MI: EPIC/MRA: Romney leads Obama

[Rowan]

Michigan(EPIC/MRA)

Romney: 46%
Obama: 41%

Obama: 45%
Gingrich: 40%

Obama: 50%
Cain: 36%

http://www.freep.com/article/20111120/NEWS15/111200467/Obama-has-work-cut-out-him-order-win-Michigan-2012?

[© tweed]

interesting

[Bandit3 the Worker]

This is another outlier.

[pbrower2a]

This pollster 'does' only Michigan and is far more R than any other pollster. The statewide vote in Michigan always boils down to voter turnout which is the difference between statewide elections in 2008 and 2010. 

The current Republican Governor is highly unpopular, so just wait until PPP, Quinnipiac, or Rasmussen polls the state.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This pollster 'does' only Michigan

That explains why I haven't even heard of this pollster before.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Looks like an outlier, but an interesting one.  Romney is probably the only candidate who could force the Democrats to play defense in Michigan.

[memphis]

It's funny to watch the GOP throw away success with both hands.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Romney's led in this poll before, and EPIC/MRA is pretty well-known in Michigan.

[DrScholl]

EPIC/MRA always shows favorable Republican numbers. They had Stabenow up by only six, yet she was up by double digits among independents in the internals.

[Tender Branson]

This poll is 38% GOP and 38% DEM.

Not likely to happen in a Presidential year, even 2004 had something like a 5% Dem advantage.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

EPIC/MRA always shows favorable Republican numbers. They had Stabenow up by only six, yet she was up by double digits among independents in the internals.

What was the date of that poll? There was a huge shift in the polls from the summer to the fall as the race went from a tie to a Stabenow lead. Thus if the poll was from September, it wouldn't necessarily have been an innaccurate depiction of the race at that point.

Either way, the sample is overly Republican, though that might be a reflection of the enthusiasm gap. We assume that Obama will correct that and he very likely will. As such it isn't indicative of an accuracy issue because we now that problem exists presently. We tend to forget that these are polls of the race right now, a snapshot of right now. They may be picking up something that isn't registering in other polls with different models.


I will say again, don't rely on successfully painting Romney as wanting to break apart GM and sell it to China. If that is your rust belt strategy, you have lost most likely.

[pbrower2a]

EPIC/MRA always shows favorable Republican numbers. They had Stabenow up by only six, yet she was up by double digits among independents in the internals.

What was the date of that poll? There was a huge shift in the polls from the summer to the fall as the race went from a tie to a Stabenow lead. Thus if the poll was from September, it wouldn't necessarily have been an inaccurate depiction of the race at that point.

Of course the approvals can rise and fall, and polling can only react. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. It is up to the politicians who have the 'enthusiasm gap' working against them earlier to counteract it. If any incumbent President can do that, it is Obama, and you clearly recognize that in your prose.

2. EPIC/MRA may be using a model applicable to the 2010 election.  The unions and the ethnic associations will be extremely active in the late summer and early autumn.

3. Michigan is not split evenly R-D in Presidential years. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I live in Michigan, and I know what the GOP majority in the state legislature is trying to do -- run Michigan as if it were Oklahoma, which is basically "Get what you can while you can". It is as crude as the GOP in neighboring Indiana (for which there are no polls), Wisconsin (for which there are copious polls and they look bad for Republicans) and Ohio (likewise). The GOP has a right-to-work (for much less) bill on the agenda, and we all know what the unions do about that when they can. I am surprised that there is no "right-to-life" bill in the docket.  The Congressional delegation acts as if it has been deputized to serve Texas oil interests and Wall Street hedge fund managers instead of the districts that its members represent, which is good for one term in Congress.  Such will work against any Republican -- even more than any attempt to associate Mitt Romney with his "Go to Hell, Detroit!" approach that might work in Grand Rapids. Michigan's population is heavily concentrated in the Detroit-Lansing-Bay City corridor.

Hundreds of thousands of Michiganders are connected with the auto industry either directly or indirectly. It's so subtle that even if one works for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, GM is your employer's biggest customer.

Michigan used to be a haven for moderate  Republicans like Mitt's father -- but that is past. George Romney could defeat Barack Obama this year. Mitt can't if he has to make too many concessions to the Hard Right.   

[DrScholl]

EPIC/MRA always shows favorable Republican numbers. They had Stabenow up by only six, yet she was up by double digits among independents in the internals.

What was the date of that poll? There was a huge shift in the polls from the summer to the fall as the race went from a tie to a Stabenow lead. Thus if the poll was from September, it wouldn't necessarily have been an innaccurate depiction of the race at that point.

Either way, the sample is overly Republican, though that might be a reflection of the enthusiasm gap. We assume that Obama will correct that and he very likely will. As such it isn't indicative of an accuracy issue because we now that problem exists presently. We tend to forget that these are polls of the race right now, a snapshot of right now. They may be picking up something that isn't registering in other polls with different models.


I will say again, don't rely on successfully painting Romney as wanting to break apart GM and sell it to China. If that is your rust belt strategy, you have lost most likely.

The poll I'm referring to just came out a couple of days ago and had the same partisan numbers as this. This is one case where I do think that sample has an impact on the poll, as it's very different than past turnout.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

EPIC/MRA always shows favorable Republican numbers. They had Stabenow up by only six, yet she was up by double digits among independents in the internals.

What was the date of that poll? There was a huge shift in the polls from the summer to the fall as the race went from a tie to a Stabenow lead. Thus if the poll was from September, it wouldn't necessarily have been an innaccurate depiction of the race at that point.

Either way, the sample is overly Republican, though that might be a reflection of the enthusiasm gap. We assume that Obama will correct that and he very likely will. As such it isn't indicative of an accuracy issue because we now that problem exists presently. We tend to forget that these are polls of the race right now, a snapshot of right now. They may be picking up something that isn't registering in other polls with different models.


I will say again, don't rely on successfully painting Romney as wanting to break apart GM and sell it to China. If that is your rust belt strategy, you have lost most likely.

The poll I'm referring to just came out a couple of days ago and had the same partisan numbers as this. This is one case where I do think that sample has an impact on the poll, as it's very different than past turnout.

I thought you were talking about a 2006 poll. My mistake.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I live in Michigan, and I know what the GOP majority in the state legislature is trying to do -- run Michigan as if it were Oklahoma, which is basically "Get what you can while you can". It is as crude as the GOP in neighboring Indiana (for which there are no polls), Wisconsin (for which there are copious polls and they look bad for Republicans) and Ohio (likewise). The GOP has a right-to-work (for much less) bill on the agenda, and we all know what the unions do about that when they can. I am surprised that there is no "right-to-life" bill in the docket.  The Congressional delegation acts as if it has been deputized to serve Texas oil interests and Wall Street hedge fund managers instead of the districts that its members represent, which is good for one term in Congress.  Such will work against any Republican -- even more than any attempt to associate Mitt Romney with his "Go to Hell, Detroit!" approach that might work in Grand Rapids. Michigan's population is heavily concentrated in the Detroit-Lansing-Bay City corridor.

Hundreds of thousands of Michiganders are connected with the auto industry either directly or indirectly. It's so subtle that even if one works for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, GM is your employer's biggest customer.

Michigan used to be a haven for moderate  Republicans like Mitt's father -- but that is past. George Romney could defeat Barack Obama this year. Mitt can't if he has to make too many concessions to the Hard Right.   

Ironically, as far as the primary goes, Romney does horribly out in Western Michigan. His base is Detroit Metro.

Your labeling of what Romney called for as "Go to hell Detroit" is just as bad as what I warned against in "shipping them to China". All you are doing is giving Mitt a chance to illustrate economic credibility. He'll remind people that Obama resorted to a bankruptcy, what bankruptcy restructuring is and if pressed on the lack of bankruptcy funding, don't be surprised if Slick Mittens were to say he would have supported gov't backed loans or even direct gov't loans in such a "rare contigency as the credit crisis".

One must also remember, that in the context of article being discussed, "bailout" was referencing not the Obama bailout or even the Bush bailout, but the bailout the executives wanted in late 2008. Which was "Give us tax dollars or the world ends tomorrow". I am surprised that so many labor Dems are bitching about Romney refusing to support such a no consquences taxpayer give away. If that was the GOP plan and they were the ones in charge in early 2009, the Democrats, including yourself most likely, would be outraged. I thought you guys were for there being consequences for executives who fail. Romney's plan would have fired them. Let's say I were to claim you guys wanted "Detroit to go to hell" based on those objections from the Democrats, in such a scenario. A very plausible one if McCain had won the election, I might add. Both attacks are a distortion to fit a campaign narrative.