Talk Elections

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/
Trump - 44
Clinton - 44
Johnson - 4
Stein - 3

Another junk Republican pollster flooding the zone

daily caller lul. If they can't make up a Trump lead, MI's over.

I feel bad because I'm kind of flooding with junk polls but something something every data point matters

Oh ffs, someone need to put an end to this trash poll madness.

Ugh. I saw this trash poll earlier and knew it would make an appearance on this board before too long.

Stategic Nation, Traglafar, Brietbart/Gravis, etc etc etc.

It's really pathetic...

Hey, no shooting the messenger. Thanks for posting them. If nothing else, they're good for a chuckle and a warning on the future of polling.

Seems that nearly every poll is either junk. Why do them if you're not going to try to be accurate?

This pollster had MI as C+1 a few days ago: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=250676.  But I've never heard of the firm before; do they have any track record?

All these awful polls are just going to lead to another Nate Silver #hottake.

you forgot ppp

Because they are propaganda, not polls.  The alt-right are fascists.  Don't forget this.

This is bad polling, but Hillary will win by 2.

What heck is wrong? That many junk polls out these weeks?

Honestly, I think we should now forget about the polls and just wait a couple more days to see the outcome.

The individual who runs his firm, John Yob, is heavily invested in creating a battleground narrative in Michigan. If he can convince Trump and the RNC to flood the state with resources, then maybe the MIGOP can keep the State House and win other down-ballot races.

Is that the same John Yob that was involved in the controversy over the VI delegation to the GOP convention?

Yes.

HYOOOOOGE
MI IN SERIOUS CONTENTION

Re-posting on why I've been saying MI is a dark horse:

MI GOP primary;

2012: 996,499 voters. Romney 41% - Santorum 38%
2016: 1,323,589 voters. Trump 36% - Cruz 24%

That's a lot of voters coming out for Trump in the primary, which was never even competitive. In fact, more people voted in the GOP primary than the dem primary (1,205,552), and that race was extremely competitive (Sanders 49% - Clinton 48%). Unfortunately I could not compare GOP vs Dems primary numbers in previous elections because for democrats in 2008 the state was uncontested (because of a rule violation) and in 2004/2000 the state was a caucus.

Not saying primary support is necessarily indicative of general performance in any way, but the GOP outvoting the dems in blue MI should be at least some cause for concern among democrats. Trump's message plays really well among white-working class voters and union members - both of which MI has in abundant (Sanders did too). The state was almost tailor-made for him - were it not for the fact that it leans so heavily dem.

MI and VA are my two dark horses.

Are you braindead?

I think he might be Bill Mitchell in disguise :O

The Michigan Republican primary was the competitive one.  It was basically a three-way race, with Kasich surging in the end. No one thought the Michigan Democratic primary would be competitive; Clinton was supposed to win by 20 points.

Are you looking for an answer more complicated than "to. make. money" ?

Trump's gonna have to win Michigan or Pennsylvania.  Tall order but not impossible

so is PeePeePee

Thank God for only 3 more days of this s[Inks].

Keep telling yourselves that.

I will. So will Michigan's 16 electors come December 19.

Freedom Poll!

It is interesting how few polls in the last week or so of the election actually had Michigan as a tie or Trump leaning, or even showed the race as remarkably close.

You had this 538 unranked pollster showing the race as a tie, a SurveyMonkey (C +2), Trafalgar Group (T+2), and a Google Consumer Surveys showing C+1. These are all relatively questionable polling firms

Meanwhile the EpicMarist (A-) showed it as C+4 with a large number of "others" and "undecideds".

Ipsos was arguably the closest of the higher quality polling firms (538 A-) showing C+1 with relatively few undecided and 3rd party voters.

I guess the question is did some of the sketchier polling outfits, and Strategic Decisions:

1.)  simply do a better job of forecasting the composition of the electorate, or
2.) did polls overestimate Clinton LV % numbers,
3.) Or did undecided & 3rd party voters break heavily Trump in the last few days of the election which would not have been captured in polling numbers?
4.) Or do we just fall back on the cliche that Michigan polling is just historically flawed and we should completely ignore all polls coming out of Michigan?

The accuracy is scary!

Wow, amazing poll! I wish all polls were this accurate.

Congrats you’re dark horse theory was right.

Yep, this poll was off by .4%. Junk poll!