Michigan is front and center for McCain, Romney and Huck
The first big state steps up to the plate
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Michigan is not usually this early in the process. They snuck in and made themselves relevant. And by holding a primary instead of a caucus, they have a contested race. Since things will change throughout the week, here is the starting line of the MI race.
Polls:
There have been no new public polls since Christmas. Thus these numbers are probably not up to date at all. They precede IA and NH as well as the McCain surge and the slight Huckabust. Nevertheless here is the :
Romney 19.8
Huck 18.8
McCain 13.0
Rudy 12.5
The endorsement race is heavily in Romney's favor with 40 of the state elected officials endorsing Romney and 10 endorsing McCain.
In addition, Romney grew up in MI and his father was Governor. If McCain had lost NH, he probably wouldn't have a chance in MI. But Romney has an organization, name recognition, money, and a slight home field advantage. This allows him a third bite at the apple.
Nevertheless, the people putting their money on the race have figured in the IA and NH results. And the futures markets give these current odds for winning MI:
McCain 67%
Romney 25%
Huck 20%
Last night McCain was under 50% so the NH win seems to have gotten him a bump. And those odds will shift whenever a new poll comes out. But regardless, it's a competitive race and Huck should have an appeal to the high unemployment state with pockets of evangelicals.
So can Romney stop the slide with a MI win? Will McCain extend his comeback story to a second state? Will Huck reach beyond his evangelical base and show broader appeal?
6 days left. The clock is ticking.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A Different Way To Analyze The NH Outcome — Comments (5) »
Michigan is front and center for McCain, Romney and Huck 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is crazy, even Rush said it on his show today. This is a marithon, not a sprint. As long as Romney keeps picking up delegates, I am going to be happy.
The race is not going to be decided by the Press. Its not going to be a run away train by any candidate. Its going to be a long hard slog.
Anyone who thinks that a candidate who keeps placing in the top two (or even three) is losing or sliding is crazy.
If Mitt finishes 3rd behind Huck and McCain, what do you think he does next?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0108/McCain_makes_case_for_...
He makes the case that he can appeal to evangelical Christians because he "shares their views on global climate change".
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Christian left. There is a growing group within conservative evangelical churches - eg: Saddleback Church in CA - that have fallen hook, line and sinker for AGW.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Or, should they be stuck on the idea of voting "R", they'll vote for Huckabee.
The "Christian Left" is fertile ground for class warriors.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...in his image. Cast off national security hawks, economic conservatives, and limited government advocates, and replace those groups with the Christian left and/or various groups that can claim "victim" status and are succeptible to class warfare propaganda.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
that will be the death of the party. Right now he does not have a strong enough Christian base to win outright, so if he does win, that will mean he brought in these lefties and others who don't particularly care about politics but just religion. Yikes, and probably won't happen, but yikes.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
I've never seen any polling but I would think that Global Climate Change might not play too well in Michigan. First, it is a cold state. I live in Wyoming which is also a cold state and every time we get a warm winter day we make jokes about algore and thank him for inventing global warming. To us, warmer is a good thing.
But more importantly in the case of Michigan, they live or die by the auto industry and regulation of the climate can only hurt them. There is less profit in smaller cars and smaller cars are what get lessor emmissions. Less profit means less jobs in a place that is already hurting for jobs.
If I were a politician I would be careful blowing the global warming horn in Michigan. I think that mainly applies to Huck and McCain.
And I've RARELY heard this from ANYONE here in Michigan. This should have been crowed a long time ago.
On the Democrat side, Hillary is the only candidate on the ballot.
In Michigan, voters are I believe free to vote in whichever primary they choose. Since Hillary running unopposed is a foregone conclusion as the winner, I can see many Democrats making the decision to create mischief in the Republican Primary. If I were a Democrat living in Michigan that thought would certainly cross my mind.
Then the question becomes how can my vote cause the most havoc for Republicans. My guess is that Huckabee is the easiest candidate for Democrats to beat in the primaries so I might vote for him. On the otherhand, if I were a Democrat, McCain would be the most acceptable Republican to have win (since the difference between him and most of what Democrats believe is fairly small (except the war). So I might vote for him.
When are Republicans are going to insist on Republicans candidates being nominated by Republican voters? The State legislators control these decisions but the Party controls the assignment of delegates. We should give super delegates to states with closed primaries and penalize states with open primaries.
are that Dems and undecideds can actually latch on to a bandwagon and hopefully ride it to the nomination. It dilutes our core values but at least gives us a large voting base and a republican president. So, I hope that Romney's message connects with a broader base and he proves that he is the best overall candidate. That is my intuitive take on why we have open primaries. It makes us seem less elitist.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
But why are the open primaries all front loaded in the process? The early primaries play a big role in winnowing the field. It seems like Republicans should be given the opportunity to winnow the field a little and get short list that meets our core values before we start letting the left distort the outcome of the race.
His best case is to win Michigan with a McCain second and Huck third or worse. If he can make Huck look unelectable then those who defect from Huck will ultimately choose Mitt over Rudy or McCain.
I think you're right about people voting in whatever primary they want in Michigan, which doesn't bode well for Romney. In NH he beat McCain amongst Republicans (barely), losing by a good margin amongst the independents. With a similar situation in MI, he could be in trouble, especially since there's not much of a Democratic primary. One big hope for him, I think, is this "movement" we've been hearing about for people on the Democratic side to vote "uncommitted." If that movement caught fire, independents might still vote in the Democratic primary on behalf of Obama or Edwards.
Go Fred! Go Mitt!
Romney lost among registered Rs in NH. It was 37-33 in McCain's favor. He did better than expected with I voters. That should be the good news that Rombots are pointing out.
McCain won Rs and Is in NH. If he does that again in MI, he'll be making a strong point that he can unite Rs and Is against Clinton or Obama.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I voters in Michigan are not indicative of anything in the R primary this year. The Democrat side isn't contested.
This is what they say:
"Romney and McCain were almost even among those who identified themselves as Republicans, with 33 and 34 percent, respectively"
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/nh.issues/?iref=hpmostpop
"They precede IA and NH as well as the McCain surge and the slight Huckabust."
The recent polls since IA have Huckabee up an average of 5% nationally, not to mention he leads most of them.
Hence the term "slight Huckabust." The most recent MI poll was right around the time he peaked. He may have moved up since then, but in IA and nationally he came down a little from that peak.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Twenty years ago in a grad Civil War class our weary (nationally respected) prof was badgered by a group of unreconstructed Southrons (including myself) as to which side had the best generals. Who wins is a pretty good indicator was his response. We took this as affirmation of our belief in the superiority of Southern commanders. Yet by the end of the semester the South had none-the-less lost the war.
All, and I mean all (OK I don't mean RP), the contenders have laid out strategies whereby they could secure the nomination. Some - Hunter, Biden, Huckabee, Fred, Rudy, required some really unlikely tactical victories or "art of war" losses. So far only Huck's strategy (which - as long odds require long gambles - needed perfect execution and luck) has been carried forward to this point among the the long shots and only McCain's plan (and it a rewrite drafted in the blood soaked sand of his early implosion) survives among the leaderboard candidates. Fred and Rudy could overcome their own mistakes in implementing their plans or enjoy a bolt from the blue. Romney could win ugly (Grant) but the kill ratios don't look promising.
Who wins will be a pretty good indicator (not perfect) of the best candidate which is what primaries are about.
As a long time reader and one time blogger on this site I have been very surprised how little appreciation (not love, or support I understand people differ) is shown for the considerable talents Huck has brought to the field or (even at this date) the very real possibility that he will succeed in his strategy.
So far this lack of respect has only aided his campaign.
I think Huckabee wins up North, Downriver, and the Thumb (but most of that area is democrat except some pockets up north). I think McCain wins West Michigan (Most Republican), and Romney Oakland County. I think they all split Livingston fairly even.
That makes Macomb the big key, and my money there is slightly to McCain, enough to win.
If Romney can't win in the state he was born in, the state he announced his candidacy in, and the state his own father was once Governor of, then the question must be asked:
Exactly where can he win?
Massachusetts?
Look, I understand a lot of people have emotionally invested themselves, and in some notable cases even attached much of their career and credibility to Mitt Romney being the next President or at least the next GOP nominee. I understand that it's hard to let go of the dream. I worked for Steve Forbes in 1996. I truly thought he would be the best candidate to take on Bill Clinton, and to unite and represent the Republican Party. It didn't work out. We got Bob Dole. It's possible we may have a similar aged Senator-for-life and veteran of a foreign war as our candidate this time. It may produce the same result, who knows?
The bottom line is if Romney can't win in the state right nextdoor to where he was Governor, and then a week later can't win and win decisively in the state he was born and grew up in, then two states who know Mitt well will have given the thumbs down to his candidacy in preferring another Republican to lead the party in 2008.
Accept it, Romney hasn't lived up to expectations as a candidate. It's likely that he won't be able to turn things around at this point since his strategy all along was to win BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire and he couldn't win either one of them.
A loss in Michigan and Mitt needs to do what's right for his reputation and the Party -- drop out of the race and endorse another candidate.
Please stop with the Clintonian spin about Silver Medals and having enough money to stay in the race until the convention. Delegate counts do matter --at the convention, not after 3 states--, but being rejected by the people who know you best and not meeting expectations count a whole lot more at this point in the process. Spinning losses into victories is not fooling anyone. Until Rudy and Fred actually show up to compete in a race where expectations are high for them then they will keep getting a pass that Romney won't. That's how it works. Mitt staying in after a Michigan native son loss will only clutter the field and drag down the eventual nominee.
Look, in all seriousness, Romney is a bidnessman, not an ideologue (DEFINITELY not an ideologue!). He has the most delegates (thus far), but at a huge cost, and obtained them only via the overspending thing. Worked in tiny Iowa, WY, and NH, won't work (can't work) in California, Texas, Florida, NY, etc. Whereas his second quarter spending was 90% contributions, his third quarter spending was only 50% contributions, and 50% his own wallet. Unless he WINS primaries, he's going to continue to LOSE contributions.
Religious ideologues (Huckabee) and political ones (Paul) will keep going regardless of outcome, and Duncan Hunter will keep going both because he REALLY believes in stopping illegals (and actually did something about it) and thus wants to broker matters like the platform, the candidate (keeping Rudy and McCain out with any delegates he gets) but also he's using it to run for Senate or Governor of CA (perhaps for its own sake, perhaps for a later run at the White House).
However, folks who believe in nothing at all (Rudy, Mitt, Fred) and are merely opportunists usually don't like spending their own money (nor do their opportunistic followers) even if they've got a ton of it like Mitt, and if Mitt loses THE VERY STATE HIS FATHER GOVERNED, Mitt will look pretty foolish continuing. He already looks bad after NH since every Mass. Governor who has run for Pres. has won NH - Lodge in 1964 even won as a write-in - so what's Mitt's problem?
I'll tell you what - it's not Mitt's faith, but his FAITHLESSNESS in any fixed ideology, that is hurting him. The Kennedy debate Youtube got around early and often. In 1999, Alan Keyes, a black man, won the Alabama Straw Poll, and a Mormon, Sen. Orrin Hatch, came in second. ALABAMA. EIGHT YEARS AGO. So much for Mormons being unelectable in the South.
Michigan is SINK OR SWIM for Mitt - unless he's trying to spend his five sons' inheritances.
Robert Edward Johnson
Michigan is freaking huge! I think Romney has made headway with the strong debates and a good showing so far this primary season to have gained a certain credibility as a serious candidate. His message is compelling and his background is promising. In Michigan and beyond Romney will be a force and could start gaining traction even after another setback. But....He needs to win and put himself in the drivers seat. He is lucky to have the chance still to this date. In fact, whoever wins Michigan seems to be able to take firm control of this thing. If its Huckabee, yikes.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman