MI-Sen, PPP: Land in the lead

[dmmidmi]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

[dmmidmi]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[dmmidmi]

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.

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.

[dmmidmi]

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.

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.

[dmmidmi]

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.

[dmmidmi]

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.

[dmmidmi]

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.

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.

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?

[dmmidmi]

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.

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.