Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls => Topic started by: Terry the Fat Shark on July 18, 2016, 05:19:26 PM



Title: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Terry the Fat Shark on July 18, 2016, 05:19:26 PM
MRG polls Michigan for the Presidential race.

Clinton - 34
Trump - 29
Johnson - 3
Stein - 2
Undecided - 23
http://mrgmi.com/2016/07/michigan-poll-trump-trails-clinton-by-five-percent-heading-into-gop-convention/


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Ebsy on July 18, 2016, 05:21:02 PM
Both candidates below 35 lmao. Right in the trash.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Terry the Fat Shark on July 18, 2016, 05:23:41 PM
Both candidates below 35 lmao. Right in the trash.
actually the 3rd poll since May in MI to show at least one below 35.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: cinyc on July 18, 2016, 05:26:04 PM
The Michigan-only pollsters have to be the saddest lot of pollsters in the country.  Michigan has a lot of them.  It could be a case where having more data isn't better.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it. on July 18, 2016, 06:34:04 PM
Dem undecideds tho


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Xing on July 18, 2016, 06:40:36 PM
#ClintonUnder35
#TrumpUnder30
#SteinAbove1


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Wells on July 18, 2016, 06:46:23 PM
At least they got Johnson right.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon on July 18, 2016, 11:28:02 PM
Yeah, Michigan is a Toss-Up.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 18, 2016, 11:30:18 PM
No poll from the Michigan Polling Industry will be taken seriously.

MI will not be a toss up.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Redban on July 21, 2016, 08:24:16 AM
No poll from the Michigan Polling Industry will be taken seriously.

MI will not be a toss up.

In 2012, Romney suffered from "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!"; and in 2008, McCain was close to Obama before the economic collapse, which hurt the auto industry significantly. Before 2008, Michigan was a legitimate toss-up (see 2004).

Why, thus, do you brashly say that "MI will not be a toss up"?


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Tender Branson on July 21, 2016, 08:47:50 AM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: JerryArkansas on July 21, 2016, 08:49:51 AM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...
Tender can you stop this Hillary is a terrible candidate sh**t.  It gets old quickly.  Leave you damn partisanship in the past and get over the fact that your candidate lost fair and square by a large margin. 


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Tender Branson on July 21, 2016, 08:51:32 AM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...
Tender can you stop this Hillary is a terrible candidate sh**t.  It gets old quickly.  Leave you damn partisanship in the past and get over the fact that your candidate lost fair and square by a large margin. 

I have no problem with accepting that she beat Sanders in the primaries.

I didn't like her before that. I virtually never liked her and she remains a terrible candidate and I will keep on repeating that she's a trainwreck.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: JerryArkansas on July 21, 2016, 08:55:50 AM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...
Tender can you stop this Hillary is a terrible candidate sh**t.  It gets old quickly.  Leave you damn partisanship in the past and get over the fact that your candidate lost fair and square by a large margin. 

I have no problem with accepting that she beat Sanders in the primaries.

I didn't like her before that. I virtually never liked her and she remains a terrible candidate and I will keep on repeating that she's a trainwreck.
Do what you want.  At this point, I just assume your unquenchable hatred of her is because she's an unattractive woman who has made it far in politics, and that grinds your gears.  Seeing as you and many on this forum have made not only creepy but sexist remarks regarding many women in politics.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Warren 4 Secretary of Everything on July 21, 2016, 08:59:56 AM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...
Tender can you stop this Hillary is a terrible candidate sh**t.  It gets old quickly.  Leave you damn partisanship in the past and get over the fact that your candidate lost fair and square by a large margin. 

I have no problem with accepting that she beat Sanders in the primaries.

I didn't like her before that. I virtually never liked her and she remains a terrible candidate and I will keep on repeating that she's a trainwreck.
Do what you want.  At this point, I just assume your unquenchable hatred of her is because she's an unattractive woman who has made it far in politics, and that grinds your gears.  Seeing as you and many on this forum have made not only creepy but sexist remarks regarding many women in politics.
Well that escalated quickly


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: JerryArkansas on July 21, 2016, 09:01:25 AM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...
Tender can you stop this Hillary is a terrible candidate sh**t.  It gets old quickly.  Leave you damn partisanship in the past and get over the fact that your candidate lost fair and square by a large margin. 

I have no problem with accepting that she beat Sanders in the primaries.

I didn't like her before that. I virtually never liked her and she remains a terrible candidate and I will keep on repeating that she's a trainwreck.
Do what you want.  At this point, I just assume your unquenchable hatred of her is because she's an unattractive woman who has made it far in politics, and that grinds your gears.  Seeing as you and many on this forum have made not only creepy but sexist remarks regarding many women in politics.
Well that escalated quickly
Eh, could have been worse. 

Also it was more directed at the people on the forum who are extremely creepy when it comes to women, which is larger than I would like.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Tender Branson on July 21, 2016, 09:06:44 AM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...
Tender can you stop this Hillary is a terrible candidate sh**t.  It gets old quickly.  Leave you damn partisanship in the past and get over the fact that your candidate lost fair and square by a large margin. 

I have no problem with accepting that she beat Sanders in the primaries.

I didn't like her before that. I virtually never liked her and she remains a terrible candidate and I will keep on repeating that she's a trainwreck.
Do what you want.  At this point, I just assume your unquenchable hatred of her is because she's an unattractive woman who has made it far in politics, and that grinds your gears.  Seeing as you and many on this forum have made not only creepy but sexist remarks regarding many women in politics.

Ehh, no. It doesn't have to do with her looks or something. It's simply she and her off-putting personality. There are simply much more likeable women out who'd be better qualfied than her as President. For example, I don't know if you know it or not, I used to like Merkel a few years ago (until she made that silly u-turn and welcomed the whole world to Germany and Europe with it). But other than that, my dislike of Hillary is not much different than my dislike of Putin or Erdogan (but I hate them more). So, nothing to do with gender ...


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: JerryArkansas on July 21, 2016, 09:07:30 AM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...
Tender can you stop this Hillary is a terrible candidate sh**t.  It gets old quickly.  Leave you damn partisanship in the past and get over the fact that your candidate lost fair and square by a large margin. 

I have no problem with accepting that she beat Sanders in the primaries.

I didn't like her before that. I virtually never liked her and she remains a terrible candidate and I will keep on repeating that she's a trainwreck.
Do what you want.  At this point, I just assume your unquenchable hatred of her is because she's an unattractive woman who has made it far in politics, and that grinds your gears.  Seeing as you and many on this forum have made not only creepy but sexist remarks regarding many women in politics.

Ehh, no. It doesn't have to do with her looks or something. It's simply she and her off-putting personality. There are simply much more likeable women out who'd be better qualfied than her as President. For example, I don't know if you know it or not, I used to like Merkel a few years ago (until she made that silly u-turn and welcomed the whole world to Germany and Europe with it).
That's where I think your wrong.  You don't have to be some bubbly personality to President.  And to say otherwise is a great reflection of your world view.  I won't respond to the second part, seeing as I don't want to get into a debate about racism in Germany and the like.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Sprouts Farmers Market ✘ on July 21, 2016, 09:43:25 AM

Because she leads by 5 points in a junk poll?!? Please! A swing-state sure, but this ain't no toss-up.


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Liberalrocks on July 21, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
I agree that MI "could" indeed be a toss-up.

2008 and 2012 might have been exceptional, with Obama on the ballot.

With the "fighter for the car industry" off the ballot, it could become closer because Hillary is a terrible candidate. Unless she deploys Obama to the state a few times ...
Tender can you stop this Hillary is a terrible candidate sh**t.  It gets old quickly.  Leave you damn partisanship in the past and get over the fact that your candidate lost fair and square by a large margin. 


Title: Re: MRG - MI: Clinton +5
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 21, 2016, 06:35:11 PM

Because she leads by 5 points in a junk poll?!? Please! A swing-state sure, but this ain't no toss-up.

Yup. That's my view.