mtutiger

Just to follow up on this: The crux here is that Univision did an entire poll on Hispanics that showed Biden +27 in September '23, this Times poll (which did not sample enough Spanish speaking Hispanics, who historically vote more Democratic than Hispanics as a whole) shows Trump leading +7. Hispanics as a cohort are an issue for Biden in 24, as he underperformed Clinton with this group in 20, particularly in South Florida and Texas. The Times sample is small and has a high MOE, but the likelihood of that group actually voting for Trump +7 is nonexistent. Again, I'll take the toplines at face value, according to polling, Trump would win if the election if it were held today most likely. But even if he does, there's zero chance the tabs look anything like the ones in this sample.

"He probably did that on purpose"

I think the topline in that poll is something to be concerned about, and that Trump can win more generally. Having said that, the crosstabs (particularly the methodology they used in collecting Hispanic numbers - hardly sampling any Spanish speaking Latinos) is pretty flawed. And a number of experts on that community have chimed in today to say that as well. I think he can win, and the toplines should be taken seriously. But drawing conclusions from crosstabs that are flawed is probably not a wise idea.

This needs to go into an ad....

He's really lost his fastball....

#draintheswamp

Seems like this would matter a lot in the J6 case....

Yikes

Not that it's amounted to a ton to-date, but Jobe did sign underslot iirc, which I'm guessing helped getting Ty Madden and Izaac Pacheco signed (Pacheco not looking so hot these days). Same with Max Clark, who deferred some earnings which likely helped bring in Kevin McGonigle. These debates where we hone in on one player (Marcelo Mayer and Wyatt Langford in particular) all miss that nuance IMO. Maybe we all would have had different preferences if we were the ones drafting, but it shouldn't be that hard to see the logic in why they did what they did either.

I'm not sure that it matters. Bret Baier in an interview a few days ago literally asked him, point blank, to give a response to a hypothetical independent suburban woman about why they should vote for him, and he proceeded to give a 2 minute lecture about how he actually won in 2020 (ie. relitigating the last election). Which sort of illustrates what I'm getting at.... he still has a hold on his die-hards. But he is incapable of staying on message with key groups that he'll need support from in 2024.

This all assumes that Trump's base will be 2020 levels of juiced, which I'm sort of skeptical of at this point for a variety of reasons. But either way, last night left a lot of clues of what needs to be done. Haley left a lot of clues about where to spend time and resources in the state to persuade... Turnout in the AA community is a big piece and needs to be pursued. And probably the most challenging item is consolidating with the high-uncommited type voters, and I suspect the campaign will do the work when it is all said and done. By no means should they rest on laurels, but Biden is very lucky to be facing an opponent who has serious challenges of his own with certain groups (ie. Suburban voters) and is very unlikely to calibrate accordingly because he thinks he won the last election and is perfect and doesn't need to change anything.

Just an addendum on this: He ran behind his statewide margin in Detroit as well.

I know I got pushback a while back for saying there were differences, but today is a really good example of the differences between his civil trials and his criminal ones.

Rejected

Interesting reporting here....

To me, the biggest issue I see for Trump coming out of last night is that he did really poorly in West Michigan... 58% of the vote in Kent County, 61% in Ottawa (which used to be the most bedrock GOP County in the state). Trump won the GR region (barely) in 2020... there's a decent body of evidence that suggests he can lose it outright in this election. He can still win Michigan, the polls certainly say he can... but West Michigan and its trends are a real barrier and suggest he will have to make up losses elsewhere.

Like any of these picks, whether they are mistakes or not are subjective, and it takes a lot more track record for each of these players to make a determination.

Not really breaking through this AM, but worth noting that some of Biden's best margins are in Pontiac and Southfield, with Detroit not far behind (UC in mid single digits) There's work to be done on AA turnout, but the margins suggest he's still reasonably strong with this group

It will be a sign of progress for this organization whenever we finally have a draft where the fans aren't endlessly comparing the Tigers pick to some other teams pick. The Zach Neto discourse last year whenever he was called up by the Angels was pretty insufferable

For sure, I learned this from living with runoffs in Texas. Coalitions can scramble.

The Dearborn numbers (which I guess could still fluctuate) just seem really underwhelming for the uncommitted campaign considering the outsized media coverage it has gotten. Overall, philosophically, I don't have a problem with uncommitted. It's designed as a pressure relief valve, and it can still have that practice here, I really do believe it. But the fact that this became so polarized is 100% on the media. They just *had* to have a story to run with, and they will have it whether the results bear it out or not.

Uncommitted pulls 56% in Dearborn, it appears

This held up well lol

My home county is just about finished counting (Huron), located in one of the more conservative, Trumpy areas of the state, and he's pulling 72%. With not half bad turnout in the Democratic primary taking place simultaneously relative to partisanship. That's pretty eye-opening to me.