MI: Strategic National (R) - TIE
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:08:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  MI: Strategic National (R) - TIE
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: MI: Strategic National (R) - TIE  (Read 14056 times)
Buzz
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,186


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2016, 03:36:19 PM »

Trump's gonna have to win Michigan or Pennsylvania.  Tall order but not impossible
Logged
dirks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2016, 04:45:31 PM »

Another junk Republican pollster flooding the zone

so is PeePeePee
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2016, 04:46:13 PM »

Thank God for only 3 more days of this s[Inks].
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2016, 06:17:53 PM »

Logged
QE
Rookie
**
Posts: 64
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2016, 06:31:52 PM »


Keep telling yourselves that.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2016, 01:00:10 PM »

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

Freedom Poll!
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2016, 05:05:42 PM »

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?
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2016, 06:07:19 PM »

The accuracy is scary!
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2016, 12:38:11 PM »

Wow, amazing poll! I wish all polls were this accurate.
Logged
Keep cool-idge
Benjamin Harrison he is w
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,770
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2017, 11:33:38 PM »

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.
Congrats you’re dark horse theory was right.
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2017, 11:39:09 PM »

Another junk Republican pollster flooding the zone
Yep, this poll was off by .4%. Junk poll!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 12 queries.