MI: New Strategic National Clinton +1

[Classic Conservative]

Clinton: 45%
Trump: 44%
Johnson: 5%

https://mobile.twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/793841133080240129

[Phony Moderate]

Ah, so that balances out the +20 poll.

[dspNY]

Just as ridiculous as the Clinton +19 in Michigan. Right-wing pollsters now flooding the zone for Trump, attempting to influence polling averages (Trafalgar Group, Remington, etc).

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

lelz

GOP pollsters are flooding the country with their dog sweat as Comey-gate means jack poop

[Erich Maria Remarque]

[Xing]

Looks like we might just get a lot of noise in the polls for the next week. Perhaps early voting is the better indicator.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Incidentally, this from Mike Murphy (GOP strategist and NBC analyst):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One thing that makes me worry about Michigan is the number of Trump yard signs I've seen in Wayne County--especially the blue collar suburbs (e.g., Lincoln Park, Wyandotte, Taylor, etc.) that have typically voted heavily Democratic.  I'm not to the point of saying Trump will win Michigan, but I definitely think he has a chance here.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

One thing that makes me worry about Michigan is the number of Trump yard signs I've seen in Wayne County--especially the blue collar suburbs (e.g., Lincoln Park, Wyandotte, Taylor, etc.) that have typically voted heavily Democratic.  I'm not to the point of saying Trump will win Michigan, but I definitely think he has a chance here.

It'd be great if you could help us out as an aspiring member of the Republican political class.

[King]

Remember when all polls used to be done by real polling companies that have existed for years/decades. What are these ing firms?

[Lief 🗽]

Remember when all polls used to be done by real polling companies that have existed for years/decades. What are these ing firms?

Discredited fraud Nate Silver put them out of business.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The polls are just all over the place. I guess Tuesday will be suspenseful if nothing else.

[Dr. Arch]

This is practically the equivalent of getting no polls at all.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The polls are just all over the place. I guess Tuesday will be suspenseful if nothing else.

It'll be over by 8:30

[Terry the Fat Shark]

lelz

GOP pollsters are flooding the country with their dog sweat as Comey-gate means jack poop

yes yes Mr. Clinton will win by 9 points

[Speed of Sound]

This is practically the equivalent of getting no polls at all.

Pretty much, yeah.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The polls are just all over the place. I guess Tuesday will be suspenseful if nothing else.

It'll be over by 8:30

When North Carolina is called for Clinton.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

MI is lean D, Hillary has hit 50% in at least 2 polls, so there probably won't be enough fake undecideds for Trump to squeak by here.

[Ebsy]

Sure.

[IceSpear]

One thing that makes me worry about Michigan is the number of Trump yard signs I've seen in Wayne County--especially the blue collar suburbs (e.g., Lincoln Park, Wyandotte, Taylor, etc.) that have typically voted heavily Democratic.  I'm not to the point of saying Trump will win Michigan, but I definitely think he has a chance here.

Really...yard signs? Is that you Peggy Noonan?

I've sometimes seen more Sanders stuff than Hillary stuff in towns Hillary won by ~50 points. It means nothing.

[RFayette]

The polls are just all over the place. I guess Tuesday will be suspenseful if nothing else.

It'll be over by 8:30

But the state/county maps will be a thrill to watch the whole way through.  For an Atlasian, it's not over until we get the 50-state map.

[ProudModerate2]

538 adjusted this to a Clinton +2, but I'm sure she is doing better than that.
MI seen to have an 80% chance of winning for Clinton.
The FireWall continues to hold.

[JJC]

MI GOP primary;

2012: 996,499 voters. Romney 41% - Santorum 38%
2016: 1,323,589 voters. Trump 36% - Cruz 24%

That's a lot of voters coming out for Trump in the primary, which was never even competitive. In fact, more people voted in the GOP primary than the dem primary (1,205,552), and that race was extremely competitive (Sanders 49% - Clinton 48%). Unfortunately I could not compare GOP vs Dems primary numbers in previous elections because for democrats in 2008 the state was uncontested (because of a rule violation) and in 2004/2000 the state was a caucus.

Not saying primary support is necessarily indicative of general performance in any way, but the GOP outvoting the dems in blue MI should be at least some cause for concern among democrats. Trump's message plays really well among white-working class voters and union members - both of which MI has in abundant (Sanders did too). The state was almost tailor-made for him - were it not for the fact that it leans so heavily dem.

MI and VA are my two dark horses.

[SirMuxALot]

Not saying primary support is necessarily indicative of general performance in any way, but the GOP outvoting the dems in blue MI should be at least some cause for concern among democrats.

A reasonable analysis and part of me wants to be encouraged by what you say.

But since the MI primary, I've been bothered by that massive polling miss on the D side.  That was an out of this universe polling error.

My gut says there was a significant component of D crossover "meddling" voting for Trump.  (Remember, Michigan was an open primary.)  This could explain the D-side miss, however, the R-side relative accuracy doesn't back that up.  So I know it's a very debatable theory.

My point being, I'm not hanging my hat on the big R primary turnout.  Even without crossover/meddling effect, it's arguable D primary turnout was suppressed by the expectations that it wasn't at all competitive.

[Maxwell]

christ are we still talking about a huge outlier?