Why weren't Pennsylvania and Michigan considered tossups by any news networks?

[super6646]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html

He was within the margin of error in two of these states, so why where they still leaning democratic if the campaigns were fighting hard in both of states in the final days? Yes, Wisconsin was an upset by polling standards (he was down 6 points), but why were these two closely contested states leaning democratic by all the major networks in the final days?

CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blxzfpc6IdI

NBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrKh3oky4dY

FOX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLr6W7Qgd_g

[Old Man Willow]

Most of the polls showing Trump competitive in PA and MI were not from respected firms.

[Keep cool-idge]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html

He was within the margin of error in two of these states, so why where they still leaning democratic if the campaigns were fighting hard in both of states in the final days? Yes, Wisconsin was an upset by polling standards (he was down 6 points), but why were these two closely contested states leaning democratic by all the major networks in the final days?

CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blxzfpc6IdI

NBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrKh3oky4dY

FOX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLr6W7Qgd_g

I know I'm just a random person but I get why Pennsylvania was lean democrat what I don't understand is why was Michigan I on my own maps made Michigan toss up the last few days because I found it odd how both sides didn't even campaign there till the last week especially Hillary while I still thought she would win 278-260 I thought that New Hampshire Nevada and Michigan plus North Carolina Florida and Ohio were pure toss ups but I knew if trump was going to crack the blue wall that Michigan was toast.

[bilaps]

It's funny how they treated UT all the election cycle. CNN just late pulling UT from tossup to lean R. It was never a tossup, no sane mind would have thought that. If UT was truly a tossup than FL,NC for example would be solid blue. Sure, there are states like UT that are specific, but in general states are not that isolated from each other, they move together if there's some trend. Also, some pollsters with "reputation" like Q or Marquette just blow everything off, like in NBC clip, I remember people waiting for WI Marquette poll thinking Trump is going to be maybe 2pts behind and poll showing 6pt for Clinton and everyone was like, that's it, no chance of blue wall crumbling. This is for the other topic but people saying polling was not that off in 2016, they're idiots cause the only polls that matter were state polls and they were very wrong. And GA6 election shows they still can't guess it right. I don't know where they are mistaken in methodology but polls are underestimating republicans since 2014

[The Mikado]

There also wasn't nearly enough polling of Michigan. PA was considered Lean D but with a chance of going for Trump, much more so than MI was. I still think saying MI was Lean D rather than tossup on election day is fair: Trump ended up shockingly winning it by 0.2% of the vote in a result that wasn't clear until days later.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Pennsylvania was AFAIK right?

Michigan on the other hand barely had any polling for some reason. No one major polled them except PPP and Gravis once. CBS polled them once the past 6 months.

Also no one mentions this (except Nate Silver funnily enough) but there was a huge "undecided" option in the polls.

For example, a Michigan poll would show Clinton up 44-39.... but I can guarantee  you 17% of the vote wouldn't be going to third parties. Even with a huge expected third party vote (say, 5%) that still leaves 12% undecided.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

PA definitely should have been considered a tossup since some polls there were pretty close (and both candidates were gunning pretty hard to win that state), but the polling in Michigan / Wisconsin was notoriously bad and made it seem like they were lean D states.

[AN63093]

Because of the polling.

In retrospect, MI was probably fine to not label a tossup since Trump's win was a bit "flukey."  Clinton was off around 75k votes from Obama in Detroit.. had they turned out, MI would've gone Dem.  So while the GOP can win the state, it generally won't happen unless the stars align.  There is nothing to suggest there is a structural problem for the Dems here (although I do think that long-term, especially as the Detroit MSA de-populates, the state will trend R).

PA is different- here, Clinton beat Obama in turnout throughout the Philly metro and was only off in the Philly city limits by 4k votes.  So there wasn't a turnout problem... what happened was there was a dramatic shift in Luzerne, Erie, and Lackwanna Counties.  This is something that I saw a few articles here and there speculate on as a possibility pre-election, but I don't think most people were taking that very seriously, or thought it was still years away, since the polling wasn't backing it up.  In reality, PA is a state that will almost certainly trend R long-term since the demographics are very favorable to the GOP.  I think most people recognized that, but it's happening a little sooner than I think most people thought it would, so it should probably be labeled a toss-up in most elections going forward.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Because of the polling.

In retrospect, MI was probably fine to not label a tossup since Trump's win was a bit "flukey."  Clinton was off around 75k votes from Obama in Detroit.. had they turned out, MI would've gone Dem.  So while the GOP can win the state, it generally won't happen unless the stars align.  There is nothing to suggest there is a structural problem for the Dems here (although I do think that long-term, especially as the Detroit MSA de-populates, the state will trend R).

PA is different- here, Clinton beat Obama in turnout throughout the Philly metro and was only off in the Philly city limits by 4k votes.  So there wasn't a turnout problem... what happened was there was a dramatic shift in Luzerne, Erie, and Lackwanna Counties.  This is something that I saw a few articles here and there speculate on as a possibility pre-election, but I don't think most people were taking that very seriously, or thought it was still years away, since the polling wasn't backing it up.  In reality, PA is a state that will almost certainly trend R long-term since the demographics are very favorable to the GOP.  I think most people recognized that, but it's happening a little sooner than I think most people thought it would, so it should probably be labeled a toss-up in most elections going forward.

If the latter is true, it's only because the Democrats will choose to pursue their criminally stupid strategies of identity politics and social liberalism emphasis.

[Dr. Arch]

Because of the polling.

In retrospect, MI was probably fine to not label a tossup since Trump's win was a bit "flukey."  Clinton was off around 75k votes from Obama in Detroit.. had they turned out, MI would've gone Dem.  So while the GOP can win the state, it generally won't happen unless the stars align.  There is nothing to suggest there is a structural problem for the Dems here (although I do think that long-term, especially as the Detroit MSA de-populates, the state will trend R).

PA is different- here, Clinton beat Obama in turnout throughout the Philly metro and was only off in the Philly city limits by 4k votes.  So there wasn't a turnout problem... what happened was there was a dramatic shift in Luzerne, Erie, and Lackwanna Counties.  This is something that I saw a few articles here and there speculate on as a possibility pre-election, but I don't think most people were taking that very seriously, or thought it was still years away, since the polling wasn't backing it up.  In reality, PA is a state that will almost certainly trend R long-term since the demographics are very favorable to the GOP.  I think most people recognized that, but it's happening a little sooner than I think most people thought it would, so it should probably be labeled a toss-up in most elections going forward.

If the latter is true, it's only because the Democrats will choose to pursue their criminally stupid strategies of identity politics and social liberalism emphasis.

Identity politics is not solely about minorities, unless you're saying that rural whites have no identity, and Trump didn't create a campaign solely to appeal to those demographics, basically.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Because of the polling.

I think most people recognized that, but it's happening a little sooner than I think most people thought it would, so it should probably be labeled a toss-up in most elections going forward.

Pennsylvania may become the new Ohio. The swing state decided by a few points but has a ton of electoral votes. In 2012, Philly was only a 5 point state. In 2004, it was a 2.5 point state.

Also I 100% agree with you - Trump won Pennsylvania by raw brute strength. His wins in Michigan and Wisconsin were flukey and did rely more on Clinton's low turnout. However, Clinton did everything in Pennsylvania right - she had many rallies there, she held her convention in Philly, she had a ground game, etc. etc. But like in Florida, Trump's raw brute strength was too much.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Because of the polling.

In retrospect, MI was probably fine to not label a tossup since Trump's win was a bit "flukey."  Clinton was off around 75k votes from Obama in Detroit.. had they turned out, MI would've gone Dem.  So while the GOP can win the state, it generally won't happen unless the stars align.  There is nothing to suggest there is a structural problem for the Dems here (although I do think that long-term, especially as the Detroit MSA de-populates, the state will trend R).

PA is different- here, Clinton beat Obama in turnout throughout the Philly metro and was only off in the Philly city limits by 4k votes.  So there wasn't a turnout problem... what happened was there was a dramatic shift in Luzerne, Erie, and Lackwanna Counties.  This is something that I saw a few articles here and there speculate on as a possibility pre-election, but I don't think most people were taking that very seriously, or thought it was still years away, since the polling wasn't backing it up.  In reality, PA is a state that will almost certainly trend R long-term since the demographics are very favorable to the GOP.  I think most people recognized that, but it's happening a little sooner than I think most people thought it would, so it should probably be labeled a toss-up in most elections going forward.

Yeah, that's probably wrong. Michigan's growth patterns are excellent for the GOP. In contrast, in PA, the inner suburbs are booming and bluing while rural areas are nearly maxed out and rapidly dying off.  Michigan will probably be right of PA in 2020.

[twenty42]

Pennsylvania was AFAIK right?

PA was a tossup on RCP, but not major television news networks. I don't think the MSM has classified PA as tossup since 2004. 2020 will be interesting given what happened in 2016.

For example, a Michigan poll would show Clinton up 44-39.... but I can guarantee  you 17% of the vote wouldn't be going to third parties. Even with a huge expected third party vote (say, 5%) that still leaves 12% undecided.

This happened in a few states, which is why "margins" in polls are so misleading. Wisconsin looked like a huge polling miss when Trump won it, since Clinton's RCP average was +6.5. But a closer look at the numbers showed the actual average was Clinton 46.8 - Trump 40.3 - Other 12.9. They were spot on with Clinton's actual percentage (46.5 IRL), but most of the undecideds broke for Trump. Lesson learned...the higher the undecided percentage in a poll, the less relevant the margin is.

Another smoke signal that nobody caught was that PA was polling to the right of the nation in the eve of the election. Clinton led the national polls by 3.3, but only led PA by 1.9 (RCP averages). The PVI was larger in the final results (R+2.81), but in retrospect it should have been a sign that PA was vulnerable.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Lesson learned...the higher the undecided percentage in a poll, the less relevant the margin is.

Yeah, this was definitely the biggest takeaway from the polling this election. Undecided numbers were so high in a lot of states, especially the midwest, but everyone assumed Hillary would break even or even win with undecideds, so they vastly overstated her chances of being elected.