Emerson - Pennsylvania (Everyone Leads Trump)

[wbrocks67]

Biden 55%/ Trump 45%

Sanders 55%/ Trump 45%

Warren 52%/ Trump 48%

Harris 51%/ Trump 48%

O’Rourke 51%/ Trump 49%

Trump approval: 41/51 (-10)

When voters were asked how likely they were to vote for Trump in 2020, 55% said they “were not likely”, while 45% said that they were “likely to vote” for the President. Additionally 49% of voters said their opinion of Trump has worsened since he was elected President, while 35% said their opinion of Trump has improved since his election.

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/pennsylvania-2020-biden-leads-democratic-field-in-pennsylvania-biden-and-sanders-lead-trump-by-10-points-in-general-election

[wbrocks67]

-10 sounds about right. That's where it was in the 2018 exit poll (45/55). All of the special elections and 2018 have shown us that PA has soured on Trump, possibly the most out of PA/WI/MI.

[Politician]

Calling PA Tilt D this early seems accurate.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Have they removed undeciders etc or have they pushed them to choose anyway?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie doing as well as Biden in the state Biden grew up in really takes away from the argument that we need to nominate Biden to win.

[S019]

Calling PA Tilt D this early seems accurate.

It’s Emerson

Either believe all Emerson polls or throw all of them in the trash, some people have selective interpretation of polls from the same firm and it’s annoying

[UWS]

Bernie doing as well as Biden in the state Biden grew up in really takes away from the argument that we need to nominate Biden to win.

But Biden still does better than Sanders in both Michigan and Wisconsin, the two other states that handed victory to Trump in 2016. So Biden is clearly the best candidate among these two.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

[GeorgiaModerate]

Calling PA Tilt D this early seems accurate.

It’s Emerson

Either believe all Emerson polls or throw all of them in the trash, some people have selective interpretation of polls from the same firm and it’s annoying

Emerson is a shaky pollster, and in particular this poll has a small sample size (MoE is over 5%).  But I think it's believable based on national results to say PA is at least tilting D at this point.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

So, it took an Emerson poll for Atlas to finally realize the Ds are favored in PA...

[Sestak]

Warren ahead of Beto and Harris - great!

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Warren ahead of Beto and Harris - great!

Put it back in your pants. It's the result of name recognition and faulty methodology.

[Mail-order President]

Unless something changes between now and 2020, PA looks to be the most likely Obama/Trump/Dem state.

[pbrower2a]

Calling PA Tilt D this early seems accurate.

It’s Emerson

Either believe all Emerson polls or throw all of them in the trash, some people have selective interpretation of polls from the same firm and it’s annoying

Not my favorite pollster, but there is an excellent-good-fair-poor poll from Franklin&Marshall from a few hours earlier. "Poor" which is some form of disapproval, is at 51% "Excellent" and "good" suggest approval combine in the thirties. Because "fair" is ambiguous it is hard to determine. "Fair" is positive in the sense of "fair weather", "fair play", "fair trade", and "fair dealing". "Fair" is often a synonym for mediocre, which might be serviceable or acceptable in some contexts, but inadequate in others. "Fair" performance on a violin by a seven-year-old child is remarkable, but a "fair" performance as a soloist in Mendelssohn's violin concerto in E minor with the New York Philharmonic would be a disgrace.     

[UWS]

Warren ahead of Beto and Harris - great!

Yep, she is well ahead of O’Rourke and Harris in the primary poll. They are not going anywhere.

[pbrower2a]

So, it took an Emerson poll for Atlas to finally realize the Ds are favored in PA...

It is the first single-state approval poll of Trump since the 2018 midterm election of Pennsylvania. I suspected that Pennsylvania was not going well for Trump because:

1. 2018 polling for Trump was awful
2. A Democrat was re-elected Governor by a wide margin
3. An incumbent Democrat was re-elected Senator
4. Democrats won the majority of votes for Congressional Representatives
5. In the one special election for the US House, a Democrat replaced a Republican. 

To say that Pennsylvania could be for Trump what Indiana was for Obama between 2008 and 2012, a state that he barely won in 2016 that he loses in 2020 by double digits (or even close) is not the whole story. Obama did not need Indiana, and although he could afford to lose Indiana, he could have lost two other states that he won in 2008 with ten to twenty electoral votes and Florida and still won re-election, Donald Trump cannot do that if one of those is Pennsylvania or Florida.

I'm going to predict a state to be polled this weekend: Michigan. President Trump had one of his rallies in Grand Rapids, and it got news coverage. 

[MT Treasurer]

Biden 55%/ Trump 45%

Sanders 55%/ Trump 45%

Trump approval: 41/51 (-10)

Yeah, but I was told by Atlas that Trump could still win PA even if he loses WI and MI.

[Xing]

Biden 55%/ Trump 45%

Sanders 55%/ Trump 45%

Trump approval: 41/51 (-10)

Yeah, but I was told by Atlas that Trump could still win PA even if he loses WI and MI.

He's polling as bad if not worse in Wisconsin, not to mention, it's a bit early to put a lot of stock in this poll.

Democrats can't afford to assume that Trump won't win Pennsylvania because muh 2018 results. Ask President Romney about his big win in Pennsylvania.

[MT Treasurer]

Democrats can't afford to assume that Trump won't win Pennsylvania because muh 2018 results. Ask President Romney about his big win in Pennsylvania.

Yeah, they obviously can’t take the state for granted, I’m just saying that I don’t see how Trump loses WI and probably(?) MI—two states where Republicans still have a lot of room for growth in the rural areas—if he’s winning rural PA by a margin wide enough to offset the massive Democratic margins in the urban/suburban parts of the state as well as Democratic gains in places like Erie County. Or more precisely, if Democrats aren’t even getting the margins they need out of their D base counties (particularly Allegheny, Philadelphia, Chester and Montgomery), why would they "overperform" in the historically more Republican WOW counties, Green Bay, the Driftless Area, etc.?

[Politician]

Democrats can't afford to assume that Trump won't win Pennsylvania because muh 2018 results. Ask President Romney about his big win in Pennsylvania.

Yeah, they obviously can’t take the state for granted, I’m just saying that I don’t see how Trump loses WI and probably(?) MI—two states where Republicans still have a lot of room for growth in the rural areas—if he’s winning rural PA by a margin wide enough to offset the massive Democratic margins in the urban/suburban parts of the state as well as Democratic gains in places like Erie County. Or more precisely, if Democrats aren’t even getting the margins they need out of their D base counties (particularly Allegheny, Philadelphia, Chester and Montgomery), why would they "overperform" in the historically more Republican WOW counties, Green Bay, the Driftless Area, etc.?

Your assumption Trump will do better in rural WI/MI is pretty dangerous itself.

[DaWN]

Democrats can't afford to assume that Trump won't win Pennsylvania because muh 2018 results. Ask President Romney about his big win in Pennsylvania.

Yeah, they obviously can’t take the state for granted, I’m just saying that I don’t see how Trump loses WI and probably(?) MI—two states where Republicans still have a lot of room for growth in the rural areas—if he’s winning rural PA by a margin wide enough to offset the massive Democratic margins in the urban/suburban parts of the state as well as Democratic gains in places like Erie County. Or more precisely, if Democrats aren’t even getting the margins they need out of their D base counties (particularly Allegheny, Philadelphia, Chester and Montgomery), why would they "overperform" in the historically more Republican WOW counties, Green Bay, the Driftless Area, etc.?

Your assumption Trump will do better in rural WI/MI is pretty dangerous itself.

Given the trends in gov/senate from November, I'd argue it's not a particularly dangerous assumption.

Anyway, PA is definitely the most likely of the three to flip, but if it's flipping, the other two aren't too far behind.

[Xing]

Democrats can't afford to assume that Trump won't win Pennsylvania because muh 2018 results. Ask President Romney about his big win in Pennsylvania.

Yeah, they obviously can’t take the state for granted, I’m just saying that I don’t see how Trump loses WI and probably(?) MI—two states where Republicans still have a lot of room for growth in the rural areas—if he’s winning rural PA by a margin wide enough to offset the massive Democratic margins in the urban/suburban parts of the state as well as Democratic gains in places like Erie County. Or more precisely, if Democrats aren’t even getting the margins they need out of their D base counties (particularly Allegheny, Philadelphia, Chester and Montgomery), why would they "overperform" in the historically more Republican WOW counties, Green Bay, the Driftless Area, etc.?

The thing is, Hillary got decent numbers in Philly, but horrible turnout from Milwaukee and Madison. While Democrats could improve on her numbers in the Philly suburbs, there's even more room for growth in WI/MI suburbs, even if they are more "traditionally Republican."
Realistically, I don't expect these three states to be too far apart, and while I would guess right now that Pennsylvania will be the most Democratic of the three, I don't think that's a safe assumption, at this point.

[Politician]

Democrats can't afford to assume that Trump won't win Pennsylvania because muh 2018 results. Ask President Romney about his big win in Pennsylvania.

Yeah, they obviously can’t take the state for granted, I’m just saying that I don’t see how Trump loses WI and probably(?) MI—two states where Republicans still have a lot of room for growth in the rural areas—if he’s winning rural PA by a margin wide enough to offset the massive Democratic margins in the urban/suburban parts of the state as well as Democratic gains in places like Erie County. Or more precisely, if Democrats aren’t even getting the margins they need out of their D base counties (particularly Allegheny, Philadelphia, Chester and Montgomery), why would they "overperform" in the historically more Republican WOW counties, Green Bay, the Driftless Area, etc.?

Your assumption Trump will do better in rural WI/MI is pretty dangerous itself.

Tom Wolf lost like 8 rural counties in landslides that he won easily last time despite his winning margin going up by 6% lol.

And he still outperformed Clinton by a ton in those counties. I was talking about doing worse than 2016 performance in rural areas, and this notion that every rural county will vote 70-80% Republican is dumb.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Democrats can't afford to assume that Trump won't win Pennsylvania because muh 2018 results. Ask President Romney about his big win in Pennsylvania.

Yeah, they obviously can’t take the state for granted, I’m just saying that I don’t see how Trump loses WI and probably(?) MI—two states where Republicans still have a lot of room for growth in the rural areas—if he’s winning rural PA by a margin wide enough to offset the massive Democratic margins in the urban/suburban parts of the state as well as Democratic gains in places like Erie County. Or more precisely, if Democrats aren’t even getting the margins they need out of their D base counties (particularly Allegheny, Philadelphia, Chester and Montgomery), why would they "overperform" in the historically more Republican WOW counties, Green Bay, the Driftless Area, etc.?

Your assumption Trump will do better in rural WI/MI is pretty dangerous itself.

Tom Wolf lost like 8 rural counties in landslides that he won easily last time despite his winning margin going up by 6% lol.

And he still outperformed Clinton by a ton in those counties. I was talking about doing worse than 2016 performance in rural areas, and this notion that every rural county will vote 70-80% Republican is dumb.

Wolf outperformed Clinton pretty much everywhere in the state, lol. That's the nature of a midterm election.

I find your ironclad dedication to strawmaning the "muh 2016 trends" argument impressive but a little bizarre.

[IceSpear]

Is everyone just going to ignore the fact that these polls look better for Trump than the 2016 ones did?

Because "muh 2016" worked out so well for the R hacks in 2018. Just as "muh 2012" worked out so well for the D hacks in 2014.

There's no guarantee Trump will overperform the polls again. In fact, he could easily underperform them.

Not to mention it barely even matters what the polls say considering the election is literally a year and a half away.

[Comrade Funk]

Is everyone just going to ignore the fact that these polls look better for Trump than the 2016 ones did?

Because "muh 2016" worked out so well for the R hacks in 2018. Just as "muh 2012" worked out so well for the D hacks in 2014.

There's no guarantee Trump will overperform the polls again. In fact, he could easily underperform them.

Not to mention it barely even matters what the polls say considering the election is literally a year and a half away.

man. Nobody’s arguing that the Republican was going to beat the popular incumbent Bob Casey. Nobody serious said that the republicans would win the house elections there. My point is that republicans have routinely overperformed polling in the rust belt.

Barletta improved his RCP margin by 1.4 points in the general election.

And he still got crushed so what's your point? In this age of polarization, almost impossible for a PA statewide race to do as well as Wolf/Casey did.