OVER HERE - YOU CAN'T GO HOME AGAIN
Monday, January 14, 2008 at 10:57PM The great state of Michigan is next gentle readers. Home to Detroit, Lansing, Ann Arbor, Flint, Dearborn and of course Kalamazzo. Made up of two peninsulas it has the longest freshwater shoreline on Earth. It takes its name from the Native Americans, who upon seeing Lake Michigan (the size of Croatia) called that large body of H2O the "Great Water". A profound sense of the obvious, which is something we should now bring to the Republican primaries.
The Wolverine State has produced a cross-section of Yanks including Stevie Wonder, Henry Ford, Ted Nugent, Francis Ford Coppola and Charles Lindbergh. It has also produced Willard Mitt Romeny, a man whose greatest political move, in your author's humble opinion, was not to go by his first name Willard. After all, who wants to be compared to a disturbed movie character who took his advice from rats named Socrates and Ben? Unkind readers might suggest rats would be an improvement over the present U.S. Administration's braintrust, but we will not - as the man says - go there.
In any event, the Michigan primary looms ominously over the Romeny campaign, like Hillary Clinton over Bill's cell phone records. Michigan, with its economic woes, does not favor Republcians who arrive with a string of Polo Ponies, even if they have daddies who were beloved polticians, as Mitt's dad was in Michigan. The anti-union tax cuts for the rich mantra of the extreme right doesn't play so well here, where America used to make the world's best cars. If Romney is unable to convince the voters of the state of his birth in a new rap performance out of Eight Mile that he is Da Man, his money may be of little use to him. Some folks may start to say he can't WIN, and that his failure to WIN has been demonstrated in several regions. No doubt he'll stay in the race no matter the result, he has the money of Midas and an almost Clinton-like lack of shame. But he'll be done, finished, kaput.
After Romney, the rich man's George Bush, will the Republican faithful be able to rally around one of the other candidates, accepting the glass half full theory of life, to fend off a Democrat in the White House? We shall see.
America 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (38)
i'm looking forward to your shrove tuesday where everyone gets battered
Myself included, a habit from my years in New Orleans.
Awesome post Mahons! Very well written lawyerman.
Looking at the polls, its a three way horse race in Michigan.
I'm calling, in order, McCain by a nose, Romney, Huckster.
With the Republican primaries being so open, and likely not to reach an early resolution, wouldn't Romney do well to keep picking up delegates even if he loses in Michigan? If no one has a clear majority* of delegates then Romney could still find himself in the role of king maker.
* Assuming that they need a majority and it isn't just a plurality that is required.
Why is it over for Romney if he doesn't win in Michigan? Is this a rule, or something? He does, afterall, have the most delegates, so far. Isn't that what counts?
Or, is it the media's wishful thinking?
Because if McCain is the nominee, than the Republicans will lose the general election because he will not be wholeheartedly supported.
McCain is not a conservative, and he has seriously divided the party on a host of issues.
Methinks the liberal media would LOVE to see a McCain win. (or a Huckabee) But certainly not a Romney (if he loses Michigan he's out according to the liberals), or a Thompson (he's too laid back according to the liberals ) or a Giuliani (too late to get in the race now according to the liberals). The liberal media just doesn't want to see a conservative win.
I don't think Romney is done if he doesn't finish first in Michigan. This thing is going to go to the bitter end. We've still got SC, Florida and Super Tuesday (or should I say 'Tsunami Tuesday'?). Yikes - I'm on the edge of my seat.
Oh. That was me.
Monica
Hi, Monica.
I knew it was you because Troll never says Yikes.
So, where's your first post then?
Monica: How about a Thompson/Romney ticket? Or Romney/THompson- I don't really care about the order, just give me some conservatives.
I agree Monica, he's not finished if he places second in Michigan. The GOP race is going to be a finger-biter.
Patty, I really don't like Mitt. I think I would prefer to see Rudy in there somewhere with Thompson. I could live with Mitt, though. I agree with your point that you made about the media and the conservative vs. RINO candidates. They sure do love the RINO's. Our democrat friends love the RINO's, too.
Daphne - I agree it's a nailbiter! lol. Fun to watch and not at all boring on the GOP side of it, anyway.
Thanks Alan!
Patty
If Romney gets the republican nomination, will he get enough votes from the christian conservatives to win the white house? With him being a mormon and that...
I disagree with you again, Mahons. Romney doesn't need to win today. Here's why.
Romney can outlast Huckabee and when Huckabee drops out I believe most of his voters will migrate to Romney (unless Thompson looks viable by then). I can't see Hucakbee's Evangelicals going to McCain or Giuliani over Romney, despite the Mormonism.
The whole dynamic of this race will be transformed when Thompson and Huckabee drop out. Romney can wait them out. Then he'll be the candidate of the right against two candidates of the left: Giuliani & McCain.
Also, as Patty noted above, Romney's ahead in delegates a fact that the media loves to overlook.But, even if McCain wins today, I expect that Romney will win among Republicans. The odd no contest among the Democrats has thrown the Republican primary open to all sorts of possibilities.
I guess we'll know more tomorrow morning.
Peter,
I think that answer depends on who the Democrats nominate. If it's Hillary, I kind of doubt it because Bill can work the south and midwest for Hillary. He appeals to those folks.
If, on the other hand, the Democrats nominate Obama, I say the Evangelicals will vote for Romney.
>>Methinks the liberal media would LOVE to see a McCain win. (or a Huckabee) But certainly not a Romney<<
Methinks you're totally wrong, Patty.
It's what happens in November that counts.
McCain would be a formidable challenge to anything the Democrats can come up with, and any votes he loses from the "Christian" Right would be more than compensated by gains he draws from conservative Dems.
The huge middle ground would go to Clinton if she were up against some character like Romney, and a Dem would be in the WH.
BTW Did I miss something or is there no Dems primary in Michigan?
Noel,
You may well be right about November. That doesn't mean that Republicans will nominate McCain anyway.
All these early primaries are against the rules. No primary should be held before Feb 5. Michigan's Democrats and the national party are in a big dispute over this, which led to Obama and Edwards withdrawing their names from the ballot.
Read about it here, if you're extra keen.
Thanks for info and link, Eagle. My God, it's complicated, isn't it?
"McCain would be a formidable challenge to anything the Democrats can come up with, and any votes he loses from the "Christian" Right would be more than compensated by gains he draws from conservative Dems."
Nope, wrong on that one old boy. The Christian Right would vote for (and are voting for) McCain because he is very strong on their own social/moral issues. It is the more secular GOP voters concerned by McCain-Feingold and the Immigration amnesty he promoted that would turn away and sit on their hands on Polling Day. Same effect perhaps, but a very different reason.
"The huge middle ground would go to Clinton if she were up against some character like Romney, and a Dem would be in the WH."
Bless. You'd really like to believe that there is this huge soft-left mass of voters out there in the US who would be absolutely *appalled* by a candidate with even vaguely conservative views, and would then flock to any candidate who was vaguely to the Left. Only problem is it isn't true. We've had both Bush's. Reagan. You see?
On the contrary, the middleground of Independents is much more put off by the idea of a Hillary candidacy than they are by the idea of a Romney or a Thompson one. I say it again - if you are a Dem supporter (and in your case thats an 'is the sky blue' question) you should be praying you dont have a Clinton candidacy. She is a far too divisive figure to win.
DSD,
You may be right with your other points but
>>huge soft-left mass of voters ..would then flock to any candidate who was vaguely to the Left. Only problem is it isn't true. We've had both Bush's. Reagan<<
Those examples prove little. I doubt if either of the Bush's, or even Regan, was in his day perceived as being as far to the right as Romney is today.
And
>>if you are a Dem supporter ..you should be praying you dont have a Clinton candidacy. She is a far too divisive figure to win<<
For what it's worth, a CNN survey of Californian voters today shows exactly the opposite: Clinton is clear favourite, not because they like her but simply because they think she'll get the WH for the Dems!
"So why are they voting for Clinton? Because they think she can win. By 48 to 33 percent, they pick Clinton over Obama as the candidate with the best chance of beating the Republican in November. Obama's got the goods Democrats want. But Hillary closes the sale on electability," said CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/14/california.poll/index.html
Noel,
Complicated doesn't even begin to get at the root of it. Some states are winner take all - all delegates go to the winner and other states have various distribution calcluations. Sometimes it's proportionate to the state wide vote, sometimes whoever wins the district/county/whatever wins that district/county/whatever's delegate. And sometimes it's a complicated mixture of the two with a few wild cards thrown in.
For the most part the nomination process hasn't been that close so we haven't had to pay much attention, but that might not be true this year.
Iowa. Remember Iowa? Well, that vote might mean NOTHING if the Democrats haven't got a nominee when they start meeting for their conventions. Yes, conventions.
First they have district/county conventions where those who were selected in early January probably, but not definitely, will vote for delegates to the state convention who will support the candidate they were to sent to vote for. But, it's a pretty soft process and if the race is close the candidates might have to return to Iowa to campaign again. Uggh.
Noel,
Interesting. As far as I'm concerned, Romney is to the left of Bush and Reagan. He's tried to track right, which is why he's not doing as well as someone who's actually governed as a conservative. Of course, had Romney been as conservative as Reagan or Bush, he would never have been elected as Governor of Massachusetts.
DSD posted:
She is a far too divisive figure to win.
You may well be right. Her negatives are well-known, in pollster-speak.
There's no doubt that McCain is the GOP candidate which the Dems fear most. But that doesn't mean that the repuublicans will nominate him.
Good analysis DSD. I would disagree that the McCain haters (including me) would sit it out though if he got the nod. As much as they dislike him, they hate liberals more. The last thing they want to see is Hillary or Obama in the White House. The bigger worry for serious conservatives is a Huckabee nomination.
At this point it's Romney's to lose based on the delgate numbers. He's got a huge lead on everyone else.
Looking at Rudy's low Florida polling numbers combined with his lack of cash and no shows in the first 4 GOP primaries, he may be out of the running altogether for Super Tuesday if he loses Florida.
>>Romney's ..got a huge lead on everyone else.<<
What? You must be joking: He leads 24 against Huckabee's 18. 6 delegates hardly constitutes a "huge lead", especially considering, if I read it right, there are no less than 540 up for grabs in California alone! That "huge lead" can also be seen for what it is when you compare the USD 51.6 million he has already spent with Huckabee's total of USD 1.6 million!
See how confusing it is Noel? Even the delegate count is uncertain. My favorite site has it as Romney 21, Huckabee 14, etc.
But, overall, you're right. A candidate needs 1,191 delegates' votes to win the nomination.
The Democrats have more delegates and the winner will need 2,025.
There are only 170 (or so) delegates on offer in the Republican primary in California.
>>There are only 170 (or so) delegates on offer in the Republican primary in California.<<
I'd guessed my figure was wrong. It still shows how insignificant MR's lead is, though.
If the Republicans are dimwitted enough to think delegate counts at this stage (which are a false indication as they include virtually uncontested races such as Wyoming) are the factor to watch, they deserve to lose. Don't they want to beat the Democrats. Romney has demonstrated he can't win despite massive amounts of money in the whitebread midwest (Iowa), in his political backyard (New Hampshire) and quite possibly in the state of his birth (Michigan).
The primaries are also about a show of a politican's strength. If Republican voters don't vote smart, they may nominate the candidate of their dreams in the primary, but they'll face the nightmare of a loss in the genral election. Remember keep your eyes on the prize: the Presidency.
Patty -please understand it isn't just "liberals" who see Romney's grave situation in Michigan, it is conservatives and his staff and Romney himself.
Mahons,
Romney has indeed spent more than the other Republican candidates, but that's no different than a new brand of soda or cars or mobile phones or whatever spending a lot on a launch. Romney's spend was always going to have to be bigger because there are two fairly well known brands in the race: Giuliani and McCain. And, Huckabee too. Huckabee may not have been a household name, but his easy pigeon-holing as the Evangelical candidate meant that his brand was already better established than Romney's.
I'm not saying Romney will win, but it's way too early to write him off. Just as it's way too early to talk about delegate count, I see no reason to assume the results from 2, 3 or 4 states should determine a candidate's future. If he has the money and organization he should be able to be strong on Feb 5.
McCain's current success (in polls) is very precarious. One setback and everything could fall apart. He still has very little money and a minimal organization. He's counting on the good news from the networks to carry him.
If there was one candidate who was the Republican dream, we wouldn't be having this multi-candidate campaign. None of them is especially appealing, unfortunately.
By the way, from the little I know of him I think Duncan Hunter may well be the candidate who's closest to my "dream candidate", but he's a no hoper.
Mahons
If Thompson actually wins in SC then I might abandon the idea that Romney could still win the nomination. A rising Thompson is the only candidate that I think can gather Huckabee's voters when he goes. Thompson and Romney are sharing the same space.
"For what it's worth, a CNN survey of Californian voters today shows exactly the opposite: Clinton is clear favourite, not because they like her but simply because they think she'll get the WH for the Dems!"
A survey of Californian *Democrats*. This precisely my point. Dems love her - nobody else does. No one can win the White House without taking at least a sizable slice of that vote. Hillary can't.
Happy for the Left to have the delusions though...
Eagle: If Romney's nominated he has to face a Democrat who will not have money problems like some of his Republican adversaries. If he can't demonstrate that he can win in States where we presume he has an advantage (New Hampshire, Michigan) the party is going to recognize this problem and rally around a winner.
Unfortunately, I can't see how any other Republican can hope to even come close to the Democrat contender in fund-raising this year. No matter how I slice it, this looks like a tough year for the Republicans. The only glimmer of hope is Hillary's negatives.
I guess what I'm driving at Mahons is that I think it's possible that the Republicans won't ever 'really rally around a winner'. Maybe the Republican machine will, but I get the sense that the bulk of the party seems almost happy to have almost a fight to the death to determine what the party stands for and where next. None of the Republican candidates inspires any great sense of 'we must follow that guy'.
Eagle: Among the rabid raving right wing fringe the candidate selection is indeed sparce. Among the party's majority are those who agree that people who happen to belong to the other party might not be evil incarnate.
Suffice to say, if they want to elect someone to lead the country instead of merely someone to lead the party, they stand a chance. If not, the Clintons start moving their furniture back in.
CNN is calling it for Romney with about 37% to McCain's 31% and 10% of the vote in. Who says you can't go home again? Well I did. Nice work by Mitt's organization in a pressure situation.