Michigan : Trump loses by wide margins
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:51:15 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Michigan : Trump loses by wide margins
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Michigan : Trump loses by wide margins  (Read 4248 times)
Frenchrepublican
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,278


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 05, 2019, 06:25:39 AM »
« edited: June 05, 2019, 06:36:26 AM by Frenchrepublican »

Glengariff poll of Michigan. Trump would lose to every democratic candidate if the election was held today according this poll.

Quote : “Southeast Michigan women — we’ve seen this now for a year and a half — continue to be a mammoth problem for the Republican Party,"

Democrats vs Trump :
Sanders +12
Biden +12
Buttigieg +6
Warren +4
Harris +3

https://t.co/Et9V3yLWYf?amp=1
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2019, 09:13:50 AM »

More detail:



 

Every Democrat leads Trump in a binary choice in Michigan, but especially Biden and Sanders:



Impeachment?



Not yet.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/05/amash-presidential-bid-hurts-biden-michigan/1331256001/

....................

Amash is far better known in parts of Michigan, as he is from the Grand Rapids area. I see Michigan going to Biden about as it did for Obama in 2008 if one does not consider conservative or libertarian alternatives as choices in Michigan, or like it did for Reagan against Carter in 1980 with such a conservative or libertarian alternative. Obama in 2008 was much more impressive than Reagan in 1980 in Michigan.

Although matchups between Trump and Democrats other than Biden and Sanders give wider disparities than do those with lesser-known opponents, this may reflect name recognition better than anything else. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President will have  name recognition -- fast.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,786
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2019, 09:18:32 AM »

No surprise, but it will be a much closer race than that. Biden or Sanders will win it by 4
Logged
Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,986
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -0.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2019, 09:35:10 AM »

But Atlas told me the Democrat has no chance of getting Whitmer's map or winning Bay or Macomb counties!
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2019, 10:01:12 AM »

Can anyone explain why Trump always underperforms his approvals in midwestern state polls? This same poll shows -8 approval (at 44%) but with -12 margins against Biden/Sanders (at 41%). Doesn't make sense. Are there really voters who approve of Trump but will vote for Democrats because they just like them better than Trump? lol

Not that this matters greatly, but it's such a consistent phenomenon that it's worth talking about.
Logged
Frenchrepublican
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,278


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2019, 10:27:54 AM »
« Edited: June 05, 2019, 10:33:05 AM by Frenchrepublican »

More detail:



 

Every Democrat leads Trump in a binary choice in Michigan, but especially Biden and Sanders:



Impeachment?



Not yet.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/05/amash-presidential-bid-hurts-biden-michigan/1331256001/

....................

Amash is far better known in parts of Michigan, as he is from the Grand Rapids area. I see Michigan going to Biden about as it did for Obama in 2008 if one does not consider conservative or libertarian alternatives as choices in Michigan, or like it did for Reagan against Carter in 1980 with such a conservative or libertarian alternative. Obama in 2008 was much more impressive than Reagan in 1980 in Michigan.

Although matchups between Trump and Democrats other than Biden and Sanders give wider disparities than do those with lesser-known opponents, this may reflect name recognition better than anything else. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President will have  name recognition -- fast.


Joe Biden won’t win MI by 16. Lol
At the worst Trump loses MI by a margin similar to Romney, but you are greatly overestimating Biden
Logged
Frenchrepublican
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,278


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2019, 10:33:23 AM »

Can anyone explain why Trump always underperforms his approvals in midwestern state polls? This same poll shows -8 approval (at 44%) but with -12 margins against Biden/Sanders (at 41%). Doesn't make sense. Are there really voters who approve of Trump but will vote for Democrats because they just like them better than Trump? lol

Not that this matters greatly, but it's such a consistent phenomenon that it's worth talking about.

It’s possible that undecided voters are more favourable to Trump than decided voters, I have a hard time seeing Trump winning less than 45% of the vote in MI
Logged
ajc0918
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,862
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2019, 10:55:51 AM »

The people of Michigan are tired of the Trump presidency.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2019, 11:58:17 AM »

So including Amash as a GE option cuts Biden's lead all the way down from a 12 point lead to a 6 point lead?  His support comes largely from people who would otherwise vote Biden?  That's in stark contrast to the media's CW.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2019, 01:30:50 PM »

So including Amash as a GE option cuts Biden's lead all the way down from a 12 point lead to a 6 point lead?  His support comes largely from people who would otherwise vote Biden?  That's in stark contrast to the media's CW.


I think with Amash in the news right now, vaguely anti-Trump people (especially in his home state) might be more inclined to say they’ll vote for him than when he’s actually running on the Libertarian ticket. I don’t think it says all that much at this point about how much support he might ultimately take from either candidate nationwide.
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,599


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2019, 01:47:32 PM »

So including Amash as a GE option cuts Biden's lead all the way down from a 12 point lead to a 6 point lead?  His support comes largely from people who would otherwise vote Biden?  That's in stark contrast to the media's CW.


That's because the vast majority of Republicans are diehard Trump loyalists.

Amash would be picking off a lot of "swing voters" and soft Dems if he actually ran, not a bunch of dissafected Republicans.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2019, 01:55:26 PM »

Our reliance on the polls last time proved to be a massive disappointment and presented inaccuracies. Michigan definitely won't be voting for another TPP globalist.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2019, 02:09:26 PM »

Our reliance on the polls last time proved to be a massive disappointment and presented inaccuracies. Michigan definitely won't be voting for another TPP globalist.

Polls were fairly accurate last time given the margin of error. Combine that with the fact that they have improved since then (evidenced by their much greater success in 2018, especially in the House elections/popular vote) and the fact that many of the final polls took place right as the Comey effect was being felt, and Trump’s approval rating has remained consistently dismal... There is certainly no rational reason to discount them.

Of course, I would never expect rationality from a self-proclaimed Democrat whose signature suggests he supports two non-Democratic populist candidates who couldn’t be more different ideologically and who rants about “TPP globalists” in 2019. Rationality is indeed the very last thing I would expect from such a person.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2019, 02:48:58 PM »

Our reliance on the polls last time proved to be a massive disappointment and presented inaccuracies. Michigan definitely won't be voting for another TPP globalist.

Polls were fairly accurate last time given the margin of error. Combine that with the fact that they have improved since then (evidenced by their much greater success in 2018, especially in the House elections/popular vote) and the fact that many of the final polls took place right as the Comey effect was being felt, and Trump’s approval rating has remained consistently dismal... There is certainly no rational reason to discount them.

Of course, I would never expect rationality from a self-proclaimed Democrat whose signature suggests he supports two non-Democratic populist candidates who couldn’t be more different ideologically and who rants about “TPP globalists” in 2019. Rationality is indeed the very last thing I would expect from such a person.

If anything, the Democratic Party has been nothing but irrational. Why support establishment Dems when the Progressives can win?
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,786
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2019, 02:54:11 PM »

This is exactly why Biden will win the state by 3-4 points due to Amish  voters, like Johnson took votes away from Hilary
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2019, 03:59:51 PM »

No surprise, but it will be a much closer race than that. Biden or Sanders will win it by 4

I will take a 4 point win.  That means Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are gone for Trump as well.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,547
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2019, 07:40:58 PM »

I hope this is accurate and lasts until November 2020.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2019, 09:26:29 AM »
« Edited: June 09, 2019, 09:13:38 PM by pbrower2a »



....................

Amash is far better known in parts of Michigan, as he is from the Grand Rapids area. I see Michigan going to Biden about as it did for Obama in 2008 if one does not consider conservative or libertarian alternatives as choices in Michigan, or like it did for Reagan against Carter in 1980 with such a conservative or libertarian alternative. Obama in 2008 was much more impressive than Reagan in 1980 in Michigan.

Although matchups between Trump and Democrats other than Biden and Sanders give wider disparities than do those with lesser-known opponents, this may reflect name recognition better than anything else. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President will have  name recognition -- fast.


Joe Biden won’t win MI by 16. Lol
At the worst Trump loses MI by a margin similar to Romney, but you are greatly overestimating Biden

In 2008, the American economy was tanking. People were afraid of another Great Depression. 2012 was a more normal election year than 2008.

It is not I who overestimates Biden; it is the poll. With Democrats in charge of most statewide offices, Trump will have to win Michigan the hard way, with promises made and promises kept -- with good results.

Trump won Michigan with a razor-thin margin. Far more can make Michigan go D than trend R. As elsewhere, the Millennial Generation is replacing older adults more R as those older adults 'graduate' into the Hereafter. That is about 1.5% of the electorate every year, largely at the upper half with people from the Silent (people now averaging in their early eighties) to the first wave of people of Generation X (people now in their middle-to-upper fifties), and with people who vote about 65-35 D supplanting people who vote about 55-45 R. That is about 2.4%. (This may in part reflect a growing Hispanic population, so I am not double-counting).

Michigan is not a particularly strong state for fundamentalist Christianity, which is the most reliable large demographic supporting Trump, which may explain why Trump is still doing fine in the Mountain and Deep South. Trump is a bad match for Michigan's political culture. Add to this -- Michigan is poor. Trump's showcase of economic policy is a tax cut serving economic elites with little bits of table scraps for 'the Help' -- and his tariffs are going to raise the cost of living of 'the Help'.

Michigan has a significant agricultural sector, and Trump's trade war is going to hurt farmers with lower crop prices and a higher cost in everything else. Did you see the Morning Consult polling of 50 states? Trump is doing far worse in the Great Plains states than most Republicans do. Those states rely more heavily upon agriculture as the basis of their economies, and that makes all the difference in the world. Southwestern Michigan is basically 'Iowa with lakes'.

Whether Biden wins Michigan by 8% or 18% will not matter.  It is the same 16 electoral votes either way. Trump is not going to win this state if he has disapproval in the 50s unless the left side of the political splinters in voting for President.  If you wish to suggest that there will be a significant split among left-center voters, then go ahead and make that assumption. Disapproval means giving up on some incumbent.  
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2019, 09:38:49 AM »

So including Amash as a GE option cuts Biden's lead all the way down from a 12 point lead to a 6 point lead?  His support comes largely from people who would otherwise vote Biden?  That's in stark contrast to the media's CW.


It's Trump vs Anti-Trump, because NeverTrump Republicans have all heeled and aren't a thing anymore. If one candidate can consolidate the anti-Trump vote, he'll win. If there are multiple 3rd parties, they'll divide the anti-Trump vote and lose.
Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,416
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2019, 09:39:25 AM »

I wouldn't be surprised by solid D victories in these states. Trump's approvals have been in the toilet in WI, MI and PA since like four months into his Presidency and these states all gave Democrats resounding victories in 2018.



Add on top of this that Trump won these states by less than a percent and it increasingly looks difficult  for Trump to win them again. Of course a 2016 redux where both candidates end up covered in mud and enough people say "to hell with it" and vote for Trump again is possible but it's probably much less likely than we all think.

Our reliance on the polls last time proved to be a massive disappointment and presented inaccuracies. Michigan definitely won't be voting for another TPP globalist.

People who do this sh**t are so annoying. "Polls were wrong once, therefore we can never trust polls again," without any understanding of why polling was wrong and whether and how that applies to current races. It's such lazy analysis.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2019, 10:56:49 AM »

I wouldn't be surprised by solid D victories in these states. Trump's approvals have been in the toilet in WI, MI and PA since like four months into his Presidency and these states all gave Democrats resounding victories in 2018.



Add on top of this that Trump won these states by less than a percent and it increasingly looks difficult  for Trump to win them again. Of course a 2016 redux where both candidates end up covered in mud and enough people say "to hell with it" and vote for Trump again is possible but it's probably much less likely than we all think.

One does not win a state in which one's disapproval is in the fifties. The only ways in which President Trump wins either of Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin again are

(1) tampering with the electoral process
(2) splintering of the center-to-left vote among multiple nominees, or
(3) the President solving his problems of credibility.

Demographics alone disfavor this President in these three states (as practically all others) over time, and the President can do nothing to offset the tendency of strongly-D Millennial voters supplanting older, somewhat-R voters over 55 as many of the latter die off or go senile.   

President Trump obviously cannot undo his gaffes, his clear support of economic elites over everyone else from Day 1, and the questions of personal integrity.

It is more likely, should Presidential disapproval nationwide be in the fifties, that some conservatives will prefer an alternative who better espouses free-market solutions and supports traditional 'family values' in deeds as well as words. Such people will not vote for the Democrat under any circumstances.

On (1), the "Deep State" is already in action. Democratic officials will be much more cooperative with the FBI this time should there be monkey business with Democrats' proprietary databases for getting out the vote.
On (2), it is up to Democrats to nominate someone presentable.
On (3), the President needs miracles.
 
Quote
Our reliance on the polls last time proved to be a massive disappointment and presented inaccuracies. Michigan definitely won't be voting for another TPP globalist.

People who do this sh**t are so annoying. "Polls were wrong once, therefore we can never trust polls again," without any understanding of why polling was wrong and whether and how that applies to current races. It's such lazy analysis.

I do not go to horse races, but long-shots occasionally win. That is part of the excitement of some bettors who think that they can handicap better than the supposed experts. In 2012 I did my own early handicapping of the Presidential race, and some of my cautious models made more for ease of calculation had certain key races (those in Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and Virginia) as roughly 50-50 propositions for both Romney and Obama. These were 'independent events' in that nothing that went on in another one of those states was likely to have an effect in another. At some point, as other states became irrelevant as sure wins for the President, one of those states would be enough to win a second term for Obama. They are different enough and distant enough from each other that winning or losing could be an 'independent event'. I ruled out states such as Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina because if Obama was winning any one of those states he was surely winning another of them (Colorado if Obama was winning Arizona,  Florida if he was winning Georgia, and Virginia if he was winning North Carolina).

If the chance of Romney winning one of those states was one half, then the chance of him winning overall was one half to the fifth power, or one in 32. That allows a simple calculation that the probabilistic chance of Obama winning was 31 chances in 32, or about 93%.

OK, so Missouri spiraled out of contention, but Obama's chances  got much higher (maybe 75% or so in Colorado and Virginia, maybe 60% in Ohio) while Florida remained a 50-50 proposition. At such a point, the chance of Romney winning was about one in 80. Toward October, Colorado and Virginia both became nearly sure things, little advantages for Obama in Ohio compounded, and Florida was still shaky, and giving a 10% chance for Romney in both Colorado and Virginia, about 30% in Ohio, and about 50% in Florida, my trusty calculator gave me about one chance in 740 for Romney. With independent events, the chances of everything going right is multiplicative, and multiplying small numbers together gets even smaller numbers... and bigger reciprocals.

Obviously we are nowhere near the 'time-running-out' phase of the 2020 Presidential election. We do not have a lame horse in the race, but we have one that now has inadequate speed for winning a race if it were being held today.  Maybe the political culture will change, and Trump's message will become more popular. But that is a big assumption. 

A long-shot won in 2016.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2019, 11:24:17 AM »

The elephant in the room is the likely voters who either (1) refuse to answer or (2) outright lie about their preferences.

There was the 1982 CA governor's race, in which Bradley (D) was leading the polls, but Deukmejian (R) won.

There was the 1989 VA governor's race, in which Wilder (D) was leading by 10 in the polls, but ended up winning by a mere 0.4% over Coleman (R).

There was the 1992 Presidential election, in which Clinton polled at 49% but ended up winning with just 43%. Perot polled at 14% but ended up with 19%.

And then there was 2016.

People don't always tell the truth to pollsters, and such untruth is not necessarily evenly ideologically split, as the above example show. In particular, people don't want to tell a stranger that they plan to vote for someone who is widely regarded as fascist.

Biden beating Trump by 12 in a poll probably means he will win MI by 3. And, yes, Biden can do that while losing Bay, Macomb, and maybe even Saginaw Counties; his gains in Ingham, Kent, Oakland, Washtenaw, and even Livingston Counties will more than make up for those losses.
Logged
Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,986
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -0.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2019, 11:37:56 AM »

The elephant in the room is the likely voters who either (1) refuse to answer or (2) outright lie about their preferences.

There was the 1982 CA governor's race, in which Bradley (D) was leading the polls, but Deukmejian (R) won.

There was the 1989 VA governor's race, in which Wilder (D) was leading by 10 in the polls, but ended up winning by a mere 0.4% over Coleman (R).

There was the 1992 Presidential election, in which Clinton polled at 49% but ended up winning with just 43%. Perot polled at 14% but ended up with 19%.

And then there was 2016.

People don't always tell the truth to pollsters, and such untruth is not necessarily evenly ideologically split, as the above example show. In particular, people don't want to tell a stranger that they plan to vote for someone who is widely regarded as fascist.

Biden beating Trump by 12 in a poll probably means he will win MI by 3. And, yes, Biden can do that while losing Bay, Macomb, and maybe even Saginaw Counties; his gains in Ingham, Kent, Oakland, Washtenaw, and even Livingston Counties will more than make up for those losses.
What the hell is this crap

And yet Atlas makes fun of me when I suggest people think Texas will vote to the left of Michigan
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2019, 12:55:14 AM »
« Edited: June 07, 2019, 01:00:44 AM by Tartarus Sauce »

The elephant in the room is the likely voters who either (1) refuse to answer or (2) outright lie about their preferences.

There was the 1982 CA governor's race, in which Bradley (D) was leading the polls, but Deukmejian (R) won.

There was the 1989 VA governor's race, in which Wilder (D) was leading by 10 in the polls, but ended up winning by a mere 0.4% over Coleman (R).

There was the 1992 Presidential election, in which Clinton polled at 49% but ended up winning with just 43%. Perot polled at 14% but ended up with 19%.

And then there was 2016.

People don't always tell the truth to pollsters, and such untruth is not necessarily evenly ideologically split, as the above example show. In particular, people don't want to tell a stranger that they plan to vote for someone who is widely regarded as fascist.

Biden beating Trump by 12 in a poll probably means he will win MI by 3. And, yes, Biden can do that while losing Bay, Macomb, and maybe even Saginaw Counties; his gains in Ingham, Kent, Oakland, Washtenaw, and even Livingston Counties will more than make up for those losses.

Shy Trump voters aren't a thing. They tend to be very boisterous about their support.

In fact, "shy x voters" in general aren't a thing. The primary culprit for election results falling outside the margin of error of polling is due to methodology and sample weighting issues, not dishonest respondents.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 871


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2019, 09:14:39 AM »

Can anyone explain why Trump always underperforms his approvals in midwestern state polls? This same poll shows -8 approval (at 44%) but with -12 margins against Biden/Sanders (at 41%). Doesn't make sense. Are there really voters who approve of Trump but will vote for Democrats because they just like them better than Trump? lol

Not that this matters greatly, but it's such a consistent phenomenon that it's worth talking about.

It could be just that.  Doesn't have to be complicated.

Keep in mind most Mid-West states tend to be pretty elastic and have high numbers of persuadable voters.  It's not inconceivable that you'd have plenty of people that hold precisely that sentiment.  You're not going to find many in the Deep South or say, CA.  But in MI or WI?  Absolutely.  This sentiment also probably describes many Obama-Trump voters that are open to swinging back D, and the Mid-West is where you're gonna find most of these types of people.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 13 queries.