Talk Elections

I think this election is going to determine what my state is.  If Granholm is re-elected governor and Stabenow is re-elected senator, Michigan will become a solid Democrat state, however if one fails re-election or both, there's still a possibility of keeping the "swing-state" status, and the Republicans could make some gains.  What do you think?

You may be right. In fact, should Granholm and Stabbenow be re-elected and, indeed, Michigan does become a solid Democratic state, I'd be delighted :); however, I think it will always be a closely fought state in a liberal vs conservative presidential race though I believe it's feasible that a socially moderate Democrat could make it safer. I wouldn't say the state was liberal (22% according to CNN exit poll, moderates 44% and conservatives 34%). It's a state the GOP can win

Dave

Michigan is a weird state for trends.  In the 60s and early 70s, it was more Democrat, with the 1960 - 1972 elections, and probably would have been in 1976 if it wouldn't have been for Ford.  Then, I believe Michigan went through the "Reagan Revolution" when it became fairly Republican.  Look at the 1988 election for example.  Then I believe it went through a "Clinton revolution" or a revolution of moderates voting Democrat, much like New Jersey.  This made it lean every so slightly Democratic.

Both Granholm and Stabenow will win but it won't make Michigan soild democrat.  Stabenow will win due to lack of good candidate.  Granholm will win for the same reason and due to the fact that the michigan republican party is ing stupid.

And even if they win narrowly against a strong contender, that won't miraculously transform Michigan into a safe Dem state.

Sadly, a lot of local Republican parties in the Midwest (namely Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio) have serious problems.

that's definitely true for the MI GOP, I mean the most we have at this point is a GOP state house and senate and more Republicans elected to the US House than Dems.  Republicans need to seriously do something if they don't want Michigan to be the next Massachusetts

Only because of the gerrymander

Not entirely true. The gerrymander created 10 Rep districts, but Stupak hold one of those for the Dems. In response to jfern's similar comment about MI, I did a purely rules-based geographic split of some states including MI here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23174.msg509846#msg509846).

I found that an unbiased division still produces more Rep districts by an 8-7 margin. This is due to the dense concentration of Democratic voters in Detroit that get packed into two districts. It takes a more radical gerrymander to attach pieces of Detroit to outer suburbs and exurbs and create a Dem-majority map.

Even with the gerrymander, Dems could still take a majority. Stupak wins in a district that went for Bush by a 7.8% margin. There are three CDs that had smaller margins for Bush held by Republicans (MI-6, MI-9, MI-11). It's easy to blame the gerrymander but there are other factors here.

The entire point to having districts is to force support for a policy to be somewhat spread out, rather than condensed in one place. The system works, in that regard.

Bipartisan panels need to draw the districts, though.

all things considered, Michgans districts aren't all that horribly gerrymangled.  Check out AZ-2 or some others in Illinois.  We may have them moved around a bit in favor of one party or another, but we dont have nightmarish squiggles as districts.

It's true that MI did a reasonably good job at maintaining relatively compact districts. As my study points out, the GOP was able to gain one or two districts by consolidating the areas in southern Macomb and Oakland into a single district (MI 12), and by placing Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City into one district (MI 5).

Gerrymanders don't have to be as bizarre as the IL or GA (2002) maps.  The strange shapes come from creating a (usually Democrat) district by linking a number of separated communities by thin lines. IL 17 is a good example of that.

()

Why Ohio? I thought the GOP controlled everything there?

The governor's scandal, maybe?

In any case, I take state legislative behavior to be the best indicator of a state's political leanings, if only because this is the lowest and most local level of government, therefore the most "grassroots" level, where party id means something close to what it means nationally. Executive positions like the governorship are of course important, but are not quite as partisan since the governor's job isn't to pass laws.

This is true, but it is worth considering that there is very low education about the state legislature.  It almost follows district approval of each party on state level in many cases.  Incumbnents will get booted out just because they are of a certain party and there was a slight political change.

What you are saying could almost sound like PA.  If Rendell wins and Santorum loses it looks like PA will become more solidly Democrat.

Well if they're very vulnerable, at least they'll be responsive. Their relative invisibility actually is more of a strength then a weakness. It's much easier to criticize a governor or president than a lawmaking body. In general, even on the national level, the lower, more lawmaking-oriented elected positions are often more important than executive ones. No matter what your objective, winning the support of legislatures means you've won the support of the population--you have a more long-term political base (contrary to myth about the 'special interests', most lawmakers are responsive to their consituents' opinions). Winning the support of an executive does not. Too often, the latter is what grabs a disproportionate amount of headlines and attention.

A big problem with Michigan is that we have a really weak bench of state legislatures where they simply have to win the primary to win the state house seat.  They don't have to work to moderate their views, or campaign hard to get the "middle" or "median" vote in order to achieve office.  So when it comes time to win a larger or state-wide race where you have to appeal to the middle in addition to holding onto your base, a lot of Republicans don't have the experience to know how to do that.

It also doesn't help that we have a large number of state legislators that are more interested in advancing their own careers than beating Democrats.  Stabenow may have very little to hang her hat on during the past six years, but at least she had the stones to step out of a safe Democratic US House seat that she probably would've had for life, to run against an incumbant Republican Senator.  Right now, the Michigan GOP doesn't seem to have anyone like that.

I know a conservative GOP state rep and a libertarian GOP state rep that would love to beat Stabenow, but they're not prominent enough to really pull it off.

Personally, I'm hoping Candice Miller actually steps up, follows the suggestion of President Bush, and runs against Stabenow.  That would open up her seat for the previously mentioned libertarian GOP state rep to run for her seat. :-)