Trump focusing on 17 states (including IN, ME, MN, MO)

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Fair enough. I'm still skeptical that Michigan will be remotely in play (even in a close election), but you've made a good case for it being a possibility.

It probably won't be, but a close election involves Trump gaining votes somewhere.  I consider Michigan to be "Florida insurance," and that's probably what the Trump campaign is thinking.

[Mallow]

Fair enough. I'm still skeptical that Michigan will be remotely in play (even in a close election), but you've made a good case for it being a possibility.

It probably won't be, but a close election involves Trump gaining votes somewhere.  I consider Michigan to be "Florida insurance," and that's probably what the Trump campaign is thinking.

Agreed WRT a close election meaning he gains votes somewhere, but in my mind that puts PA and MN (and possibly ME) into play. MI just seems like too much of a stretch.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Fair enough. I'm still skeptical that Michigan will be remotely in play (even in a close election), but you've made a good case for it being a possibility.

It probably won't be, but a close election involves Trump gaining votes somewhere.  I consider Michigan to be "Florida insurance," and that's probably what the Trump campaign is thinking.

Agreed WRT a close election meaning he gains votes somewhere, but in my mind that puts PA and MN (and possibly ME) into play. MI just seems like too much of a stretch.

I don't see any way Trump loses PA in a close election.  In fact, we could see some really odd shifts, if AZ moves enough to actually go to Clinton in a PV tie  And if AZ goes, so goes NV and CO.  In order to balance the map, I have to make something that looks like this:

Trump 272 (47.5% PV)
Clinton 266 (47% PV)

As far-fetched as this map looks, who knows how things could change by November?  MI might not just be Florida insurance.  It could be Arizona insurance.

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Wow, Beef, you might be right about MI being the Florida insurance. I always thought WI would be more likely to flip than MI, but then again MI was the biggest surprise in the Democratic primaries this year.

Maybe polling in MI is simply broken.

The odds of Trump pulling into a tie with Clinton nationally seem very slim to me.  So if such an unlikely even were to occur, to me it breaks a bunch of assumptions.

[Ljube]

Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa have same day registration. No chance for Republicans in those states. Ever.

[Mallow]

Fair enough. I'm still skeptical that Michigan will be remotely in play (even in a close election), but you've made a good case for it being a possibility.

It probably won't be, but a close election involves Trump gaining votes somewhere.  I consider Michigan to be "Florida insurance," and that's probably what the Trump campaign is thinking.

Agreed WRT a close election meaning he gains votes somewhere, but in my mind that puts PA and MN (and possibly ME) into play. MI just seems like too much of a stretch.

I don't see any way Trump loses PA in a close election.  In fact, we could see some really odd shifts, if AZ moves enough to actually go to Clinton in a PV tie  And if AZ goes, so goes NV and CO.  In order to balance the map, I have to make something that looks like this:


Trump 272 (47.5% PV)
Clinton 266 (47% PV)

As far-fetched as this map looks, who knows how things could change by November?  MI might not just be Florida insurance.  It could be Arizona insurance.

Mostly agreed, except as I noted before, I think MN (and quite possibly ME) goes before MI in this hypothetical white-uneducated-exodus to Trump.

[DS0816]

Wow, Beef, you might be right about MI being the Florida insurance. I always thought WI would be more likely to flip than MI, but then again MI was the biggest surprise in the Democratic primaries this year.

Maybe polling in MI is simply broken.

The odds of Trump pulling into a tie with Clinton nationally seem very slim to me.  So if such an unlikely even were to occur, to me it breaks a bunch of assumptions.

Poling in Michigan, with regard for how it looks for Democrats, is frequently low-balled.

This state voted close to national margins in 1984, 1988, and 1992. It was no more than +1.83 from the national margins in any of those cycles. But, it trended away from the GOP, and Democrats are really around +6, in addition to popular-vote margin, in carrying it at the presidential level.

Wisconsin would come before Michigan—just with the comparison of these two states—in a presidential election won by a Republican.