MI-Sen, PPP: Land in the lead

[Vosem]

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.

[Vosem]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

Vosem: a few points. They're tied, and given that MI is Dem federally the undecided will probably break for Peters.

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.

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'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.

[Vosem]

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.

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.

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 shown that she is very good at this; Peters, not so much. It's simple and you know this is true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But in these partisan times, especially now, you're basically permanently under a microscope if you're a Senate candidate,

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Vosem]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Vosem]

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.

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.

I'm not sure Michigan 2014 is comparable to those races -- it... has a stronger local tradition of Republicanism than any of those states.

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

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:

Given that Michigan has only sent one Republican to the Senate in 40 years,

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.

But in these partisan times, especially now, you're basically permanently under a microscope if you're a Senate candidate,

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.

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

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Vosem]

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."

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.