If Kasich out-primaries Trump...

[President Johnson]

... is this map then somewhat likely?

The scenario is that Trump's approval is below 35%. Unemployment rate incrseases to over 9% in early 2020, deficit is out of control and an econmic downturn started in mid/late 2018. Trump is also weakened by dozens of administration scandals. But all failures are not enough to impeach him.

John Kasich
Donald Trump

[Fuzzy Bear]

Kasich will not beat Trump in a primary.

If Trump thinks he's going to be a sure loser, he won't run.  If not, and he runs, Kasich will NOT be the one to beat him. 

Ordinary Republicans won't forget that Kasich didn't endorse Trump, and that will block him from garnering support he might have gotten if he had, at a minimum, announced that he would vote for Trump.  In addition, Kasich's conservative bona fides have taken massive hits over the years.  If Trump is beaten in a primary, it will be due to a full-fledged revolt of the CPAC crowd and a candidate of their "anointing". 

[JA]

Trump's approval rating nationally is 38%, yet among Republicans it's 84% - higher among Republicans than any other GOP President at this time in their Presidency (including Reagan). Trump represents the Republican base unlike anyone ever has before and has the chance of being remembered among Republicans in a similar way as Reagan has been. The notion that he'd be defeated, let alone primaried, by someone like Kasich is laughable. Trump is the truest representative of the Republican Party and, despite how dysfunctional his White House is and how much Republicans in Congress may secretly dislike him, they know he's far more liked by their party than anyone like Ryan or McConnell.

[The Govanah Jake]

Kasich simply isnt a good campaigner. Thats why he only won 1 state. Plus Trump has a very high approval with Republicans and probably still have that in 2020 so any real primary challenge of that magnitude will not happen.

[Lord Admirale]

If Ronald Reagan couldn't outprimary Gerald Ford in 1976 and Ted Kennedy couldn't outprimary Jimmy Carter in 1980, John Kasich will certainly not be able to outprimary Donald Trump in 2020.

[Rjjr77]

Kasich wouldn't win his home state in a primary.

[TJ in Oregon]

Kasich wouldn't win his home state in a primary.

^^

If Trump's approval is mediocre at that point, he'll beat Kasich in every state. If it's not, someone else will beat Trump besides Kasich.

[pbrower2a]

Wait till you see some polls for Ohio before you predict John Kasich running against Donald Trump. Republican incumbents are going to have tough times  in 2018 in swing states.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Wait till you see some polls for Ohio before you predict John Kasich running against Donald Trump. Republican incumbents are going to have tough times  in 2018 in swing states.

Kasich is term-limited.

[Vosem]

If Ohio was one of the first states, or if Kasich is still legitimately seen as a contender by the time Ohio comes around, he'll win here by double-digits, maybe 65-35 or 60-40. He's still very popular among the state's Republicans, and independents in Ohio are used to voting in Republican primaries and supporting Republican politicians; he's even more popular with them.

Anyway, I can imagine Republican politicians underestimating the depth of antipathy to Trump in 2019-2020, thinking the popularity he has now is still around then if it isn't, and allowing Kasich to become the anti-Trump figure. And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up. (This is especially the case if there is a "more Trumpy" candidate running against Trump, which I think is very possible, if not outright likely). But in this scenario, like Ted Kennedy in 1980, he still ultimately falls short. It would take a truly exceptional figure, who is simultaneously a national hero and a master politician, to defeat an incumbent President in a primary, and John Kasich just isn't it. And I don't really think anyone in today's America is.

Wait till you see some polls for Ohio before you predict John Kasich running against Donald Trump. Republican incumbents are going to have tough times  in 2018 in swing states.

Kasich is term-limited, and wouldn't run again even if he weren't. Kasich (and, incidentally, also Justin Amash, which seems to get forgotten) is devoting his energy to a 2020 primary attempt.

[Vosem]

If the race is competitive at that point, Kasich wins Ohio. Full stop.

I don't realize why people are so confident someone else would get into the race. Sanders was a much lesser-known figure in 2015 than Kasich will be in 2019, and still emerged as the key challenger to Hillary. The way American politics works makes it difficult to enter a race once it is well underway, even if the opportunities only become clear much later on. How do you think Kerry Bentivolio got elected to the House? Or, hell, how did Bill Clinton get past numerous Democratic grandees, like Mario Cuomo and Al Gore, in 1992?

[uti2]

And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up.

I don't think you understand what 'moderate' means, moderates are not moderates in your sense of understanding as in the 'reform conservative' theories you read about in the national review, they're moderates as in culturally liberal but prefer lower taxation. That's why Trump won pro-choice and socially liberal republicans in the primary, and the only other candidate to have contained a sizable number of that group was Kasich, which is also why a number of Kasich voters would've flipped to Trump without Kasich.

Moderates =/ Conservatives

[Vosem]

And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up.

I don't think you understand what 'moderate' means, moderates are not moderates in your sense of understanding as in the 'reform conservative' theories you read about in the national review, they're moderates as in culturally liberal but prefer lower taxation.

This is true and is exactly what I meant

That's why Trump won pro-choice and socially liberal republicans in the primary,

HAHAHAHAHA

Can you be serious? Did Trump also win Mormons?

and the only other candidate to have contained a sizable number of that group was Kasich, which is also why a number of Kasich voters would've flipped to Trump without Kasich.

Moderates =/ Conservatives

Kasich did win a very sizable number of that group, but the vast majority of Republicans within that group were NeverTrump during the primaries, and while many of them came back towards the end, virtually all of the defectors to Hillary were from among their ranks.

[uti2]

HAHAHAHAHA

Can you be serious? Did Trump also win Mormons?


Kasich did win a very sizable number of that group, but the vast majority of Republicans within that group were NeverTrump during the primaries, and while many of them came back towards the end, virtually all of the defectors to Hillary were from among their ranks.

It was polled:

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-prochoice-republicans-are-helping-donald-trump/

That's how Trump did, he won those voters.

Yes, just like how many Huntsman voters went for Obama, because many of them are not republicans and don't have loyalties to the party. Besides Kasich, independents went for Trump.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up.

I don't think you understand what 'moderate' means, moderates are not moderates in your sense of understanding as in the 'reform conservative' theories you read about in the national review, they're moderates as in culturally liberal but prefer lower taxation.

This is true and is exactly what I meant

That's why Trump won pro-choice and socially liberal republicans in the primary,

HAHAHAHAHA

Can you be serious? Did Trump also win Mormons?

and the only other candidate to have contained a sizable number of that group was Kasich, which is also why a number of Kasich voters would've flipped to Trump without Kasich.

Moderates =/ Conservatives

Kasich did win a very sizable number of that group, but the vast majority of Republicans within that group were NeverTrump during the primaries, and while many of them came back towards the end, virtually all of the defectors to Hillary were from among their ranks.

-Trump won primary victories in all the most socially liberal states. I would not at all be surprised if he won pro-choice Republicans.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Incumbents arent invincible , Reagan despite treated as a joke and a right wing nutjob who would take up back to the days before FDR was extremely close to beating Ford in the primaries.  Now Kasich is no Reagan but Trump is no Ford either

[Vosem]

HAHAHAHAHA

Can you be serious? Did Trump also win Mormons?


Kasich did win a very sizable number of that group, but the vast majority of Republicans within that group were NeverTrump during the primaries, and while many of them came back towards the end, virtually all of the defectors to Hillary were from among their ranks.

It was polled:

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-prochoice-republicans-are-helping-donald-trump/

That's how Trump did, he won those voters.

The poll cited in the article did not test the presidential question at all. Particularly socially liberal areas, like Madison, Wisconsin, or Northern Virginia, had a strong tendency to reduce Trump to third place, frequently behind either Rubio and Kasich, or later Kasich and Cruz. Note that as the primary season went on Cruz gained strength in these areas out of ill feeling towards Trump. That's how anti-Trump they were.

Yes, just like how many Huntsman voters went for Obama, because many of them are not republicans and don't have loyalties to the party. Besides Kasich, independents went for Trump.

Loyalty to parties is a bad thing and should generally be discouraged.

And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up.

I don't think you understand what 'moderate' means, moderates are not moderates in your sense of understanding as in the 'reform conservative' theories you read about in the national review, they're moderates as in culturally liberal but prefer lower taxation.

This is true and is exactly what I meant

That's why Trump won pro-choice and socially liberal republicans in the primary,

HAHAHAHAHA

Can you be serious? Did Trump also win Mormons?

and the only other candidate to have contained a sizable number of that group was Kasich, which is also why a number of Kasich voters would've flipped to Trump without Kasich.

Moderates =/ Conservatives

Kasich did win a very sizable number of that group, but the vast majority of Republicans within that group were NeverTrump during the primaries, and while many of them came back towards the end, virtually all of the defectors to Hillary were from among their ranks.

-Trump won primary victories in all the most socially liberal states. I would not at all be surprised if he won pro-choice Republicans.

Trump tended to do very poorly in socially liberal areas within states, and even as much as he did win in some places (like Vermont, or Beaufort County, South Carolina), it tended to be due to the intense disunity of his opponents (winning 31% in Vermont, and 30% in Beaufort). It was mostly formerly Republican-voting social liberals who deserted him in the general election.

Incumbents arent invincible , Reagan despite treated as a joke and a right wing nutjob who would take up back to the days before FDR was extremely close to beating Ford in the primaries.  Now Kasich is no Reagan but Trump is no Ford either

This is true, but do note Reagan failed to beat Ford, and Ted Kennedy failed to beat Carter. Even Trump losing a state in the primary would be a 40-year milestone; I cannot imagine him actually being denied the nomination. No President who sought it has lost renomination in the primary era, and in the pre-primary era the last President to lose renomination was...Chester Arthur in 1884, who interestingly was broadly popular but was nevertheless denied renomination on account of his poor health (Arthur would go on to die in 1886). Incidentally, poor health and visible frailty could cost Trump support in the modern day, too, even if his approval rating is not abysmal.

What has happened -- multiple times since Arthur's day, though interestingly never since LBJ in 1968 -- is that the President could simply choose not to seek reelection. If Trump is unpopular, or in poor health, in 2020, and doesn't enjoy the job of President, he could always just not seek reelection. I kind of suspect Kasich would rather run against the incumbent Trump, though, to help his notoriety. He would probably get drowned out in a crowded field, like he mostly did in 2016.

[uti2]

The poll cited in the article did not test the presidential question at all. Particularly socially liberal areas, like Madison, Wisconsin, or Northern Virginia, had a strong tendency to reduce Trump to third place, frequently behind either Rubio and Kasich, or later Kasich and Cruz. Note that as the primary season went on Cruz gained strength in these areas out of ill feeling towards Trump. That's how anti-Trump they were.


Trump tended to do very poorly in socially liberal areas within states, and even as much as he did win in some places (like Vermont, or Beaufort County, South Carolina), it tended to be due to the intense disunity of his opponents (winning 31% in Vermont, and 30% in Beaufort). It was mostly formerly Republican-voting social liberals who deserted him in the general election.

The polling was conducted at the national level.
Yes, NoVA, and WI, which I explained to you many times in how they were unique, and how they didn't match up to the rest of the primary map for various reasons. Every single political analyst from those regions will tell you why those areas are unique, right down to Scott Walker's campaign manager, who said Trump would've won if not for the peculiarities of the region.

Trump won evangelicals who didn't attend church:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/29/where-is-trumps-evangelical-base-not-in-church/

The only other candidate to have contained such a high concentration of liberal/moderate voters was Kasich, which is also why the polls showed a sizable number of Kasich voters going to Trump.

[Vosem]

The poll cited in the article did not test the presidential question at all. Particularly socially liberal areas, like Madison, Wisconsin, or Northern Virginia, had a strong tendency to reduce Trump to third place, frequently behind either Rubio and Kasich, or later Kasich and Cruz. Note that as the primary season went on Cruz gained strength in these areas out of ill feeling towards Trump. That's how anti-Trump they were.


Trump tended to do very poorly in socially liberal areas within states, and even as much as he did win in some places (like Vermont, or Beaufort County, South Carolina), it tended to be due to the intense disunity of his opponents (winning 31% in Vermont, and 30% in Beaufort). It was mostly formerly Republican-voting social liberals who deserted him in the general election.

The polling was conducted at the national level.
Yes, NoVA, and WI, which I explained to you many times in how they were unique, and how they didn't match up to the rest of the primary map for various reasons. Every single political analyst from those regions will tell you why those areas are unique, right down to Scott Walker's campaign manager, who said Trump would've won if not for the peculiarities of the region.

I have pointed out many times that those areas are not unique and their voting patterns resemble other places. Even if you let those go, I cited other examples in my post.

Trump won evangelicals who didn't attend church:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/29/where-is-trumps-evangelical-base-not-in-church/

"Evangelicals who don't attend church" were a base group for Trump; they were among the people who backed him from the beginning through the end. Here's the thing: they're social conservatives. They're overwhelmingly pro-life, overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, and so forth.

The only other candidate to have contained such a high concentration of liberal/moderate voters was Kasich, which is also why the polls showed a sizable number of Kasich voters going to Trump.

After Rubio dropped out, only Kasich had a high concentration of liberal/moderate voters. Virtually none of them polls showed any sizable number of Kasich voters going to Trump; these were NeverTrump people who happened to also find Cruz very distasteful. Trump could not have won them under any circumstance.

[uti2]

The poll cited in the article did not test the presidential question at all. Particularly socially liberal areas, like Madison, Wisconsin, or Northern Virginia, had a strong tendency to reduce Trump to third place, frequently behind either Rubio and Kasich, or later Kasich and Cruz. Note that as the primary season went on Cruz gained strength in these areas out of ill feeling towards Trump. That's how anti-Trump they were.


Trump tended to do very poorly in socially liberal areas within states, and even as much as he did win in some places (like Vermont, or Beaufort County, South Carolina), it tended to be due to the intense disunity of his opponents (winning 31% in Vermont, and 30% in Beaufort). It was mostly formerly Republican-voting social liberals who deserted him in the general election.

The polling was conducted at the national level.
Yes, NoVA, and WI, which I explained to you many times in how they were unique, and how they didn't match up to the rest of the primary map for various reasons. Every single political analyst from those regions will tell you why those areas are unique, right down to Scott Walker's campaign manager, who said Trump would've won if not for the peculiarities of the region.

I have pointed out many times that those areas are not unique and their voting patterns resemble other places. Even if you let those go, I cited other examples in my post.

Trump won evangelicals who didn't attend church:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/29/where-is-trumps-evangelical-base-not-in-church/

"Evangelicals who don't attend church" were a base group for Trump; they were among the people who backed him from the beginning through the end. Here's the thing: they're social conservatives. They're overwhelmingly pro-life, overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, and so forth.

The only other candidate to have contained such a high concentration of liberal/moderate voters was Kasich, which is also why the polls showed a sizable number of Kasich voters going to Trump.

After Rubio dropped out, only Kasich had a high concentration of liberal/moderate voters. Virtually none of them polls showed any sizable number of Kasich voters going to Trump; these were NeverTrump people who happened to also find Cruz very distasteful. Trump could not have won them under any circumstance.

Again, as I explained to you, in normal regions like Las Vegas and Boston, and Detroit, Trump won easily. Trump did poorly specifically in the WoW region for the reasons outlined by many political analysts due to peculiarities for that region. Same with NoVa.

No, those nevertrump voters who were with rubio, were mainly conservatives, that's why they went to cruz. Rubio was always a poor fit for the Northeast precisely due to his social conservatism, which is exactly why he kept finishing distant thirds behind Kasich and Trump there.

That's not what the statistics show, Trump won those polled as socially liberal republicans, with Kasich having the only other sizable number of voters in those categories.

[Vosem]

The poll cited in the article did not test the presidential question at all. Particularly socially liberal areas, like Madison, Wisconsin, or Northern Virginia, had a strong tendency to reduce Trump to third place, frequently behind either Rubio and Kasich, or later Kasich and Cruz. Note that as the primary season went on Cruz gained strength in these areas out of ill feeling towards Trump. That's how anti-Trump they were.


Trump tended to do very poorly in socially liberal areas within states, and even as much as he did win in some places (like Vermont, or Beaufort County, South Carolina), it tended to be due to the intense disunity of his opponents (winning 31% in Vermont, and 30% in Beaufort). It was mostly formerly Republican-voting social liberals who deserted him in the general election.

The polling was conducted at the national level.
Yes, NoVA, and WI, which I explained to you many times in how they were unique, and how they didn't match up to the rest of the primary map for various reasons. Every single political analyst from those regions will tell you why those areas are unique, right down to Scott Walker's campaign manager, who said Trump would've won if not for the peculiarities of the region.

I have pointed out many times that those areas are not unique and their voting patterns resemble other places. Even if you let those go, I cited other examples in my post.

Trump won evangelicals who didn't attend church:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/29/where-is-trumps-evangelical-base-not-in-church/

"Evangelicals who don't attend church" were a base group for Trump; they were among the people who backed him from the beginning through the end. Here's the thing: they're social conservatives. They're overwhelmingly pro-life, overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, and so forth.

The only other candidate to have contained such a high concentration of liberal/moderate voters was Kasich, which is also why the polls showed a sizable number of Kasich voters going to Trump.

After Rubio dropped out, only Kasich had a high concentration of liberal/moderate voters. Virtually none of them polls showed any sizable number of Kasich voters going to Trump; these were NeverTrump people who happened to also find Cruz very distasteful. Trump could not have won them under any circumstance.

Again, as I explained to you, in normal regions like Las Vegas and Boston, and Detroit, Trump won easily.

Trump did well in Las Vegas because of entertainment unions that mobilized to back him in the caucus; this was present literally nowhere else (and had not been a factor in previous Republican cauci in Nevada), and indeed is a good example of a political microclimate. Boston was a good area for Trump because of the high number of WWC Trump supporters. Trump did not actually do all that well in Detroit -- he won the city 34-25; only a few points better than his 53-28 crushing in Milwaukee. Trump won Detroit because of vote splitting. As for the area south of Detroit (the Downriver), Trump won there by a lot, frequently crossing 50%. But it was for the same reason as Boston.

Trump did poorly specifically in the WoW region for the reasons outlined by many political analysts due to peculiarities for that region. Same with NoVa.

Trump did poorly in WoW and NoVa for the same reason he did poorly in wealthy suburbs around the country. NoVa was special in some ways because of its unusual social liberalism and because there was a population of Democrats crossing over to oppose Trump there, which meant he did far worse there than "expected". The WoW counties were totally in line with Columbus, western Michigan, northern Atlanta, and plenty of other suburbs that roundly rejected Trump.

No, those nevertrump voters who were with rubio, were mainly conservatives, that's why they went to cruz.

No, many of them were actually social liberals; look at the results in NoVa, for example, or exit polls from that time period. They went to Cruz because for many social liberals, defeating Trump was the highest priority, and they didn't care about what vehicle was used to do it.

Rubio was always a poor fit for the Northeast precisely due to his social conservatism, which is exactly why he kept finishing distant thirds behind Kasich and Trump there.

Huh? Rubio and Kasich basically tied in Massachusetts, while Rubio wrote off Vermont to Kasich and only ran 5 points behind Kasich in NH, a state Kasich had targeted for months where Rubio had not campaigned much that voted during a trough in Rubio polling.

That's not what the statistics show, Trump won those polled as socially liberal republicans, with Kasich having the only other sizable number of voters in those categories.

The results of the elections contradict this.

[uti2]

The results of the elections contradict this.

Your own numbers are off, Trump won 40% in Detroit.

Look at you making excuses for LV, when there is no evidence that LV was unique, and no political analysis has been developed to suggest that it was. Trump did in line with LV as he did normally in Boston and Detroit, all in the 40s range.

He got killed in WoW and NoVA due to the unique political circumstances there.

[Vosem]

The results of the elections contradict this.

Your own numbers are off, Trump won 40% in Detroit.

Trump won 41% in Wayne County. Trump won 34% in the City of Detroit. If you go to US Election Atlas's map of Michigan's 2016 Republican primary, and click on any county, you will be able to see the municipal results, free of charge.

Look at you making excuses for LV, when there is no evidence that LV was unique, and no political analysis has been developed to suggest that it was.

Trump is a bigger employer in LV than in any other major metropolitan area in the United States. If you don't think this made a difference, you're being ridiculous.

Trump did in line with LV as he did normally in Boston and Detroit, all in the 40s range.

Nope. Trump did better in LV than in Boston, where he did better than Detroit. His typical performance, incidentally, was between Detroit and Boston. Only LV is "in the 40s range" (49 in Cook County); Trump was at 41 in Boston and at 34 in Detroit. All three are totally different.

He got killed in WoW and NoVA due to the unique political circumstances there.

WoW was a typical suburban area for Trump; my own hometown of Columbus voted very similarly. NoVa was somewhat worse for him than a typical suburb because of crossover Democratic votes which weren't anticipated in polling; otherwise, it would've looked similar to WoW and Columbus.

[uti2]

The results of the elections contradict this.

Your own numbers are off, Trump won 40% in Detroit.

Trump won 41% in Wayne County. Trump won 34% in the City of Detroit. If you go to US Election Atlas's map of Michigan's 2016 Republican primary, and click on any county, you will be able to see the municipal results, free of charge.

Look at you making excuses for LV, when there is no evidence that LV was unique, and no political analysis has been developed to suggest that it was.

Trump is a bigger employer in LV than in any other major metropolitan area in the United States. If you don't think this made a difference, you're being ridiculous.

Trump did in line with LV as he did normally in Boston and Detroit, all in the 40s range.

Nope. Trump did better in LV than in Boston, where he did better than Detroit. His typical performance, incidentally, was between Detroit and Boston. Only LV is "in the 40s range" (49 in Cook County); Trump was at 41 in Boston and at 34 in Detroit. All three are totally different.

He got killed in WoW and NoVA due to the unique political circumstances there.

WoW was a typical suburban area for Trump; my own hometown of Columbus voted very similarly. NoVa was somewhat worse for him than a typical suburb because of crossover Democratic votes which weren't anticipated in polling; otherwise, it would've looked similar to WoW and Columbus.

So, your assigning LV due to Trump's employment as evidence of the region being biased for Trump? NoVA being DC-establishment central and WoW being a region that enthusiastically singularly opposed Trump in the primary from day 1 to the extent that local Wisconsin media constantly wrote about it, has meanwhile, nothing to do with peculiar regional bias against Trump?

Detroit alone had a population of 4,800 voters, wow, what a sample size.

[Vosem]

The results of the elections contradict this.

Your own numbers are off, Trump won 40% in Detroit.

Trump won 41% in Wayne County. Trump won 34% in the City of Detroit. If you go to US Election Atlas's map of Michigan's 2016 Republican primary, and click on any county, you will be able to see the municipal results, free of charge.

Look at you making excuses for LV, when there is no evidence that LV was unique, and no political analysis has been developed to suggest that it was.

Trump is a bigger employer in LV than in any other major metropolitan area in the United States. If you don't think this made a difference, you're being ridiculous.

Trump did in line with LV as he did normally in Boston and Detroit, all in the 40s range.

Nope. Trump did better in LV than in Boston, where he did better than Detroit. His typical performance, incidentally, was between Detroit and Boston. Only LV is "in the 40s range" (49 in Cook County); Trump was at 41 in Boston and at 34 in Detroit. All three are totally different.

He got killed in WoW and NoVA due to the unique political circumstances there.

WoW was a typical suburban area for Trump; my own hometown of Columbus voted very similarly. NoVa was somewhat worse for him than a typical suburb because of crossover Democratic votes which weren't anticipated in polling; otherwise, it would've looked similar to WoW and Columbus.

So, your assigning LV due to Trump's employment as evidence of the region being biased for Trump? NoVA being DC-establishment central and WoW being a region that enthusiastically singularly opposed Trump in the primary from day 1 to the extent that local Wisconsin media constantly wrote about it, has meanwhile, nothing to do with peculiar regional bias against Trump?

No, I don't think so. Milwaukee had about the same result as Columbus. Wisconsin as a whole had literally the same Trump percentage as Michigan and Ohio.

Detroit alone had a population of 4,800 voters, wow, what a sample size.

You brought up the City of Detroit. The metropolitan area as a whole had Trump roughly in the high 30s (maybe slightly better than his national average, but basically typical for a Midwestern metro), though it depends on how you define it. If you exclude Washtenaw and include St. Clair, Trump obviously does better.