Should Trump go after Pennsylvania or Michigan?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Trump is currently polling better in MI than PA.  My theory is that Trump is doing better with white Obama voters there, pushing the state to the right of PA.

Note: PA and MI haven't split since 1976 (with MI going GOP), and they have be separated by the following margins recently:

2012: MI +4.09% D
2008: MI +6.13% D
2004: MI +0.92% D
2000: MI +0.96% D

[Gass3268]

The fact that Clinton is up 10 points in crappy Republican leaning Michigan centric polls like Mitchell means the state is gone for Trump.

Trump has to go all-in in Pennsylvania because it's the only way he can win.

[MasterJedi]

Realistically Michigan, I hope he goes after PA and wastes a ton of money doing it.

[Sir Mohamed]

I consider PA still likelier to clinch and it is a bigger prize. 2012+MI+OH+FL only results in a 269-269 deadlock. With PA, he’d be over the top with 273. But this is a very theoretical discussion since don’t see him close to winning either of them (including must-wins FL and OH).

[Redban]

Republicans will need these two states to be purple in upcoming elections. I think PA is looking good, as it will remain purple in upcoming elections; but Michigan is tough. The Democrats have an advantage there because they went to bat for the auto industry while Republicans talked about "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!" and "Too Big to fail!"

[MasterJedi]

Republicans will need these two states to be purple in upcoming elections. I think PA is looking good, as it will remain purple in upcoming elections; but Michigan is tough. The Democrats have an advantage there because they went to bat for the auto industry while Republicans talked about "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!" and "Too Big to fail!"

PA is pretty much Solid D, it's not purple and it hasn't been for a long time. It's fools gold.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Republicans will need these two states to be purple in upcoming elections. I think PA is looking good, as it will remain purple in upcoming elections; but Michigan is tough. The Democrats have an advantage there because they went to bat for the auto industry while Republicans talked about "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!" and "Too Big to fail!"

Trump does not represent the GOP establishment.  He's the guy who, in many voters' eyes, crushed the old GOP and isn't afraid to give "straight talk" about bringing industrial jobs back and protecting the existing ones.  Personally, I think it's a load of garbage, all talk, no substance.  But if you're worried about the economic direction of the country, his message is seductive.

The Trump campaign also doesn't care about how these states trend in the future.  They care about winning now.

[Redban]

Republicans will need these two states to be purple in upcoming elections. I think PA is looking good, as it will remain purple in upcoming elections; but Michigan is tough. The Democrats have an advantage there because they went to bat for the auto industry while Republicans talked about "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!" and "Too Big to fail!"

PA is pretty much Solid D, it's not purple and it hasn't been for a long time. It's fools gold.

It's unfair to call it fool's gold because the GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. If the GOP can secure a solid 3-5% win with the right candidate under the right circumstances, then PA is their state.

[Torie]

The way for Trump to put PA in play, is to hypnotize college educated whites in the Philly burbs, and lace their drinking water with LSD, such that when in the voting booth they believe that in fact the GOP candidate is Rob Portman rather than Donald Trump, and read the words Trump on the printed page of the ballot as Portman.

[Illiniwek]

I would think that a perfect campaign would have a better chance of flipping Michigan, but trump's campaign is far from perfect. He will get close in neither.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If Trump wins the election, he wins PA. Period. PA will flip before MI, WI, or VA, and Trump cannot realistically win if he loses all 4 of those states.

[Yank2133]

He isn't going to win either, but he is better off going after PA then MI.

[Adam the Gr8]

He isn't going to win either, but he is better off going after PA then MI.

[Xing]

Trump had a better chance of winning PA than MI, in the same way that Hillary has a better chance of winning Indiana than Kansas.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Michigan at this point. PA is most likely gone, he'll get crushed in Philly and the surrounding suburbs. He has a chance to flip one of them and MI is looking more favorable at this point.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If this was ANY other Republican, the obvious answer would be Wisconsin before Pennsylvania or even Michigan.

One would assume not-Trump would take IA along with WI.  If not-Trump flips FL, OH, and WI from 2012, that only gets him to 263.  IA gets him to 269.  If part of the goal is keeping the election from being thrown to the House, he would also need either NV or CO.  So in this hypothetical election, we'd be asking whether PA or WI+IA+NV/CO was the viable path.

Turning VA D is the greatest electoral college coup of the current alignment.  It really messes with the Republicans' strategy.  The GOP probably had the upper hand before.

[heatcharger]

I think this would have been the Kasich (and maybe Rubio) vs. Clinton map this year:

Kasich 279
Clinton 259

It should be their target map in 2020, give or take CO.

CO will be even more gone for the GOP than it is now. ME-02 doesn't flip with a Generic R.

[heatcharger]

The GOP was polling very well (or at least competitive) in CO before they nominated Trump. I'm not buying that CO is gone for Republicans.

More like it was never polled, except for this Quinnipiac poll, that showed Rubio, Carson, Cruz, and Trump all beating Clinton by double digits. Yeah, complete and total junk.

CO Republicans have had the chair pulled out from underneath them on many occasions, and it all started with Obama's win in 2008. The 2014 Senate race was a perfect storm for them; bad year for Democrats, extremely low turnout, Udall was a terrible campaigner, and Gardner was probably the best candidate out there. All that and Gardner still only won by 1.9%.

Republicans can win without both states in the future if they nominate the right candidate.

That means they'd have to nominate Kasich or... Sandoval? The "right" candidate would never make it out of a Republican primary plain and simple.

[Ljube]

Both.

[Baki]

PA definitely.

It's as unlikely to happen as Michigan and it carries 4 EV more.

[IceSpear]

He's actually doing a couple points better in PA than in MI, as the Atlas polling map shows.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

CO will be even more gone for the GOP than it is now. ME-02 doesn't flip with a Generic R.

The GOP was polling very well (or at least competitive) in CO before they nominated Trump. I'm not buying that CO is gone for Republicans. VA, yeah, but not CO. And even if it is, Republicans can win without both states in the future if they nominate the right candidate.

A generic, 50/50 PV split map right now probably looks like this:

Dem 254
GOP 206

The Democrats have the following paths to victory:
1. FL (283)
2. OH (272)
3. WI + any other battleground
4. CO+NV + any two other battlegrounds

The GOP have the following paths:

1. FL+OH+WI+CO (272)
2. FL+OH+WI+IA + either CO or NV
3. FL+OH+IA+CO+NV

Unless something changes (VA, PA, MI, or MN fall back into play), the Democrats really have the upper hand.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

He's actually doing a couple points better in PA than in MI, as the Atlas polling map shows.

RCP average has Clinton up 9.2 in PA, but 7.3 in MI.  This is consistent with my expectations, which are that MI is going to be one or two points to the right of PA.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Both.

PA is much more doable than MI.  It has at least some of the kind of culturally conservative Democratic voters that have been bailing on the party, and work in industries that produce fossil fuels.

[OwlRhetoric]

He should go all in for both and drop Wisconsin and Virginia.