Romney wins Michigan

[AustinHoya03]

The home state comes through for Gov. Mitt. Based on this widget from washingtonpost.com, Romney won big in urban counties, while McCain did well in rural Michigan.

Romney's message of economic revitalization for Michigan played big in Detroit -- but I doubt he gets many more primary wins beyond the Mitten.

[DFW HOYA]

I wonder how much of his vote was from those who remember his father as governor there. Agreed that his national scope is limited.

Good to see some location representation from the South Plains. (Some DC folks probably think the Estacado is a boutique store in Tyson's.)

[SDHoya]

Thats a shame. My read of this is that Romney won here with his economic pandering, while McCain was less willing to pretend that everything is going to be super-duper in Michigan. I know a lot of people in Michigan are hurting, so I think that many people were attracted to a more optimistic message, even if it was one not exactly based in reality. The reason why I like McCain is the same reason why I don't have a lot of confidence in him winning: he is one of the few politicians willing to speak frankly about unpopular political realities.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

so. I don't pay attention to politics much, but i was checking the results and for the democrats it seemed likie Obama wasn't on the ballot? is there a reason for that?

[theexorcist]

Somebody someday is going to write a great book about this campaign. Really - three amazing Democratic candidates appealing to three different wings of the party, and gobs of Republican candidates, all in a horse race.

There was a book about the 1988 election called "What It Takes" - tinyurl.com/2hy62n - I never read it but I always remember that a review of it called the recount of the Democratic battle, featuring lots of candidates, a total hoot. Even with a bad writer, an account of this election should blow that out of the water.

[The Stig]

Jan 16, 2008 11:03:18 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

so. I don't pay attention to politics much, but i was checking the results and for the democrats it seemed likie Obama wasn't on the ballot? is there a reason for that?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7188111.stm

[theexorcist]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary%2C_2008

Michigan held its primary earlier than February 5, which caused the Democratic Party to strip Michigan of all of its delegates (the same thing happened with Florida). Obama and Edwards pulled out. Clinton stayed on the ballot. For a variety of reasons, supporters of Obama and Edwards voted "uncommitted".

This isn't over, however. There's some degree of rebellion brewing with both Florida and Michigan to cause a major stink at the convention. I don't know if Michigan is a "winner take all" primary election state - if it's not, and some deal gets brokered, fun stuff may happen. In any case, lots of people voting "uncommitted" is sort of a black eye for Hillary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008 discusses the February 5th issue in more detail. The Republicans are just chopping the delegate totals in half - the Democrats are playing much harder ball. Long story short - the US needs to find a fix to the primary situation.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

ah thanks. was very confused when looking at the results.

[Boz]

Jan 16, 2008 11:07:03 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Somebody someday is going to write a great book about this campaign. Really - three amazing Democratic candidates appealing to three different wings of the party, and gobs of Republican candidates, all in a horse race.

Well, I will respectfully disagree on the alleged "amazingness" of the Democratic candidates , but other than that, you're right. This is a very entertaining, very interesting campaign. I don't use the word "time-suck" outside of video games very often, but this campaign has that quality to it.

[theexorcist]

Jan 16, 2008 13:31:35 GMT -5 Boz said:

Jan 16, 2008 11:07:03 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Somebody someday is going to write a great book about this campaign. Really - three amazing Democratic candidates appealing to three different wings of the party, and gobs of Republican candidates, all in a horse race.

Well, I will respectfully disagree on the alleged "amazingness" of the Democratic candidates , but other than that, you're right. This is a very entertaining, very interesting campaign. I don't use the word "time-suck" outside of video games very often, but this campaign has that quality to it.

"Amazing" in a turn-the-page literary sense.

The favorite is trying to become the first woman to win the nomination, and her husband changed the character of the Democratic Party. She's possibly the most hated person in the Democrats' recent history. And that doesn't even take into account the marital stuff.

Going against her in one corner is the new guy, trying to become the first multiracial president. His speeches are amazing, and his followers are almost like a cult. He's the heavy underdog that challenges the party machine and has a chance to win.

Lurking behind is the enigma - the guy who preaches the people against the powerful. It's almost too perfect - he's this young former trial lawyer who has this passion for his hair and is yet doing his best to take down the party hierarchy. As his followers slump after losing in Iowa then New Hampshire, he vows that he'll stick it out until the end and never stop fighting for the little guy while he's getting his hair sprayed.

Riveting stuff.

Of course, the Republican candidates are no slouches in this department, either - the war hero, the former governor of one of the most liberal states in America who just happens to be Mormon, the governor who used to be famous for losing lots of weight until he shocked the establishment in Iowa, the libertarian whose followers are cultists (there has to be some story about some bar that the Obamaites and Paulites frequent - ooh, a romance, even better), the actor trying to lay claim to the mantle of Reagan, and the "mayor of America". They're entertaining, but they're more easily reduced to stereotypes. I think that a fleshed-out story of the Democrats is more compelling.

The book really needs to start in media res with Obama's victory speech in Iowa, then cut to staffers for Hillary, Edwards, and the Republican nominee with their reactions as snippets fly past (exception - if Rudy wins the nomination, you end the introduction with "(Rudy staffer name here) didn't watch the speech live. She was in Room 404 of the Best Western St. Petersburg, holding a coffee cubano with an increasingly jittery hand while the other scrolled clicked down to show her yet more information on likely Republican voters. It was, as always, going to be a long night.") That's - at least so far - when the gauntlet was thrown down and people knew that this wasn't going to be easy.

Sorry that I sort of rambled, but this sounds really truly awesome and I accept that I'm a total wonk.

[EasyEd]

Congratulations to Romney for a good win. And, congratulations to Non-Committed for a strong second in the Democratic race.

[jerseyhoya34]

I think both races took major steps backwards this week and are tracking toward the lowest common denominator of Romney and Clinton.

On the Republican side, I think there was at least some effort to pitch the post-NH McCain to the establishment and "average" Republican voter. While only MI is in the books since then, there does not seem to be a huge upswell. McCain is in trouble in SC with the robocalls, the sickening Swift Boat-like, anti-veteran attack, and the Huckabee leanings of evangelical voters. So, the idea that McCain is going to string a few states together in advance of February 5 seems far fetched to me at this time.

To me, Romney seems like a candidate without much originality or new ideas. He is a firm believer in the modern Republican cult of tax cutting and simply wants to run on what he views as the Reagan legacy, even though he does not seem to hold a torch to Reagan in any way. He has nothing when it comes to foreign policy credentials. The idea that the Olympics count is something that I think even many Democrats would consider exceedingly "French," to borrow a Rovian buzzword.

For the Democrats, I think this was a bad week with the sniping between Clinton and Obama and the re-establishment of Clinton as the favorite. Along with that has come a string of cynical campaign efforts and blatant pandering. For this Democrat, I see shades of Kerry 2004 in the current Clinton campaign, with a divided campaign staff and a candidate content to mention Hispanics in Nevada, farmers in Iowa, unions in the union towns, and just subsist on the management of a myriad of constituencies that one can string along en route to the nomination. There is a steady diet of Yucca Mountain and ANWR-like issues, but nothing overly inspiring and nothing to suggest that it is a winner's effort. I never thought that I would be this annoyed at the Clintons (plural), but I am there right now. Their work after Iowa has been deplorable.

Here's hoping for more McCain and Obama wins. [/rant]

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2008 16:31:42 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Congratulations to Romney for a good win. And, congratulations to Non-Committed for a strong second in the Democratic race.

Monty Brewster's running the Non-Committed campaign.

[Boz]

The sniping may have been bad, but the love-fest in Nevada was even worse. Jeez, get a room, you three.

And a tactical error on Clinton's part in my own humble opinion. Yes, she did well in NH apparently because she "humanized" herself, but she needs to differentiate herself from Obama.

Looking at them from the other political perspective, I don't see much difference in the way of policy from the 3 Dems. That is dangerous for Clinton if her own party sees it that way as well. If that's the case, then it comes down to personality, character, charisma, etc. and Obama (and even Edwards) still have the big advantage over her on that front.