2020 United States presidential election in Michigan

For related races, see 2020 United States presidential election.

2020 United States presidential election in Michigan

←  2016 November 3, 2020 2024  →
Turnout	71% [1]
Nominee Joe Biden Donald Trump Party Democratic Republican Home state Delaware Florida Running mate Kamala Harris Mike Pence Electoral vote 16 0 Popular vote 2,804,040 2,649,852 Percentage 50.62% 47.84%
County results Congressional district results Municipality results Precinct results Biden   40–50%   50–60%   60–70%   70–80%   80–90%   90–100% Trump   40–50%   50–60%   60–70%   70–80%   80–90%   90–100% Tie
President before election Donald Trump Republican Elected President Joe Biden Democratic

The 2020 United States presidential election in Michigan was held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, as part of the 2020 United States presidential election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. ^[2] Michigan voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote, pitting the Republican Party's nominee, incumbent President Donald Trump of Florida, and his running mate, Vice President Mike Pence of Indiana against the Democratic Party nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware, and his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris of California. Michigan had 16 electoral votes in the Electoral College. ^[3]

In 2016, Trump became the first Republican to carry Michigan since 1988, when George H. W. Bush had scored a decisive nationwide win against Michael Dukakis. ^[4] Throughout the campaign, Biden touted his work on the auto bailout in manufacturing towns outside Detroit. Appearing with United Auto Workers, Biden presented a new proposal to penalize American companies for moving manufacturing and service jobs overseas and then selling their products back in the United States. ^[5] Polls of Michigan throughout the campaign generally indicated a clear Biden lead. Prior to election day, most news organizations considered Michigan a likely blue state, or a state that Biden was likely to win.

Biden ultimately carried Michigan by 2.78%, a far closer margin than expected. Per exit polls by the Associated Press, Biden's strength in Michigan came from union households, who composed 21% of the electorate and supported Biden by 56%–42%. Biden was also able to boost minority turnout, consequently winning 93% of Black American voters. ^[6] Many voters were also concerned with the COVID-19 pandemic, which had hit the state hard; 52% of voters felt the pandemic was not under control at all, and these voters broke for Biden by 82%–16%. Trump outperformed his polling average in the state, but not by enough to win. Michigan marked Biden's strongest performance in a state won by Trump in 2016, even voting to the left of Nevada which Trump lost in 2016.

Biden flipped the counties of Leelanau, Kent, and Saginaw and became the first Democrat since Woodrow Wilson in 1916 to win the presidency without winning Bay or Gogebic Counties, the first Democrat since Harry S. Truman in 1948 to win without Monroe County, the first Democrat since John F. Kennedy in 1960 to win without Lake County and the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win without Calhoun, Isabella, Manistee, Shiawassee, or Van Buren Counties.

With Ohio, Florida, and Iowa backing the losing candidate for the first time since 1960, 1992, and 2000 respectively, this election established Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as the states with the longest bellwether streak still in effect today. The last time any of them voted against the winning candidate was 2004, when all three voted for losing Democrat John Kerry.

Michigan's overall vote in for this election was 1.7% more Republican than the nation-at-large.

Primary elections

The primary elections were held on March 10, 2020.

Republican primary

This section is transcluded from 2020 Michigan Republican presidential primary. (edit | history)

Incumbent United States President Donald Trump was challenged by three candidates: former governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, former congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, and former governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts. Sanford and Walsh both withdrew prior to the primary. Michigan is the only primary state where Sanford's name remained on the ballot. ^[7]

2020 Michigan Republican primary ^[8]

Candidate	Votes	%	Estimated delegates
Donald Trump (incumbent)	640,552	93.7%	73
Uncommitted	32,743	4.8%	0
Bill Weld	6,099	0.9%	0
Mark Sanford (withdrawn)	4,258	0.6%	0
Joe Walsh (withdrawn)	4,067	0.6%	0
Total	683,431	100%	73

Democratic primary

Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden were the two major declared Democratic candidates. ^[9]

This section is transcluded from 2020 Michigan Democratic presidential primary. (edit | history)

Results by county

  Biden—40–50%

  Biden—50–60%

  Biden—60–70%

2020 Michigan Democratic presidential primary ^[10]

Candidate	Votes	%	Delegates [11]
Joe Biden	840,360	52.93	73
Bernie Sanders	576,926	36.34	52
Michael Bloomberg (withdrawn) [a]	73,464	4.63
Elizabeth Warren (withdrawn) [a]	26,148	1.65
Pete Buttigieg (withdrawn) [b]	22,462	1.41
Amy Klobuchar (withdrawn) [b]	11,018	0.69
Tulsi Gabbard	9,461	0.60
Andrew Yang (withdrawn) [c]	2,380	0.15
Tom Steyer (withdrawn) [b]	1,732	0.11
Michael Bennet (withdrawn) [c]	1,536	0.10
Cory Booker (withdrawn)	840	0.05
Joe Sestak (withdrawn)	757	0.05
Marianne Williamson (withdrawn)	719	0.05
John Delaney (withdrawn) [d]	464	0.03
Julian Castro (withdrawn)	306	0.02
Uncommitted	19,106	1.20
Total	1,587,679	100%	125

General election

Final predictions

Source	Ranking
The Cook Political Report [12]	Lean D (flip)
Inside Elections [13]	Lean D (flip)
Sabato's Crystal Ball [14]	Lean D (flip)
Politico [15]	Lean D (flip)
RCP [16]	Tossup
Niskanen [17]	Likely D (flip)
CNN [18]	Lean D (flip)
The Economist [19]	Likely D (flip)
CBS News [20]	Lean D (flip)
270towin [21]	Lean D (flip)
ABC News [22]	Lean D (flip)
NPR [23]	Lean D (flip)
NBC News [24]	Lean D (flip)
538 [25]	Solid D (flip)

Polling

Aggregate polls

Source of poll aggregation	Dates administered	Dates updated	Joe Biden Democratic	Donald Trump Republican	Other/ Undecided [e]	Margin
270 to Win [26]	October 22 – November 2, 2020	November 3, 2020	49.9%	44.4%	5.7%	Biden +5.5
Real Clear Politics [27]	October 29 – November 1, 2020	November 3, 2020	50.0%	45.8%	4.2%	Biden +4.2
FiveThirtyEight [28]	until November 1, 2020	November 3, 2020	51.2%	43.2%	5.6%	Biden +7.9
Average			50.4%	44.5%	5.1%	Biden +5.9

2020 polls

Poll source	Date(s) administered	Sample size [f]	Margin of error	Donald Trump Republican	Joe Biden Democratic	Jo Jorgensen Libertarian	Howie Hawkins Green	Other	Undecided
SurveyMonkey/Axios [29]	Oct 20 – Nov 2	4,549 (LV)	± 2%	46% [g]	52%	-	-	–	–
Research Co. [30]	Oct 31 – Nov 1	450 (LV)	± 4.6%	43%	50%	-	-	2% [h]	5%
Change Research/CNBC [31]	Oct 29 – Nov 1	383 (LV)	± 5.01%	44%	51%	3%	1%	–	1%
Swayable [32]	Oct 27 – Nov 1	413 (LV)	± 6.5%	45%	54%	1%	0%	–	–
Ipsos/Reuters [33]	Oct 27 – Nov 1	654 (LV)	± 4.4%	43% [i]	53%	1%	0%	2% [j]	–
				42% [k]	52%	-	-	3% [l]	3%
				45% [m]	53%	-	-	2% [n]	–
Trafalgar Group [34]	Oct 30–31	1,033 (LV)	± 2.97%	48%	46%	2%	-	1%	3%
AtlasIntel [35]	Oct 30–31	686 (LV)	± 4%	46%	48%	-	-	6%	–
Insider Advantage/Center for American Greatness [36] [A]	Oct 30–31	500 (LV)	± 4.4%	47%	49%	2%	-	–	3%
Morning Consult [37]	Oct 22–31	1,736 (LV)	± 2.0%	44.5%	52%	-	-	–	–
Emerson College [38]	Oct 29–30	700 (LV)	± 3.4%	45% [o]	52%	-	-	3% [p]	–
Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan [39] [B]	Oct 29–30	745 (V)	± 3.6%	44%	54%	1%	0%	–	1%
Targoz Market Research/PollSmart [40]	Oct 25–30	993 (LV)	–	39%	53%	-	-	8% [q]	–
CNN/SSRS [41]	Oct 23–30	907 (LV)	± 3.8%	41%	53%	2%	1%	1% [r]	2%
Mitchell Research (R)/MIRS [42]	Oct 29	817 (LV)	± 3.43%	45%	52%	1%	1%	0% [s]	0%
RMG Research/PoliticalIQ [43]	Oct 27–29	800 (LV)	± 3.5%	44% [i]	51%	-	-	3%	2%
				42% [t]	53%	-	-	3%	2%
				45% [u]	50%	-	-	3%	2%
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [44]	Oct 26–29	1,212 (LV)	–	41%	54%	1%	0%	1%	4%
EPIC-MRA [45]	Oct 25–28	600 (LV)	± 4%	41%	48%	-	-	5% [v]	6% [w]
Trafalgar Group [46]	Oct 25–28	1,058 (LV)	± 2.93%	49%	47%	2%	-	1% [x]	1%
Kiaer Research [47]	Oct 21–28	669 (LV)	± 5.6%	41%	54%	-	-	2% [y]	4%
SurveyMonkey/Axios [29]	Oct 1–28, 2020	7,541 (LV)	–	45%	53%	-	-	–	–
Mitchell Research (R)/MIRS [48]	Oct 25–27	759 (LV)	± 3.56%	42%	52%	3%	0%	0% [z]	2%
Swayable [49]	Oct 23–26, 2020	394 (LV)	± 6.7%	40%	59%	2%	0%	–	–
Siena College/NYT Upshot [50]	Oct 23–26	856 (LV)	± 3.8%	41%	49%	2%	1%	0% [aa]	6% [w]
Ipsos/Reuters [51]	Oct 20–26	652 (LV)	± 4.4%	43% [i]	53%	1%	0%	2% [j]	–
				43% [k]	52%	-	-	3% [l]	3%
Wick Surveys [52]	Oct 24–25	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	48%	48%	-	-	–	–
Glengariff Group/Detroit News [53]	Oct 23–25	600 (LV)	± 4%	42%	49%	-	-	2% [ab]	4%
ABC/Washington Post [54]	Oct 20–25	789 (LV)	± 4%	44%	51%	3%	0%	0% [ac]	1%
Gravis Marketing [55]	Oct 24	679 (LV)	± 3.8%	42%	55%	-	-	–	3%
Public Policy Polling/American Bridge PAC [56] [C]	Oct 21–22	804 (V)	–	43%	50%	-	-	–	6%
YouGov/University of Wisconsin-Madison [57]	Oct 13–21	681 (LV)	± 4.2%	42%	52%	-	-	5% [ad]	–
Citizen Data [58]	Oct 17–20	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	41%	50%	1%	0%	1%	7%
Fox News [59]	Oct 17–20	1,032 (LV)	± 3.0%	40%	52%	3%	0%	2% [ae]	3%
Ipsos/Reuters [60]	Oct 14–20	686 (LV)	± 4.3%	44% [i]	52%	2%	0%	2% [j]	–
				44% [k]	51%	-	-	3% [l]	2%
Morning Consult [37]	Oct 11–20	1,717 (LV)	± 2.4%	44%	52%	-	-	–	–
Change Research/CNBC [61]	Oct 16–19	718 (LV) [af]	–	44%	51%	-	-	–	–
EPIC-MRA [62]	Oct 15–19	600 (LV)	± 4%	39%	48%	-	-	5% [ag]	8% [w]
Mitchell Research (R)/MIRS [63]	Oct 18	900 (LV)	± 3.27%	41%	51%	3%	1%	1% [x]	3%
Trafalgar Group/Restoration PAC [64] [D]	Oct 15–18	1,034 (LV)	± 2.97%	47%	45%	3%	2%	2% [h]	2%
Data For Progress [65]	Oct 15–18	830 (LV)	± 3.4%	45%	50%	2%	0%	–	3%
Zia Poll/Painter Communications/MIRS News [66]	Oct 11–18	2,851 (LV)	± 2.5%	49%	45%	-	-	2%	3%
HarrisX/The Hill [67]	Oct 12–15	1,289 (LV)	–	43%	54%	-	-	–	–
Trafalgar Group [68]	Oct 11–14	1,025 (LV)	± 2.97%	47%	46%	3%	2%	2% [h]	2%
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [69]	Oct 10–13	972 (LV)	–	42% [af]	51%	1%	0%	–	–
RMG Research/PoliticalIQ [70]	Oct 8–13	800 (LV)	–	42% [i]	48%	2%	1%	1%	5%
				39% [t]	51%	2%	1%	1%	5%
				44% [u]	46%	2%	1%	1%	5%
Ipsos/Reuters [71]	Oct 7–13	620 (LV)	± 4.5%	44% [i]	51%	2%	1%	2% [ah]	–
				43% [k]	51%	-	-	3% [l]	2%
EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press [72]	Oct 8–12	600 (LV)	± 4%	39%	48%	-	-	4% [ai]	9% [w]
Civiqs/Rust Belt Rising [73] [E]	Oct 8–11	543 (LV)	± 4.6%	43%	52%	-	-	4% [aj]	2%
Siena College/NYT Upshot [74]	Oct 6–11	614 (LV)	± 4.6%	40%	48%	1%	1%	1% [ak]	8% [w]
Morning Consult [75]	Oct 2–11	1,710 (LV)	± 2.4%	44%	51%	-	-	–	–
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [69]	Oct 9–10	827 (LV)	–	41% [af]	51%	2%	1%	–	–
YouGov/CBS [76]	Oct 6–9	1,190 (LV)	± 3.3%	46%	52%	-	-	2% [al]	0%
Baldwin Wallace University [77]	Sep 30 – Oct 8	1,134 (LV)	± 3.2%	43%	50%	1%	1%	0% [am]	4%
Emerson College [78]	Oct 6–7	716 (LV)	± 3.6%	43% [o]	54%	-	-	2% [h]	–
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [79]	Oct 4–6	700 (LV)	± 3.7%	42%	50%	1%	0%	1% [an]	6%
Opinion Insight/American Action Forum [80] [F]	Oct 3–6	800 (LV)	± 3.46%	44% [o]	52%	-	-	2%	3%
Ipsos/Reuters [81]	Sep 29 – Oct 6	709 (LV)	± 4.2%	43%	51%	-	-	2% [ao]	3%
Change Research/CNBC [82]	Oct 2–4	676 (LV)	–	43%	51%	-	-	–	–
Glengariff Group/Detroit News [83]	Sep 30 – Oct 3	600 (LV)	± 4%	39%	48%	-	-	5% [ap]	7%
Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan [84] [B]	Sep 30 – Oct 1	746 (V)	–	44%	50%	2%	1%	–	3%
SurveyMonkey/Axios [29]	Sep 1–30	3,297 (LV)	–	44%	53%	-	-	–	3%
Trafalgar Group/Restoration PAC [85] [D]	Sep 26–28	1,042 (LV)	± 2.95%	47%	49%	2%	0%	1% [x]	2%
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [86]	Sep 23–26	785 (LV)	± 3.5%	42%	51%	1%	0%	0% [aq]	6%
Marist College/NBC [87]	Sep 19–23	799 (LV)	± 4.3%	44%	52%	-	-	1%	3%
ALG Research/Committee to Protect Medicare [88] [G]	Sep 17–23	800 (LV)	± 3.5%	44%	52%	-	-	–	–
Trafalgar Group [89]	Sep 20–22	1,015 (LV)	± 2.99%	46.7%	46.0%	2.1%	0.8%	1.2% [ar]	3.2%
Baldwin Wallace University [90]	Sep 9–22	1,001 (LV)	± 3.6%	42%	50%	1%	0%	1% [as]	6%
YouGov/UW-Madison Elections Research Center/Wisconsin State Journal [91]	Sep 10–21	641 (LV)	–	45%	51%	-	-	–	–
Change Research/CNBC [92]	Sep 18–20	568 (LV)	–	43%	51%	-	-	–	–
Hart Research Associates/Human Rights Campaign [93] [H]	Sep 17–19	400 (LV)	± 4.9%	45%	50%	-	-	–	–
Data for Progress (D) [94]	Sep 14–19	455 (LV)	± 4.6%	42% [i]	48%	1%	0%	–	9%
				44% [at]	50%	-	-	–	6%
MRG [95]	Sep 14–19	600 (LV)	± 4%	41%	46%	-	-	8% [au]	5%
Ipsos/Reuters [96]	Sep 11–16	637 (LV)	± 4.4%	44%	49%	-	-	2% [ao]	4%
Civiqs/Rust Belt Rising [97] [E]	Sep 11–15	517 (RV)	–	42%	53%	-	-	3% [p]	1%
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [98]	Sep 12–14	930 (LV)	± 3.21%	39%	49%	2%	1%	0% [aq]	9%
EPIC-MRA [99]	Sep 10–15	600 (LV)	± 4%	40%	48%	-	-	5% [ag]	7% [w]
Benenson Strategy Group/GS Strategy Group/AARP [100]	Aug 28 – Sep 8	1,600 (LV)	± 2.5%	43%	50%	-	-	1% [av]	5%
Morning Consult [101]	Aug 29 – Sep 7	1,455 (LV)	± (2%–4%)	42% [aw]	52%	-	-	–	–
Change Research/CNBC [102]	Sep 4–6	876 (LV)	–	43%	49%	-	-	7% [ax]	–
Pulse Opinion Research/Rasmussen Reports [103]	Sep 2–3	1,000 (LV)	± 3%	44% [o]	53%	-	-	3% [ay]	–
Glengariff Group [104]	Sep 1–3	600 (LV)	± 4%	42%	47%	-	-	4% [az]	7%
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [105]	Aug 30 – Sep 3	967 (LV)	± 3.15%	40%	51%	1%	0%	1% [an]	7%
Opinion Insight/American Action Forum [106] [F]	Aug 30 – Sep 2	802 (LV)	± 3.46%	44% [o]	51%	2%	1%	0% [ba]	3%
SurveyMonkey/Axios [29]	Aug 1–31	2,962 (LV)	–	48%	49%	-	-	–	3%
Morning Consult [107]	Aug 21–30	1,424 (LV)	± (2%–4%)	42%	52%	-	-	–	–
Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan [108] [B]	Aug 28–29	897 (V)	–	44%	48%	3%	1%	–	3%
Change Research/CNBC [109]	Aug 21–23	809 (LV)	–	44%	50%	-	-	–	–
Trafalgar Group [110]	Aug 14–23	1,048 (LV)	± 2.98%	47%	45%	3%	-	1% [bb]	4%
Redfield and Wilton Strategies [111]	Aug 16–19	812 (LV)	–	38%	50%	1%	1%	1% [bc]	9%
Civiqs/Rust Belt Rising [112] [E]	Aug 13–17	631 (RV)	–	46%	49%	-	-	3% [p]	1%
Morning Consult [107]	Aug 7–16	1,212 (LV)	± (2%–4%)	44%	50%	-	-	–	–
Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC [113] [D]	Aug 11–15	600 (LV)	–	41%	52%	-	-	–	7%
Change Research/CNBC [114]	Aug 7–9	413 (LV)	–	43%	48%	-	-	–	–
YouGov/University of Wisconsin-Madison [115]	Jul 27 – Aug 6	761 (RV)	± 5.1%	43%	47%	-	-	5% [bd]	6%
GQR Research/Unite the Country PAC [116] [I]	Jul 30 – Aug 4	1,245 (LV)	–	43%	52%	-	-	–	–
David Binder Research [117]	Jul 30–31	200 (LV)	–	41%	51%	-	-	–	–
SurveyMonkey/Axios [29]	Jul 1–31	3,083 (LV)	–	48%	49%	-	-	–	2%
EPIC-MRA [118]	Jul 25–30	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	40%	51%	3%	-	-	6%
Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan [119] [B]	Jul 28–29	876 (V)	–	43%	49%	-	-	6% [be]	3%
Change Research/CNBC [120]	Jul 24–26	413 (LV)	–	42%	46%	-	-	–	–
Morning Consult [121]	Jul 17–26	1,320 (LV)	± 2.7%	42%	52%	-	-	–	–
YouGov/CBS [122]	Jul 21–24	1,156 (LV)	± 3.4%	42%	48%	-	-	2% [bf]	7%
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [123]	Jul 19–24	811 (LV)	–	37%	49%	1%	1%	2% [bg]	10%
CNN/SSRS [124]	Jul 18–24	927 (RV)	± 3.8%	40%	52%	-	-	5% [bh]	2%
Gravis Marketing [125]	Jul 22	754 (RV)	± 3.6%	42%	51%	-	-	–	7%
Fox News [126]	Jul 18–20	756 (RV)	± 3.5%	40%	49%	-	-	4% [bi]	7%
Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC [127] [D]	Jul 13–16	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	41%	53%	-	-	–	7%
Spry Strategies/American Principles Project [128] [J]	Jul 11–16	600 (LV)	± 3.7%	50%	45%	-	-	–	5%
Change Research/CNBC [129]	Jul 10–12	824 (LV)	–	42%	48%	-	-	–	–
Public Policy Polling/Public Policy Polling/Giffords (D) [130] [K]	Jul 9–10	1,041 (V)	± 3.2%	44%	51%	-	-	–	5%
SurveyMonkey/Axios [29]	Jun 8–30	1,238 (LV)	–	46%	51%	-	-	–	3%
Change Research/CNBC [131]	Jun 26–28	699 (LV) [af]	–	43%	48%	-	-	–	–
Public Policy Polling/Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan (D) [132] [B]	Jun 26–27	1,237 (V)	–	44%	50%	-	-	5% [bj]	1%
Hodas & Associates/Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R) [133]	Jun 17–20	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	38%	56%	-	-	2% [bk]	7%
Trafalgar Group [134]	Jun 16–18	1,101 (LV)	± 2.95%	45%	46%	-	-	5% [ag]	4%
NYT Upshot/Siena College [135]	Jun 8–17	610 (RV)	± 4.3%	36%	47%	-	-	8% [bl]	9%
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [136]	Jun 14–16	826 (LV)	± 3.41%	36%	47%	2%	1%	2% [bm]	12%
TargetPoint [137]	Jun 11–16	1,000 (A)	–	33%	49%	-	-	4% [bn]	14%
Change Research/CNBC [138]	Jun 12–14	353 (LV) [af]	–	45%	47%	-	-	3% [bo]	–
TIPP/American Greatness PAC [139] [A]	Jun 9–12	859 (LV)	–	38%	51%	-	-	4% [bp]	7%
Kiaer Research [140]	May 31 – Jun 7	543 (LV)	± 6.4%	35%	50%	-	-	6% [bq]	8%
EPIC-MRA [141]	May 31 – Jun 4	600 (LV)	± 4%	39%	55%	-	-	–	–
EPIC-MRA [142]	May 30 – Jun 3	600 (LV)	± 4%	41%	53%	-	-	–	6% [w]
Change Research/CNBC [143]	May 29–31	620 (LV) [af]	–	46%	48%	-	-	3%	3%
Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan [144] [B]	May 29–30	1,582 (V)	± 2.5%	44%	50%	-	-	4% [br]	2%
Morning Consult [121]	May 17–26	1,325 (LV)	–	42%	50%	-	-	–	–
Public Policy Polling/Protect Our Care [145] [L]	May 18–19	1,234 (V)	± 2.8%	45%	51%	-	-	–	5%
Change Research/Crooked Media [146]	May 11–17	3,070 (LV)	–	46%	49%	-	-	–	–
Redfield & Wilton Strategies [147]	May 10–14	970 (LV)	± 3.2%	39%	47%	-	-	3% [bs]	11%
Hodas & Associates/Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R) [148]	May 1–5	600 (LV)	± 3%	42%	50%	-	-	–	8%
Public Policy Polling [149] [M]	Apr 28–29	1,270 (V)	–	42%	50%	-	-	–	8%
Public Policy Polling [150] [N]	Apr 20–21	1,277 (RV)	–	44%	51%	-	-	–	5%
Fox News [151]	Apr 18–21	801 (RV)	± 3.5%	41%	49%	-	-	3%	6%
Ipsos/Reuters [152]	Apr 15–20	612 (RV)	± 5.0%	38%	46%	-	-	–	–
Hodas & Associates/Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R) [153]	Apr 9–11	600 (RV)	± 3.0%	43%	49%	-	-	–	–
Hart Research/CAP Action [154] [O]	Apr 6–8	303 (RV)	–	41%	50%	-	-	4%	5%
Public Policy Polling [155]	Mar 31 – Apr 1	1,019 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	48%	-	-	–	7%
SPRY Strategies [156]	Mar 30 – Apr 1	602 (LV)	± 4.0%	46%	46%	-	-	–	8%
Baldwin Wallace University Great Lakes [157]	Mar 17–25	997 (RV)	± 3.7%	42%	47%	-	-	–	11%
Change Research [158]	Mar 21–23	510 (LV)	–	47%	48%	-	-	5%
Marketing Resource Group [159]	Mar 16–20	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	41%	44%	-	-	9% [bt]	6%
Hodas & Associates/Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R) [160]	Mar 12–16	600 (RV)	–	44%	50%	-	-	–	–
AtlasIntel [161]	Mar 7–9	1,100 (RV)	± 3.0%	46%	44%	-	-	10%	–
YouGov/Yahoo News [162]	Mar 6–8	566 (RV)	–	41%	45%	-	-	6% [bu]	7%
Monmouth University [163]	Mar 5–8	977 (RV)	± 3.1%	41%	48%	-	-	2%	9%
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [164]	Mar 5–7	550 (RV)	± 5.3%	46%	44%	-	-	–	–
YouGov [165]	Feb 11–20	1,249 (RV)	± 4.0%	43%	47%	-	-	–	–
Quinnipiac University [166]	Feb 12–18	845 (RV)	± 3.4%	43%	47%	-	-	6% [bv]	3%
Expedition Strategies/Progressive Policies Institute [167]	Feb 6–18	500 (RV)	–	43%	43%	-	-	–	14%
EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press [168]	Jan 9–12	600 (LV)	± 4%	44%	50%	-	-	–	6%
Glengariff Group Inc. [169]	Jan 3–7	600 (LV)	± 4%	43%	50%	-	-	–	5%

2017–2019 polls

Poll source	Date(s) administered	Sample size [f]	Margin of error	Donald Trump Republican	Joe Biden Democratic	Other	Undecided
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [164]	Dec 3–5, 2019	551 (LV)	± 4.3%	46%	41%	8% [bw]	5% [w]
Emerson College [170]	Oct 31 – Nov 3, 2019	1,051 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	56%	–	–
NYT Upshot/Siena College [171]	Oct 13–25, 2019	501 (LV)	± 5.1%	44%	45%	–	–
Target Insyght [172]	Sep 24–26, 2019	800 (LV)	–	35%	54%	–	–
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [173]	Sep 7–9, 2019	529 (LV)	± 4.0%	41%	42%	17%	–
EPIC-MRA [174]	Aug 17–21, 2019	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	41%	51%	–	8%
Climate Nexus [175]	Jul 14–17, 2019	820 (RV)	± 4.0%	36%	49%	5% [bx]	10%
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [176]	Jun 11–13, 2019	587 (LV)	± 4.2%	43%	46%	11%	–
EPIC-MRA [177]	Jun 8–12, 2019	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	41%	52%	–	7%
Glengariff Group [178]	May 28–30, 2019	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	41%	53%	–	4%
WPA Intelligence [179]	Apr 27–30, 2019	200 (LV)	± 6.9%	42%	45%	–	12%
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [180]	Mar 19–21, 2019	530 (LV)	± 4.5%	46%	45%	4%	–
Emerson College [181]	Mar 7–10, 2019	743 (RV)	± 3.5%	46%	54%	–	–
Glengariff Group [182]	Jan 24–26, 2019	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	40%	53%	–	5%
EPIC-MRA [183]	Apr 28–30, 2018	600 (LV)	± 4.0%	39%	52%	–	9%
Zogby Analytics [184]	Sep 2017	800 (V)	–	35%	52%	–	13%

Former candidates

Donald Trump vs. Michael Bloomberg Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Michael Bloomberg (D) Other Undecided Quinnipiac University [166] Feb 12–18, 2020 845 (RV) ±3.4% 42% 47% 7% [by] 4% Expedition Strategies/Progressive Policies Institute [167] Feb 6–18, 2020 500 (RV) – 41% 46% – 13% EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press [168] Jan 9–12, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 42% 49% – 9% Glengariff Group Inc. [169] Jan 3–7, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 41% 47% – 10% Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [164] Dec 3–5, 2019 551 (LV) ± 4.3% 48% 37% 8% [bw] 7% [w] Donald Trump vs. Cory Booker Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Cory Booker (D) Other Undecided Climate Nexus [175] Jul 14–17, 2019 820 (RV) ± 4.0% 37% 39% 7% [bz] 16% Donald Trump vs. Pete Buttigieg Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Pete Buttigieg (D) Other Undecided YouGov [165] Feb 11–20, 2020 1,249 (RV) ±4.0% 41% 47% – – Quinnipiac University [166] Feb 12–18, 2020 845 (RV) ±3.4% 44% 45% 8% [ca] 3% Expedition Strategies/Progressive Policies Institute [167] Feb 6–18, 2020 500 (RV) – 40% 44% – 15% EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press [168] Jan 9–12, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 43% 47% – 10% Glengariff Group Inc. [169] Jan 3–7, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 43% 45% – 10% Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [164] Dec 3–5, 2019 551 (LV) ± 4.3% 48% 37% 8% [cb] 6% [w] Climate Nexus [175] Jul 14–17, 2019 820 (RV) ± 4.0% 37% 39% 7% [bz] 16% Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [176] Jun 11–13, 2019 587 (LV) ± 4.2% 44% 40% 16% – Glengariff Group [178] May 28–30, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 41% 47% – 11% Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Kamala Harris (D) Other Undecided EPIC-MRA [174] Aug 17–21, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 43% 46% – 11% Climate Nexus [175] Jul 14–17, 2019 820 (RV) ± 4.0% 38% 41% 6% [cc] 14% Glengariff Group [178] May 28–30, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 44% 47% – 9% Emerson College [181] Mar 7–10, 2019 743 (RV) ± 3.5% 49% 51% – – Glengariff Group [182] Jan 24–26, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 42% 47% – 10% Donald Trump vs. Amy Klobuchar Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Amy Klobuchar (D) Other Undecided YouGov [165] Feb 11–20, 2020 1,249 (RV) ± 4.0% 41% 44% – – Quinnipiac University [166] Feb 12–18, 2020 845 (RV) ± 3.4% 44% 45% 6% [bv] 4% Emerson College [181] Mar 7–10, 2019 743 (RV) ± 3.5% 47% 53% – – Donald Trump vs. Beto O'Rourke Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Beto O'Rourke (D) Other Undecided Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [180] Mar 19–21, 2019 530 (LV) ± 4.5% 48% 39% 8% – Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Bernie Sanders (D) Other Undecided Baldwin Wallace University Great Lakes [157] Mar 17–25, 2020 997 (RV) ± 3.7% 42% 45% – 13% Hodas & Associates/Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R) [160] Mar 12–16, 2020 600 (RV) – 44% 49% – – AtlasIntel [161] Mar 7–9, 2020 1,100 (RV) ± 3.0% 43% 46% 11% – YouGov/Yahoo News [162] Mar 6–8, 2020 566 (RV) – 42% 43% 7% [cd] 8% Monmouth University [163] Mar 5–8, 2020 977 (RV) ± 3.1% 41% 46% 2% 9% Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [164] Mar 5–7, 2020 550 (RV) ± 5.3% 48% 41% – – YouGov [165] Feb 11–20, 2020 1,249 (RV) ± 4.0% 41% 48% – – Quinnipiac University [166] Feb 12–18, 2020 845 (RV) ± 3.4% 43% 48% 7% [by] 3% Expedition Strategies/Progressive Policies Institute [167] Feb 6–18, 2020 500 (RV) – 42% 46% – 12% EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press [168] Jan 9–12, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 45% 50% – 5% Glengariff Group Inc. [169] Jan 3–7, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 45% 49% – 5% Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [164] Dec 3–5, 2019 551 (LV) ± 4.3% 48% 42% 6% [ce] 5% [w] Emerson College [170] Oct 31 – Nov 3, 2019 1,051 (RV) ± 3.0% 43% 57% – – NYT Upshot/Siena College [171] Oct 13–25, 2019 501 (LV) ± 5.1% 42% 46% – – Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [173] Sep 7–9, 2019 529 (LV) ± 4.0% 43% 40% 17% – EPIC-MRA [174] Aug 17–21, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 44% 48% – 8% Climate Nexus [175] Jul 14–17, 2019 820 (RV) ± 4.0% 38% 47% 4% [cf] 11% Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [176] Jun 11–13, 2019 587 (LV) ± 4.2% 44% 44% 12% – Glengariff Group [178] May 28–30, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 41% 53% – 5% Tulchin Research (D) [185] [P] Apr 14–18, 2019 400 (LV) ± 4.9% 41% 52% – – Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [180] Mar 19–21, 2019 530 (LV) ± 4.5% 46% 45% 6% – Emerson College [181] Mar 7–10, 2019 743 (RV) ± 3.5% 47% 52% – – Glengariff Group [182] Jan 24–26, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 41% 52% – 6% Zogby Analytics [184] Sep 2017 800 (V) – 36% 54% – 10% Donald Trump vs. Elizabeth Warren Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Elizabeth Warren (D) Other Undecided YouGov [165] Feb 11–20, 2020 1,249 (RV) ±4.0% 43% 46% – – Quinnipiac University [166] Feb 12–18, 2020 845 (RV) ±3.4% 43% 45% 7% [cg] 4% EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press [168] Jan 9–12, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 45% 48% – 7% Glengariff Group Inc. [169] Jan 3–7, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 44% 46% – 8% Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [164] Dec 3–5, 2019 551 (LV) ± 4.3% 47% 38% 8% [ch] 6% [w] Emerson College [170] Oct 31 – Nov 3, 2019 1,051 (RV) ± 3.0% 46% 54% – – NYT Upshot/Siena College [171] Oct 13–25, 2019 501 (LV) ± 5.1% 45% 40% – – Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [173] Sep 7–9, 2019 529 (LV) ± 4.0% 42% 41% 17% – EPIC-MRA [174] Aug 17–21, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 43% 49% – 8% Climate Nexus [175] Jul 14–17, 2019 820 (RV) ± 4.0% 38% 44% 6% [cc] 12% Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus [176] Jun 11–13, 2019 587 (LV) ± 4.2% 43% 41% 16% – Glengariff Group [178] May 28–30, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 43% 47% – 9% Emerson College [181] Mar 7–10, 2019 743 (RV) ± 3.5% 49% 51% – – Glengariff Group [182] Jan 24–26, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 43% 46% – 10% Zogby Analytics [184] Sep 2017 800 (V) – 37% 46% – 17% Zogby Analytics [186] Aug 17–23, 2017 803 (LV) ± 3.5% 35% 51% – 14%

Hypothetical polling

with Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Justin Amash Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Joe Biden (D) Justin Amash (L) Undecided Glengariff Group [178] May 28–30, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 39% 45% 10% 6% with Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Howard Schultz Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Joe Biden (D) Howard Schultz (I) Undecided Emerson College [181] Mar 7–10, 2019 743 (RV) ± 3.5% 44% 52% 4% – with Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Howard Schultz Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Bernie Sanders (D) Howard Schultz (I) Undecided Emerson College [181] Mar 7–10, 2019 743 (RV) ± 3.5% 45% 49% 6% – with Donald Trump and Generic Democrat Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Generic Democrat (D) Undecided Baldwin Wallace University/Oakland University/Ohio Northern University [187] Mar 17–25, 2020 997 (RV) ± 3.7% 43.2% [ci] 54.0% 2.9% [cj] Expedition Strategies/Progressive Policies Institute [167] Feb 6–18, 2020 500 (RV) – 38% 50% 11% Baldwin Wallace University/Oakland University/Ohio Northern University [188] Jan 8–20, 2020 1,023 (RV) ± 3.1% 36.4% [ci] 50.3% 13.3% KFF/Cook Political Report [189] Sep 23 – Oct 15, 2019 767 (RV) ± 4% 27% 39% 25% with Donald Trump and Generic Opponent Poll source Date(s) administered Sample size [f] Margin of error Donald Trump (R) Generic Opponent Undecided EPIC-MRA [118] Jul 25 - 30, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 37% 49% [ck] 14% EPIC-MRA [141] May 31 – Jun 4, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 33% 51% [ck] 13% [cl] EPIC-MRA [141] May 30 – Jun 3, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 38% 51% [ck] 8% [cl] EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press [168] Jan 9–12, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 34% 44% [ck] 22% [cm] EPIC-MRA [177] Jun 8–12, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4% 32% 45% [cn] 23% [co] EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press [190] Mar 3–7, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4% 31% 49% [cp] 20% [cq] Glengariff Group/WDIV/Detroit News [191] Jan 24–26, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4% 31% 53% 15% [cr]

Results

People at the United States Embassy in New Zealand watch as the results from Michigan are released on CNN, 5 November 2020.

2020 United States presidential election in Michigan ^{[192] [193]}

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Democratic	Joe Biden Kamala Harris	2,804,040	50.62%	+3.35%
	Republican	Donald Trump Mike Pence	2,649,852	47.84%	+0.34%
	Libertarian	Jo Jorgensen Spike Cohen	60,381	1.09%	−2.50%
	Green	Howie Hawkins Angela Walker	13,718	0.25%	−0.82%
	Constitution	Don Blankenship William Mohr	7,235	0.13%	N/A
	Natural Law	Rocky De La Fuente Darcy Richardson	2,986	0.05%	N/A
	Write-in	Brian T. Carroll	963	0.02%	+0.01%
	Write-in	Jade Simmons	89	<0.01%	N/A
	Write-in	Tom Hoefling	32	<0.01%	N/A
	Write-in		6	<0.01%	N/A
Total votes			5,539,302	100.00%

By county

County	Joe Biden Democratic		Donald Trump Republican		Various candidates Other parties		Margin		Total votes cast
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Alcona	2,142	30.32%	4,848	68.63%	74	1.05%	−2,706	−38.31%	7,064
Alger	2,053	39.98%	3,014	58.70%	68	1.32%	−961	−18.72%	5,135
Allegan	24,449	36.39%	41,392	61.60%	1,354	2.01%	−16,943	−25.21%	67,195
Alpena	6,000	35.32%	10,686	62.91%	301	1.77%	−4,686	−27.59%	16,987
Antrim	5,960	37.32%	9,748	61.03%	264	1.65%	−3,788	−23.71%	15,972
Arenac	2,774	31.38%	5,928	67.07%	137	1.55%	−3,154	−35.69%	8,839
Baraga	1,478	36.52%	2,512	62.07%	57	1.41%	−1,034	−25.55%	4,047
Barry	11,797	32.80%	23,471	65.27%	693	1.93%	−11,674	−32.47%	35,961
Bay	26,151	43.34%	33,125	54.90%	1,057	1.76%	−6,974	−11.56%	60,333
Benzie	5,480	44.69%	6,601	53.83%	181	1.48%	−1,121	−9.14%	12,262
Berrien	37,438	45.34%	43,519	52.71%	1,608	1.95%	−6,081	−7.37%	82,565
Branch	6,159	29.94%	14,064	68.36%	350	1.70%	−7,905	−38.42%	20,573
Calhoun	28,877	43.57%	36,221	54.65%	1,183	1.78%	−5,344	−11.08%	66,281
Cass	9,130	34.79%	16,699	63.63%	413	1.58%	−7,569	−28.84%	26,242
Charlevoix	6,939	40.75%	9,841	57.79%	250	1.46%	−2,902	−17.04%	17,030
Cheboygan	5,437	34.22%	10,186	64.10%	267	1.68%	−4,749	−29.88%	15,890
Chippewa	6,648	37.62%	10,681	60.44%	342	1.94%	−4,033	−22.82%	17,671
Clare	5,199	31.91%	10,861	66.65%	235	1.44%	−5,662	−34.74%	16,295
Clinton	21,968	45.84%	25,098	52.37%	861	1.79%	−3,130	−6.53%	47,927
Crawford	2,672	33.99%	5,087	64.71%	102	1.30%	−2,415	−30.72%	7,861
Delta	7,606	35.93%	13,207	62.39%	354	1.68%	−5,601	−26.46%	21,167
Dickinson	4,744	32.46%	9,617	65.80%	254	1.74%	−4,873	−33.34%	14,615
Eaton	31,299	48.66%	31,798	49.43%	1,230	1.91%	−499	−0.77%	64,327
Emmet	9,662	43.50%	12,135	54.64%	412	1.86%	−2,473	−11.14%	22,209
Genesee	119,390	53.84%	98,714	44.51%	3,660	1.65%	20,676	9.33%	221,764
Gladwin	4,524	30.95%	9,893	67.69%	198	1.36%	−5,369	−36.74%	14,615
Gogebic	3,570	43.14%	4,600	55.58%	106	1.28%	−1,030	−12.44%	8,276
Grand Traverse	28,683	47.53%	30,502	50.54%	1,168	1.93%	−1,819	−3.01%	60,353
Gratiot	6,693	34.95%	12,102	63.20%	353	1.85%	−5,409	−28.25%	19,148
Hillsdale	5,883	25.25%	17,037	73.11%	382	1.64%	−11,154	−47.86%	23,302
Houghton	7,750	41.82%	10,378	56.00%	405	2.18%	−2,628	−14.18%	18,533
Huron	5,490	29.77%	12,731	69.03%	221	1.20%	−7,241	−39.26%	18,442
Ingham	94,212	65.18%	47,639	32.96%	2,699	1.86%	46,573	32.22%	144,550
Ionia	10,901	33.84%	20,657	64.13%	651	2.03%	−9,756	−30.29%	32,209
Iosco	5,373	34.92%	9,759	63.42%	255	1.66%	−4,386	−28.50%	15,387
Iron	2,493	36.69%	4,216	62.05%	86	1.26%	−1,723	−25.36%	6,795
Isabella	14,072	47.74%	14,815	50.26%	589	2.00%	−743	−2.52%	29,476
Jackson	31,995	39.49%	47,372	58.47%	1,647	2.04%	−15,377	−18.98%	81,014
Kalamazoo	83,686	58.22%	56,823	39.53%	3,237	2.25%	26,863	18.69%	143,746
Kalkaska	3,002	28.24%	7,436	69.95%	193	1.81%	−4,434	−41.71%	10,631
Kent	187,915	51.91%	165,741	45.78%	8,375	2.31%	22,174	6.13%	362,031
Keweenaw	672	43.16%	862	55.36%	23	1.48%	−190	−12.20%	1,557
Lake	2,288	36.13%	3,946	62.32%	98	1.55%	−1,658	−26.19%	6,332
Lapeer	16,367	31.04%	35,482	67.29%	883	1.67%	−19,115	−36.25%	52,732
Leelanau	8,795	52.04%	7,916	46.84%	189	1.12%	879	5.20%	16,900
Lenawee	20,918	39.13%	31,541	59.01%	993	1.86%	−10,623	−19.88%	53,452
Livingston	48,220	37.91%	76,982	60.52%	1,995	1.57%	−28,762	−22.61%	127,197
Luce	842	28.00%	2,109	70.14%	56	1.86%	−1,277	−42.14%	3,007
Mackinac	2,632	37.47%	4,304	61.27%	89	1.26%	−1,772	−23.80%	7,025
Macomb	223,952	45.31%	263,863	53.39%	6,441	1.30%	−39,911	−8.08%	494,256
Manistee	6,107	41.60%	8,321	56.69%	251	1.71%	−2,214	−15.09%	14,679
Marquette	20,465	54.50%	16,286	43.37%	799	2.13%	4,179	11.13%	37,550
Mason	6,802	39.36%	10,207	59.06%	274	1.58%	−3,405	−19.70%	17,283
Mecosta	7,375	34.98%	13,267	62.93%	439	2.09%	−5,892	−27.95%	21,081
Menominee	4,316	34.20%	8,117	64.31%	188	1.49%	−3,801	−30.11%	12,621
Midland	20,493	41.67%	27,675	56.28%	1,007	2.05%	−7,182	−14.61%	49,175
Missaukee	1,967	22.47%	6,648	75.93%	140	1.60%	−4,681	−53.46%	8,755
Monroe	32,980	37.78%	52,722	60.39%	1,597	1.83%	−19,742	−22.61%	87,299
Montcalm	9,703	30.19%	21,815	67.88%	620	1.93%	−12,112	−37.69%	32,138
Montmorency	1,628	27.77%	4,171	71.14%	64	1.09%	−2,543	−43.37%	5,863
Muskegon	45,643	49.37%	45,133	48.82%	1,668	1.81%	510	0.55%	92,444
Newaygo	7,873	28.95%	18,857	69.33%	467	1.72%	−10,984	−40.38%	27,197
Oakland	434,148	56.24%	325,971	42.22%	11,872	1.54%	108,177	14.02%	771,991
Oceana	4,944	35.11%	8,892	63.15%	244	1.74%	−3,948	−28.04%	14,080
Ogemaw	3,475	29.15%	8,253	69.23%	193	1.62%	−4,778	−40.08%	11,921
Ontonagon	1,391	36.51%	2,358	61.89%	61	1.60%	−967	−25.38%	3,810
Osceola	3,214	26.05%	8,928	72.35%	198	1.60%	−5,714	−46.30%	12,340
Oscoda	1,342	27.50%	3,466	71.02%	72	1.48%	−2,124	−43.52%	4,880
Otsego	4,743	32.10%	9,779	66.19%	253	1.71%	−5,036	−34.09%	14,775
Ottawa	64,705	38.35%	100,913	59.81%	3,095	1.84%	−36,208	−21.46%	168,713
Presque Isle	2,911	34.84%	5,342	63.94%	102	1.22%	−2,431	−29.10%	8,355
Roscommon	5,166	34.36%	9,670	64.32%	198	1.32%	−4,504	−29.96%	15,034
Saginaw	51,088	49.37%	50,785	49.08%	1,610	1.55%	303	0.29%	103,483
St. Clair	31,363	34.02%	59,185	64.19%	1,654	1.79%	−27,822	−30.17%	92,202
St. Joseph	9,262	33.10%	18,127	64.78%	592	2.12%	−8,865	−31.68%	27,981
Sanilac	5,966	26.58%	16,194	72.15%	286	1.27%	−10,228	−45.57%	22,446
Schoolcraft	1,589	33.49%	3,090	65.12%	66	1.39%	−1,501	−31.63%	4,745
Shiawassee	15,347	39.05%	23,149	58.90%	805	2.05%	−7,802	−19.85%	39,301
Tuscola	8,712	29.55%	20,297	68.85%	470	1.60%	−11,585	−39.30%	29,479
Van Buren	16,803	42.92%	21,591	55.16%	752	1.92%	−4,788	−12.24%	39,146
Washtenaw	157,136	72.44%	56,241	25.93%	3,554	1.63%	100,895	46.51%	216,931
Wayne	597,170	68.32%	264,553	30.27%	12,295	1.41%	332,617	38.05%	874,018
Wexford	5,838	31.92%	12,102	66.16%	352	1.92%	−6,264	−34.24%	18,292
Totals	2,804,045	50.55%	2,649,864	47.77%	93,277	1.68%	154,181	2.78%	5,547,186

Swing by county

Legend

•   Democratic — +7.5–10%
•   Democratic — +5–7.5%
•   Democratic — +2.5–5%
•   Democratic — +0–2.5%
•   Republican — +0–2.5%
•   Republican — +2.5–5%
•   Republican — +5–7.5%

Trend relative to the state by county

Legend

•   Democratic — +7.5–10%
•   Democratic — +5–7.5%
•   Democratic — +2.5–5%
•   Democratic — +0–2.5%
•   Republican — +0–2.5%
•   Republican — +2.5–5%
•   Republican — +5–7.5%

County flips

Legend

• Democratic   Hold   Gain from Republican

  Republican   Hold

Counties that flipped from Republican to Democratic

• Leelanau (largest municipality: Greilickville) ^[194]
• Kent (largest municipality: Grand Rapids) ^[194]
• Saginaw (largest municipality: Saginaw) ^[194]

By congressional district

Despite losing the state, Trump won 8 out of the 14 congressional districts in Michigan, including one that elected a Democrat.

District	Trump	Biden	Representative
1st	57.9%	40.6%	Jack Bergman
2nd	55%	43.2%	Bill Huizenga
3rd	50.7%	47.4%	Justin Amash
			Peter Meijer
4th	61.1%	37.2%	John Moolenaar
5th	47.1%	51.4%	Dan Kildee
6th	51.3%	46.8%	Fred Upton
7th	56.7%	41.6%	Tim Walberg
8th	49.6%	48.8%	Elissa Slotkin
9th	42.7%	55.9%	Andy Levin
10th	64.2%	34.4%	Paul Mitchell
			Lisa McClain
11th	47.1%	51.6%	Haley Stevens
12th	34.4%	64.2%	Debbie Dingell
13th	20%	78.8%	Rashida Tlaib
14th	19.6%	79.5%	Brenda Lawrence

Analysis

Michigan was generally seen as one of the most critical states of the 2020 election; the state boasted a highly prized 16 electoral votes, and had been part of the blue wall since Bill Clinton won the state in 1992. It was key to Trump's surprise victory in 2016, and the Biden campaign paid heavy attention to the state throughout the campaign, looking to avoid a repeat of Hillary Clinton's unexpected collapse in the northern industrial states. ^{[195] [196]}

Biden would carry the state by just under 2.8%; while Biden ran well behind Barack Obama in his two campaigns, his margin of victory was nearly in-line for a Democratic candidate, only performing slightly worse than John Kerry's 3.4% margin in 2004, and Al Gore's 5.1% margin in 2000, reflecting some of the steady demographic shifts in the state. Many undecided/third-party voters that had been lost by Clinton appeared to return to the Democratic column, giving Biden enough votes to carry the state. ^[197]

While Michigan returned to the Democratic column with a somewhat comfortable margin, the state's internal politics shifted rather dramatically. Trump performed strongly with white voters without a college degree, winning this group by 17 points, and this group made up about 51% of Michigan's electorate, cementing the white-working-class shift to the GOP; with men, this was even more convincing, as Trump carried white men without a college degree by 30 points. On the other hand, there was a significant suburban shift towards the Democrats; for example, Ottawa County, a suburban county outside of Grand Rapids, has traditionally been a GOP-stronghold in the state; Biden cut into Trump's margins here, and Trump carried this county with less than 60%. ^[197] Trump held Macomb County, which famously helped him clinch Michigan in 2016, but carried it by only 8 points, 3 points fewer than in 2016. ^[198]

Other demographic patterns remained the same. Biden won 93% of African-American voters in the state; consequently, Biden improved from Clinton's performance in Wayne County, home of Detroit. ^[198] Biden's performance among black voters would carry on in other parts of the state; Biden was able to match Clinton's performance in Genesee County, ^[199] and flipped back Saginaw County. ^[200]

Biden performed strongly with Michigan's different religious groups; Biden was able to improve from Clinton in the vote share with Evangelical Michiganders. More importantly, Biden performed strongly with white Catholics, who make up a large portion of Michigan's electorate. ^[201] Much of the state's sizable Muslim and Arab American voters backed Biden in the election, in which their support was seen as being important for helping Biden secure victory in Michigan. ^{[202] [203]}

Jeremy W. Peters of The New York Times wrote that "high Detroit turnout" was a crucial factor aiding Biden. ^[204] African Americans in Detroit were a major demographic contributing to Joe Biden winning that state. ^[205] Trump received 12,600 votes in Detroit proper, an increase from the previous election's 7,700. In percentage terms, the shift in Detroit was from Clinton 95–3 to Biden 94–5, a decreased margin from 92 points in 2016 to 89 in 2020. Biden saw increases from 2016 in Oakland and Washtenaw counties. ^[206]

The 2020 election in Oakland County by municipality (certain villages like Holly not shown).

The 2020 election in Wayne County by municipality.

In Oakland County, Biden won 433,982 votes, making up 56.36% of the votes. The municipalities in Oakland County that majority-voted for Biden versus Trump included Bloomfield Township, Farmington Hills, Madison Heights, Novi, Rochester Hills, Southfield and Troy. ^[207]

The number of unbalanced votes in Wayne County for 2020 was below the same number for 2016. ^[208] On November 23, 2020, Michigan certified the results 3–0, with Norm Shinkle abstaining. ^[209]

Edison exit polls

2020 presidential election in Michigan by demographic subgroup (Edison exit polling) [210] [211]
Demographic subgroup	Biden	Trump	% of total vote
Total vote	50.62	47.84	100
Ideology
Liberals	89	10	25
Moderates	62	36	38
Conservatives	12	88	37
Party
Democrats	97	3	38
Republicans	6	94	38
Independents	51	45	23
Gender
Men	44	54	46
Women	57	43	54
Race/ethnicity
White	44	55	81
Black	92	7	12
Latino	55	44	3
Asian	–	–	1
Other	–	–	4
Age
18–24 years old	62	36	7
25–29 years old	59	37	4
30–39 years old	48	50	14
40–49 years old	49	49	15
50–64 years old	51	49	29
65 and older	51	49	30
Sexual orientation
LGBT	–	–	6
Not LGBT	53	47	94
Education
High school or less	49	50	20
Some college education	49	50	27
Associate degree	42	57	18
Bachelor's degree	55	44	20
Postgraduate degree	63	37	16
Income
Under $30,000	61	39	16
$30,000–49,999	60	39	20
$50,000–99,999	55	44	34
Over $100,000	47	51	30
Union households
Yes	62	37	21
No	48	51	79
Issue regarded as most important
Racial inequality	93	5	16
Coronavirus	94	5	18
Economy	14	86	39
Crime and safety	22	77	9
Health care	85	12	10
Region
Wayne County	69	30	16
Southeast	58	41	27
East central	42	57	24
Southwest	46	53	19
North central/Upper Peninsula	40	59	14
Area type
Urban	65	35	21
Suburban	48	51	58
Rural	45	54	21
Family's financial situation today
Better than four years ago	18	81	41
Worse than four years ago	90	9	15
About the same	72	27	43

Aftermath

On November 5, a state judge in Michigan dismissed the Trump campaign's lawsuit requesting a pause in vote-counting to allow access to observers, as the judge noted that vote-counting had already finished in Michigan. ^[212] That judge also noted the official complaint did not state "why, when, where, or by whom" an election observer was allegedly blocked from observing ballot-counting in Michigan. ^[213]

On election night in Antrim County, human error miscounted an unofficial tally of Presidential votes. Next day, the County Clerk pulled the unofficial tally offline. The error was caused by using different kinds of ballots when setting up ballot scanners and result-reporting systems, which mismatched results. ^[214] The Republican Clerk admitted that she made a mistake in some precincts, which mismatched precinct results. ^[215] The very next day, she corrected her mistake, tabulated all ballots again and ran a final report to certify Trump's overwhelming win. ^[214] Nonetheless, this error and a related lawsuit fueled multiple election conspiracy theories. ^[216]

Despite pressure from the Trump campaign to hand the decision over the state's presidential electors to the Michigan State Legislature, which would have been an unprecedented maneuver in state history and was not authorized under Michigan law, the statewide results were certified in favor of the Biden/Harris ticket on November 23, with one Republican member of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers abstaining. ^[217]

Official audits

In October 2020, the Michigan Election Security Advisory Commission published recommendations for two types of postelection audits: procedural and tabulation audits. ^[218] The first statewide risk-limiting audit included a hand tally of the sampled ballots, which confirmed that Biden received more votes than Trump and the share of votes each candidate received was within a fraction of a percentage point of the certified results. ^[219] Another tabulation audit confirmed the election results by examining ballots cast, voting machines and the election procedures. The series of post-election audits was the most comprehensive in the state's history. ^[220]

In Antrim County, the Clerk's Office was joined by a bipartisan team of clerks to perform a hand recount of every single ballot. Their recount proved that the county's election results had been accurately certified. ^[215] The Republican Chairman concluded in a letter prefacing his state Senate Oversight Committee's election report: "all compelling theories that sprang forth from the rumors surrounding Antrim County are diminished so significantly as for it to be a complete waste of time to consider them further." ^[221]

After eight months investigating the state's 2020 general election process, he and his Republican Committee members all voted for the Senate to adopt their report. Their report concluded, "The Committee found no evidence of widespread or systemic fraud in Michigan's prosecution of the 2020 election." ^[221]

Election law changes since then

Due to voters approving no-reason-required absentee voting in 2018 and the COVID pandemic, there was a record number of absentee voters. Michigan law at that time did not allow for the tabulating of absentee ballots until after the polling place ballots were counted. That led to days before Biden was declared the winner. ^[222] In 2022, voters approved a ballot proposal making it easier to vote. In the aftermath, Michigan lawmakers made changes in election laws which, among other things, allowed cities and townships to begin tabulating absentee ballots before Election Day. ^[223]

See also

• United States presidential elections in Michigan
• 2020 Michigan elections
• 2020 United States elections
• Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Michigan
• Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

Notes

Partisan clients

1. The Center for American Greatness is a pro-Trump organization
2. Progress Michigan is a non-profit that primarily supports Democratic candidates
3. The American Bridge PAC exclusively supports Democratic candidates
4. The Restoration PAC is a 501 non-profit which supports Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign
5. Rust Belt Rising is affiliated with the Democratic Party
6. The American Action Forum is a 501 organisation which usually supports Republican candidates
7. The Committee to Protect Medicare is a PAC with a history of buying ads arguing against the reelection of Trump
8. The Human Rights Campaign endorsed Biden prior to this poll's sampling period
9. Unite the Country PAC has endorsed Biden's presidential campaign
10. This poll's sponsor is the American Principles Project, a 501(c)(4) organization that supports the Republican Party.
11. Poll sponsored by Giffords, whose head - Gabby Giffords - had endorsed Biden prior to the sampling period
12. Protect Our Care is a pro-Affordable Care Act organisation
13. Poll sponsored by Progress Michigan, the Michigan branch of Progress Now, a progressive advocacy organisation
14. Poll sponsored by Protect Our Care, a pro-Affordable Care Act organisation
15. CAP Action is a political advocacy group that exclusively supports Democratic candidates
16. Poll sponsored by the Sanders campaign

Voter samples and additional candidates

1. Candidate withdrew during absentee voting, following Super Tuesday.
2. Candidate withdrew during absentee voting, before Super Tuesday.
3. Candidate withdrew during absentee voting, following the New Hampshire primary.
4. Candidate withdrew in January, shortly after absentee voting had begun.
5. Calculated by taking the difference of 100% and all other candidates combined.
6. Key:
   A – all adults
   RV – registered voters
   LV – likely voters
   V – unclear
7. Overlapping sample with the previous SurveyMonkey/Axios poll, but more information available regarding sample size
8. "Someone else" with 2%
9. Standard VI response
10. "Some other candidate" with 2%; West (B) and would not vote with 0%
11. If only Biden, Trump and "some other candidate" were available
12. "Some other candidate" with 3%; would not vote with 0%
13. Results considering those who lean towards a given candidate among those initially predisposed towards abstention, indecision or a candidate besides Biden or Trump in the response section immediately above
14. "Some other candidate" with 2%
15. With voters who lean towards a given candidate
16. "Someone else" with 3%
17. "Not sure/Someone else/Undecided" with 8%
18. "None of these" with 1%; "Other" with 0%
19. "Someone else" with no voters
20. Results generated with high Democratic turnout model
21. Results generated with high Republican turnout model
22. "Third party" with 5%
23. Includes "Refused"
24. "Someone else" with 1%
25. "Other/third party" with 2%
26. "Someone else" with 0%
27. "Someone else" and would not vote with 0%
28. "Third party" with 2%
29. "Other" and "None of these" with 0%; would not vote with no voters
30. Includes Undecided
31. "Other" with 2%; would not vote with no voters
32. Additional data sourced from FiveThirtyEight
33. "Third party candidate" with 5%
34. "Some other candidate" and West (B) with 1%; would not vote with 0%
35. "Third party candidate" with 4%
36. "Someone else" with 4%
37. "Someone else" with 1%; would not vote with 0%
38. "Other third party" with 2%
39. "Another candidate" with 0%
40. "Another Third Party/Write-in" with 1%
41. "Some other candidate" with 2%; would not vote with 0%
42. "Refused" with 3%; "Third Party" with 2%
43. "Another Third Party/Write-in" with 0%
44. "Someone else" with 1.2%
45. "Another candidate" with 1%
46. If only Trump and Biden were candidates
47. "Someone else" with 7%; "Refused" with 1%; would not vote with 0%
48. Would not vote with 1%
49. Overlapping sample with the previous Morning Consult poll, but more information available regarding sample size
50. "Other/not sure" with 7%
51. "Some other candidate" with 3%
52. "Refused" with 3%; "Third party" with 1%
53. Would not vote with 0%
54. "Another party candidate" with 1%
55. "Another third party/write-in" 1%
56. "Other" with 3%; would not vote with 2%
57. "Third party" with 6%
58. "Someone else/third party" with 2%; would not vote with 0%
59. "Another Third Party/Write-In" with 2%
60. "Other" with 1%; "Neither" with 4%
61. "Other" with 3%; would not vote with 1%
62. "Would vote third party" with 5%
63. "Refused" with 2%
64. "Another candidate" with 3%; Would not vote with 5%
65. "other" with 2%
66. "Refused/no answer" with 4%
67. "Libertarian Party candidate/Green Party candidate" with 3%
68. "Other" with 4%; "prefer not to answer" with 0%
69. "A different candidate" with 6%
70. "Third party" with 4%
71. "Third party/write-in" with 3%
72. "Someone else" with 6%; "Refused" and would not vote with 1%
73. "Other" with 4%; would not vote with 2%
74. "Someone else" with 2%; would not vote with 4%
75. A third party candidate with 5%; would not vote with 3%
76. Would not vote with 5%
77. "Someone else" with 3%; would not vote with 4%
78. Would not vote with 7%
79. "Someone else" with 3%; would not vote with 5%
80. A third party candidate with 4%; would not vote with 4%
81. Would not vote with 6%
82. "Other" with 5%; would not vote with 2%
83. A third party candidate with 4%; would not vote with 2%
84. Would not vote with 4%
85. "Someone else" with 2%; would not vote with 5%
86. A third party candidate with 3%; would not vote with 5%
87. Figures for each candidate in this poll include undecided voters who were reported to lean towards that candidate at the time of polling.
88. "It depends on who the Democrats nominate" with 1.9%; "unsure" with 1%
89. Listed as "Would vote to replace Trump"
90. Listed as "would consider voting for someone other than Trump"
91. 19% listed as "would consider voting for someone other than Trump"; 3% as "undecided/refused"
92. "Vote to replace Trump" with 45%
93. "Consider voting for someone else" with 19%; "Undecided/refused" with 4%
94. "Vote to replace Trump" with 49%
95. "Consider voting for someone else" with 16%; "Don't know/refused" with 4%
96. "Depends on who the Democratic nominee is" with 15%

References

1. "Record 5.5M voted in Michigan; highest percentage in decades". Associated Press. November 5, 2020.
2. Kelly, Ben (August 13, 2018). "US elections key dates: When are the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential campaign?" . The Independent . Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved January 3, 2019.
3. "Distribution of Electoral Votes". National Archives and Records Administration . Retrieved January 3, 2019.
4. Shepard, Steven (November 28, 2016). "Michigan certifies Trump as winner". POLITICO. Retrieved November 10, 2020.
5. Coleman, Justine (September 9, 2020). "Biden unveils plan to penalize companies that offshore jobs ahead of Michigan visit". TheHill. Retrieved November 9, 2020.
6. "Michigan Voter Surveys: How Different Groups Voted". The New York Times. November 3, 2020. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved November 9, 2020.
7. "Michigan Will Keep Mark Sanford's Name on the Republican Presidential Primary Unless he Sends in a Withdrawal Letter | Ballot Access News". November 21, 2019.
8. "2020 Michigan Election Results". Michigan Secretary of State. April 30, 2020. Retrieved November 12, 2020.
9. Taylor, Kate (February 9, 2019). "Elizabeth Warren Formally Announces 2020 Presidential Bid in Lawrence, Mass". The New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2019.
10. "2020 Michigan Election Results". Michigan Secretary of State. Retrieved June 11, 2020.
11. "Associated Press Election Services - Delegate Tracker". Associated Press . Retrieved November 23, 2022.
12. "2020 POTUS Race ratings" (PDF). The Cook Political Report. Retrieved May 21, 2019.
13. "POTUS Ratings | Inside Elections". insideelections.com. Retrieved May 21, 2019.
14. "Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2020 President". crystalball.centerforpolitics.org. Retrieved May 21, 2019.
15. "2020 Election Forecast". Politico. November 19, 2019.
16. "Battle for White House". RCP. April 19, 2019.
17. 2020 Bitecofer Model Electoral College Predictions Archived April 23, 2020, at the Wayback Machine , Niskanen Center, March 24, 2020, retrieved: April 19, 2020.
18. David Chalian; Terence Burlij (June 11, 2020). "Road to 270: CNN's debut Electoral College map for 2020". CNN. Retrieved June 16, 2020.
19. "Forecasting the US elections". The Economist. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
20. "2020 Election Battleground Tracker". CBS News. July 12, 2020. Retrieved July 13, 2020.
21. "2020 Presidential Election Interactive Map". 270 to Win.
22. "ABC News Race Ratings". CBS News. July 24, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
23. "2020 Electoral Map Ratings: Trump Slides, Biden Advantage Expands Over 270 Votes". NPR.org. Retrieved August 3, 2020.
24. "Biden dominates the electoral map, but here's how the race could tighten". NBC News. August 6, 2020. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
25. "2020 Election Forecast". FiveThirtyEight. August 12, 2020. Retrieved August 14, 2020.
26. 270 to Win
27. Real Clear Politics
28. FiveThirtyEight
29. SurveyMonkey/Axios
30. Research Co.
31. Change Research/CNBC
32. Swayable Archived November 13, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
33. Ipsos/Reuters
34. Trafalgar Group
35. AtlasIntel
36. Insider Advantage/Center for American Greatness
37. Morning Consult
38. Emerson College
39. Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan
40. Targoz Market Research/PollSmart
41. CNN/SSRS Archived October 31, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
42. Mitchell Research (R)/MIRS
43. "RMG Research/PoliticalIQ". Archived from the original on October 31, 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
44. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
45. EPIC-MRA
46. Trafalgar Group
47. Kiaer Research
48. Mitchell Research (R)/MIRS Archived October 29, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
49. Swayable
50. Siena College/NYT Upshot
51. Ipsos/Reuters
52. "Wick Surveys". Archived from the original on December 3, 2020. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
53. Glengariff Group/Detroit News
54. ABC/Washington Post
55. Gravis Marketing
56. Public Policy Polling/American Bridge PAC
57. YouGov/University of Wisconsin-Madison
58. Citizen Data
59. Fox News
60. Ipsos/Reuters
61. Change Research/CNBC
62. EPIC-MRA
63. Mitchell Research (R)/MIRS
64. Trafalgar Group/Restoration PAC
65. Data For Progress
66. "Zia Poll/Painter Communications/MIRS News" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 24, 2020. Retrieved October 23, 2020.
67. HarrisX/The Hill
68. Trafalgar Group
69. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
70. "RMG Research/PoliticalIQ". Archived from the original on October 15, 2020. Retrieved October 15, 2020.
71. Ipsos/Reuters
72. EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press
73. Civiqs/Rust Belt Rising
74. Siena College/NYT Upshot
75. Morning Consult
76. YouGov/CBS
77. Baldwin Wallace University
78. Emerson College
79. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
80. Opinion Insight/American Action Forum
81. Ipsos/Reuters
82. Change Research/CNBC
83. Glengariff Group/Detroit News
84. Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan
85. Trafalgar Group/Restoration PAC
86. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
87. Marist College/NBC
88. ALG Research/Committee to Protect Medicare
89. Trafalgar Group
90. Baldwin Wallace University
91. YouGov/UW-Madison Elections Research
    Center/Wisconsin State Journal
92. Change Research/CNBC
93. Hart Research Associates/Human Rights Campaign ^{[ permanent dead link ‍]}
94. Data for Progress (D)
95. MRG
96. Ipsos/Reuters
97. Civiqs/Rust Belt Rising
98. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
99. EPIC-MRA
100. Benenson Strategy Group/GS Strategy Group/AARP
101. Morning Consult
102. Change Research/CNBC
103. Pulse Opinion Research/Rasmussen Reports
104. Glengariff Group
105. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
106. Opinion Insight/American Action Forum
107. Morning Consult
108. Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan
109. Change Research/CNBC
110. Trafalgar Group
111. Redfield and Wilton Strategies
112. Civiqs/Rust Belt Rising
113. Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC
114. Change Research/CNBC
115. YouGov/University of Wisconsin-Madison
116. GQR Research/Unite the Country PAC
117. David Binder Research
118. EPIC-MRA
119. Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan
120. Change Research/CNBC
121. Morning Consult
122. YouGov/CBS
123. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
124. CNN/SSRS
125. Gravis Marketing
126. Fox News
127. Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC
128. Spry Strategies/American Principles Project
129. Change Research/CNBC
130. Public Policy Polling/Giffords (D)
131. Change Research/CNBC
132. Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan (D)
133. Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R)
134. Trafalgar Group
135. NYT Upshot/Siena College
136. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
137. TargetPoint
138. Change Research/CNBC
139. TIPP/American Greatness PAC Archived June 16, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
140. Kiaer Research
141. EPIC-MRA
142. EPIC-MRA
143. Change Research/CNBC
144. Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan
145. Public Policy Polling/Protect Our Care
146. Change Research/Crooked Media
147. Redfield & Wilton Strategies
148. Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R)
149. Public Policy Polling
150. Public Policy Polling
151. Fox News
152. Ipsos/Reuters
153. Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R)
154. "Hart Research/CAP Action" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 13, 2020. Retrieved April 13, 2020.
155. Public Policy Polling
156. SPRY Strategies
157. Baldwin Wallace University Great Lakes
158. Change Research
159. Marketing Resource Group Archived March 25, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
160. Hodas & Associates/Restoration PAC (R)
161. AtlasIntel
162. YouGov/Yahoo News
163. Monmouth University
164. Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Archived December 9, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
165. YouGov
166. Quinnipiac University Archived May 13, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
167. Expedition Strategies/Progressive Policies Institute
168. EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press
169. Glengariff Group Inc.
170. Emerson College
171. NYT Upshot/Siena College
172. Target Insyght
173. Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Archived September 12, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
174. EPIC-MRA
175. Climate Nexus
176. Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus
177. EPIC-MRA
178. Glengariff Group
179. WPA Intelligence
180. Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Archived April 3, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
181. Emerson College Archived March 10, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
182. Glengariff Group Archived April 22, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
183. EPIC-MRA
184. Zogby Analytics
185. Tulchin Research (D)
186. Zogby Analytics
187. Baldwin Wallace University/Oakland University/Ohio Northern University
188. Baldwin Wallace University/Oakland University/Ohio Northern University
189. KFF/Cook Political Report
190. EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press
191. Glengariff Group/WDIV/Detroit News
192. "2020 Michigan Official General Election Results – 11/03/2020". Michigan Secretary of State. Retrieved November 23, 2020.
193. "2020 Presidential General Election Results - Michigan". Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved November 30, 2020.
194. "Counties that flipped from Donald Trump to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election". The Republican . March 17, 2021. Archived from the original on January 4, 2025.
195. Alter, Charlotte (September 15, 2020). "Joe Biden is Running an Invisible Digital Campaign in All-Important Michigan. That's Making Some Democrats Nervous". Time. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
196. Emmrich, Stuart (October 28, 2020). "Letter From Michigan: Trying to Win a Key Battleground State for Joe Biden, One Door at a Time". Vogue. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
197. Spangler, Todd (November 6, 2020). "Here's how Biden beat Trump in Michigan — and it wasn't corruption". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
198. Bartkowiak, Dave (November 11, 2020). "Biden wins big in Wayne, Oakland counties while Trump holds onto Macomb County". ClickOnDetroit. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
199. Simpson-Mersha, Isis (November 8, 2020). "See how Genesee County in 2020 voted compared to past elections". MLive. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
200. Johnson, Bob (November 4, 2020). "Biden narrowly wins Saginaw County". MLive. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
201. "US elections 2020: Trump's support dips among Caucasian evangelical Christians, exit polls show". Middle East Eye. November 6, 2020. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
202. Davis, Gabriel (January 19, 2021). "How Arab Americans Helped Decide the U.S. Election". Jadaliyya . Archived from the original on January 18, 2021. Retrieved November 16, 2021.
203. Ramey, Elisse (November 7, 2020). "Muslim vote helps secure Michigan for Biden/Harris ticket". ABC12 . Archived from the original on November 7, 2020. Retrieved November 16, 2021.
204. Peters, Jeremy W. (November 4, 2020). "The view in Michigan: Amid ballot-counting, Biden's team is buoyed by high Detroit turnout". The New York Times . Retrieved November 11, 2020.
205. Warikoo, Niraj (November 6, 2020). "Black voters in Detroit key for Joe Biden and Gary Peters' victories, advocates say". Detroit Free Press . Retrieved November 11, 2020.
206. Garrison, Joey (November 13, 2020). "Donald Trump keeps baselessly claiming voter fraud in cities. But suburbs actually lost him the election". USA Today . Retrieved November 13, 2020.
207. Bartkowiak, Dave Jr. (November 10, 2020). "How Detroit's Oakland County suburbs voted in 2020 presidential election". Click on Detroit. Retrieved November 24, 2020.
208. Ruble, Kayla (November 23, 2020). "Detroit had more vote errors in 2016 when Trump won Michigan by a narrow margin. He didn't object then". The Washington Post . Retrieved November 23, 2020.
209. "Michigan board certifies Nov. 3 election, cementing Biden victory".
210. "Michigan 2020 President exit polls". www.cnn.com. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
211. "Michigan Exit Polls: How Different Groups Voted". The New York Times. November 3, 2020. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
212. Egan, Paul (November 5, 2020). "Judge throws out Trump lawsuit over counting of Michigan ballots". Detroit Free Press . Archived from the original on November 8, 2020. Retrieved November 11, 2020.
213. Herb, Jeremy; Polantz, Katelyn (November 7, 2020). "'Democracy plain and simple': How the 2020 election defied fraud claims and pandemic fears". CNN . Retrieved November 11, 2020.
214. Perlroth, Nicole; Nicas, Jack (November 9, 2020). "No, Software Glitches Are Not Affecting Vote Counts". The New York Times . Archived from the original on November 10, 2020. Retrieved November 11, 2020.
215. Hendrickson, Clara; Egan, Paul (December 17, 2020). "Antrim County hand tally affirms certified election results". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved September 21, 2023.
216. Bowden, Mark; Teague, Matthew (December 15, 2021). "How a County Clerk in Michigan Found Herself at the Center of Trump's Attempt to Overturn the Election". Time. Retrieved October 7, 2023.
217. Mauger, Craig; Nann Burke, Melissa (November 23, 2020). "Michigan board certifies Nov. 3 election, cementing Biden victory". The Detroit News. Retrieved November 23, 2020.
218. Dunaj, Mikhayla (December 23, 2020). "Michigan is conducting postelection audits. Here's how that works". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved September 21, 2023.
219. Hendrickson, Clara (February 12, 2021). "Michigan election audit affirms November presidential results, Benson says". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved September 21, 2023.
220. Hendrickson, Clara (March 2, 2021). "Michigan completes most comprehensive post-election audit in state history: What it showed". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved September 21, 2023.
221. Hendrickson, Clara; Boucher, Dave (June 23, 2021). "Michigan Republican-led investigation rejects Trump's claim that Nov. 3 election was stolen". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved September 21, 2023.
222. "Why mail-in ballots in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were counted so late | CNN Politics". CNN . November 4, 2020.
223. "Michigan has new voting processes for 2024. What to know | Bridge Michigan".

Further reading

• David Weigel; Lauren Tierney (August 9, 2020), "The six political states of Michigan", Washingtonpost.com , archived from the original on September 9, 2020, retrieved September 7, 2020. (describes 2016 political geography of Detroit; Detroit suburbs; the Middle; the Thumb; the West; Upper Peninsula and North)
• Summary: State Laws on Presidential Electors (PDF), Washington DC: National Association of Secretaries of State, August 2020, Michigan
• David Wasserman (October 6, 2020), "The 10 Bellwether Counties That Show How Trump Is in Serious Trouble", The New York Times . (describes bellwether Kent County, Michigan)
• Jennifer Steinhauer (October 17, 2020), "In Kalamazoo, Old High School Classmates Reckon With a Divided Country", The New York Times

External links

• "League of Women Voters of Michigan". (state affiliate of the U.S. League of Women Voters)
• Government Documents Round Table of the American Library Association, "Michigan", Voting & Elections Toolkits
• "Michigan: Election Tools, Deadlines, Dates, Rules, and Links", Vote.org , Oakland, CA
• Michigan at Ballotpedia