What we think we know: Romney and Michigan
In the last decade, ever since I’ve been paying closer attention to the MSM, I’ve been astounded at the number of things that are stated as facts and accepted as such that really don’t make a whole lot of sense when you examine them.
I know, I know; why should I be surprised, after all this time? I shouldn’t. But quite often, when I hear a “fact” repeated over and over as though it’s a self-evident tautology, a little warning bell goes off somewhere in my brain and I think hmmm, really?
Case in point: Romney and Michigan. Now, I want to offer a caveat: this post isn’t about whether Romney will win Michigan or not, nor is it about who would be a better candidate, Santorum or Romney or Gingrich, or whether any or all or none of them can beat Obama in November. That’s all in a state of flux, and besides I’ve written a ton about it already anyway.
This is about the expectation that of course, Romney ought to do very well in Michigan, and if he doesn’t he’s toast because it will mean he can’t even win a state that should be a cakewalk for him. The basis of this belief, as far as I can tell, is that Romney is from Michigan originally and his father was governor there. So let’s take a look at the facts.
George Romney, Mitt’s dad, was governor from 1963-1969. I hate to say it, because I remember those years pretty well, but that was a long time ago in electoral terms (although not in geological ones). Before that, Romney senior was an auto industry executive, and after his governorship he had a brief tenure as a member of Nixon’s cabinet and then became a private citizen involved in volunteering and church activities. To how many present-day Michigan voters could his political career possibly matter?
What’s more, George Romney was a moderate Republican and not a fiscal conservative, and if anyone really does remember him in the present-day Republican Party, which has grown more conservative, I would imagine that the recollection might have more of a tendency to hurt his son than help him.
Mitt Romney grew up in Michigan (where, by the way, despite his father’s success, he “had a steady set of chores and worked summer jobs, including being a security guard at a Chrysler plant”), but went away to college—Stanford and then Brigham Young—and on to grad school at Harvard. For the rest of his adult life, both business and political, and except for a short stint in Utah to manage the 2002 Winter Olympics, Mitt Romney has been a Massachusetts guy all the way.
Now “Michigan” and “Massachusetts” both begin with an “M,” and they are both in the same time zone, but other than that they really don’t have a great deal in common. Looking at Romney’s actual history rather than his supposed history as Michigan’s favorite son, I really can’t see why people in present-day Michigan would have especially warm feelings about him. Michigan is a blue-collar state that’s hurting, and the Santorum/Romney split is one that has been presented (whatever the reality) as a contrast between a blue-collar guy and a rich elitist. In fact, Michigan should be Santorum’s to win, not Romney’s, at least by my calculations.
Ah, you say, but Romney won hands down there in 2008. Let’s see:
Romney: 38.92%
McCain: 29.68%
Huckabee: 16.08%
Ron Paul: 6.27%
There were some other miscellaneous candidates with a few percentage points, but that’s the picture. Then there was no populist, blue-collar candidate like Santorum to mount a strong challenge, and still Romney came nowhere near to getting half the votes. And lest you say that this only points to how weak a candidate Romney is—because of course as a favorite son, he should have been well in the lead—please read the earlier part of my post again. And then for this year, add to it the fact that Romney has consistently opposed the auto company bailouts—a conservative position, but one unlikely to help him in Michigan.
One big question during this primary season is which candidate will blink first, and when—and if he does, who will get his voters. The race has been so volatile that I hesitate to make any predictions, but right now it seems to be coming down to Romney vs. Santorum. A goodly part of Santorum’s surge is that he has drawn the not-Romney vote that previously had been concentrated on others.
I don’t see Ron Paul dropping out at all. Will Gingrich? Not as long as he’s got the money to keep going. If and when he does drop out, if he endorses anyone I’d imagine it would be Santorum, but that doesn’t mean his voters will go there. If there’s one thing I’ve learned during this primary season, it’s that all bets are off.
The pundits who are picking, choosing, and making toast really have no more of an idea what will happen than we do. In this campaign season, two days is an eternity.
It is indeed an unfair rap on Romney and shows the power of suggestion. Most people really don’t know that much about politics, but, oh yeah, I do have that hazy recollection that Romney and Michigan are connected somehow. Well, he ought to win there. That’s right, his Dad was governor of that state. Enough for me. He’s been having problems his whole campaign, can’t even win the state his Dad was governor of. Sheesh. He’s toast.
Checking in from Michigan. Word in the local press is that angry Democrat union members will “go Republican” to vote for Santorum in the primaries because 1) he can’t win against Obama and 2) it will send a message to Romney.
So if Santorum wins because the more rural/conservative areas swing his way, it’s already written out as fake – a mere reaction to Romney. FYI a Michiganian doesn’t need to swear fealty to a political party; he just needs to choose only one primary ballot. I know dozens of Democrats who voted in the Republican primary last time around because the DMC negated the primaries. It’s unclear if they helped McCain or not.
MissJean: so you’re saying it’s a completely open primary. I hadn’t realized that.
It’s an invitation to sabotage the results, especially when only one party is holding a meaningful primary. Democrats lose absolutely nothing by crossing over, since they don’t need to vote in their own primary to decide anything. They can mess with the Republican primary at will.
What a stupid system.
With Santorum giving speeches about Satan the Dems must be salivating at going up against him in the general election. That guy does not have an operating speech filter.
I agree, neo. The straw man that Romney’s home state is Michigan is obvious when subjected to some cogent analysis. It is spin, pure and simple. My belief is that the MSM and DNC are orchestrating as much spin and divisiveness in the Republican field as they can. And the right wing media – Fox, conservative talk radio, and many conservative blogs get caught up in it.
Now the idea of a brokered convention or the entry of some new “white knight” candidate is being bandied about. It’s embarrassing that we let them get away with it.
This politics stuff is like the automobile wreck from which we fallible humans have trouble turning our gaze. I’m wearied by it but I keep coming back for more.
I thoroughly understand and support your need for diversion. I’m glad you’re sharing with us whatever comes to you. You go for it, young lady . . .
Oooops — I posted a reply to the wrong post. Bah. I will post it to the correct post. Sorry, everyone, for the non-sequitur here.
JJ, according to Ulsterman’s White House Insider that’s exactly what’s happening and is one of the main reasons for the various non-Romney candidate rise and falls. Called “Pump-and-Dump” in the consultant trade.
You are being watched. By a robot. Created by aliens.
Humour. I did enjoy the link, Soviet.
Romney is weak in the primaries because he is not in his bones a true fiscal conservative and presents a rather bland personality. However, Santorum, the current non-Mitt, is less of a fiscal conservative than Romney. He’s a social conservative and in the general election that is a non-starter. Newt is the ultimate DC insider which makes his claims to be otherwise the stuff of a SNL skit.
When the campaign began Pawlenty and Daniels seemed to have a decent chance but one never threw his hat in the ring and the other quickly faded. Then Palin declined to run. Gary Johnson (a fiscally conservative libertarian) was ‘too radical’ for the base. Cain was my choice but he folded under unsubstantiated allegations. Bachmann was a wild card at best and faded quickly. Perry stumbled and mumbled. Which leaves us with Ron Paul who many see as the bat caca crazy uncle at the thanksgiving table, although RP understands the economic fundamentals better than all who remain standing.
Which take us back to Romney. Its a sorry state of affairs considering how vulnerable BHO is counting down to November that we have no ‘champion’ ready to knock BHO off his high horse. Concentrate on the House and Senate. Send your money to those races and let the eventual GOP nominee raise his own cash.
Good summary Parker. I believed it was going to be Perry until he had to endure mocking for his less than masterful debate prowess. I’ll bet he could still have put all of them in a headlock and that’s way more important! Now, who would have won between Perry and Obama in a wrasslin match. C’mon. Silly question.
I’d like to start a poll. Up or down on a man’s sanity if he believes in Satan?
I’m up.
Go Satan. (Oops, that didn’t quite come out right.)
I’m an agnostic, and more than a little peeved at the open disdain that Santorum has shown for libertarians, but the OMG!!! THEOCRACY!!!!11!!! crowd needs to take a chill pill. Seriously, Bible-believing Christians don’t frighten me.
I’d still prefer him over Romney, who I don’t trust as far as I can throw.
An agnostic went into a bar and got drunk.
No he didn’t.
Humour.
Okay, so no Satan for you, rickl, which might just make Halloween less meaningful, but, you fear the Obama crazies more than the Santorum crazies.
I’m with you.
Hey you know who were some pretty heavy Satan believers: Kepler who was pretty smart. Boyle. Faraday. Kelvin. etcetera. et.cet.er.rah!
Okay, why did the agnostic not get drunk?
He didn’t know. Couldn’t judge. Found himself on the floor. With fudge.
Ooooh.
“Now, who would have won between Perry and Obama in a wrasslin match.”
My 8 year old grand daughter could take down mannish boy Barry in less than 5 seconds so I vote Perry. 😉
“I’d still prefer him over Romney, who I don’t trust as far as I can throw.”
This might be a valuable standard for judging candidates in that the candidate Rickl can throw the farthest is the least desirable candidate. BTW, is this going to be measured in inches, feet, yards, or miles?
Yeah, there’s something less than Lincoln about Obama. Was just reading about Lincoln’s wrestling legendary match with Satan, oops, I mean, of all names, Jack Armstrong!
\
http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html
We all know these Satanists. God bless em says the Lost Angels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhQdzBUIovg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44QqleZ51zc
Metallica, it seems, turned the corner.
Neo, I see I’m a little late to this thread, but you’re absolutely correct about the Romney/Michigan connection. I think I’m the same age you are, pretty much a lifelong resident of MI, and I can barely remember the Romney years. Most of the primary voters will have NO memory of George Romney. The political pundit/news media conventional wisdom about Mitt’s relationship with MI is wrong, as usual.
Yes, our primary is open to all voters, so who knows what the results will indicate. I’m sure lots of Dems will be pulling the lever for Santorum as they push the “Taliban Rick” meme. I’ll be voting for Mitt by the way.
Parker Says:
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:08 am
I doubt that I could throw any politician any appreciable distance, so I guess I can’t trust any of them.
That sounds about right, actually.
Neo, sorry it’s taken a while for me to respond, but it’s really NOT a stupid system. By not having to register with a party, it prevented Democrats (and before them the American Party aka No-Nothings) from interfering in voting in my great-grandfather’s day (although he was blocked from citizenship for several years by the Dems literacy test). In the ’20s, it kept the KKK from knowing the exact numbers of their opposition when they attempted to take several public offices.
The primaries aren’t completely open now.; they’re partisan primaries. We have never had a successful raid, probably because the parties anticipate a raid and go overboard in getting their known members to turn out. And if you vote in a party’s primary, that party gets your name, address and phone number and bothers you for the next four years, which is why my Democratic co-workers don’t listen to our union’s pleas to show up at the polls unless it’s our state primaries. Despite high turnouts – in the 2002 primaries more than 27% of registered voters participated and it’s gone up until the last presidential primaries which most people stayed home for – we’ve never had a Tuttle moment, if you know what I mean.