I find that to be a non sequitur, and an attempt to find some way to dismiss the result using an irrational substitution of an unrelated topic, i.e. application of a distraction, iow, a classic red-herring fallacy.
If you understood the limits of the poll you'd understand it's actually MUCH easier and much more rational to simply see the real limits of any generalizing of these poll results.
It's not a poll of a general cross section of WI voters. It's not a scientific poll undertaken with care to capture a random and representative cross-section. It's a voluntary poll of Dem activists at a convention, mostly intended to stimulate blog readers and initiate comments at the pollers website, pretty much like polls in GD. The result, turns out to be pretty similar to what such polls have looked like in GD.
The most general interpretation of this poll suggests only that a candidate not even included in the previous years convention straw poll can have a strong showing among convention attendees. IOW results of convention polls are dynamic and can have great variability between years.
A less general but pointed interpretation is that among dem activists who participated in the poll, Sanders had a strong following, a following much stronger than what shows up in national polling of dem leaning voters or the general population.
A more speculative interpretation, but probably one that is correct in its leaning, would be that among dem activists who participated in the poll, there is significant interest in a candidate that isn't viewed to be like the establishment dems who ran against and who lost to Walker.
I don't think any interpretation that approaches a reflection of reality would suggest that the straw poll is an indication of preference among convention attending dems who behaved in a manner that supported Walker's elections. This poll very simply doesn't incorporate opinions from and does not reflect Walker/anti-union preference among WI's republican leaning voters.
= new reply since forum marked as read