Should Trump go after Pennsylvania or Michigan?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Trump is currently polling better in MI than PA.  My theory is that Trump is doing better with white Obama voters there, pushing the state to the right of PA.

Note: PA and MI haven't split since 1976 (with MI going GOP), and they have be separated by the following margins recently:

2012: MI +4.09% D
2008: MI +6.13% D
2004: MI +0.92% D
2000: MI +0.96% D

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Republicans will need these two states to be purple in upcoming elections. I think PA is looking good, as it will remain purple in upcoming elections; but Michigan is tough. The Democrats have an advantage there because they went to bat for the auto industry while Republicans talked about "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!" and "Too Big to fail!"

Trump does not represent the GOP establishment.  He's the guy who, in many voters' eyes, crushed the old GOP and isn't afraid to give "straight talk" about bringing industrial jobs back and protecting the existing ones.  Personally, I think it's a load of garbage, all talk, no substance.  But if you're worried about the economic direction of the country, his message is seductive.

The Trump campaign also doesn't care about how these states trend in the future.  They care about winning now.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If this was ANY other Republican, the obvious answer would be Wisconsin before Pennsylvania or even Michigan.

One would assume not-Trump would take IA along with WI.  If not-Trump flips FL, OH, and WI from 2012, that only gets him to 263.  IA gets him to 269.  If part of the goal is keeping the election from being thrown to the House, he would also need either NV or CO.  So in this hypothetical election, we'd be asking whether PA or WI+IA+NV/CO was the viable path.

Turning VA D is the greatest electoral college coup of the current alignment.  It really messes with the Republicans' strategy.  The GOP probably had the upper hand before.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

CO will be even more gone for the GOP than it is now. ME-02 doesn't flip with a Generic R.

The GOP was polling very well (or at least competitive) in CO before they nominated Trump. I'm not buying that CO is gone for Republicans. VA, yeah, but not CO. And even if it is, Republicans can win without both states in the future if they nominate the right candidate.

A generic, 50/50 PV split map right now probably looks like this:

Dem 254
GOP 206

The Democrats have the following paths to victory:
1. FL (283)
2. OH (272)
3. WI + any other battleground
4. CO+NV + any two other battlegrounds

The GOP have the following paths:

1. FL+OH+WI+CO (272)
2. FL+OH+WI+IA + either CO or NV
3. FL+OH+IA+CO+NV

Unless something changes (VA, PA, MI, or MN fall back into play), the Democrats really have the upper hand.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

He's actually doing a couple points better in PA than in MI, as the Atlas polling map shows.

RCP average has Clinton up 9.2 in PA, but 7.3 in MI.  This is consistent with my expectations, which are that MI is going to be one or two points to the right of PA.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

He's actually doing a couple points better in PA than in MI, as the Atlas polling map shows.

RCP average has Clinton up 9.2 in PA, but 7.3 in MI.  This is consistent with my expectations, which are that MI is going to be one or two points to the right of PA.

There are significantly fewer polls for Michigan than PA. In 2012, RCP had Michigan at 4.0 and Pennsylvania at 3.8 --- nearly even. Yet on Election Day, Michigan was D+9 while PA was D+5 -- 4 point difference.

In 2012 Romney insulted a large portion of potential Republican voters by calling them dependent on the government.  In 2016 Trump is promising to bring Michigan back to the golden age of manufacturing.  Very different candidates and messages.