Talk Elections

Link (http://images.politico.com/global/2013/12/09/michiganresults.html)


Land 42
Peters 40


Great news! Land is certainly soaring in the polls as a result of Peterscare.

I'll wait for another poll to confirm this, even PPP can get it wrong sometimes.

Somewhat expected. Democrats are plagued by low name recognition here. Once Peters and Schauer get their names out there, the real race begins.

First they say, "LOL at anyone believing a Michigan-based pollster!!!" Now it's, "Well, PPP can be wrong sometimes..."

The excuses will have me literally doubled over next year.

Not surprising.

I guess they are having trouble facing up to the fact that Peters will have a tougher time holding this seat for the Democrats then they predicted.

Yeah. I'm just hoping Peters can actually take Land seriously and start campaigning.

To think all those pathetic establishment hacks were trashing Land for months. I think if Snyder wins cleanly (5+) and the Pubs have a good national environment, this is a winnable race. However PVI will be a weight on Land, which is why I'd still say Lean D for now. It would be 53.

I globally agree with your analysis. In a republican year, Gary Peters is toast. Land is far from being Christine O'donnell.

Two percent in the low forties is soaring? Please. If Land doesn't poll out of the low 40s at some point, she's not winning this race and it's very unlikely she will, as she's from the wrong part of the state. Hoekstra had the same issue, wrong part of the state.

The last PPP poll in October had Peters up 43-36. That said, IO has a point.

I've wondered why you were such a huge fan of all things Santorum (surely he isn't the only politician who appeals to you at an ideological level), but I've finally figured it out.  The common thread is that you both appear to derive genuine pleasure from acting like a jerk whenever anyone disagrees with you.  Pre-Obama hug Christie must have been right up your ally (he probably still is :P ).  Thanks for clearing that up :)

As has been already mentioned, Land is at the Republican floor. She has higher name recognition than Peters and we'll have to see if she can get out of the low forties. Let's check back in Feb/March to get a clearer idea.

Haha, uh, are you kidding? A few things to clear up for you...

1) You're correct in thinking Santorum isn't the only politician to appeal to me ideologically. I identify and admire others. And because I'm a human being, I also have my disagreements with Santorum. People conveniently select what they want to see/hear though.

2) Comb through just a few of my many posts from the past nine years. It's easy to see I'm clearly outnumbered politically around these parts. To say that I'm a jerk whenever someone disagrees with me is obviously wrong on the surface and even more idiotic when you consider many of the people I consider friends on here are from "the other side."

3) My post here is no different from the countless posters that occasionally show their partisan side when a poll is published showing a favorable result. You're singling mine out over anger. Take it easy.

4) Just to highlight a little more of your ignorance, I have always liked Christie. Do yourself a favor and don't assume my feelings were any different "Pre-Obama hug." That didn't bother me.

Have a nice day now. :)

Floor? In this poll Land is already getting more of the vote than Hoekstra.

Land seems like a solid candidate. Hopefully she keeps polling this well this time next year.

Why do you say that?

Not saying that your wrong, but if nether candidate somehow breaks towards 50% wouldn't the race be anyone's guess?

Imo opinion I would say that it is more then likely that Land would out of the low 40's given that  nationally the momentum appears on the GOP's side for now.(however, that doesn't mean she will win).

That fails to address that Hoekstra was obviously a terrible fit for the state, and had not won a statewide election, and was plagued by gaffes and controversies. It doesn't look like the same will happen to Land.

Dem numbers are only going to get better from this point.

Odd to see how much krazen suddenly loves PPP when they have Republicans ahead.

It wasn't even so much this post as an overall pattern, but whatever, I'm not invested in this enough to dig through your posting history for examples, tbh.  Also, I never said your feelings about Christie were any different post-Obama hug than they were before, in fact I said that I suspected they were the same.  I will admit that I was in a bad mood about other stuff (and I'll admit, annoyed by the poll) when I posted the comment and it was probably uncalled for.  Btw, I am curious, what would be an example of an ideological disagreement you have with Santorum?  I've been here a while and I cannot remember you ever mentioning one, but that obviously doesn't mean you don't have any.

How can you say that when that hasn't been the case thus far?


Also odd how all the Dems here are like "oh it must be wrong" when PPP show Democrats behind. Be consistent guys.

PPP is just jumping on the bandwagon. After their amusing prior poll showed Peters up by 7, other pollsters showed Land either very close or in the lead.

Land is overrated as a candidate Secretary of State is a no partisan race really. I don't think you even see ads for it. If 2014 is like 2010 or even a close to it yeah Peters will be in trouble. I still think this is at worse lean Democrat. Republicans are at 42% but they always can get close to 45% in Michigan the last 5-6% is where they have trouble. I would have thought Peters would be better known he represented Oakland county at first and now part of Detroit and some Oakland county. This race hasn't even started yet both sides have there the people who will always vote for them.

Hoekstra had other issues, but being from West Michigan certainly didn't help. West Michigan/GR/the Lake Shore's cultural identity is very different from where the votes actually are (Metro Detroit).


This, pretty much. Other than the occasional article on mLive about fundraising numbers, this race hasn't started at all. No ads, no real endorsements, nothing. I'm not really surprised Peters' name recognition is so low, though. Out of curiosity, what was Debbie Stabenow's name recognition a year before the 2000 Senate race?

By the way, this speaks volumes:

Q5 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Terri Lynn Land?
Favorable 34%
Unfavorable 23%
Not sure 43%
Q6 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Gary Peters?
Favorable 22%
Unfavorable 21%
Not sure 57%

When asked about their opinion of Terri Lynn Land--this strong candidate I've been hearing about, who was Secretary of State for 8 years, and won two landslide elections--43% of voters aren't sure. And nobody knows who Gary Peters is.

Because A) Peters/Schauer aren't going to get MORE unknown, and B) the ObamaCare situation is getting better, not worse. And it's hard to imagine something that can hurt Democratic numbers worse than what we just went through.

Well, if you're not that invested in this, don't make definitive judgements on my attitude here. And I was asking you to look through my posts for it to become immediately evident to you that I'm not "always a jerk whenever someone disagrees" with me. I wasn't asking you to dig through to prove your point. It's just that your point is easily proven wrong, ironically, by the very fact that you thought I was asking you to find examples of me being a jerk just because someone disagrees with me. If I did that all the time, you wouldn't have to do much digging. ;)

I said I disagreed with Santorum. That can include many things, not just an ideological difference. It doesn't have to be an ideological difference to be an "acceptable" difference. That said, I do have policy differences with Santorum. Most recently, I'd say we differ on intervention in Syria and Libya.

Well, f**k.

The only god news is that Peters name rec is poor.

Interesting that this poll has Snyder doing worse than most but Land doing better than most. Pretty counter intuitive, you'd think their fortunes would rise or fall together barring a candidate specific event.

Downward trend of Synder shows that these are winnable races in the Midwest governorships and MI senate. The peak of Synder is over. This poll shows the peak of Land towards the end of Synder's peak and Peters is a better candidate. I am counting on Peters still winning.

And now its that name recognition is poor for Peters. I mean, there's a reason to doubt every poll, but this is just ridiculous.

I'm not disbelieving polls (well, not legit polls), but at the end of the day, I still think Peters is the favourite. We're at a lull at this stage, I don't think we'll do as bad as the polls say.

And this poll reeks of a potential outlier in some ways as well, given the gap in the two tickets is much smaller than most and (IMO) the other polls had a Republican lean.

Name recognition does count and at this point, no one is paying much attention to the race right now. Unless Peters stumbles badly or there is a massive Republican landslide, he wins. You have to remember, when control of the Senate is at stake, that is a good motivator for blue state Democrats to come out.

It's worth noting that more undecided voters in this poll are conservatives than liberals. 10% of "Very Conservative" voters and 21% of "Somewhat Conservative" voters are undecided, compared to 7% of "Very Liberal" voters and 18% of "Somewhat Liberal Voters". Conservative voters also make up a great percentage of the electorate.

Now, my math skills are a bit rough, but based on this poll, if Land were to take 85% of conservative voters and 15% of liberal voters (which would be the rough numbers if all undecided voters on each side break towards the candidate closest to them politically), she would only need 40% of the moderate vote to be at 50% statewide.

Land is already at 32% with moderate voters, compared to 45% for Peters and 23% undecided. Land only needs to get 35% of undecided moderates to be at 50% statewide.

In conclusion, despite the comments by many on the left in this thread, if we were to assume this poll was completely accurate, undecided voters are more conservative and would likely hand the election to Land. Peter's will not only need to maintain his base, but also convince a vast majority of moderate voters and even some conservative voters who are undecided to his side.

On the other hand, more undecided voters voted Obama than Romney. Hence why a poll can be interpretative many different ways. :) Personally, this tells me that this is a winnable race for Republicans.

Yeah, he mysteriously became unknown when he lost his lead!

Also you forgot to add that conservative/GOP leaning voters typically underpoll in Midterms. Cs. Presidential elections where Democratic leaning voters also incur the same effect.

Actually political geography counts for a lot and for Land to win, she has to completely shut Peters out in Metro Detroit, winning everything, except for Wayne (and keep Peters to 65% there). Considering that the suburbs are drifting less and less Republican, that is tough to achieve. But apparently, it's not appropriate to say that Peters could win, since that's totally delusional.

Realistically, Peters has the better chance of winning, not Land. That's not delusional.

As Tmth pointed out, the undecideds in this poll are both overall both conservative and Obama-voting, making it unclear in which direction they will break (though considering how many 2012 Obama voters have deserted him, probably narrowly Land), but the electorate as a whole in this poll is probably somewhat more Republican than the one which will show up in 2014 really, so it perhaps understates Peters very slightly. The two effects, I think, probably balance out to some degree. There's zero reason for the supreme confidence forum Democrats seem to have in Peters; Land can self-fund, has won 2 statewide races (while Peters has only ran before once, losing), and has the lead right now. Declaring Peters to be the favorite right now, when his chances are 50/50 at best, is quite the act of hubris.

Lolz. The map is growing in both directions.

Translation: Land significantly in the lead.

If Land's previous electoral success is so significant, why do a plurality of voters answer "not sure" when asked of an opinion of her? Though PPP didn't specifically ask the question, her name recognition here has to be through the roof--yet >40% of the people asked in this poll aren't sure what they think about her.

I'm not entirely sure where this "Terri Lynn Land is a strong candidate" narrative came from, just because she won two elections as the person responsible for passing out licences plates and registering voters.

Given that Michigan has only sent one Republican to the Senate in 40 years, and has led in almost every other poll (except for this one), where did you come up with the idea that Peters' chances of winning are maxed out at 50%? Or, is that just made up?


Terri Lynn is going to have to come up with significant support in Oakland and Macomb counties in order to win. She'll probably have to win Macomb outright, and at the very worst, come within a few points of winning Oakland. Given that this is where Peters' base is from, he likely starts with a significant advantage. She won't be able to win by just shoring up voters in West Michigan.

Is Terri Lynn leading right now? She may very well be, even if her lead is small. Could she win? In the right environment, you bet. But I definitely wouldn't put money on her winning--not at this point, at least.

He's always been unknown.

Don't blame me when I call it again and you can't crack Michigan again.

Even though the GOP shill polls have the same results as PPP does now, you choose the "unskewed" version of this one.

Cherry picking is great, isn't it?

Democrats were making similar arguments back in 2009 for the Gubernatorial race: "Democrats usually underpoll, we won't start leading until August 2010 or so." "Name recognition is the primary reason we're polling so low."

Republicans would be foolish to think they're favored to win here - it's going to take work. Democrats shouldn't be taking this for granted - if Snyder could win by 20 points in 2010, I'm sure a competent Republican could win an open Senate race.

I never said the GOP would win the seat. I just don't think Peters is a near slam dunk like the usual suspects here think.

Hoekstra lost the 2012 US Senate election with the horrid "Thank you Debbie Spend-It-Now" ad with the cute Chinese woman riding a bicycle around some rice paddies. It's hard to see how anyone could top that for setting up an electoral defeat. The 2014 Senate election will be much closer because that hideous performance can hardly be topped.

It's rare that a politician loses the general election that he has some chance to win on Super Sunday... but that happened in Michigan in 2012. 

Peters has 57% "not sure" on the favorability scale, the overwhelming share of which are actually simply not familiar with a congressman representing 1/14th of the State. The name recognition argument has some grounds to it. Though among those Not Sure, a larger share say they voted for Romney....

He's also getting only 72% of the vote of African-Americans. Anyone think for a sec he'll get under 90% on Election Day?

Race will be close, but Land is still the underdog in MI.

Land already ducking questions about rape insurance

http://www.ibtimes.com/michigan-senate-hopeful-refuses-comment-states-rape-insurance-law-1512268

Nobodys saying she isn't but polls like this assure us that Land has a good chance.

Land's previous electoral success is significant because it proves that she knows how to win statewide in Michigan, whatever her name recognition may be. Peters has run once, and shown that he can't. Land has experience doing this, can self-fund, and is therefore a strong candidate. Your shtick that Secretary of State elections don't count because they're lower-profile is becoming tiresome. You know how candidates get ready for higher-level campaigns? By running in lower-profile ones first. Land has shown that she is very good at this; Peters, not so much. It's simple and you know this is true.


Considering that he's behind in polling to a candidate with much more experience than he has, who will be able to fundraise significantly more than he will, it's asinine to say that Peters is ahead. Peters certainly has his advantages -- the state's lean being the biggest -- but he's clearly behind right now and his path to getting ahead of Land is dependent on the national environment improving for Democrats or Land stumbling, both variables he has no control over. How can you possibly say he's favored?

Vosem: a few points. They're tied, and given that MI is Dem federally the undecided will probably break for Peters. We've seen this in many Senate races over the past 2 cycles (CA/CT 2010, CT/MA 2012) and will see it again on both sides. Land could win in a perfect storm but I don't see it happening.

I agree with you up to here, -- what I take issue with is posters believing Peters is a shoo-in, and particularly dmmidmi's attempt to write off Land's two large statewide wins as irrelevant.


I'm not sure Michigan 2014 is comparable to those races -- it's more Republican than any of those states at the presidential level, has a stronger local tradition of Republicanism than any of those states, and its Republican party has been more successful recently. (A good comparison might be to WI 2012, where Thompson led through September, at which point Baldwin overwhelmed him by actually campaigning -- hopefully Land won't make the mistake of taking this for granted; or PA 2010). Considering Land is much better-known than Peters, can self-fund, and is ahead now, and the poll's cross-tabs, it's definitely not a given that the undecideds will break towards Peters. At this point, Land is ahead but the race could evolve in either direction, and I would have to say I can envision either candidate winning in a neutral environment.

That's one factor. While I do agree that Land being able to win statewide makes her a formidable candidate (and IIRC I've been saying this for a while), what you curiously forgot to mention was that Peters only lost the AG race in 2002 by 5,200 votes. In a slight R-leaning year, that's honestly not as weak as you think it is.


Secretary of State elections are far different from Senate elections. Most people don't really give a sh**t about which party registers voters or passes out license plates. But in these partisan times, especially now, you're basically permanently under a microscope if you're a Senate candidate, and here, your views matter. For example, where "rape insurance" comes into play, Land's going to get asked about her stance on abortion, and Peters can just say "I've defended women for my entire congressional career, and I'll continue to defend them in the Senate. My opponent won't comment on it."


And if you think in a light blue state where barely anyone knows the Democrat in the race voters have come home to the Democratic candidate for most of these Senate races, that it's a fifty-fifty chance, you're competing with Oldies for "biggest Republican hack on Atlas". And he's from the state we're talking about, for Christ's sake.


Because it's a state where unions are going to be turning out in droves, where women will be turning out because of the sweeping abortion law, and is generally a state where Democrats have a good track record. As a matter of fact, Land's path is dependent on the environment staying the same and people not giving much of a damn about it. I'll give her chances of winning in the high 30s, but for now, this race is a solid lean.

Also curious how you say the CTGOP is weaker than the MIGOP: they've come close to winning on enemy turf, nearly won back Hartford, have a good chance at winning the mansion, came within striking distance of a Senate seat twice, are most likely going to gain more seats in the legislature, and generally remembered that they aren't representing Oklahoma.

It's not a deal-breaker, but I think we can agree it's nowhere near as impressive as Land's two double-digit victories.


Wouldn't they be even more inclined to vote for their preferred party (the Democrats) in that case? I'll agree that it's a lower-profile campaign, but people are still inclined to vote their party, and especially in a landslide year like '06, it's a remarkable achievement to dissuade them. Is it a Senate campaign? No, it's doesn't receive as much media attention or money. But considering it is a partisan, statewide campaign, they're certainly comparable.


Any candidate. I'll agree that this is even more so the case for the Senate than lesser offices, but it's definitely the case for those lesser offices as well, and you know it.


To my mind, arguing that your opponent is weak on women's rights is tough when she's a woman, but if that can work for Peters, fine; I mentioned that if the Land campaign can be derailed somehow, he's good to go. I just don't know if this'll work; certainly, right now, it hasn't even begun.


Voters generally don't have to come home to the Democrat, because in most such races (OH 2012, PA 2012, MI 2012, etc., etc.) the Democrat never loses the lead. Once the lead has been lost (WI 2012, PA 2010, even IL 2010 as an extreme case), it is rather difficult to get back. Baldwin showed that it can be done, but it is hard.


Really? At the state level, three Democrats have been elected since 1998 (Granholm, Stabenow, Levin), while seven Republicans have during that time (Engler, Miller, Land, Cox, Snyder, Johnson, Schuette). Why will those unions/women be able to affect this race when Republicans won most previous ones?


It takes a lot to shift an environment, but more importantly, Peters has no control over it. How can you call someone favored who has to rely on factors he has no control over to win? You can't.


At the presidential level, Michigan is stronger for the Republicans than Connecticut; Michigan's HoR delegation has been stronger than Connecticut's for Republicans for some time; all of Michigan's statewide non-federal offices are currently held by Republicans; the last time this was the case in Connecticut was in the 1950s. In 2010, Republicans utterly swept Michigan (and the bulk of those gains which needed to be defended were successfully defended in 2010), while they narrowly receded in Connecticut. I think it's really bizarre to say CT has a more GOP than MI.

You may disagree with my assertion that running for dog catcher isn't the proper platform for moving on to higher office, but electoral history doesn't support that argument that just because she has won statewide election in Michigan twice, she starts off at somewhat of an advantage. Whether or not you like it, the office that she held does matter. Other than Candice Miller, name one Michigan SOS that has moved on to a significantly higher office in the past 50 years. For your reference, here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Secretary_of_State. I'll wait.

There's another guy who has won statewide twice, including a double-digit win in 2006. He later went on to seek the GOP nomination for governor. That guy's name is Mike Cox, and he finished in third--behind a guy who has never run for political office in his life, and guy who had never run for a statewide office, and whose campaign experience includes running in a safe Republican district.

YOUR insistance that "but, but, but...she won in a LANDSLIDE! TWICE!" is becoming tiresome. You're conflating electoral success for an office where someone passes out drivers licenses, with an office where someone actually has to take a meaningful stance on divisive issues. Terri Lynn has never had to take a meaningful stance on anything in her political life, and it's difficult to determine how she's going to do this. Looking at her reaction to the Rape Insurance issue, it looks like she's going to have a little bit of work to do.

His path to winning relies partially on the national environment, and partially on turning out voters in and around his district.

Michigan's "preference" for Democrats has proven to be exclusive to Presidential and Senate races, but this hasn't really manifested itself for any other office in any meaningful way.

Peters has a voting record; Land does not. Peters has had to take some stands. The Secretary of State is most noted for being in charge of drivers' licenses and vehicle registration. We have yet to see Land make political statements. She could prove an astute politician in a race for the US Senate. If she runs as a moderate and shows independence from the national GOP she could win. Otherwise, she loses.

The last sitting Congressional Representative to get nominated for the US Senate from Michigan was Hoekstra. If Land accepts guidance from the usual national figures of the GOP and follows it to the letter, then she will lose in a landslide in November. Michigan just does not vote for abrasive right-wingers at the state level. It insists that its conservative-leaning pols show some independence. When they fail to show that independence Michigan voters turn on them fast. Just look at the Governor.


That was a one-term-and-out Senator. Republicans usually have an edge in fundraising, especially with deep-pockets interests who want to turn the state into a cheap-labor colony to be drained of assets. Democrats win the GOTV drives with door-to-door visits that prove more flexible in discussing issues than do glib 30-second ads that tell people "We are for prosperity, jobs, and lower taxes!" The typical Democratic campaign volunteer can say much more in five minutes than can an ad from Americans for Prosperity (for only 1% of the People, and the rest of us get $crewed).  

Secretary of State is a fairly non-controversial, anonymous position everywhere, one that isn't really that hard for a Republican to win, because it's not up in presidential years. It's an administrative job, one that doesn't require positions on policy. Land already has refused to comment on a very important ballot measure, which might have worked with a Secretary of State campaign, but won't work with a Senate campaign.

George Heartwell, Mayor of Grand Rapids, has formally endorsed Gary Peters: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/12/grand_rapids_mayor_george_hear_21.html

While the endorsement probably won't change a whole lot of minds, this definitely isn't a good omen for Land's campaign. GR is her back yard, and if the state GOP and West Michigan civic and business leaders felt confident in her campaign, Heartwell may have stepped out of the way. George is a smart guy--he knows who runs GR (not him), and he knows who he could upset by doing this.

I lived in GR for a while, and I always thought Heartwell was a Republican at heart (even though he ran as an Independent). This comes as somewhat of a surprise.

Is it about Land, Peters or Pubs? I have a hard time imagining Rogers or Miller (who'd never give up their current seats) doing any better.

My guess is it's a combination of the three, but probably more the first two than the last. Rogers might be doing marginally better than Land (his campaign would certainly be more high profile). Miller probably wouldn't be doing any better.

After doing a quick search, it looks like he endorsed both Steve Pestka and Pat Miles in the past. Go figure. To the best of my knowledge, he has never endorsed anyone for Governor or Senate. I'd have to look further, though.

I'm a bit speechless, so I'll just use your words to refute this.


Not my point. It's much more for the senate than lesser offices. Before you start condescending, learn the point.


So by your logic, Jodie Laubenberg is stronger on abortion than Barack Obama. Right.


I was describing races in Michigan, not swing states as a whole.


So in a state where Republicans have just recently engaged in union-busting and curtailing the rights of women, even in cases of rape and incest, that's not going to boost turnout because it didn't before?

I take it back. Break out the confetti, pop some champagne, we have a new biggest Republican hack.


Because he doesn't have to rely on it, and even the reasonable Republicans know he doesn't. If you stopped chugging the red Kool-Aid for a second, you'd know this.

You neglect to mention that this is because people who are elected SoS tend to stay there, and not seek higher office. Before Miller ran for the House in 2002, the last time an incumbent SoS ran for an office was a gubernatorial primary defeat in 1960...because the entire 1955-1995 period was two people who were content with the job.


Because Snyder outspent every other candidate by a wide margin, and Hoekstra, with his regional base, had a higher floor than the other candidates. Yes, if someone who can spend their own money like Snyder did drops into the Senate race, they would be a strong candidate against Land. But no such candidate exists right now -- Peters certainly isn't it.


You've still failed to answer my basic question in that case of why she won. How did she convince people who you say didn't care to vote for her anyway? That would definitely come in handy in a Senate race. Unless, of course, you finally admit she won because she ran a good, competent statewide campaign.

I was trying to refute (in the first post) the claims of the posters who were saying Peters should win because of the state's lean by pointing out (in both of those posts) that had Michigan, at the local level, has frequently elected Republicans, and that it can be disputed whether such a lean even exists. You haven't advanced that argument, but others have, such as in this post:


Which ignores that Levin is a long-time entrenched incumbent, and that Stabenow has had the good fortune of running in good Democratic years where Republicans had better targets in 2006 and 2012, after finishing behind Gore in 2000. Peters also has the advantage of Republicans having better targets than Michigan, but it is nowhere near as pronounced as it was either in 2006 or 2012.


You literally just repeated the gist of my post -- that while it is significantly more the case for the Senate, it still is the case for lesser offices. Before you start disputes, learn to spot a disagreement :)


No, just that it would be harder to tar Land compared to Mourdock or Buck or Akin (who are all to her right anyway). By my logic a female Republican is stronger than abortion than a male Republican with identical views, which is unfortunately but definitely true. A female Republican significantly further to the right of a male Republican can be weaker, but Land is a relative moderate for whom this shouldn't be much of a problem.


You were describing elections in "light blue states". Certainly states like Wisconsin and Illinois, in the same part of the country and with similar politics, are comparable.


It will compared to the imaginary reality where they didn't do those things, but considering Snyder is already recovering in polling, and that midterm turnout always falls over for Democrats, and that neither of those things are ballot issues (which are good at bringing people to the polls), I doubt the difference in turnout will be particularly significant. If it's a particularly narrow Peters victory, can you ascribe the victory to those things? Sure. But otherwise, I doubt it.


He is relying on either the environment improving or the Land campaign being a bad one. Without one of these things happening, Peters cannot win. So I would think it's reasonable, considering neither of these things are particularly likely but both are definitely possible, to call Peters' chances at about 50/50. Sue me.

Wow. I don't even know where to begin here...

Your argument seems to be this: "Terri Lynn Land won two elections by double digits. This is irrefutable evidence that she is more likely than not to do so again." While completely ignoring that there are other, significant factors that shape the state of this race. She has NEVER had to take a meaningful policy position since entering public service. I don't know how it is in Illinois, but running for Secretary of State and US Senate are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS in Michigan. Whereas someone may be able to win a SOS race by just seeming likable, this won't cut it in a Senate race.

I'm not sure why you're discounting Mike Cox's loss, just because "HE WAS RUNNING AGAINST A GUY WITH A LOT OF MONEY AND SOMEONE WHO HAS A CONSTITUENCY" I'd love to come up with a PERFECT comparison to Terri Lynn's case, but IT DOESN'T EXIST, AND THIS IS AS CLOSE AS WE CAN GET. My first point is this: in the state of Michigan, just because a politician has won statewide in the past, it does not make them significantly more likely to win statewide in the future. Examples of this being the case include:

Soapy Williams
Frank Kelly
Mike Cox
Richard Austin
James Blanchard

In fact, there is only ONE US Senator from Michigan--in the past 50 years--who had won statewide before. Philip Hart, who was Lt. Governor under Soapy Williams.

My second point is this: Secretary of State IS NOT an appropriate launching pad for greater political ambitions. Only ONE has gone on to do anything else (winning a House seat in a safe GOP district). Nothing you have presented has proven otherwise.

Why did Terri Lynn win twice? Probably because only one SOS has been booted from office in the past 50 years. It doesn't happen often.


Your argument is that, in a state where Democrats are typically sent to the US Senate, that the Republican is in the driver's seat, and the Democrat who is currently serving in Congress has no control over his own destiny.

What world do you live in?

My argument goes like this: "Terri Lynn Land won two elections by double digits. This is irrefutable evidence that she is capable of running a competent, successful, statewide campaign in Michigan. No such evidence exists for her opponent." Can you accept that?


Well, here's a list of ones she has taken to start with: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Terri_Lynn_Land_SenateMatch.htm

Yes, there are some categories where there is nothing recorded, but if you snoop around this is the case for most everyone who hasn't served in a legislature, and most of those are issues of secondary importance (like human needs vs. animal rights, or maintain US sovereignty from UN), and the remainder are ones where, as a Republican candidate, her position is easy to guess (like higher taxes on the wealthy -- willing to guess a Republican Senate candidate is against them). There are, if you look at Peters' page, also several issues where no position is recorded, and he's been in the House for half a decade (which is pretty remarkable in my mind, but it doesn't particularly matter).


You're exaggerating the differences. Yes, there is more attention and more money in a Senate races (so, yes, you have to take positions on issues of federal significance you might be able to ignore in a SoS race; though, vice versa, a Senate candidate might be able to ignore local issues a SoS candidate wouldn't be able to), but ultimately, you're targeting the same pool of voters. When you're appealing to the same people, you use similar tactics.


I'm confident that no one could win a SoS race in Michigan by being likable anymore than they could a Senate race.


No, because it's not close at all. Cox lost in a multicandidate primary and Land isn't even facing a competitive primary. The examples aren't even remotely close. The closest comparison I can think of -- and it's still imperfect, since Land has advantages, like a clear primary and an opponent poorly known statewide, that Granholm didn't have -- is when Jennifer Granholm ran for Governor in 2002, since then she made it to the general election (something Land is guaranteed to do).


These are all people who won multiple statewide victories, one after the other, so I'm not sure how they help your case. Your point about the Senators is true on its face, but it's mostly because Senate seats are rarely up in Michigan. The last open seat was in 1994 (and no statewide officials ran). The last time before that was in 1978. These examples are outdated.


Nothing you have presented has shown that it couldn't be used -- only that it hasn't been because of the people who have held the office. It's difficult for me to think of a more appropriate launching pad (I'd like to hear your thoughts on what might be better), except perhaps for running for Governor or a previous Senate campaign.


Or because, you know, she ran two good statewide campaigns.


A world where polling numbers and the candidate's prior histories are taken into account when making projections. Not the one you live in, in other words.

The problem with your analysis is that you are relying on the conventional wisdom that because a candidate has won statewide before, they are likely to do so again. However, I've presented five examples of people who've won statewide, tried running for another state-level office, and lost. The only Michigan politician in recent memory who has done exactly that? Jenny from the Block. And she's not winning anything here any time soon.

We actually have valid examples to test your hypothesis about statewide wins. It doesn't exactly prove your case.