Nader And Michigan
Clearly, Bob Wright is a keen observer of Obama’s foreign policy and the political scene. The Nader references in this diavlog got me to thinking again about how much of a Nader effect there could be this year. I am on record as laughing at Nader’s candidacy, but he could still be a significant problem for Obama in certain states. Here is a not-entirely-outlandish scenario: upset by Obama’s support for the PATRIOT Act, his record on Lebanon and his latest AIPAC speech, Arab-Americans, Muslims and progressives in a highly competitive state such as Michigan opt for Nader out of disillusionment with Obama that is made worse by episodes such as this. Combined with the Green candidate’s vote, Nader could pull away a significant number of voters in a crucial swing state that has a relatively large Arab-American and Muslim population, thus potentially aiding McCain’s election.
The interesting thing about Michigan: Obama chose to roll out the Edwards and Gore endorsements there. Scheduling coincedence or do they see some weakness there that others do not?
“do they see some weakness there that others do not?”
I think you’re right to read something into the location of the endorsements (and it is also probably a tacit admission that many of the Uncommitted voters back in January were Edwards voters), but I would remind everyone that I have a five-taco bet riding on the assumption that Obama is weak in Michigan and will end up losing the state. If others do not see Obama’s weakness in Michigan, it is because they have not been looking closely enough.
As a Michigan native, I have a hard time believing that McCain will win here. Ever since 2000, the state’s been voting more Democratic, the economy here is terrible, and McCain is a terrible candidate.
“five-taco bet”
?!?
Evidently I skipped class that day.
Anyway, back to Michigan.
http://www.pollster.com/08-MI-Pres-GE-MvO.php
The spread between Kerry & Bush in MI was only 165000 or so out of nearly 5 million cast, so it’s not unthinkable that Kerry could pull it off.
The five-taco bet is with me.
Here are what I see as the most relevant demographic facts about Michigan: almost everyone is either a student, a union member, or black. Michigan is also probably the weakest state in the entire Union economically right now – unemployment north of 7%.
To the extent that any of this matters, Obama beats McCain soundly. He will win students, blacks, and union members by a large margin, because that’s what Democrats do. On the flipside, the Republican “incumbent” is going to have an extremely hard time dealing with people who are extremely unsatisfied with the economy. I agree with Daniel that Obama misses a huge opportunity in Michigan to exploit NAFTA – which is not even slightly popular there – but it’s worth noting that he’s still to McCain’s left on that issue. It’s hard to imagine someone making NAFTA animosity an election-deciding issue and then picking McCain. It’s somewhat more likely to imagine the insurgency Daniel discusses here, but I think the specter of 2000 is still too great for that to be realistic.
Obama looks weak in Michigan now, I think, because of the lingering primary issues. Although do please note Rasmussen’s latest poll has Obama up by 3. I expect that, as opinions settle over the course of the general, Obama will solidify his support in Michigan and not look back. My only caveat is that McCain has a historical tie to Michigan – it was one of his major primary wins in 2000 – and he is still viewed quite fondly by the people of the state. Ultimately I don’t think that’ll matter, but it’s worth thinking about.
It may also be worth mentioning that Obama’s ground game will be dominant. There is virtually no Republican Party apparatus to speak of in Michigan – which is largely responsible for the fact that Michigan’s governor and both senators are Democrats (i.e., it’s not because Granholm and Stabenow are good candidates on the merits). That will be problematic for a guy who is going to be outraised something like 2 or 3 to 1.
jamesvkruse,
Though Bush lost Michgan twice, it was a tighter race in 2004 vs. Kerry than it was in 2000 vs. Gore. I would agree that it is a bit of a stretch (and I’ll take that 5-taco bet) but not unthinkable.