NYT/Siena Polls of 6 Battleground States

[bilaps]

Easily the best Trump polls since 2016

And people not beleiving it of course. What a surprise

[bilaps]

To be a bit contrarian, I don't think an incumbent doing in the mid-40s against a few people who have not even unified their own party is all that great for him. The Dem numbers in this poll are basically irrelevant, all that matters is that Trump is within the same 1-2 points against all of them. Again, the candidates with the most name recognition among the Dems will benefit the most. The difference there is with the Hispanic and "Other" vote, who are the most marginalized and also the group undersampled by Siena in 2018.

That may explain some of their misses in House races too: In Texas, they had Gina Ortiz Jones down by 9 and she ended up losing by 0.5; they had Lizzie Fletcher down by 1 and 3, and she ended up winning by 5.

I don't know but individual house races seem to me like much harder to poll than states in a presidential contest.. Also, how did Siena poll FL races in 2018?

[bilaps]

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.

Michigan could vote to the right of PA and WI in 2020. It's possible although Trump is likely to win all 3 again.

Trump isn't "likely" to win all 3 again. There's a remote chance it happens again, and if he's reelected, at least one of these states will go for him. WI is the most likely one, with PA and MI following, respectively.

You're wrong and clearly didn't watch the 2016 election. If Trump is winning WI he is likely winning MI and PA. There are similar voters in the Midwest.

There is no evidence that Trump is favored in these battlegrounds. It's not like GA, where Dems fell (narrowly) short in the midterms. I'm not saying it's impossible he wins 1,2 or 3 of these states, but neither polling nor election results since 2016 support the narrative of "Trump is favored". I'm not buying the double digit polling leads for Dems either, but if Trump is stuck at around 40% as sitting prez and has approvals underwater, I'd be worried if I was on his campaign.

He's not stuck at around 40% here, he clearly polls at least at 44%. Also, why would midterm results be relevant for this cycle?

[bilaps]

Look y’all it’s just one set of polls so lets all just rationally agree that system is broken, rural whites have effectively taken the nation hostage, and Dems will never win a presidential election again unless they throw minorities under the bus

Trump is at 30% with Latinos

[bilaps]

So there could be a decent amount of Clinton-Trump voters in the Midwest? Who are these people? Clinton was an abysmal candidate for the Midwest, hardly campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin, and lost them by less than 1%. The Democratic nominee will heavily target these states in 2020, and likely won't be as unpopular as Clinton. How could Trump realistically expand his margin there?

The inverse is more true, that Obama-Trump voters arguably tipped the Rust Belt to Trump. They came back to the Dems in 2018. There is zero evidence of Trump expanding his base with new voters or Obama-Trump-Dem2018 voters once again returning to Trump en masse (one of which Trump needs to win MI/PA/WI again). In fact, it seems quite clear--the Siena outlier aside--that the Obama-Trump voters took a shot on Trump the Outsider and do not at all feel compelled to make that choice again, and they will either stay home or come home to the Dems.

If you actualy have read the article you would see that Cohn says that Obama Trump voters are sticking with Trump