Susan J. Demas: What’s Going on in Michigan?

This guest piece ran in Political Wire.

Can Donald Trump win Michigan? Sure. And it’s certainly a better possibility now than it was 11 days ago. That’s when I last wrote about the state of play in the Mitten State and declared he’d all but lost.

So what’s changed? Most polls have tightened following FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress, both Trump and Hillary Clinton are now on TV here, both have multiple visits scheduled in the last week, and they’ve also unleashed a slew of surrogates. There’s been no shortage of doomsday predictions for the Democratic nominee, particularly on social media.

I would note that Michigan finally getting invited to the presidential prom is an ideal result for insiders. We in the media get an exciting race to cover (and ad revenue), Republicans get to chest-beat, and Democrats get to bedwet (yes, this is the favorite pastime of many in this state. More on that in a bit).

The overwhelming assumption by reporters is that Clinton is in deep trouble here. She took a blue state for granted and now Trump is going to cannily steal it. This is swallowing the Republican line whole –– but it’s tempting to do so. That would be a great story. It would show that Clinton’s crack data operation isn’t invincible and Trump can execute strategy.

It also portends the electoral future, when Democrats are likely to start hemorrhaging graying Rust Belt states and pick up Sunbelt states with large Latino populations. (Indeed, Clinton is still making a play for Arizona this year).

And maybe that is exactly what’s going on. But flip the coin over. Trump is barnstorming through 10 states in his final days (at last count). He’s trailing in most –– which doesn’t reflect a definitive path to victory. Going for Michigan may not be a masterstroke, but more of a last-ditch effort. Meanwhile, Clinton is swinging through a handful of big states, mostly those with limited early voting options, like Michigan. She also can rely on a much stronger GOTV operation here than Trump can.

It’s undeniable that Clinton is hitting the Mitten State state hard, scheduling two visits and dispatching Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to close the deal. Democrats are jumpy. Michigan isn’t in the bag. But there are some big incentives for Clinton to lavish the state with last-minute attention.

Everyone recalls that she narrowly lost the Democratic primary in March, which was one of the biggest stunners of the election. If she came up short in Michigan again on Tuesday, pundits would immediately declare she’d pulled a Martha Coakley here (as in the Dem politician who managed to lose two very winnable Massachusetts races in 2010 and 2014). And even if Clinton still wins the presidency, you can guarantee that analysts will obsess about her Michigan loss and what it says about her arrogance and lack of political skill. That would drive Clintonworld nuts.

It would also be devastating for Michigan Democrats, who have languished in a completely GOP-controlled state for six years and desperately need some wins.

But sure, I’m less confident in a Clinton win than I was a couple weeks ago. This has provided a teachable moment in punditry. It’s always useful to reevaluate both your assumptions and the evidence before you. That’s what famed forecaster Stu Rothenberg did this week, after sticking his neck out in August to predict Clinton would be the 45th president of the United States. This is what credible political analysts have to do. And I’ve been wrong before.

So I went back to basics. I talked to voters and seasoned politicos. I did some additional number-crunching. And I still believe Clinton is the heavy favorite, probably winning Michigan between 3 and 7 points on Tuesday. I’ll go through why in a moment.

But first, here’s why I was initially cynical that Michigan was truly competitive. It goes well beyond the fact that no Republican presidential nominee has carried Michigan in 28 years. It’s based on my experience as a beat reporter covering the last two cycles, which have been dream Democratic scenarios.

In early October 2008, John McCain abruptly withdrew from Michigan, essentially ceding the state to Obama. The phone calls from prominent Democrats started immediately. No one was euphoric. “It’s a Jedi mind trick,” groused one lawmaker. When McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, “went rogue” and announced she didn’t want to give up on Michigan, Democrats bombarded me with “I told you so” rants. After a couple of weeks, when it was undeniable that Team McCain had really skedaddled, the Dems morphed into the next Eeyore phase. This time they moaned about overconfidence and the almost certain Bradley effect dooming Obama.

He won the state by 16 points.

Then in 2012, Democrats were convinced Michigan native Mitt Romney had a great chance of winning his home state. After Obama’s first disastrous debate in September, a Democratic leader frantically texted me that all was lost. She was utterly inconsolable and remained so even after the president’s subsequent rebound. Last-minute polls, including a disreputable one showing Romney ahead in Michigan, provided additional freakout fodder for a slew of Dems.

Obama won the state by 9.5 points.

This year, it’s been the usual suspects who have been agitating about Clinton’s chances in Michigan. Few of them are intimately involved with the campaign, which remains confident in its data operation and strong ground game. So it was easy for me to dismiss the dire talk that began in late October.

But there’s no doubt that the Clinton campaign is devoting a lot of time and resources into closing the deal here. It’s also true she can afford that. Her overall position in the election remains strong. She’s still fighting for Arizona, which pundits have always considered a pipe dream.

Meanwhile, Republicans are always confident about Michigan (save for the last few weeks of 2008, when it would have been an obvious emperor-has-no-clothes scenario). They’re always going to win. They always open an office in Detroit and are going to make major headway in the state’s largest city that usually goes 90% (or more) for Democrats.

This year was no different, especially with Trump bragging that Michigan was a top target. Even when public polling showed Clinton up by double digits in mid-October, Republicans were publicly insisting Trump would win. Why? He drew big crowds and the polls were rigged. Heck, plenty of Republicans were privately telling me that.

But after the Comey bombshell, the polls mysteriously became de-rigged. State Rep. Aric Nesbitt (R-Lawton), who’s in charge of the GOP’s state House campaign, declared this week at a Mike Pence rally: “Who would have ever thought a week ago that Michigan would be in play?” Well, actually, Nesbitt and all Republican officials said that at a media forum I helped host in Lansing back on Oct. 19.

For Republicans, it’s always a horserace in Michigan until it actually is –– and then they basically admit it was all a bluff before.

It’s helpful to know the lay of the land in Michigan. But as an analyst, you can’t let history blind you to what’s going on now. So over the last week, I talked to voters while traveling the state. There were a few reticent Republicans who said they might end up going for Trump now, but most remained unenthused.

Only a few infrequent Democratic and undecided voters seemed fazed by the Comey letter and said they were less likely to vote. None of them said they were turning to Trump. And over the weekend, several Democrats have told me they’re more fired up to vote for Clinton now because they believe a faction in the FBI is trying to sway the election.

I talked to long-time Dem politicos who said that their real fear has been softening numbers, especially with younger and African-American voters. Unlike other battleground states like Florida, Nevada and Colorado –– and recently added Arizona and New Mexico –– Michigan can’t count on a sizable, fired-up Latino populace (especially low-propensity voters that polling has missed) to come through. And Michigan doesn’t have widespread, in-person early voting, as is also the case in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, two other states she’s stumping in. So the Clinton campaign has to rally a big Election Day turnout to win.

That’s why Bill Clinton just swung into town to plot GOTV with Detroit pastors and leaders. When Hillary Clinton looked to schedule an event Michigan on Friday, it wasn’t even a question of where she would go. It had to be Detroit. Barack Obama is scheduled to fire up the college crowd in Ann Arbor on Monday. That’s playing defense.

But Clinton is also playing offense here, something that’s been overlooked by the national media who aren’t as familiar with the electorate here. Her Monday trip is slated for Grand Rapids, the GOP heart of Michigan with a strong evangelical base. Trump has struggled there all cycle. Bernie Sanders just made a west Michigan stop in Kalamazoo and then headed to up north to red Traverse City.

On the other hand, the Trump campaign is hitting every corner of Michigan and aggressively pushing the message that they’re making gains everywhere. But in the waning days of a campaign, targeting your voters in key areas is the ballgame.

I also spoke with several Republicans who don’t snow me with the “It’s always sunny in Michigan” party line. Those Rs were suddenly elated. Sure, if enough Dems are too depressed to vote (think off-year elections like 2010 and 2014) and Team Trump lives up to its hype by turning out “shy” voters, they could really win this thing. But their giddiness really wasn’t about the top of the ticket. Time is ticking to close the gap and many aren’t thrilled with Trump’s slapdash campaign schedule in the final days.

The real prize is down-ballot. All three branches are Republican-controlled in Michigan. But the state House was in jeopardy, which was roiling big donors. The closer Trump gets, however, the fewer seats Republicans have to worry about. At this point, Republicans think it’s all but certain that they keep the majority, so they can finish implementing their conservative agenda. If Trump nearly catches Clinton, that has the added bonus of psyching out Dems for 2018, a year they had been optimistic about. GOP Gov. Rick Snyder is term-limited, but he leaves an unpopular legacy of botching the Flint water crisis.

And finally, I looked at the numbers –– polls, early voting and Election Day turnout projections. Finding good data is a challenge in Michigan for many reasons.

First of all, it’s true that much of our public polling is problematic. Few outfits do live-operator surveys. And everyone blew the March 8 Democratic primary, primarily because their turnout models were way off. General election polling has been more reliable in the recent past. But to be honest, I trust internals and non-public surveys from good pollsters more. And these show a 4 to 6 point Clinton victory, which would be a base election. It also wouldn’t be a big surprise, after everything, if the end result looks more like 2012, when Obama defeated Romney, 54%-45%.

However, Clinton’s margin could dip into the danger zone, particularly if Detroit Dems stay home. That’s the John Kerry situation when he only edged George W. Bush out by 3 points in 2004. If infrequent Trump voters flood the polls –– think Macomb County outside Detroit and northern Michigan –– that could all add up to a Trump triumph. But the odds of that remain low.

Then there are the early vote numbers, which have inspired many Dems to panic and some observers to do questionable math. As I noted, there’s no in-person early voting (or no-reason absentee voting). So early votes are a smaller percentage of total vote in Michigan. We also don’t have party registration here, unlike the majority of states, so it’s a trickier to estimate where early votes are going. Both parties send out absentee ballots to their likely voters, which provides a guide, but any estimates involve both art and science.

Republicans have traditionally had a strong absentee-ballot game, with their nominees winning AVs by double digits in 2008 and 2012 –– yes, during years of overwhelming Obama victories. This year, the Dems have a 3-point advantage so far, according to Dennis Darnoi, a Republican strategist and top data guru in Michigan.

So why are Democrats freaking out? When all is said and done, it’s fair to expect Republicans will come out ahead, per usual. The Detroit early vote numbers are way down. And some of the Dem-looking numbers in Macomb are a mirage — white men in the northern part of the county will go for Trump. At the same time, GOP-looking numbers in neighboring Oakland County probably aren’t as strong, since women, especially those around Romney’s Bloomfield Hills stomping grounds, are likely plunking for Clinton. And naturally, clerk offices across the state may be inundated on Monday with last-minute ballots.

Given all these variables, no one can credibly make sweeping predictions about the election here based on absentee-vote numbers.

The bottom line is this: Trump could win if everything goes right for him and everything goes wrong for Clinton. That’s the miracle-or-meteor scenario I mentioned in an earlier column.

But right now, you’d still rather be Clinton, not Trump, in Michigan — night sweats and all.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Trump Turns off Values Voters

The Republican’s Woes in Utah Reveal a Wider Problem

Utah Capitol/Susan J. Demas

SALT LAKE CITY –– Utah is widely considered to be the reddest state in the country.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ fortress-like world headquarters lies just a few blocks away from the state capitol and looms large over the Beehive State’s staunch socially and economically conservative politics. All six members of the congressional delegation are Republicans, as is the governor and all other statewide elected officials. Only one member of that cadre is female.

In 2012, Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, defeated President Obama here by a crushing 48-point margin. The state map was a solid block of red, with 29 out of 29 counties voting Republican. This wasn’t an aberration. While Romney overperformed John McCain’s 28-point margin in 2008, his victory was on par with President George W. Bush’s 46-point thumping of John Kerry in 2004.

Politico, 2012

But there have been warning signs that this GOP paradise isn’t a lock for Donald Trump this year. The two best polls for the Republican nominee, both taken over a month ago, had shown him up 15 points over Hillary Clinton.

When I visited the Utah capitol building last week, Trump was the subject of several conversations –– and none of them positive. Utahns were aghast that he was their party’s standard-bearer, especially after Romney, who is still wildly popular there.

Trump is the embodiment of secular hedonism, replete with five children by three different wives and a potty mouth that matches that of shock jock Howard Stern during his frequent interviews.

Adding fuel to the fire was the recently unearthed “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump bragged he could “grab ‘em by the pussy”  because “you can do anything” to women when you’re a star. It’s not a coincidence that Utah Republicans –– Gov. Gary Herbert, former Gov. Jon Huntsman and U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz –– led the ensuing defection stampede.

There was more anecdotal evidence during my trip that Trump was in trouble in Utah. Evan McMullin, a Republican veteran who’s launched a #NeverTrump presidential bid, did a rousing town hall in Provo on Oct. 5.

Traveling through 12 counties, I saw as many Trump lawn signs as I did Clinton signs –– one. There were no Trump billboards. More significantly, I did see Clinton’s powerful “Silo” ad on TV, which features images of nuclear weapons against the backdrop of Trump quotes like, “I love war” and “I would bomb the shit out of ‘em” (the obscenity was bleeped out, of course).

So I wasn’t terribly surprised to see this week’s blockbuster Y2 Analytics poll showing Clinton and Trump tied at 26 percent, McMullin at 22 percent and Libertarian Gary Johnson at 14 percent.

While Trump is still expected to ultimately triumph in Utah on Nov. 8, there’s a clear fault line within the Republican Party with Mormon voters and officeholders. When taken with Trump’s alienation of Latino, African-American, female and college-educated voters, it’s clear that Trump’s appeal is dangerously limited.

It’s interesting that evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell Jr. and religious-right politicians like Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson have vehemently defended Trump over his comments. It’s also striking how many conservatives like U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, who’s a lawyer, have refused to characterize Trump’s comments as sexual assault (after the firestorm, Sessions sniffed that his response had been “mischaracterized”).

But some female evangelical leaders have had enough and split with Trump, like Beth Moore, who declared, “I’m one among many women sexually abused, misused, stared down, heckled, talked naughty to. Like we liked it. We didn’t. We’re tired of it.”

It will be interesting how values voters respond in Michigan, especially women. This summer, Clinton edged out Trump in West Michigan, a nationally recognized religious-right stronghold. The latest Detroit News/Glengariff poll (taken last month before the tape and both debates) shows Trump back up to an 18-point lead there, but Johnson was pulling in an unheard-of 21 percent.

Trump’s solid angry white male voting block in northern Michigan and Macomb County already isn’t enough to carry him to victory here. And his stream of degrading comments about women, continued insistence that the four African-American and one Latino teens known as the “Central Park Five” are guilty despite DNA evidence, and alpha-male stalking of Clinton in the Oct. 9 town hall debate won’t help him expand his base.

If religious female voters bolt from Trump the way Mormon voters are in Utah, that could be the difference between a solid Clinton victory in Michigan on Nov. 8 and an Obama ‘08-style blowout.

Moreover, it might mean that putting the GOP coalition back together post-Hurricane Trump may prove more challenging than Republicans think.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: A Déjà Vu Debate: The Trump-Clinton Slugfest Has Echoes of DeVos Vs. Granholm

During her final debate in 2006 against billionaire businessman Dick DeVos, then-Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm unloaded a memorable zinger that ended up defining the race.

“You’re an expert yachtsman,” the embattled Democratic incumbent tartly began, adding that his philosophy was “each man for himself.”

But the effectiveness of Granholm’s attack wasn’t just slamming DeVos as an out-of-touch rich guy. The key was moving on to framing the election. The governor called herself the “captain of the ship” and declared, “We are all in this boat together.”

This wasn’t even Granholm’s best debate performance or her best line. But it summed up the stakes of the election for voters. Granholm would go onto to win re-election a few weeks later by a whopping 14 points, even though the state was suffering through its sixth year of recession.

And on Monday night, she was in the audience for a different slugfest between her longtime friend, Hillary Clinton, and another billionaire (at least, allegedly), Donald Trump. Granholm, who was termed out of office in 2010, is now co-chairing the Clinton transition team and a favorite for a cabinet slot or Democratic National Committee chair.  

Trump has bragged that only he has the business acumen to fix the country. And while we’re not in recession, the Republican nominee routinely describes an America that resembles a dystopian hellscape.

So Granholm must have had some sense of déjà vu as the debate unfolded.

Now Trump was a much more aggressive and disrespectful debater than DeVos, interrupting her 51 times in his quest to be Mansplainer-In-Chief. His rambling, ranting and raving was so over-the-top at times that “Saturday Night Live” writers are probably flummoxed as to how to parody it.

And Clinton isn’t nearly as polished a debater as Granholm, as her early stumble through the canned line, “Trumped-up, trickle-down economics” shows.

Trump fired off his share of attacks, such as, “You’re telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.” Of course, none of this is true, starting with the fact that the Islamic State isn’t 50 years old. But it probably fired up supporters who routinely shout, “Lock her up!” at his rallies.

The problem is alpha-male performance art, punctuated by frequent falsehoods, only holds appeals for his most loyal supporters. Undecided voters and soft Clinton supporters didn’t buy what he was selling, as the CNN poll showed.

The primary challenge in debates is to come off as presidential. Voters need to be comfortable waking up on Nov. 9 knowing this will be the person in the Oval Office armed with the nuclear launch codes. It’s usually not about issues –– the way a candidate talks about issues is largely just telegraphing his or her values.

Donald Trump failed the commander-in-chief test in Round 1 in such a way that it will be hard to bounce back –– and look authentic. More importantly, Hillary Clinton easily vaulted over the high bar set for her.

She didn’t do it with clever quips. She did it by serenely smiling through Trump’s attacks and interruptions. She did it through demonstrating her policy expertise. Voters may not recall her answer on cybersecurity, but they know she grasped the issue as a president should (and didn’t tout her 10-year-old’s computer skills like Trump).

Clinton was the Iron Lady, our own Margaret Thatcher. And she did manage to distill the election, not through a zinger, but in her own steady, wonky voice:

“I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.”

Somewhere in the audience, you can bet Jennifer Granholm was smiling.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: The Battle Up North: A Democrat Flips the Script on Guns in the MI-1

Sleeping Bear Dunes, Susan J. Demas

TRAVERSE CITY –– Can a Democrat still win in the 1st congressional district?

That’s an open question –– and one that’s plagued the party for the last six years. And that’s partly why I made my third trip up north this summer.

This seat, left open by retiring U.S. Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Crystal Falls), represents the Democrats’ best prospect in Michigan this year. In fact, the matchup between former Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lon Johnson and Lt. Gen. Jack Bergman could be a top 10 race nationally.

The Dems’ woes go beyond the fact that a Republican has held the seat encompassing the entire Upper Peninsula and now a good chunk of the northern Lower Peninsula since 2010.

In 2012, President Barack Obama lost the MI-1 by 8 points to Mitt Romney after edging out John McCain by 1.3 points in 2008. And now polling shows Hillary Clinton decisively losing to Donald Trump there, even as she leads statewide.

It’s true that conservative Democrat Bart Stupak represented the district for the 18 years prior to Benishek. But the district is larger and more conservative now than when Stupak was in office.

The MI-1 now spans 32 counties, thanks to the fact that Michigan lost a seat in the last redistricting. Republicans, who completely controlled the 2011 process, lopped on plenty of GOP-friendly territory south of the Mackinac Bridge. Inside Michigan Politics rates the district as now having a 54.4 percent GOP base.

The sprawling northern Michigan fiefdom is home to the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, which is now teeming with tourists from across the country, thanks to “Good Morning America” naming it the “Most Beautiful Place in America” back in 2011.

The Upper Peninsula also has its fair share of spectacular scenery, including Tahquamenon Falls and the Porcupine Mountains. But its remoteness (it’s an eight-hour drive from Lansing to the Porkies) has made the U.P. insular.

And the district’s natural beauty masks some of its economic pain. Counties in the MI-1 have long been plagued by some of the highest unemployment rates in the state, especially when summer tourists skedaddle. Despite the economic recovery, Mackinac County (home to fabled Mackinac Island) still saw its jobless rate spike above 20 percent in March.

It’s not surprising that Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan is resonating. This is the uncertain backdrop for this critical congressional race.

The MI-1 used to be a haven for socially conservative voters whose views were tempered by economic liberalism, i.e. support for the social safety net (especially Social Security and Medicare) and yes, government pork (it’s tough to make it up there, where the snow can start to fall in September and linger well into May).

Now voters are more willing to roll the dice on candidates who backed big cuts to the welfare state (even Social Security), like Benishek and Romney. And cultural conservatism is ascendent, with anti-abortion billboards and mom-and-pop gun shops dotting the lush countryside.

It’s rough territory for Lon Johnson, who’s pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights and has spent years working in politics and venture capital outside Michigan. He also happens to be married to one of Obama’s chief fundraisers, Julianna Smoot, which symbolizes his political insider status.

In contrast, Bergman is an outsider –– which is how he toppled two long-serving state senators in the GOP primary. He’s also lived outside Michigan, but Republicans are banking on his military service to blunt “carpetbagger” charges.

But Johnson is a frenetic campaigner who’s clearly outworking Bergman. His ability to raise money sets him apart from most Democrats in the region –– and has allowed him to go up on TV early and often.

In the end, the two issues that might save him are the environment and gun rights. It’s safe to say that many downstate Democrats are comfortable with the former, but not the latter.

Johnson has come out swinging against Enbridge’s aging Line 5 pipeline running below the Straits of Mackinac. He’s appealed to northern Michiganders’ pride in their natural surroundings and fear of another drinking water disaster á la Flint. That’s the smart play for voters who are deeply wary of government overreach.

He’s also donning his hunting fatigues in ads, which isn’t for show. Johnson has been sitting in northern Michigan deer blinds since he was a kid and will talk your ear off about his adventures.

Both he and Bergman sport “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association. But some Republicans inadvertently did the Democrat a solid in the rough-and-tumble primary by slamming Bergman for supporting background checks and waiting periods “like Obama.”

There’s been grumbling from Dems (who don’t live anywhere near the MI-1) that Johnson shouldn’t be running to a Republican’s right on guns. It’s the same folks who don’t support pro-life Democrats running in northern and western Michigan, even though that’s what voters demand.

It’s a valid ideological debate. But if Johnson’s pro-gun stance helps the Dems finally take back a key congressional seat, are liberals really going to complain?

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Who Are the Most Liberal and Conservative Lawmakers?

In the last decade, some well-known Republican lawmakers have been ousted for not being conservative enough.

Everyone recalls former U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s shocking defeat in 2014. And in Michigan, moderate Joe Schwarz suffered a narrow loss in 2006 to ultra-conservative now-U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Tipton).

At the state Legislature level, Rep. Frank Foster (R-Pellston) was toppled two years ago by now-Rep. Lee Chatfield (R-Levering) after championing LGBT rights.

These instances are few and far between, but they’ve left a mark. The conventional wisdom is that amassing the most conservative voting record possible is the best insurance against being primaried. And it’s worth noting that many Republicans occupy safe seats (above a 55 percent GOP base) in the Legislature, so the only real threat usually comes from within –– in a GOP primary.

Inside Michigan Politics has been tallying legislative votes for several decades to determine the “Most Liberal and Most Conservative” members of each chamber. We pore over every vote that calendar year and determine every lawmaker’s record.

Needless to say, I start getting anxious queries about this in summer during even-year elections, especially from Republicans and conservative activists. Although lawmakers love when they make “They Said It” with a clever quote, I’d guess most Republicans would rather earn the “Most Conservative” mantle, given how frequently it pops up in their campaign literature.

There typically aren’t many surprises on the list –– and there shouldn’t be when you’re looking at hundreds of votes. This year, IMP examined 28 record roll-call votes for social, economic, taxation, environmental, civil rights, and public health/safety issues by the 109 members of the state House. For the rankings, 100 percent is the gold standard for a representative who voted the liberal position on these votes. The full list is in our Sept. 9 edition.

The 2016 “Most Liberal” member is freshman Rep. Robert Wittenberg (D-Oak Park), who scored a 92.9 percent liberal voting record. His predecessor, Ellen Cogen Lipton (D-Huntington Woods), took that honor in 2011.

In fact, those who took the top three slots for liberal voting records in 2016 all hailed from metro Detroit. There was a second-place tie between Reps. Brian Banks (D-Harper Woods) and Sherry Gay-Dagnogo (D-Detroit), who each voted liberal 89.3 percent of the time. The two-way tie for third place was between Reps. LaTanya Garrett (D-Detroit) –– who was the 2015 “Most Liberal” champ –– and Kristy Pagan (D-Canton), who both posted 85.7 percent liberal records.

The 2016 “Most Conservative” member was another freshman, Rep. Lana Theis (R-Brighton), who had just a 10.7 percent liberal rating. Theis, who was third in 2015, was a well-known figure on the right before taking office. She headed the unsuccessful 2012 constitutional amendment Proposal 5, which would have required a two-thirds legislative vote for tax increases.

The second-place tie was between Reps. Triston Cole (R-Mancelona), Laura Cox (R-Livonia) and Aaron Miller (R-Sturgis), who voted liberal 14.3 percent of the time. Coming in third were Chatfield and Gary Glenn (R-Midland) took third prize with their 17.6 percent liberal voting records.

Sometimes the IMP rankings can go down in infamy, as they did last year. The disgraced duo of now-former Reps. Todd Courser (R-Silverwood) and Cindy Gamrat (R-Plainwell) tied for the “Most Conservative” honor. Of course, that’s probably little comfort, as Gamrat was expelled and Courser resigned at the last minute amid colorful accusations they abused their offices.

Taking a look back even further, the “Most Conservative” title went to several Republicans who may be out of office now, thanks to term limits, but they’re still fighting the good ideological fight.

In 2014, current Rep. Ray Franz (R-Onekama) tied with both Tom McMillin (R-Auburn Hills) and Pete Lund (R-Shelby Twp.). McMillin, a well-known culture warrior, lost his bid for the open MI-8 in 2014 to now-U.S. Rep. Mike Bishop (R-Rochester), but successfully won a GOP nomination to the State Board of Education this year. Lund now runs the Michigan chapter of the nationally influential, free-market group Americans for Prosperity.                         

Both Franz and Lund were part of a six-way tie in 2013, which included current Reps. Ken Goike (R- Ray Twp.), Tim Kelly (R-Saginaw) and Tom Leonard (R-DeWitt Twp.). Rounding out the list was now-former Rep. Bob Genetski (R-Saugatuck), who fought public universities on LGBT rights and embryonic stem cell research, and has launched a comeback as Allegan County’s soon-to-be clerk and register of deeds.

And, not surprisingly, then-Rep. Dave Agema (R-Grandville), did back-to-back runs at No. 1 in 2011 and 2012, before he made headlines as Republican National committeeman for his frequent anti-gay and anti-Muslim musings.

Given the history, it’s a safe bet that the current roster of “Most Conservative” medalists will stay active in Republican politics long after term limits kick in.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: The Post-Labor Day Presidential Election Freakout Is Here

Presidential politics has veered into post-Labor Day hysteria, where every poll, every candidate movement (cough, cough) is wildly over-analyzed.

Cable news and Twitter are perfect vehicles for these breathless hot takes, which tend to obscure the fundamentals of the race. As the owner of Inside Michigan Politics, I routinely get interview requests from reporters across the country (and occasionally the globe). I’m sure I disappoint some by failing to dispense a breathless “This will change everything” soundbite, but it’s my job to be a political realist.

Here’s what we know. The presidential race has predictably tightened both nationally and in Michigan. The post-convention polls showing Hillary Clinton with double-digit leads have disappeared. But the Democrat still holds a steady polling lead in RealClearPolitics’ national average and its Michigan average.

Naturally, we’ve all heard a lot about outlier polls because of media bias. That bias isn’t favoring Donald Trump, by the way.

It’s the (often subconscious) desire of reporters and editors to have an exciting race to cover. Otherwise, the blackness starts to descend, and you start questioning the meaning of your life. Devoting 14 hours a day to writing about highly probable outcomes is a joyless existence. (Believe me, I know. I used to cover floor and committee action for the Michigan Legislature every day).

Remember all the media hyperventilating in 2008 and 2012, even though political fundamentals favored two Barack Obama victories? But there were endless stories that something would rock the races –– John McCain suspending his campaign when the economy collapsed in ‘08, Mitt Romney’s first debate performance in ‘12, and various gaffes no one recalls.

Sure, it could be different this year. Trump is an unusual candidate with a penchant for saying outrageous things and pulling stunts, like a last-minute sojourn south of the border. We have apparent meddling in our election by Russia, an unfriendly foreign power, between Wikileaks and other email hacks. And there’s always the possibility of a game-changing domestic or world event.

But the economic and political fundamentals always favored a small Clinton victory, not a blowout. It should be said that Trump has, thus far, shown to be a particularly poor candidate, as he hasn’t consolidated Republican support as much as a traditional nominee would. His numbers with women, minorities and college-educated whites make victory virtually impossible, both in Michigan and nationally, unless they start to shoot up.

Trump also refused to set up a professional campaign apparatus for months after winning the nomination, like opening campaign offices in key states, hiring competent staff, getting a fundraising operation going, etc. Clinton’s operation, on the other hand, has been humming along since 2015 (and with far less drama than its ‘08 iteration).

It should be said that Republicans would be in a much stronger position right now with either fresh-faced Marco Rubio or experienced, steady John Kasich, both of whom hail from swing states. They would sport professional campaigns and know how to exploit Clinton’s weaknesses far better.

There’s also a popular theory on the left that Bernie Sanders would have been a stronger candidate than Clinton. (Some progressives on social media are currently reveling in “I told you so” mode, and seem to be touting positive Trump polls more than Republicans are).

But Sanders’ general election poll numbers were always artificially high. Clinton pulled her punches, so as to not alienate Sanders supporters. And Republicans were praying that Sanders would win, as they thought he was the feebler candidate, so they never piled on.

As a history major who grew up during the tail end of the Cold War, I believe that Republicans would have eviscerated Sanders as Chairman Mao in the first week of the general election. When push comes to shove, Americans will choose an authoritarian strongman over a weak socialist any day. And Sanders also couldn’t capture Clinton’s high-profile Republican endorsements like Meg Whitman and Carlos Gutierrez.

Regardless, it’s important to remember that the odds of a blowout presidential election nowadays are rare, no matter who the nominees are. We live in an era of negative partisanship --- where people’s political affiliation is defined by their hatred of the other party and its values. So many people will vote Trump, despite their many reservations, just because of their deep-seated loathing of Clinton and liberals --- and vice-versa.

One of the most predictive (and overlooked) polls is who voters think will win. And right now, they think it will be Clinton. I know that’s boring. I know that’s not what roughly 40 percent of people want to hear. But that’s where we are.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: John Austin’s Power Plays: Is the Democrat Looking at 2018?

Austinformichigan.com

Is John Austin running for governor in 2018?

The State Board of Education president, who’s also run a couple Michigan think tanks and served as a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, has mounted a very aggressive re-election campaign this year.

Although a soft-spoken consensus-builder by nature, Austin has made two bold moves in recent months.

The first was coming out swinging for the rights of LGBT students. Austin was part of a work group developing voluntary guidelines to help LGBT kids in school, as almost one-third of them have shockingly tried to commit suicide in the last year. The guidelines before the SBE included allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice.

Naturally, that caused squealing from the right (including the Detroit News’ Ingrid Jacques, even though the editorial board has repeatedly warned Republicans to stop harping on social issues). SBE member Eileen Weiser led the charge from within the Democratic-controlled board to torpedo the guidelines. She just happens to be married to former Michigan Republican Party Chair Ron Weiser (who had to appease the Donald Trump/Tea Party wing to win the GOP nomination for University of Michigan regent).

But Austin didn’t get cold feet. He continued to champion the cause, even after national right-wing media made him a target and the GOP-led Legislature threatened to cut the SBE’s funding and even eliminate the board completely.

That has, no doubt, endeared him to LGBT and other liberal activists –– which could prove useful if he does take the plunge for governor next cycle. Look for him to court Bernie Sanders supporters, in particular, who may be looking for alternatives to so-called “establishment” candidates.

Austin’s other significant maneuver is more inside baseball, but it’s made Democrats take notice of his political cunning. He backed former Department of Human Services Director Ismael Ahmed for the other SBE slot at the Michigan Democratic Party convention last weekend, effectively boxing out former Republican state Rep. John Stewart. (The AFL-CIO endorsed Ahmed and key players in the education unions let their displeasure over Stewart’s past backing of charter schools be known).

The beauty of Austin’s play is that it’s unlikely to ruffle the feathers of the party’s liberal wing. Few “Berniecrats” are focused on down-ballot races. And besides, these folks consider Clinton to be a quasi-Republican, so they’re unlikely to rally to the defense of a former Republican like Stewart.

These moves and Austin’s glossy fundraising pitches (which take a page from the Barack Obama playbook) have made Democratic insiders wonder if he’s angling for a bigger job. He’s armed with an impressive resume, which includes master’s degree in public administration from Harvard. And Austin has run for Secretary of State and flirted with a gubernatorial bid in the past.

It’s worth noting that he’s hired Dan Lijana*, formerly of the Democratic powerhouse firm Dewey Square. Principal Jill Alper helmed Jennifer Granholm’s gubernatorial bids, as well seven presidential campaigns, including both of Hillary Clinton’s. With Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan vowing not to seek the governorship (and those closest to him swearing it’s true), Alper doesn’t have a dog in the ‘18 fight –– yet.

It would be an uphill battle for Austin. Former state senator and now interim Ingham County Prosecutor Gretchen Whitmer is all but in. She’s a known quantity in Lansing as a fierce advocate for public education and women’s rights. U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Flint), who’s gotten plenty of media attention over the Flint water crisis, is popular with key labor figures.

And the field will probably expand beyond that. While it seems increasingly unlikely that popular Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel will leave his prime perch to run, other ambitious politicians could throw their hat in. U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) is frequently mentioned. And pollster Ed Sarpolus is pumping up Westland Mayor Bill Wild (who bought billboards up north before the Mackinac Policy Conference).

Austin would have to carve out a niche of his own. But with his power play at the convention, Austin has shown –– for the first time –– that he may have the sharp elbows needed to survive a crowded primary.

But first, he’ll have to survive his re-election fight for the SBE on Nov. 8. As long as the courts uphold the right to straight-ticket voting, Austin should be fine. Clinton is widely expected to win Michigan, which would traditionally help down-ballot Dems.

The wild card is if Attorney General Bill Schuette keeps pushing his fight to reinstate the straight-ticket ban. In he succeeds, look for Republicans to heavily target Austin as payback for the LGBT guidelines. (Not coincidentally, one of their SBE nominees is notoriously anti-gay former state Rep. Tom McMillin).

You can bet that Austin is watching this court fight very closely.

* Corrected, 12:01 p.m.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: How Gov. Rick Snyder May Have Flourished Under Divided Government

Susan J. Demas

Gov. Rick Snyder’s last two years in office will probably be unhappy ones if Democrats succeed this fall in wresting control of the state House.

He’s been noticeably absent from the campaign trail –– and not just because he refuses to endorse Donald Trump. No, the primary reason has been his administration’s myriad failures (and Snyder’s own collapsing numbers) due to the Flint water crisis.

The governor hasn’t been completely sidelined, of course. He’s been flexing his financial muscles with his new Relentless Positive Action PAC contributing to several House Republican incumbents, particularly vulnerable members like Reps. Holly Hughes (R-Norton Shores) and John Bizon (R-Battle Creek).

But let’s face it. Snyder’s final years are probably destined to be lackluster, at best, no matter what happens in November. Second-term governors usually hit a slump in their approval ratings no matter what. Voters get the six-year itch, which doesn’t help the governor’s party (although sometimes gerrymandering can be enough to salvage legislative seats).

And Snyder has been deeply wounded by his perceived incompetence and indifference regarding the public health catastrophe that’s merited international attention.

If Trump continues to tank at the top of the ticket, that may just be enough for Democrats to win a slim majority in the House –– although it can’t be underestimated how challenging it is for them to flip nine seats. As long as the party sticks together –– which has been a historical challenge –– it should be able to block much of the GOP agenda for the next two years.

What I would have liked to see, however, was how Snyder would have dealt with a Democratic House from the onset. I don’t think there’s any question that he would have been a much better governor (something many Republicans will say privately, as well).

For one thing, like governors before him –– William Milliken, James Blanchard, John Engler and Jennifer Granholm –– Snyder would have had to learn the art of legislative dealmaking. (No, not all of them were smashing successes on that front, but divided government necessitates trying). Especially given the fact that Snyder hailed from the CEO boardroom –– not the halls of government –– he could have used that crash course.

But he hasn’t had to compromise much, as he’s enjoyed his party controlling both chambers of the Legislature (as well as the Michigan Supreme Court) for his entire tenure since 2011. That’s enabled Snyder to pass the crown jewel of his governorship, his sweeping tax reform of 2011, which included an almost $2 billion business tax cut.

The governor has also won other big conservative victories: the Emergency Manager law, Personal Property Tax reform, regulatory reform, charter school expansion, workers’ compensation benefit cuts, the 48-month cap on welfare and cuts to unemployment benefits.

But Snyder has had to swallow some tradeoffs in working with a GOP-led Legislature, which has only shifted further to the right in this last term.

So he’s signed a slew of right-wing legislation that wasn’t “on his agenda”: abortion restrictions, the ban on LGBT couples adopting children, the straight-ticket voting ban, the Oakland County redistricting redo and, of course, Right to Work.

No one really believes Snyder is a rabid partisan or true-believer culture warrior, but acting as such has been the price of doing business with those who are. If he’d had a Democratic House to tangle with, however, he could have blamed it for blocking the far-right agenda (and a smart speaker would have played along with the political kabuki to win concessions in fiscal and education policy).

A Democratic House also could have provided Snyder with some much-needed votes for his more moderate policy objectives, like the long-delayed Medicaid expansion and his half-a-loaf road funding plan. And some of these initiatives, like the state-run Obamacare health exchange, rotted on the vine.

Perhaps having a check on complete Republican power could have prevented some black eyes on Snyder’s record, like alleged abuses at the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans, as well as and health and criminal infractions related to a private food service contact in prisons.

It’s doubtful that the biggest tragedy on Snyder’s watch, the Flint water crisis, could have been averted completely. But perhaps residents would have been helped sooner if Democrats had held some power in Lansing. Sometimes partisanship can reap rewards.

It’s not unreasonable to presume this would have happened. Democrats represent Flint, so they have a reason to rapidly respond to the needs of their constituents. They would also have naked political reasons to question the Snyder administration. More importantly, they’d have had the latitude to take some action.

Consider the fact that House Speaker Kevin Cotter (R-Mt. Pleasant) and Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof (R-West Olive) have certainly clashed with the governor on politics and policy. But they’ve have unquestionably served as key allies on Flint.

The now-shuttered legislative panel investigating the water crisis never called Snyder to testify –– saving him hours of embarrassment (which he already been subjected to during a congressional hearing). And the Legislature has made no move to question the $3.4 million in legal fees Snyder has racked up and charged to taxpayers.

Surely the governor couldn’t have expected such a soft touch from a Democratic-controlled Legislature, or even just the House. But as a result, there are scores of unanswered questions about the crisis. And who knows how many more millions citizens will have to pay for the governor’s lawyers.

It’s widely expected that the next governor will be a Democrat, although more than two years remain before the 2018 election. But if that happens, s/he will almost certainly have a GOP Senate to contend with, as it’s currently split 27-11.

Given the partisan excesses Michigan has endured under one-party rule for the last six years, however, that may not be a bad thing.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: The Name Game: Family Ties Still Boost Candidates in Michigan's Primary

Susan J. Demas

If you talked to folks in Michigan’s 14th state House District, they didn’t see very much of Cara Clemente.

The Democrat ghosted most big events, declined to fill out many campaign questionnaires and didn’t spend any of the roughly $35,000 she put into her own race.

But she had an ace in the hole: her surname. A Clemente has represented the 14th since 2005, starting with Clemente’s brother-in-law, Ed Clemente, now a state Liquor Control commissioner. He was succeeded in 2011 by his brother, Paul Clemente, who (you guessed it) is also Cara Clemente’s husband.

On Tuesday, she handily won a three-way Democratic primary with 53 percent of the vote. In a district that Inside Michigan Politics rates as having a 63.9 percent Dem base, you can safely bet that another Clemente will occupy a seat in the state House come January 2017.

Clemente is far from alone. Many term-limited candidates try to pass on the baton to spouses, children, siblings and even more distant relations. Name ID has proved to be a potent asset, which is why Democrats and Republicans both keep going back to familiar family trees for their recruits.

But this week’s primary offered a mixed mag in the “name game” approach.

In the special Democratic contest, newcomer Ian Conyers won in a crowded field to succeed now-jailed Sen. Virgil Smith (D-Detroit). It’s impossible to argue that his pedigree as Dean of the U.S. House John Conyers’ great-nephew didn’t help. The younger Conyers defeated another familiar name, former state Rep. Fred Durhal Jr. (whose son, Fred Durhal III, has succeeded him).

Sylvia Santana, wife of term-limited Rep. Harvey Santana (D-Detroit), won in the 9th House District Dem primary. Kim LaSata, wife of former Rep. and now Judge Charlie LaSata, won the 79th GOP battle. Kevin Hertel –– son of late Speaker Curis Hertel Sr., brother of Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr. (D-East Lansing) and nephew of former U.S. Rep. Dennis Hertel –– won the 18th District Democratic nomination.

Daire Rendon, wife of term-limited Rep. Bruce Rendon (R-Lake City) blew away the competition in the 103rd GOP primary. Things weren’t so sanguine for Diana Farrington, wife of term-limited Rep. Jeff Farrington (R-Utica), who only won the 30th GOP primary by 54 votes. And Julie Calley, wife of Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, was unopposed in the 87th GOP primary, so she coasted to victory.

On the flip side, Carla Tinsley-Smith, daughter of term-limited Rep. Alberta Tinsley-Talabi (D-Detroit) lost her Democratic bid for the 2nd –– but she was defeated by a familiar name: former state Rep. Bettie Cook Scott. Colleen Carl, daughter of former State Board of Education Republican nominee Maria Carl and former Sen. Doug Carl, lost the GOP nomination in the 33rd.

One of the biggest upsets was the third-place finish (out of three) of former lobbyist and skilled fundraiser John Griffin in the 64th GOP primary, as both his father, Mike Griffin, and brother, Marty Griffin, have held the seat. But those Griffins ran as Democrats, which may have made John Griffin’s candidacy a harder sell.

Tracy Stille-Mulligan, daughter of former Sen. Leon Stille, lost big in the open 89th GOP primary. And Matt Muxlow, son of term-limited Rep. Paul Muxlow (R-Brown City) was handily defeated in the 83rd GOP race.

So family ties don’t guarantee victory. But in the era of term limits, it usually does buy some valuable name ID –– which is why you shouldn’t expect to see this trend end anytime soon.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Michelle Obama’s Moment: After her Blockbuster DNC Speech, What's Next for the First Lady?

The voice at the other end of the line was gravelly and completely unfamiliar. So was the phone number.

“You know what the Obamas are planning, right?” my mystery caller asked, but didn’t pause for an answer –– or even to take a breath. “Michelle’s gonna run for Senate, just like Hillary did. And we’ll never be rid of them. Any of them.”

As a columnist, I get my fair share of emails and tweets (often with a fair amount of profanity). Occasionally, industrious trolls track me down on my cell phone.

This particular call came several months ago. I’ve yet to see anything validating this Machiavellian conspiracy theory.

But after watching Michelle Obama’s Democratic National Convention speech on Monday –– delivered with grace and vulnerability after some Bernie Sanders supporters threatened to derail the night with their futile tantrums –– I wondered why she shouldn’t consider running for something.

Obama gave a masterful endorsement of Hillary Clinton, highlighting her work as a children’s advocate (she even threw in an old-school “It Takes a Village” reference). And Obama didn’t ignore Clinton’s Achilles’ heel of trustworthiness, but instead announced: “There is only one person who I trust with that responsibility, only one person who I believe is truly qualified to be president of the United States, and that is our friend Hillary Clinton.”

Now Republicans love to talk about how much the Clintons and Obamas hate each other after the bare-knuckled 2008 primary. But regardless of whatever personal hard feelings that may remain –– which none of us would be privy to anyway –– they’re all adroit at projecting gracious public unity.

I’m sure Donald Trump wished he could have gotten a smidgen of that from Ted Cruz or John Kasich at last week’s Republican National Convention.

Obama shined most in her address when she talked about her own children, who have had to listen to public figures question their father’s citizenship (like Trump, though she never uttered his name).

“Our motto is, when they go low, we go high,” Obama proclaimed, which is advice I could stand to take a bit more and I’m nearly 40.

And when Obama talked about the promise of America –– which is progress –– she brought the house down. She reminded us all that she is an African-American woman who lives in the White House, which was built by slaves. And her two teenage daughters don’t question that a woman can now be president, thanks to Hillary Clinton.

“Don't let anyone ever tell you that this country is not great. That somehow we need to make it great again. Because this right now is the greatest country on earth,” Obama declared.

That’s the kind of inspirational, aspirational speech many a seasoned politician is incapable of delivering. And Obama did it with aplomb.

So although it would clearly vex my phone buddy and Republicans, why shouldn’t Michelle Obama consider running for U.S. Senate or something else in the near future?

She’s never held office, but she’s certainly an impressive figure, rising from Chicago’s south side to earn degrees from Princeton and Harvard. She’s worked as a lawyer, for the City of Chicago, in administration at the University of Chicago and finally as an executive for Chicago Hospitals.

Since becoming first lady, she’s focused raising her two daughters and children’s health with her “Let’s Move” initiative and White House garden. She also has near-record-high approval ratings.

There’s just one problem: Michelle Obama seems way too level-headed, too smart to run for office. After watching what her husband has endured for the last two decades –– not to mention what Hillary Clinton has undergone as a first lady-cum-politician –– why would she want to subject herself to that kind of relentless scrutiny and humiliation?

She knows that the honeymoon phase with the press and public would abruptly end as soon as she put down the gardening hoe and picked up the phone to dial for dollars.

So for now, it seems that it will fall on Clinton to carry on President Obama’s legacy. That’s a pretty remarkable turn of events, but politics never ceases to surprise you.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.