Detroit Free Press Poll: Trump +7 in Michigan

[LonePirate]

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/21/michigan-poll-trump-biden-polling/74468127007/

An exclusive new Free Press poll of likely Michigan voters shows former President Donald Trump has taken a notable 7-percentage-point lead over incumbent President Joe Biden in the state, a result certain to further worry Democrats already pushing for Biden to abandon his reelection bid.

"It's only going to add to the pressure on Biden to step aside and have someone replace him," said Bernie Porn, the pollster for EPIC-MRA in Lansing, which conducted the survey of 600 voters for the Free Press and its media partners. "The Democrats are in a difficult position."

The poll showed Trump, who held a rally in Grand Rapids on Saturday evening, leading Biden 49%-42% in a head-to-head matchup, with 9% undecided, saying they would vote for neither or refusing to answer. In a five-way race, Trump led with 43% to 36% for Biden, 8% for independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and 2% each for Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent Cornel West. Again 9% said they either would not vote for president, pick someone else or were undecided.

Trump led in every region of the state, including in metro Detroit — defined as Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties and seen as the most predominantly Democratic region in Michigan — where he held a slim but remarkable 46%-44% edge in the head-to-head matchup with Biden and a 43%-38% margin in the five-way race.

More at the link.

[Ocelot II]

1. "Bernie Porn"?

[rzemanfl]

2. Beat me to it. n/t

[Hugin]

11. *snerk*

I was just telling my SO that having “Bevis & Butthead” on the air in prime time was one of the seven signs.

Behold! The prophecy! Heh-heh…

[Renew Deal]

78. I want that as my DU name.

How long before someone registers it?

[Celerity]

79. Bernie Porn:

https://www.lansingcitypulse.com/stories/bernie-porn-pollster,19529

Bernie Porn, 72, is the president of EPIC MRA, a Lansing-based survey research firm with decades of polling experience on a variety of topics to help guide campaigns for candidates, millages, bond proposals and other political advocacy. Porn was raised in Flushing, attended Mott Community and Aquinas colleges and worked in the Michigan House of Representatives for 19 years — including a stint as the House communications director from 1990 to 1992.

Have you always wanted to be involved in politics?

I had illusions of playing professional basketball or coaching. I also played the drums in my high school band, so I thought I might be a band director. It was my father who got me into politics. In 1960, he was the head of the Genesee County Republican Party and he had a chance to meet Vice President Richard Nixon. My dad was helping with my homework and his secretary came in and said, “Mr. Porn, the vice president is here.” And he said, “Tell him I’ll be with him in a few minutes. I’m just finishing up Bernie’s homework.” So, one of my earliest memories is him keeping the vice president waiting for a few minutes while he finished up a few more problems. After I graduated college, I sold shoes, but it was my dad who was always bugging me to look for political jobs in Lansing. I got sick of selling shoes and took a campaign job for a state Rep. John Otterbacher. It was either $100 a month or $100 a week — not a whole lot.

How did that transition into polling?

I did some polling as early as 1972 in college, but it was working on campaigns that hooked me. In 1985, we established a partnership and moved these political operations offsite so that nobody could say that we were working on campaigns on state House time and equipment. In 1992, that turned into a full-time job with EPIC MRA. I joke that the EPIC means “everybody pays in cash,” but it’s actually Education, Political, Industrial, Consumer, Market, Research and Analysis.

Before we continue: I have to ask about that unique last name.

There are more people named Porn in the Greater Genesee County area than anywhere else on the planet. I believe, in Denmark, at one point the name was Bjorn. And it had somehow been changed to Porn. My father took jokes about it very seriously, but I don’t really mind them. And yes, I have been teased. A guy who worked in the Treasury used to call me “Softcore.”

[Ocelot II]

81. LOL! Should have stuck with Bjorn, he looks kind of bear-like.

[Celerity]

85. indeed he does

[Deek1935]

3. More meaningless polls MONTHS away. And what do you expect in a snapshot when Biden has been ATTACKED over and over?

[LonePirate]

4. On what date do polls become meaningful for you?

[Keepthesoulalive]

7. Election Day

When the votes have been counted.

[jimfields33]

9. I'd like to know that too.

It seems never could be the answer.

[Think. Again.]

16. Bingo!

[Deek1935]

13. Sure as shit not in JULY and not after weeks of relentless media attacks and circular firing squading.

What the hell do you expect in a snapshot poll like this at this juncture? Instead of rallying around our candidate and taking the fight hard to Trump, we have a CLUSTERFUCK going on, relentless corporate media narrative and attacks, a fucking circular firing squad going on, INSTEAD of rallying around our candidate with one voice and taking the fight in ONE VOICE straight to The Orange Rapist.

They also just had the R National Convention where there is often some kind of bounce, and we have Biden down with Covid.

I will also remind you that on the EVE of the special election in NY last Feb. the polls had a TIE. And the Dem won by 8 points.

In 1988 right now Dukakis was WAY ahead of Bush right now. In 2012 Romney was ahead of Obama in the summer.

In 2016 on the day of the election all the pollsters were predicting Hillary would win. How did that work out.

People need to stop shitting their pants over the fucking polls, rally around our candidate, and take the fight hard to Trump and MAGATS. Instead we have had a self-inflicted CLUSTERFUCK and a corporate media onslaught. What the fuck does anyone expect with snapshot polls right now?

[PatSeg]

59. Well said

[Think. Again.]

15. The day after election day of course.

[LonePirate]

18. There are going to be a lot of very shocked DUers on Wednesday, November 6 if that is the case.

[Think. Again.]

25. What shock would there be?

It's a binary choice, we know both possible outcomes, how would the results be shocking?

[ColinC]

32. The shock comes from trusting polls if we have learned anything from the past

[LonePirate]

58. Do you know of any general election polls that were more than 7 points off in our favor?

If polls are not to be trusted, I'm guessing you're making this assumption on past behavior where general election polls were off by large amounts. Can you cite any to prove your point?

[ColinC]

61. August 6,2016 detroit free press showed Clinton ahead by 11 and in October by 12

As you should know, Clinton lost Michigan by around 1-2 points.


You have already been informed in other posts that Whitmer was leading by 1 in the RCP poll averages, but won by 10. Any general election polls not showing her leading were off by more than 10.

While polls done right before an election are likely to be more accurate, there are a series of factors why traditional polling has become increasingly inaccurate -including but not limited to the polling bias from accessibility to internet and phone services.

[LonePirate]

64. The poll was indeed off but it was not off in our favor. If the new poll is off Repubs like that one, we lose by 20.

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2024, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)

[ColinC]

65. Did you read the rest of my post? Whitmer is a prime example

And far more relevant and recent. I can give you more for ones off in our favor if you need them

[The Revolution]

91. If the poll is off and Trump is really +20

Then I don't know if any candidate we had could win. The polling I've seen with other candidates has them doing about the same or worse than Biden.

[kcr]

88. Oooh, bet you can't wait n/t

[kcr]

89. There is no way Trump is ahead in Detroit

Polls are broken.

[onecaliberal]

19. Election Day. On what did the red wave polls predicted come to fruition?

Oh yeah, never. The polls are paid for by reicht wing money that wants tax cuts. It’s a fig leaf for the denier.
This is their narrative. You’re spreading it

[PortTack]

56. Read what Alan Lichtman has to say about polls, if or when they are helpful.

[LonePirate]

60. There are legitimate election analysts claiming Lichtman's analysis is no different than astrology.

[asm128]

66. Post the proof

Show us this legitimate analysis, while continuing to post bullshit anti-Biden polls.

[ColinC]

67. If astrology is as accurate as Lichtman's predictions, perhaps I should get into astrology

🤔

[Turbineguy]

83. Respondents are responding to the polls

and the polls are responding to the respondents.

It's a downward spiral.

[tman]

5. If these numbers don't make you worried, you are not living in the real world.

[Ocelot II]

6. Worried, OK; panicked, no.

[Xavier Breath]

27. Yeah, I won't running screaming into the hills beacuse of this

but it's also not what I'd want to read of a Sunday morning.

[Deek1935]

14. Tell it to President Hillary Clinton. What kind of snapshot would you expect now after what has been happening?

[onecaliberal]

21. Tell it to France.

[True Dough]

29. Mais oui!

The tide turned there very quickly!

[former9thward]

87. No it didn't.

Each party got about 1/3 of the vote give or take. We do not have a parliamentary coalition government system.

[True Dough]

92. Allow me to rephrase

The right surged in the first round of voting. Many projections had further gains in store for the second round. The left wisely withdrew candidates in each riding to eliminate vote-splitting on that end of the spectrum. That hemmed in the right and likely prevented them from making additional gains.

[Think. Again.]

17. Why? I'm not in the for-profit media business...

...Why would I care what results poll-writers are creating?

[JI7]

20. I don't think most people are "not worried".

[Alice B.]

8. 600 voters or "likely voters?"

I'm struggling to find more about the methodology.

Also "Importantly, 51% of Black voters — a key Democratic constituency — said Biden should remain the nominee compared with 39% who said he should step down."

Also, it's July and how much are the effects of a sustained and public pile-on?

[FBaggins]

23. Likely voters unfortunately

This cycle has seen a not-often-mentioned reversal from recent years (with LV filters more often favoring blue over red).

It is at least interesting to note that at least some people got through that filter despite explicitly saying that they would not be voting.

[Cattledog]

10. Project 2025

57% said they knew little about it or hadn't heard of it before the pollster asked them about it; 27% said they were somewhat familiar with it; and just 15% said they were very familiar with it.

After the pollster read a description of some of Project 2025's recommendations, including reducing taxes on corporations, eliminating the Affordable Care Act and giving the White House more control of Justice Department decisions, 65% of respondents said they disapproved of the program compared with just 25% who approved.

[Walleye]

12. More media hype, "growing pressure on Biden to step aside"

Turns out this whole thing is really a media event, anybody falling for it should be ashamed

[FloridaBlues]

22. Ok Dems can they stop now trying to push out the President

It’s a small sample sized poll but Dems in disarray doesn’t help.

[FBaggins]

24. Why this poll is more likely to be an attempt to push Biden out

Rather than the true state of the race.


The poll was released this morning, but it was in the field at the same time as the Trafalgar poll released last week.

Which had the race at T+2


Yes - other (better) polls also showed us down by 2-3… and yes, we can’t win without Michigan. But this looks too much like “he has to drop out soon or were hosed… make it clear that he can’t win”

[Prairie Gates]

26. No bueno

[ColinC]

28. Detroit Free Press: Hillary up 11 in Michigan (8/5/2016)

Perhaps we should ask President Hillary how she feels about Detroit Free Press polls in Michigan?



https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/05/poll-clinton-opens-up-11-point-lead-trump-michigan/88293726/

[FBaggins]

34. And it was 12 points in mid October

After the second debate

[Kaleva]

53. The polls taken right before election showed Trump within the margin of error

[ColinC]

55. Alas none of the polls being discussed are "right before the election"

[Freethinker65]

30. Currently in Red Antrim County, northern lower Michigan

A few Trump 2024 signs around. Been out and about for three weeks. Lots of signs for local races.

Got a last minute invite to a sit down outdoor dinner party by a wealthy neighbor (I think they knew they had ordered too much food). Perfect opportunity for Trump politics, but only one tangential mention (Biden dig) quite loud during a toast and no one reacted either way, and party continued. I have been in situations like that before and there usually is some piling on, or some pushback. It was crickets. Nice party.

No doubt this County will still vote overwhelmingly Trump, but there has been progress. I cannot believe Trump is 7 points ahead statewide.

[LisaL]

31. I guess having to fight on two fronts,

members of democratic party and Trump, doesn't help Biden's poll numbers right now.
But don't fret. If you believe there is still plenty of time to have mini primaries, convention fights about selecting a new candidate, selecting this new candidate who has to start without funds, get on the ballot after the deadline in OH, then poll numbers this early are nothing to worry about.

[W_HAMILTON]

33. The margin of error is +/- four points, so this poll shows a statistical tie.

In searching for this poll to find it's margin of error, I saw other recent polls of Michigan and realized why I haven't seen many of them posted around here: because Biden's doing pretty well in them.

In particular was a Bloomberg poll from earlier this month that showed Biden up by five.

[underpants]

35. A. Not a good poll B. As you said C. 9% undecided

[FBaggins]

37. Again... that isn't a statistical tie

A 4point MOE means that if they ran the poll with the same methodology hundreds of times… 95% of the results would be within four points in either direction (for each candidate) of these results.

But those ranges are bell curves. The chances that one figure would be a full four points low and the other four points high is vanishingly small… and there’s already the 5% chance that the poll is totally bonkers.


Add to that the fact that that’s just the statistical MOE. As posted elsewhere on the thread… this poll has a history of being off well outside any statistical boundaries.

So there are plenty of reasons to not pay it much attention… but none to say “that’s basically a tie “

[W_HAMILTON]

38. It is, you're wrong, and I will copy and paste my correcting you when you spread this misinformation...

...in another post:

Here, to help educate yourself:

News reports about polling will often say that a candidate’s lead is “outside the margin of error” to indicate that a candidate’s lead is greater than what we would expect from sampling error, or that a race is “a statistical tie” if it’s too close to call. It is not enough for one candidate to be ahead by more than the margin of error that is reported for individual candidates (i.e., ahead by more than 3 points, in our example). To determine whether or not the race is too close to call, we need to calculate a new margin of error for the difference between the two candidates’ levels of support. The size of this margin is generally about twice that of the margin for an individual candidate. The larger margin of error is due to the fact that if the Republican share is too high by chance, it follows that the Democratic share is likely too low, and vice versa.

For Poll A, the 3-percentage-point margin of error for each candidate individually becomes approximately a 6-point margin of error for the difference between the two. This means that although we have observed a 5-point lead for the Republican, we could reasonably expect their true position relative to the Democrat to lie somewhere between –1 and +11 percentage points. The Republican would need to be ahead by 6 percentage points or more for us to be confident that the lead is not simply the result of sampling error.

Taken from: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/09/08/understanding-the-margin-of-error-in-election-polls/

So, yes, what I stated originally is very much correct and your attempt at correcting me just showed your lack of knowledge about the subject.

[FBaggins]

39. Same response - you're misreading your source

Note again that he puts the nonsensical “statistical tie” in quotes.

It’s because “within the statistical MOE” does not mean that it’s a tie


Particularly when there are several polls

[W_HAMILTON]

40. You're ridiculously wrong and people can read and see for themselves.

The fact that you are trying to say the article was using scare quotes to mock the term "statistical tie" when it was referring to how such races are usually referred to is especially ... just bad, lol.

Do better.

[FBaggins]

43. It would be simple enough for you to prove it

If they ran the poll 100 times… how many of them could be expected to show a Biden lead with only statistical variation?

[W_HAMILTON]

44. I did. It's simple math.

A poll's stated MoE is for individual candidates.

To determine whether a poll is outside the MoE, you have to double the stated MoE because the MoE affects each candidate individually

So, a poll with a MoE of +/- four means that, say, Trump could be polling four points worse and Biden could be polling four points better, so an eight point swing. If the poll doesn't show Trump with at least over an eight-point lead, it means the poll is within the margin of error and thus represents A STATISTICAL TIE BECAUSE THE POLL IS WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR, WHICH MEANS IT SHOWS THAT EITHER CANDIDATE COULD WIN.

[FBaggins]

46. Someone must have hacked your account

It didn't make it into your post

Once again - If they ran the poll 100 times… how many of them could be expected to show a Biden lead with only statistical variation?

[W_HAMILTON]

48. That's not how it works...

The poll itself is run once, with a specific set of respondents and a specific methodology used to extrapolate their responses onto the specific population as a whole. There is not a "range" of outcomes here -- there is one outcome, and the poll -- when you factor in the margin of error -- is supposed to have that one outcome encapsulated in its results (at least it does usually 95% of the time based on the most common confidence interval).

[FBaggins]

51. That's exactly how it works. See your own source

Under “What is the margin of error anyway?”

means that if we fielded the same survey 100 times, we would expect the result to be within 3 percentage points of the true population value 95 of those times.

So once again… if they ran this survey 100 times… how many of them would show Biden with a lead?

[W_HAMILTON]

96. It is NOT how it works

It means that the ACTUAL election would be within the polling results, factoring in margin of error, 95% of the time.

Running the poll 100 times doesn't change the fact that there is one true actual outcome and the poll is meant to capture that outcome within its range of results, factoring in the margin of error.

[FBaggins]

99. Sorry. That's entirely wrong

It’s the statistical margin of error.

There are otherpolling errors between the results and the actual results.

Once again… try reading your own source.

It is also important to bear in mind that the sampling variability described by the margin of error is only one of many possible sources of error that can affect survey estimates.

[Polybius]

86. But if the MOE is +/- 4 points, that could be worse too

It could mean Trump is ahead by as little as 3 (you classify that as a statistical tie?) or as much as 11. Usually, the truth is in the middle.

[W_HAMILTON]

94. But as long as both candidates are within the margin of error, it means it's a statistical tie...

...because there is no way to better predict which of the numerous polling possibilities accurately reflect the one true outcome.

[Polybius]

95. Sadly, this is now moot

[W_HAMILTON]

97. No, it is not.

Because I'm sure we will see people continuing to use polling data incorrectly -- and for outright propaganda purposes -- going forward, ESPECIALLY now.

[Polybius]

98. Yeah

I fully expect a slew of polls to come out over the next several days.

[bullimiami]

36. They polled 600 people.

Got 4 blacks, 3 Latinos, 11 women, 12 dems.
Weighted using their magic guess for real voter turnout.
Let’s see. Michigan…hmmmm . Republican turnout 75% Dem 43%. Minority turnout 20%. Done.

Thats what polling is these days.
Embarrassing pile of nothing.

[realtruthflavor]

49. That's how polling has always worked.

At a certain n size of sample, there are diminishing returns from adding more respondents to the accuracy of the poll.

[bullimiami]

62. Once upon a time they weren't polling over the internet or whatever.

They actually made a real effort to get a representational cross-section.

Now the budget is nothing and the polls are nothing.

[BeyondGeography]

41. A month ago this same poll was Biden -4

In case anyone is interested.

[lees1975]

42. One poll shows Trump in the lead.

And even at DU we get a thread on it.

Meaningless.

[BannonsLiver]

73. It would be great if it were just one poll.

[SomedayKindaLove]

45. Trump +7 at +/-4

Sounds like a statistical dead heat/leans Trump. At what is probably Trump’s high water mark, after bloodied ear and during RNC. It’s an oddly timed poll, I’d be more interested in a poll after the convention. That is usually a party’s high water mark.

[FBaggins]

47. They couldn't wait for post-convention polling

They need this to be in front of the president today. If anything “and it got worse during the convention “ is part of the narrative

The reason to ignore the poll is that it has a lousy track record BEYOND any statistical variation. But yes - the timing is suspect

[realtruthflavor]

50. EPIC MRA is the gold standard of Michigan polls nt

[FBaggins]

52. So Hillary won Michigan by 12 points in 2016?

I just have missed that

They also showed Biden up by seven just before the 2020 election. He won by a bit over 2.

Hint - if you are five points to the right of Trafalgar … you need to look hard at your results

[Celerity]

84. EPIC-MRA didn't have Clinton up by 12 in their final 2016 poll, it was +4 & it was taken 5 to 7 days before the election

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/

In their final 2022 poll for Whitmer, they had her up by 11, and she won by 10.5 points.

https://eu.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/11/03/michigan-governor-race-whitmer-dixon-poll/69614919007/

[FBaggins]

93. I stand corrected - I was looking at an October poll

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-michigan/91611112/

Still... that's a bunch more movement than is plausible in the actual electorate in such a short time.

Similarly - their 2020 presidential polls were as high as Biden +16 in early June - through 11/8/9/9 and finally 7 points just a couple of days before the election (which was Biden +2.8).

Another Michigan poll just came out (R&W for the Telegraph) at T+1. In the field at the same time were Trafalgar (and their presumed bias) at T+2, PPP (T+3), and Civiqs (T+3) and Emerson (T+3).

+7 seems like the outlier (along with Morning Consult's Biden +5).

[bullimiami]

63. They made up the +-4 using their faulty methodology.

MOE is as fishy as the result.

[Doodley]

54. Alarm bells are ringing aloud. Some people can't hear them and don't want to listen.

[LonePirate]

70. I call it ostriching. What alarm bells? Nothing but clear seas ahead from my view on the HMS Titanic.

[Emile]

57. Sounds like Freeper Poll

[Buckeyeblue]

68. I have a hard time believing this one

We have a Democratic governor un her second term. We have Democratic majorities in both the state house and senate.

And the state is doing well.

I don't see how we would have this big of a flip.

[BannonsLiver]

69. Nothing to see here!

?v=66904f3e

[Renew Deal]

71. That matches the blue labs number.

This might be the thing that congress people know. People are looking for complicated reasons but they might just be telling the truth.

[BannonsLiver]

75. In the case of the last week

“Complicated” = utterly ludicrous

[obamanut2012]

72. You sure like posting these types of polls, dontcha

[Renew Deal]

76. Are there better ones?

I hope people post what’s available

[JohnSJ]

80. I suspect the OP wants to use this as justification to replace Biden, but the fact is

it does just the opposite. It says that the most important issues concerning those polled are the republican talking points, and the least important are the Democratic issues, such as abortion, the environment, healthcare, workers rights, etc.

That implies that replacing Biden with another Democratic candidate isn't going to move the needle. It says women surveyed are split 50-50 on Biden, and only 12% surveyed think abortion is an important issue.

I think the sampling has a definite right wing bias built into it.

I would like to see what more pollsters come up with, after the media stops harping on the Biden needs to step down bandwagon, start covering the actual issues, and Biden/Harris are back on the campaign trial.

After the constant Biden bashing, and complete ignoring of trump on the issues, let's see where this goes.

[JohnSJ]

74. First of all this pollster predicted Hillary winning by 12 points, and reading the article

it reads like it was written by the group trying to push Biden out.

Have no idea who Bernie Porn is, but with a fairly sizable undecided group, 4% MOE, a press pushing constant negative coverage of Biden for 3+ weeks, editorializing that Biden should drop out, while essentially ignoring trump, I would want to see what other pollsters come up with to see if they have similar results, and after it has been Biden/Harris are back on the campaign trail.

According to the article the people surveyed are against EVs, don't care much about environmental concerns, inflation and immigration are its biggest concerns, and abortion only ranks as 12%, etc. In other words all the ISSUES that Democrats are running on the people polled don't care too much about, and I didn't even see anything about healthcare cited. That alone makes me question the accuracy of the sampling in this poll.

For those who are still arguing that this poll demonstrates that Biden should step aside, based on the concerns expressed in this poll, replacing President Biden would have very little effect on this polls numbers based on the concerns of the people polled. So if people are using this poll as an argument to replace Biden, it doesn't cut it, because the issues on any Democratic candidate that would replace Biden wouldn't change, and this poll indicates that those people polled don't care about the issues Democrats are advocating.

I want to see if this is an outlier and what other pollsters come up with AFTER Biden/Harris are back on the campaign trial, and start talking about the actual issues, which the lazy media won't do.

The article also doesn't give raw numbers how many Democrats, republicans, and independents were actually surveyed, they only give percentages, and they indicate the women surveyed split 50-50 for and against Biden, with an astounding 22% voting third party.

Unless there are more well known pollsters that confirm this poll, I don't buy it. My gut tells me this poll has a republican bias built into it, which is why I want to see what other pollsters come up with, AFTER Biden is back on the campaign trail.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

77. Fake Vance hasn't been fully exposed. . . . nt

[MaryMagdaline]

82. It's not that we're not worried. It's that our choices are not great.

Dumping Joe would be disastrous. Getting new people on the ballot … very questionable. IMHO, the country would love to see Democrats rally around their nominee and start fighting. It would ease their minds about voting for us.
It’s hard for me to be objective because Joe is my number one candidate. Someone here said he’s the last of the Humphrey Democrats. I am astounded how much he has done in 3 and 1/2 years.
But even if I was tepid about his policies, I still would want to keep him as nominee. Just too insane and no clear path to getting a unified ticket on the ballot in all 50 states.
As AOC said, no one has shown us a plan!

[moonscape]

90. This! X1000