Day 22: Michigan

[Alcon]

Another state I know little about, but go ahead, all.

[Sam Spade]

As far as I know, only two things:

As Macomb and Oakland Counties go, so goes the state of Michigan in Presidential races.

In the 70s and 80s when Republicans dominated, they won these counties.  In the 90s and 00s when Republicans lost, they either lost Macomb or Oakland or both (Oakland always).

Nationally, it seems to be a solid, by small margins Democrat state at the National level, whereas it seems to be a solid, by small margins, Republican state on the local level (exception Governor).

People from Michigan can surely enlighten me here.

[ChipGardnerNH]

One pattern I noticed with Michigan is that they always vote the same way as Connecticut.  The last time they voted differently was 1940 where Connecticut went for FDR and Michigan went for Wendell Willkie.  After that, they both voted for FDR in 1944, then opted for Dewey once and Eisenhower twice.  Then they voted Democratic in the 60s, Republican in the 70s and 80s, and Democratic from 1992 on.  They are the only two states with this particular voting pattern.  I find it kind of strange because I consider Connecticut to be a libertarian state and Michigan a populist state.  They have voted the same way for the last 16 elections though.

[MaC]

Yes! The best part: My state!

well, I think we're a very diverse state.  The populism is mostly a UP thing (which there aren't even one million people living here) Libertarianism?  Probably here in spruts, areas with old fashioned conservatism, college students that understand economics, city dwelling businessmen, and such.  Liberalism-Detroit and Flint and some extending areas.  Conservatism-the countryside (everywhere else).  We are a Democratic state, no doubt.   I think Republicans could win here in '08 provided they don't nominate a candidate who's too conservative.  Ultimately, I think our state's re-aligning elections will be in '06 when it comes down to Stabenow v. whoever and Granholm v. whoever.  Granholm looks likely to loose, but because of the strong metro-Detroit Democratic base, she could win.  If the Michigan GOP is smart, they'll nominate Miller for the governor race.  Stabenow I haven't heard much about, I'll assume she'll win though.

[MaC]

As far as I know, only two things:

As Macomb and Oakland Counties go, so goes the state of Michigan in Presidential races.

In the 70s and 80s when Republicans dominated, they won these counties.  In the 90s and 00s when Republicans lost, they either lost Macomb or Oakland or both (Oakland always).

Nationally, it seems to be a solid, by small margins Democrat state at the National level, whereas it seems to be a solid, by small margins, Republican state on the local level (exception Governor).

People from Michigan can surely enlighten me here.

The times they are a-changing.  Historically Macomb has been known for being a solid Democratic county, and next to it Oakland has been known for being a solid Republican county.  The 2004 map shows a flip.  Interesting. (for those who don't know where they are, third from bottom row of counties, all the way east.  The eastern one is Macomb, west of it is Oakland)

[Cashcow]

As far as I know, only two things:

As Macomb and Oakland Counties go, so goes the state of Michigan in Presidential races.

In the 70s and 80s when Republicans dominated, they won these counties.  In the 90s and 00s when Republicans lost, they either lost Macomb or Oakland or both (Oakland always).

Nationally, it seems to be a solid, by small margins Democrat state at the National level, whereas it seems to be a solid, by small margins, Republican state on the local level (exception Governor).

People from Michigan can surely enlighten me here.

The times they are a-changing.  Historically Macomb has been known for being a solid Democratic county, and next to it Oakland has been known for being a solid Republican county.  The 2004 map shows a flip.  Interesting. (for those who don't know where they are, third from bottom row of counties, all the way east.  The eastern one is Macomb, west of it is Oakland)

Macomb county has pretty much always been a swing county. Oakland has only recently begun its trend to the left, and Macomb will follow for the same reasons: black migration from the city and social issues.

[Flying Dog]

My home state of michigan is trending democrat on a state and local level ( at least in my area). The western part of the state, is pretty much solid republican and doesnt look like that is going to change anytime soon ( its the bible-belt part of michigan, especially Kent county)

 In 2006 I see the dems gaining more seats in the state legislature, maybe not enough to gain control of both houses though. Senator Stabenow who's most likely oppenent, African American Rev. Kieth Butler doesnt have a chance. I predict a 57-43 win for stabenow.

 Jennifer Granholm, athough tarnished by michigans bad economy, will win reelection although not by much against likely oppenent Bussiness man Dick DeVos, 52-48. Although if  Miller runs, we could have a very tight race on our hands, I heard she said she wasnt going to run though.

 2008 For the republicans will be tough but not impossible, Detroit will vote dem and western michigan will vote republican. The republicans will have to win what is called the I-75 corridor. It is a area along this express way with medium size cities such as Flint, Saginaw, Midland, and my home city, Bay City.

 Im more interested in Carl Levin retiring and that open senate seat. Im guessing miller will want a shot at that.

OVERALL : MICHIGAN DEM FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS ATLEAST

[MaC]

the governor's race, if won by a Republican would definitely have some influence on how things are here.  I don't doubt Granholm's approval ratings will plummet if the economy doesn't do better.  If we stay well below the national mean come election time, it'll be a Republican shoo-in.

[Flying Dog]

If we stay well below the national mean come election time, it'll be a Republican shoo-in.

 Not true in my opinion, although granholm is extremly disliked by many in the state, Dick DeVos is disliked even more.
 EPIC/MRA                                             
Latest Poll:                                         
(D) Governor Jennifer Granholm 51%
(R) Bussinessman Dick DeVos    33%


LANSING -- Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm leads likely Republican opponent Dick DeVos 51 percent to 33 percent in a new poll released Friday. Sixteen percent were undecided.

The governor's job approval and favorability ratings remain above 50 percent, nearly unchanged since March. Republicans have criticized Granholm for not doing enough to help boost the state's struggling economy, but the sharp words apparently have not done much to dent how voters feel about her.

The latest poll surveyed 934 people and was conducted June 29 through Thursday by Lansing-based EPIC/MRA. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The EPIC/MRA governor's race results are similar to a March poll of 600 registered voters by Marketing Resource Group of Lansing for the newsletter "Inside Michigan Politics." That poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, showed Granholm with 47 percent and DeVos with 32 percent. Eleven percent were undecided.

DeVos, former president of direct sales giants Alticor Inc. and Amway Corp., announced in early June he was getting into the 2006 governor's race. The EPIC/MRA poll did not do matchups between Granholm and the other GOP candidates, state Sen. Nancy Cassis of Novi and state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk of Kalamazoo.

Greg McNeilly of the DeVos campaign said the poll is interesting, but not very meaningful 482 days before the election, especially since DeVos is only now opening a Grand Rapids campaign office and getting his campaign off the ground.

"He is not in a public campaigning phase right now. He is in an organizational phase," McNeilly said. "The differences between the amount of money that's been spent to promote the name 'Jennifer Granholm' compared to 'Dick DeVos' is pretty substantial."

Thirty-five percent of those polled didn't recognize DeVos' name, compared to 1 percent who didn't know the governor. Of those who recognized DeVos, 19 percent had a favorable opinion, 16 percent an unfavorable opinion and 30 percent were undecided.

The poll showed that only 24 percent of those polled thought the state is moving in the right direction, compared to 52 percent who think it's on the wrong track, with 24 percent undecided. Forty-six percent said the state's economy has gotten worse in recent months, and only 24 percent expect it to improve over the next six months to a year.

Ed Sarpolus of EPIC/MRA said the "wrong track" number had improved from a high of 60 percent or more. But he warned voters' negative attitude still carries a risk for Granholm.

"Essentially what we're seeing in that is that there are some rays of hope," Sarpolus said. "Still, it's cautious because when you ask people about the next six months ... only a quarter thinks there's going to be any definite improvement."

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the governor is doing her best to get the economy moving again with proposals to revamp the state's main business tax, create an investment fund to promote the growth of high-tech jobs and add more money to the Michigan Merit college scholarship.

"The governor understands that the economy is everyone's No. 1 priority," Boyd said. "We believe the more people know about creating jobs today and jobs tomorrow -- the kind of jobs that can't be outsourced -- and the governor's plan to make college affordable and accessible for every child, the more that plan will resonate with them."

The number of voters giving Granholm a positive job rating went from 51 percent in March to 52 percent in the latest poll, while the number giving her a negative job rating dropped from 48 percent to 44 percent. About 4 percent were undecided.

Fifty-six percent said they had a favorable opinion of the governor, virtually unchanged from 57 percent in March. But while 38 percent had an unfavorable opinion then, only 32 percent said they do now. The number who said they're undecided doubled from 5 percent to 11 percent.

[MaC]

well, the Republican party needs a good candidate to run.  Miller would be best, but if she's not running they need to do some better looking.  I'm saying, our economy has recovered a little, but if it will be as bad as it was 10 months ago, a run-of-the-mill Republican will likely beat Granholm.  Of course this is too early to say, since the election's a while from now and a lot can happen in 14 months.

[Flying Dog]

well, the Republican party needs a good candidate to run. Miller would be best, but if she's not running they need to do some better looking. I'm saying, our economy has recovered a little, but if it will be as bad as it was 10 months ago, a run-of-the-mill Republican will likely beat Granholm. Of course this is too early to say, since the election's a while from now and a lot can happen in 14 months.

   

   You might be right, but if it is only one of  the current republican challengers that face Granholm, then I think she will probably win

[Josh/Devilman88]

Another state I know little about, but go ahead, all.

 1996

[minionofmidas]

From that map it looks as if the Dems were just as strong in most urban areas in the state in 2004 as in 1996 - rural areas are radically different.
I'd have to look at the figures - I doubt it's really quite that extreme.

[memphis]

From that map it looks as if the Dems were just as strong in most urban areas in the state in 2004 as in 1996 - rural areas are radically different.
I'd have to look at the figures - I doubt it's really quite that extreme.

The difference is Ross Perot. However you interpret his influence on the election, 1996 and 2004 are not comparable becuase of him. 3 way elections (1948, 1968, 1992, 1996) are strange events.

[© tweed]

From that map it looks as if the Dems were just as strong in most urban areas in the state in 2004 as in 1996 - rural areas are radically different.
I'd have to look at the figures - I doubt it's really quite that extreme.

The difference is Ross Perot. However you interpret his influence on the election, 1996 and 2004 are not comparable becuase of him. 3 way elections (1948, 1968, 1992, 1996) are strange events.

The difference is Bill Clinton v. John Kerry.  Clinton played very well in rural areas, at least for a Democrat; he was able to connect to alot of people.  Kerry wasn't and got absolutely destroyed in rural areas, which is what probably cost him Ohio.  It's going to be hard for Democrats to win in the furture without getting any support from the grasslands.  Not impossible, but difficult.

[memphis]

From that map it looks as if the Dems were just as strong in most urban areas in the state in 2004 as in 1996 - rural areas are radically different.
I'd have to look at the figures - I doubt it's really quite that extreme.

The difference is Ross Perot. However you interpret his influence on the election, 1996 and 2004 are not comparable becuase of him. 3 way elections (1948, 1968, 1992, 1996) are strange events.

The difference is Bill Clinton v. John Kerry.  Clinton played very well in rural areas, at least for a Democrat; he was able to connect to alot of people.  Kerry wasn't and got absolutely destroyed in rural areas, which is what probably cost him Ohio.  It's going to be hard for Democrats to win in the furture without getting any support from the grasslands.  Not impossible, but difficult.

The last Democrat to get a higher percentage of the vote in Ohio was Jimmy Carter in 1976.

[MaC]

That's partially because Gerald Ford is a native Michigander.

[© tweed]

From that map it looks as if the Dems were just as strong in most urban areas in the state in 2004 as in 1996 - rural areas are radically different.
I'd have to look at the figures - I doubt it's really quite that extreme.

The difference is Ross Perot. However you interpret his influence on the election, 1996 and 2004 are not comparable becuase of him. 3 way elections (1948, 1968, 1992, 1996) are strange events.

The difference is Bill Clinton v. John Kerry.  Clinton played very well in rural areas, at least for a Democrat; he was able to connect to alot of people.  Kerry wasn't and got absolutely destroyed in rural areas, which is what probably cost him Ohio.  It's going to be hard for Democrats to win in the furture without getting any support from the grasslands.  Not impossible, but difficult.

The last Democrat to get a higher percentage of the vote in Ohio was Jimmy Carter in 1976.

That's really a useless stat, because Clinton would have easily beat his percentage if not for Perot, and Gore may have if not for Nader.

[jokerman]

From that map it looks as if the Dems were just as strong in most urban areas in the state in 2004 as in 1996 - rural areas are radically different.
I'd have to look at the figures - I doubt it's really quite that extreme.

The difference is Ross Perot. However you interpret his influence on the election, 1996 and 2004 are not comparable becuase of him. 3 way elections (1948, 1968, 1992, 1996) are strange events.

The difference is Bill Clinton v. John Kerry.  Clinton played very well in rural areas, at least for a Democrat; he was able to connect to alot of people.  Kerry wasn't and got absolutely destroyed in rural areas, which is what probably cost him Ohio.  It's going to be hard for Democrats to win in the furture without getting any support from the grasslands.  Not impossible, but difficult.

The last Democrat to get a higher percentage of the vote in Ohio was Jimmy Carter in 1976.

That's really a useless stat, because Clinton would have easily beat his percentage if not for Perot, and Gore may have if not for Nader.

Indeed.  Perot took away almost evenly from both parties.  Take away about half of his percentage vote and add it to Clinton and then you can compare results.

[Flying Dog]

Bayh and warner would be well liked here.