Yet another poll shows John McCain besting Barack Obama in the State of Michigan, according to one of the state’s most trusted pollsters:
EPIC-MRA Michigan General Election, conducted May 19-22, 2008.
- McCain – 44%
- Obama – 40%
Survey was done May 19-22 of 600 likely voters, and has a 4% MoE.
According to this pollster, Hillary would provide a massive boost to an Obama-led ticket in the Wolverine State, while Mitt Romney would actually be a net drag on a McCain-led ticket. Obama/Clinton best McCain/Romney by fully seven points, 51 percent to 44 percent. That means that Hillary brings tons of undecideds to the Democratic ticket, while Romney convinces not a single additional voter to back McCain.
In the one-on-one matchup, McCain beats Obama among Michigan independents by 13 percentage points.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Again, a completely dishonest or misread of what the poll shows. This shows that Hillary added to a Obama ticket is a very strong ticket. Most of us realize that. It doesn’t mean that Mitt would be a drag at all. To say that, you would have to be testing other leading VP’s to see who drags the least. I believe you would find Mitt helps most of any VP. But again, the polling firm chose not to show any others just like SUSA did earlier. It looks as if they are trying hard to convince McCain of what DaveG was just convinced of; that Mitt is a net drag. Like I said, throw other candidates in to it, then we’ll decide who helps or hurts most. There is no doubt in my mind Mitt helps most. Whether or not we get Michigan with a Obama/Hillary ticket, I don’t know because it is a strong ticket.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:09 am
That poll also has a rather sizable 16% undecided contingent as well as a wide range of movement with VP match-ups.
Is it my imagination or the polling quality sagging this cycle?
May 29th, 2008 at 1:15 am
And Romeny won Michigan by how many points when running for the GOP nom? Polls. Give it 20 more minutes and there will be another saying the opposite.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:08 am
One good thing about this poll – it is the fourth poll in a row to show McCain leading Obama in the state of Michigan.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:31 am
By the way, I heard Romney say today that he didn’t think he was going to be VP.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Wow shock horror they all say that.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:50 am
OMGthereisnowaythatRomneyisn’tthesavioroftheGOP!!1!!11!11!!!
In all seriousness, I think the last sentence in the next-to-last paragraph is a bit overworded. But come on, IL Guy. Do you really think polling companies have it out for Romney? That’s ridiculous.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Then you explain the no other Veeps being tested. I haven’t heard an explanation yet.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Let’s break this down:
I believe you would find Mitt helps most of any VP.
I agree with this, though mainly because he is already a known quantity in the state, not because his ideology fits in with the white, working class vote.
Like I said, throw other candidates in to it, then we’ll decide who helps or hurts most.
I agree with this statement as well. I’m sure internally, McCain is already doing this.
It looks as if they are trying hard to convince McCain of what DaveG was just convinced of; that Mitt is a net drag.
Huh? How do we make that leap of logic? First of all, to think that McCain is going to base his VP pick of what SUSA and EPIC-MRA poll in Michigan is ridiculous. Secondly, Hillary is going to help Obama in Michigan more than any other potential VP (at least at the moment, see above about name recognition). You don’t think that it could possibly be that this outfit decided to poll who the two strongest names would be for Michigan? As far as SUSA goes, I don’t know why they didn’t do a comprehensive polling for MI that they did for other states. But to think they have it out for Romney smells of something a truther might say.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Also, I forgot to post this earlier, get well soon IL Guy. I’m not a religious man, but I’ll be pulling for you.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Apart from bragging rights, what difference does it make to poll other VP candidates. If candidate X only beat Obama/Hagel by only 2 point instead of 5 a win is a win, as if Romney on the ticket mean we lose to Clinton in Michigan by only 3 point instead of 7, a loss is a loss. While Michigan maybe a special state, it is not the only state. We can easily argue that Mr. Romney will not do as well as many other candidates in Ohio, PA and even Virgina. I won’t discuss any other southern states because we will beat Mr. Obama whether or not Mr. Romney is on the ticket. Will Mr. Romney cost us Ohio, PA and Virgina, probably not (we either win or we lose regardless of whether Mr. Romney is on the ticket.) So it is a double edge sword to claim that Mr. Romeny helps us in Michigan because he does not help us enough to swing the state. Look, I’ll admit, these polls have convinced me that Mr. Romney won’t kill us, but by the same token, they also suggest that we will do fine with many other VP candidates as well. While an arguement has been made that Mr. Pawlwnty may not be as good as some of us thought, but Mr. Romney has yet to make the kill, polling other candidates in Michigan won’t help him. Polls in other states are what is needed.
BTW, my numbers were not taken from any one poll, they are just to illustrate a point.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I like that yesterday, all the Romney people were defending the poll, and today, they’re calling it flawed and talking about how polls can be wrong.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:07 am
That is an interesting point Robbie, polls do need to be taken with a grain of salt and you are right that we should try to be consistant in that regard.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
There are of course lots of explanations why a polling company might choose to limit the number of VP options — but none would appeal to someone of the conspiratorial mentality that sees evil cabals hiding behind every bush.
I have only very limited experience with political polling, but a lot with market research surveys, and the same general principles apply. An important one is that it’s best to keep surveys short — too many questions and respondents will quit on you (hang up or walk away, as the case may be). Those willing to sit out a long questionnaire are likely to be different in important ways (both demographically and psychographically) than those who walk out, thus giving flawed results.
I wondered when I saw the first SUSA polls why they did so many combos — I’d certainly be reluctant to sit through such a question session, and I suspect they had a lot of incompletes. Perhaps that’s why they cut back.
An additional point is that polls that do live interviews, as opposed to robocalls (and I don’t know about either SUSA or EPIC), have costs to consider — the SUSA poll had 16 combos, therefore 16x the time.
Or maybe they consider Romney and Hillary the most likely choices. Or the best-known choices. Or perhaps they plan to do other combos later. I’m sure there are other possibilities as well.
But a good, nasty, evil conspiracy is so much more satisfying, isn’t it?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Ohio –
“as if Romney on the ticket mean we lose to Clinton in Michigan by only 3 point instead of 7, a loss is a loss.”
You seemed to have jumped to a conclusion that this poll is more valid than yesterday’s that showed McCain beating all candidates in Michigan, including Hillary. Let’s be fair; you normally are or try to be.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
BobH – So keeping it short means that they added several times as many Democratic foes as previous USA polls had used?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Or maybe they consider Romney and Hillary the most likely choices. Or the best-known choices. Or perhaps they plan to do other combos later. I’m sure there are other possibilities as well.
You know, that could VERY well be true! But, the Romnots on here obviously aren’t seeing it that way because they label Romney as a drag on the Michigan ticket! A little fairness in our analysis would go a long way.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am
They didn’t release the cross tabs, but I have to think the reason Hillary helps him so much is in large measure due to the increased margin she gives him with women.
Also, that Survey USA poll was bunk. They had McCain getting close to 30% of the black vote, and Obama barely clearing 60%. Forget 30%, McCain will be lucky if gets 30 black people period to vote for him against Obama. Any poll that shows McCain anywhere near 30% of the black vote is horribly flawed.
Also, SUSA had more than 20% undecided in key demos, like men, women, and key areas of the state. Close to 25% of the white vote undecided.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
To be clear, I am not saying that any poll is entirely valid, they are what they are. Mr. Romney is not a drag in Michigan, true and he is probably a net benefit in terms of per cent, but no matter what the numbers are, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. I have pretty much admitted that although I believe Mr. Romney would cost us votes in OH & PA, unless those states are very close, I doubt, he will actually cost us the whole of those states. All I am saying is that by the same token, I do not see him being our political savior in Michigan. Both polls suggest that a win is a win and a loss is a loss, not just one of them. Perhaps numbers will prove me wrong, but even so, Michigan is but one state. Although I admit that not all states have 17 points.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Jim, perhaps you can explain why the blacks were claiming they would vote for McCain. I know you’re not implying the question wasn’t asked correctly, or that they didn’t understand the question; so just how is it you propose that the number came out 29%? I’m not being sarcastic! How can that happen? You may not believe the result, that’s fine, but please tell me how the number got to be the way it did.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
A relatively small sample, who knows? Maybe they polled the members of the Pistons and the Lions and they like McCain’s tax policy more?
The point is that the result is not reflective at all of what will happen in November when Obama will get at least 90-95% of the black vote, and I can’t really take any poll that has McCain approaching 30% of it seriously.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
First of all, let me say that I’m not saying the 29% is accurate, but it could be that we can expect quite a bit larger than the 5-10% in Michigan. Mitt’s father was Governor for years in Michigan. If you recall, George Romney marched in civil rights marches a few times, something not a whole lot of white Governors were doing at that time. It could be that blacks remember that favorably, and that is getting passed down to the succeeding generation. If you put that in conjuction with Mitt being very favorable toward regaining jobs in America, and him having a ground swell of enthusiasm in the late stages before the Michigan primary, we may be significantly underestimating the percentage of black vote McCain/Romney will get in Michigan.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
> “BobH – So keeping it short means that they added several times as many Democratic foes as previous USA polls had used?”
Actually, you answered your own question.
My post said there were probably any number of possible answers for why the did the poll as they did, other than your conspiracy theory.
As you note, they included more Dem possibilities. Isn’t it possible that they were polling, in this instance, to compare the strength of Dem prospects? They polled ten different Dems — if they had matched each of those ten Dems against the same four Reps as in the previous samples, they would have had forty combinations — no respondent would sit still for that. So they used only one Rep (presumably the Rep they felt would do best in Michigan).
No conspiracy.