MI-LEA/DR: All tied up

[RogueBeaver]

Never heard of this firm before (Michiganders?), but they have a 39-39 tie with 22% undecided.

[krazen1211]

Yep. Peters could easily be dragged down by his leeching morass Detroit base especially when Democrats demand that the rest of Michigan throw good money after bad.

[Tender Branson]

They released a poll in Mid-October 2012, with Obama up 3.

In the end he won by 10.

[Maxwell]

Before she announced, PPP found her 5 points behind, so while this is probably inaccurate, this doesn't look completely out of reality. I really hope she makes it out of the primary.

[dmmidmi]

I'm not quite sure how it is in other states, but it seems like winning a statewide race for US Senate and Secretary of State in Michigan are two totally different things. Terri Lynn won re-election the same year that both Jennifer Granholm and Debbie Stabenow won re-election by double-digits--this speaks less to her strengths than to Michiganders' willingness to vote for Republicans at more local levels. She would've gotten smoked had she challenged Jenny or Debbie.

There hasn't been much talk about this race so far (outside of which Republican's aren't running)--Peters should win this one, and I'm pretty sure it would take an awful environment for the GOP to pick up this seat.

[Dave from Michigan]

22% undecided? 39% is not good for a Republican, those independents are going to go Democrat. Republicans can get 40% of the vote in Michigan no problem even 45% with a decent candidate it's the last 5-6% to win they have trouble. Land is a decent candidate and it won't be a blowout for sure, but she is not a strong candidate. She hasn't ran for anything or been on the ballot in 8 years now, and secretary of state really isn't a partisan office, like Senate or Governor. Peters will win by 8-10% assuming a normal year, even a lean R year, and no scandals or gaffes. A good year for the Republicans gets them 46% of the vote. Peters is a strong candidate for the Democrats. He represented part of Oakland county in congress surviving 2010, his district was chopped up in the Republican gerrymander after 2010 and he was put in one of the majority black districts. He won this vs a incumbent congressman, of course with a split in the black vote. His strength is in Oakland county where a Republican has to do well if not win to win a statewide race in Michigan. Land is a west sider with not much name recognition especially after not being in office for 4 years and on the ballot for 8.

Final

Peters 54%
Land  45%

[Bandit3 the Worker]

After the "right-to-work" garbage, why do the Republicans have a chance in hell at winning anything in Michigan?

[Ogre Mage]

They released a poll in Mid-October 2012, with Obama up 3.

In the end he won by 10.

They also released a poll in late June 2012 showing Obama and Romney tied in Michigan.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/tie_race_new_poll_shows_romney.html

It appears Denno Research does not have a good track record.

[free my dawg]

I'm calling junk.

[Vosem]

Pollster does have a Republican House effect (and conventional wisdom is that Peters is up a few points), but people are underestimating Land; Snyder's approvals seem to be rebounding, and if he wins by more than ~5 points it's difficult for me to imagine Land loses. She was on the ballot 4 years ago (she ran for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor; didn't do well), so she's maintained some name recognition, and the last time she actually was the nominee (in 2006, mind you, a Democratic wave year) she won by double-digits. Even if it's not a very politicized office, like state SecState, nobody wins by double-digits by mistake.

After the "right-to-work" garbage, why do the Republicans have a chance in hell at winning anything in Michigan?

They passed large parts of the agenda they were elected to pass?

Like I've said in other threads, broadly speaking the trend nationwide is toward right-to-work. Among other pleasant things (like recognition of gay marriage, looser gun regulations, and legalization of marijuana).

[RogueBeaver]

One thing I didn't know about Land: she can self-fund, being worth between $34-41 million from her family's real estate (insert bad puns here) business. Doubt it'll be necessary though. Would be nice if she can put this seat on the map.

[dmmidmi]

Even if it's not a very politicized office, like state SecState, nobody wins by double-digits by mistake.

As I said earlier, she would've gotten smoked had she challenged Jenny or Debbie in 2006. She also won by double-digits in 2002, when Carl Levin won by >20 points and Democrats regained the Governor's mansion. This speaks less to Terri Lynn Land's strengths as a politician, and more to the idea that Michiganders don't really care which party their Secretary of State comes from. She has never had to stake out a meaningful position on anything, and comes from a part of the state that doesn't culturally reflect the majority of the state's population--she has her work cut out for her, if she wants to be competitive.

It would take a pretty bad environment for Peters to lose.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Peters is favored to win but he may have a race on his hands due to the damage of Dtw and spill over from the governors race. Synder and Peters may very well both win.

[Vosem]

Even if it's not a very politicized office, like state SecState, nobody wins by double-digits by mistake.

As I said earlier, she would've gotten smoked had she challenged Jenny or Debbie in 2006. She also won by double-digits in 2002, when Carl Levin won by >20 points and Democrats regained the Governor's mansion. This speaks less to Terri Lynn Land's strengths as a politician, and more to the idea that Michiganders don't really care which party their Secretary of State comes from. She has never had to stake out a meaningful position on anything, and comes from a part of the state that doesn't culturally reflect the majority of the state's population--she has her work cut out for her, if she wants to be competitive.

It would take a pretty bad environment for Peters to lose.

Can you just do me a single favor and explain, with details of the campaign beyond 'Michiganders don't care who their Secretary of State' is, why Butch Holloway lost in 2002?

I'm not disputing that Peters is favored, here in the present more than a decade later, and you being a Michigan native are obviously more familiar with the state than I am, but it seems ridiculous to just discount two decisive statewide victories, one during a wave year for the opposite party and the other while the Governor's Mansion flipped in the other direction.

[pbrower2a]

Never heard of this firm before (Michiganders?), but they have a 39-39 tie with 22% undecided.

Polls only Michigan, more R than most others.

In any event a poll that shows a 39-39 split is worthless.

[ElectionsGuy]

This looks quite unrealistic. The D's should definitely have a lead once the primary season begins.

[dmmidmi]

Even if it's not a very politicized office, like state SecState, nobody wins by double-digits by mistake.

As I said earlier, she would've gotten smoked had she challenged Jenny or Debbie in 2006. She also won by double-digits in 2002, when Carl Levin won by >20 points and Democrats regained the Governor's mansion. This speaks less to Terri Lynn Land's strengths as a politician, and more to the idea that Michiganders don't really care which party their Secretary of State comes from. She has never had to stake out a meaningful position on anything, and comes from a part of the state that doesn't culturally reflect the majority of the state's population--she has her work cut out for her, if she wants to be competitive.

It would take a pretty bad environment for Peters to lose.

Can you just do me a single favor and explain, with details of the campaign beyond 'Michiganders don't care who their Secretary of State' is, why Butch Holloway lost in 2002?

I'm not disputing that Peters is favored, here in the present more than a decade later, and you being a Michigan native are obviously more familiar with the state than I am, but it seems ridiculous to just discount two decisive statewide victories, one during a wave year for the opposite party and the other while the Governor's Mansion flipped in the other direction.

Richard Austin was Secretary of State for two and a half decades, yet wasn't able to win his party's nomination for Senate. Republicans have held the SOS office since 1995--for the preceding 40 years, it was held exclusively by Democrats. It's possible that the GOP will hold that office for another 20 years.

If Terri Lynn Land was so popular, she would've helped Mike Bouchard pull in more than 12.2% of the vote in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary.

I can only speak from anecdotal observation, but it's not that people in Michigan "don't care who their SOS is," but party affiliation isn't necessarily as important for some more "local" elections--even if that election is still a statewide race. Both Candice Miller and John Engler won big in 1998 (a relatively neutral year, nationally), but Gov. Engler won't win another election in Michigan, and Candice Miller won't be due for a promotion for a long time, if ever.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Go Terri, go Terri, go Terri, go!!!

[Vosem]

Even if it's not a very politicized office, like state SecState, nobody wins by double-digits by mistake.

As I said earlier, she would've gotten smoked had she challenged Jenny or Debbie in 2006. She also won by double-digits in 2002, when Carl Levin won by >20 points and Democrats regained the Governor's mansion. This speaks less to Terri Lynn Land's strengths as a politician, and more to the idea that Michiganders don't really care which party their Secretary of State comes from. She has never had to stake out a meaningful position on anything, and comes from a part of the state that doesn't culturally reflect the majority of the state's population--she has her work cut out for her, if she wants to be competitive.

It would take a pretty bad environment for Peters to lose.

Can you just do me a single favor and explain, with details of the campaign beyond 'Michiganders don't care who their Secretary of State' is, why Butch Holloway lost in 2002?

I'm not disputing that Peters is favored, here in the present more than a decade later, and you being a Michigan native are obviously more familiar with the state than I am, but it seems ridiculous to just discount two decisive statewide victories, one during a wave year for the opposite party and the other while the Governor's Mansion flipped in the other direction.

Richard Austin was Secretary of State for two and a half decades, yet wasn't able to win his party's nomination for Senate.

1976 is rather a long time ago to be referring to, but I'll play along. Having looked this election up on Our Campaigns and then read about the candidates on Wikipedia, it seems Austin and another candidate split the Detroit vote and allowed Donald Riegle, who was from outside Detroit, and had made a profile for himself in the House, to win the primary with just 44% of the vote.

Republicans have held the SOS office since 1995--for the preceding 40 years, it was held exclusively by Democrats. It's possible that the GOP will hold that office for another 20 years.

Um, OK. Anything's possible, we know.

If Terri Lynn Land was so popular, she would've helped Mike Bouchard pull in more than 12.2% of the vote in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary.

If Lloyd Bentsen was so popular, he should've helped Mike Dukakis more than he did

It doesn't necessarily work that way.

I can only speak from anecdotal observation, but it's not that people in Michigan "don't care who their SOS is," but party affiliation isn't necessarily as important for some more "local" elections--even if that election is still a statewide race.

True, but someone who has had a successful stint in a "local" office might be a stronger candidate than someone who hasn't. I hope you can admit.

Both Candice Miller and John Engler won big in 1998 (a relatively neutral year, nationally), but Gov. Engler won't win another election in Michigan

That's what happens to people who left politics a decade ago, yeah.

, and Candice Miller won't be due for a promotion for a long time, if ever.

She was just promoted to Chair of the House Administration Committee this past January. Rising through the House ranks is usually something that occurs slowly, dmwestmi, I don't know what else you expect.

[dmmidmi]

Even if it's not a very politicized office, like state SecState, nobody wins by double-digits by mistake.

As I said earlier, she would've gotten smoked had she challenged Jenny or Debbie in 2006. She also won by double-digits in 2002, when Carl Levin won by >20 points and Democrats regained the Governor's mansion. This speaks less to Terri Lynn Land's strengths as a politician, and more to the idea that Michiganders don't really care which party their Secretary of State comes from. She has never had to stake out a meaningful position on anything, and comes from a part of the state that doesn't culturally reflect the majority of the state's population--she has her work cut out for her, if she wants to be competitive.

It would take a pretty bad environment for Peters to lose.

Can you just do me a single favor and explain, with details of the campaign beyond 'Michiganders don't care who their Secretary of State' is, why Butch Holloway lost in 2002?

I'm not disputing that Peters is favored, here in the present more than a decade later, and you being a Michigan native are obviously more familiar with the state than I am, but it seems ridiculous to just discount two decisive statewide victories, one during a wave year for the opposite party and the other while the Governor's Mansion flipped in the other direction.

Richard Austin was Secretary of State for two and a half decades, yet wasn't able to win his party's nomination for Senate.

1976 is rather a long time ago to be referring to, but I'll play along. Having looked this election up on Our Campaigns and then read about the candidates on Wikipedia, it seems Austin and another candidate split the Detroit vote and allowed Donald Riegle, who was from outside Detroit, and had made a profile for himself in the House, to win the primary with just 44% of the vote.

You missed the point here. The point isn't Austin's electoral successes/failures--it's that the Michigan SOS office hasn't been a launching pad for more prestigious offices.

Republicans have held the SOS office since 1995--for the preceding 40 years, it was held exclusively by Democrats. It's possible that the GOP will hold that office for another 20 years.

Um, OK. Anything's possible, we know.

The point here is that Democrats were able to hold that seat, even through awful years for Democrats nationally. Terri Lynn Land's ability to hold the seat--even in adverse environments--is the rule, not the exception.

If Terri Lynn Land was so popular, she would've helped Mike Bouchard pull in more than 12.2% of the vote in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary.

If Lloyd Bentsen was so popular, he should've helped Mike Dukakis more than he did

It doesn't necessarily work that way.

Fair enough. But if Terri Lynn Land had such political skill, wouldn't she have jumped into the race, given how unpopular Jennifer Granholm was by the end of her term (and therefore looking like a sure GOP pickup opportunity)?

I can only speak from anecdotal observation, but it's not that people in Michigan "don't care who their SOS is," but party affiliation isn't necessarily as important for some more "local" elections--even if that election is still a statewide race.

True, but someone who has had a successful stint in a "local" office might be a stronger candidate than someone who hasn't. I hope you can admit.

Possibly--it depends on a whole host of other things. The Nerd hadn't held elected office in his life before becoming Governor.

Both Candice Miller and John Engler won big in 1998 (a relatively neutral year, nationally), but Gov. Engler won't win another election in Michigan

That's what happens to people who left politics a decade ago, yeah.

His chances of winning another office in Michigan ended the second he left the Governor's mansion. And the point is that even if someone in Michigan won by well into double-digits (Blanchard, Engler, and Granholm among them), it definitely doesn't guarantee future electoral success.

, and Candice Miller won't be due for a promotion for a long time, if ever.

She was just promoted to Chair of the House Administration Committee this past January. Rising through the House ranks is usually something that occurs slowly, dmwestmi, I don't know what else you expect.

I should've been more clear--she's not winning a Senate or Gubernatorial race in Michigan any time soon.