td> \n 34\n <\/td> \n 27\n <\/td> \n 34\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td> \n 7\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2019-8-25\n <\/td> \n 26\n <\/td> \n 37\n <\/td> \n 33\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td> \n -11\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n \n <\/td> \n Get\n better\n <\/td> \n Get\n worse\n <\/td> \n Stay\n the same\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Republican\n <\/td> \n 41\n <\/td> \n 12\n <\/td> \n 42\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Democrat\n <\/td> \n 12\n <\/td> \n 63\n <\/td> \n 23\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Independent\n <\/td> \n 21\n <\/td> \n 33\n <\/td> \n 37\n <\/td> \n 9\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n \n <\/td> \n Approve\n <\/td> \n Disapprove\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Republican\n <\/td> \n 88\n <\/td> \n 11\n <\/td> \n 0\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Democrat\n <\/td> \n 9\n <\/td> \n 89\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Independent\n <\/td> \n 43\n <\/td> \n 51\n <\/td> \n 6\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n <\/strong>\n <\/td> \n Helps\n US economy\n <\/td> \n Hurts\n US economy\n <\/td> \n Doesn\u2019t\n make much difference\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Republican\n <\/td> \n 47\n <\/td> \n 21\n <\/td> \n 22\n <\/td> \n 8\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Democrat\n <\/td> \n 12\n <\/td> \n 72\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Independent\n <\/td> \n 34\n <\/td> \n 47\n <\/td> \n 15\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n Poll\n Date\n <\/td> \n Support\n <\/td> \n Oppose\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2013-3-13\n <\/td> \n 81\n <\/td> \n 17\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2013-5-9\n <\/td> \n 71\n <\/td> \n 26\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2016-1-24\n <\/td> \n 85\n <\/td> \n 12\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2018-02-25\n <\/td> \n 81\n <\/td> \n 16\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2019-8-25\n <\/td> \n 80\n <\/td> \n 16\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n Gun\n Household\n <\/td> \n Support\n <\/td> \n Oppose\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Yes\n <\/td> \n 75\n <\/td> \n 22\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n No\n <\/td> \n 88\n <\/td> \n 8\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Refused\n <\/td> \n 69\n <\/td> \n 27\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n Gun\n Household\n <\/td> \n Support\n <\/td> \n Oppose\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Yes\n <\/td> \n 81\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td> \n 7\n <\/td><\/tr> \n No\n <\/td> \n 86\n <\/td> \n 9\n <\/td> \n 6\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Refused\n <\/td> \n 46\n <\/td> \n 25\n <\/td> \n 29\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n Poll\n Date\n <\/td> \n Support\n <\/td> \n Oppose\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2013-3-13\n <\/td> \n 54\n <\/td> \n 43\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2018-02-25\n <\/td> \n 56\n <\/td> \n 40\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n 2019-8-25\n <\/td> \n 57\n <\/td> \n 40\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n Gun\n Household\n <\/td> \n Support\n <\/td> \n Oppose\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Yes\n <\/td> \n 49\n <\/td> \n 50\n <\/td> \n 2\n <\/td><\/tr> \n No\n <\/td> \n 71\n <\/td> \n 26\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Refused\n <\/td> \n 16\n <\/td> \n 66\n <\/td> \n 14\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n \n \n <\/td> \n Urban\n <\/td> \n Suburban\n <\/td> \n Rural\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Male\n <\/td> \n 52.3\n <\/td> \n 51.7\n <\/td> \n 57.8\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Female\n <\/td> \n 41.7\n <\/td> \n 39.7\n <\/td> \n 58.4\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n \n <\/td> \n Favorable\n <\/td> \n Unfavorable\n <\/td> \n Haven\u2019t\n heard enough\n <\/td> \n Don\u2019t\n know\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Tony Evers\n <\/td> \n 49\n <\/td> \n 35\n <\/td> \n 11\n <\/td> \n 5\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Tammy Baldwin\n <\/td> \n 44\n <\/td> \n 40\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Donald Trump\n <\/td> \n 42\n <\/td> \n 53\n <\/td> \n 1\n <\/td> \n 3\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Ron Johnson\n <\/td> \n 40\n <\/td> \n 29\n <\/td> \n 25\n <\/td> \n 6\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Scott Fitzgerald\n <\/td> \n 19\n <\/td> \n 20\n <\/td> \n 49\n <\/td> \n 12\n <\/td><\/tr> \n Robin Vos\n <\/td> \n 15\n <\/td> \n 20\n <\/td> \n 52\n <\/td> \n 13\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n