Quote:
Originally posted by Chucko
Republicans generally don't spend a lot of time in Michigan but Trump will if he is only -5.
2008 Obama beat McCain by ~17% and 2012 Romney by ~10%, everything you posted is within the margin of error... Not sure why you think these numbers mean anything at this point in time.
.
|
The margin of error was only 4%. Yea, I know if both Hillary's number swung down by 4% and Trump swung up by 4% then he could win, but that's very unlikely both of their numbers go to both extremes. Also, it includes a 5% undecided and 7% which can easily be swayed to either side. The Dems are much more likely win both groups if Bernie and Obama campaign for Hillary. Also, Michigan is a pretty blue state (esp in presidential elections), plus Flint.
I'm not saying it's written in the stars for Hillary. Nothing is ever guaranteed in politics. However, Republicans winning Michigan is about as likely as Dems wining Georgia or Arizona. Maybe in the future, but probably not now. My main point is a
+5 poll in Hillary's favor is a hell of a lot better for her than a +5 in Trumps favor. It represents at best an uphill battle for the Trump. Honestly, if the RNC/Trump spend a significant amount of money in Michigan, then I think they are wasting their money. They don't need Michigan to win, and it would be better spent in states that have actually voted for a Republican president in the past 26 years.
Contrary to what a lot of people say polls this early were fairly accurate in
2008 and
2012. Most polls in February showed Obama leading.
In 2012 polls were actually
more accurate in February than in October/November. Most polls has a significant
statstical bias towards Romney.
woo these people are something else 
