battleground Michigan?

[anvi]

I've been hearing lots of buzz from Republican friends for some time that they think Michigan will be a genuine battleground this year, particularly with Romney as the nominee.  What do you all think?

The reasons my GOP friends give for this prognostication are that George Romney was governor, the auto-bailouts, while popular with union workers, were not so with the rest of the state, and this will worsen if unions don't negotiate with the Detroit city government, and finally of course the persistently high unemployment and possible demographic changes in Detroit itself.  There was also of course the Republican sweep of the state house and legislature in 2010.

Many of these arguments leave me skeptical.  I don't know what relevance George Romney's governorship a half-century ago has to Michigan politics today.  I don't know if the auto-bailouts were merely in the interests of the auto-workers, since the companies and economy themselves must have benefited some from them as well.  Governor Synder and the Michigan legislature are not necessarily all that popular in Michigan today, while the latest job approval numbers for Obama in the state seem to still hover above water. 

On the other hand, the persistent unemployment and the demographic changes that have resulted from many people leaving the state do seem to be ominous for the Democrats, though I don't know how to gauge the potential impact of either on the vote this November.

So, again, what do you think?  Will Michigan be a battleground this fall in an Obama-Romney contest or not, and why or why not?  Do you think it will be a first or second-tier battleground, or not one at all?   

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Wait for the ads. In the general, Romney is screwed in Michigan.

[Guderian]

I doubt Republicans win Michigan in 2012, but the state losing population and Detroit shrinking in particular can't be bad for their long-term prospects.

[BlondewithaBrain]

Michigan  will go Obama without a sweat.

New Jersey could be the one to watch.

[afleitch]

Battleground Michigan in 2000!
Battleground Michigan in 2004!
Battleground Michigan in 2008!...

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

New Jersey is lean D at worst. If the Republicans drop the moral majority stuff and appeal to upper-middle class suburbia, New Jersey is a swing state.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Michigan (and Wisconsin and Minnesota), are slowly trending away from the Democrats, but not enough to make them overtly competitive next year. The auto-bailout will help Obama tremendously.

[Antonio the Sixth]

New Jersey is lean D at worst. If the Republicans drop the moral majority stuff and appeal to upper-middle class suburbia, New Jersey is a swing state.

Not happening, though.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

New Jersey is lean D at worst. If the Republicans drop the moral majority stuff and appeal to upper-middle class suburbia, New Jersey is a swing state.

Not happening, though.

There will always be something of it, but social issues have declined in importance, and with it the evangelical wing has weakened. Voting in the future will have a lot more to do with one's economic situation.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Michigan (and Wisconsin and Minnesota), are slowly trending away from the Democrats......

This is nonsense.

Is every state swinging toward the Democrats outside of Appalachia? LOL! At the moment the states are  in our baseline, but they won't be indefinitely. In the 2020s and 2030s they'll be a lot more swing or lean R.

The exurbs and suburbs are growing in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Democratic Detroit is hemorrhaging its population which will lead to less clout over the rest of the state.

There was a 5 point swing nationally from Kerry to Obama. Minnesota only swung 3 points. Despite our best efforts in the recalls, the Republicans still hold the Wisconsin state Senate.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I am thinking in the longterm; you are not.

Trend does not mean that Michigan will vote for the Republican this year or in 2016. No, it means that in the next couple decades, it will move toward the swing and Republican columns. Why? Because in the past ten years, the city of Detroit has lost over 200,000 people. Big cities overwhelmingly vote Democratic and a shrinking urban population does not bode well for the Democrats. Union participation rates (another strong Democratic base) are also shrinking year by year.

Why do I bring up the growth of the exurbs and suburbs in Minnesota? Because those areas tend to lean Republican. Over the next decade they'll grow and gain more clout and drown out the twin cities influence over the rest of the state. The DFL isn't what it used to be. In a strong Democratic year we barely took the Senate seat.

Now of course in our strong years we'll carry these states, but when its a close election (2000, 2004), don't expect them to line up in our column again.

Demographics are destiny, and they do not favor us in the Midwest. The Southwest is where we are gaining in strength and that is where the growth in the electoral clout is going to occur in the coming decades, while the electoral clout of the Midwest continues to diminish.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I am thinking in the longterm; you are not.

Trend does not mean that Michigan will vote for the Republican this year or in 2016. No, it means that in the next couple decades, it will move toward the swing and Republican columns. Why? Because in the past ten years, the city of Detroit has lost over 200,000 people. Big cities overwhelmingly vote Democratic and a shrinking urban population does not bode well for the Democrats. Union participation rates (another strong Democratic base) are also shrinking year by year.

Why do I bring up the growth of the exurbs and suburbs in Minnesota? Because those areas tend to lean Republican. Over the next decade they'll grow and gain more clout and drown out the twin cities influence over the rest of the state. The DFL isn't what it used to be. In a strong Democratic year we barely took the Senate seat.

Now of course in our strong years we'll carry these states, but when its a close election (2000, 2004), don't expect them to line up in our column again.

Demographics are destiny, and they do not favor us in the Midwest. The Southwest is where we are gaining in strength and that is where the growth in the electoral clout is going to occur in the coming decades, while the electoral clout of the Midwest continues to diminish.

You seem to be assuming two things.

1. All demographic trends will continue.
2. The parties will not change their platforms.

Growth in the Southwest sunbelt among both Hispanics and white liberal retirees has slowed due to the housing collapse and, in Michigan, the rebound of the auto industry, which will probably at least slow the state's decline. As we saw in Wisconsin (which trended Democratic in 2008, as did Michigan), unions are still a powerful influence.

In addition, we're long overdue for a nationwide debate over trade and the rise of China and India, and with the current issues of that time the real economic populists will begin to gain influence in what should be the party that stands up to neoliberalism. Meanwhile, with the weakening influence of social issues and the slowing down of immigration from Latin America for various reasons, Republicans will wise up and fewer will be as rabidly anti-immigrant. When Democrats get elected in their next presidency (probably in 2020 or 2024), they'll want to stand up to outsourcing and the decline of the middle class. In fact, social issues are losing their influence in Democrats as well; liberals following New York politics care a lot more about Cuomo's austerity measures than his effort in legalizing same-sex marriage. Who will that mystery Democrat be? Though probably not an outright progressive, they'll have support from the real base (not the Hollywood latte-sippers, the real Democratic backbone of unions & working-class minorities) and will finally have a shot at waking up Joe Lunchbucket in Pittsburgh and Bubba in Cajun country. We can avoid the decline of the middle class if we fight for them.

And you know what? It may be optimistic, but it's nowhere near my dream scenario. Still, I think that trade will surface as the big issue and that someone will truly respond to the issues facing ordinary Americans. Maybe a close 2032 will look something like this: