Michigan

I believe the state of Michigan will favor Obama in the upcoming election for several reasons. First, the recent history of Michigan voters in presidential elections suggests a trend that should continue. Secondly, the current state of the economy and housing market, which affects the state of Michigan harder than most others in the union, has shed a negative light on the GOP and many citizens are looking for a change in administration. Finally, current congressional and senate races can be looked at in order to receive some clues or insight on the presidential election.
First off, the state of Michigan (according to the Pew Forum) is 49% Democratic or Democratic leaning compared to 33% Republican and 11% Independent. Over recent the recent history of presidential elections (since 1992), Michigan has voted for the Democratic candidate for President by an average of 7.5%. Given the current state of America right now, I just don’t see any reason why this liberal trend would not continue, given the far left policies proposed by Obama. In the 2004 congressional race most districts in Michigan voted for GOP candidates, and after the economic crisis and the troubles that Michigan’s auto industry has experienced, many citizens may buck that in favor of change.
The second significant factor in trying to determine who will win Michigan in the 2008 election is examining how the current financial crisis and ongoing credit crunch affects Michigan. One of the reasons Michigan thrived earlier in the century is one of the reasons for the state currently holding the highest unemployment rate in the nation; the auto industry. Thousands of auto workers in Michigan have been laid off because of cutbacks in production, outsourced jobs, and overall lower profits for GM and Ford. This has negatively affected many families’ abilities to pay their mortgage (perhaps a sub-prime one), causing them to sell their house at a lower price than they bought it or foreclose. Michigan’s major cities such as Detroit and Flint have witnessed many foreclosures and have continually deteriorated since the 1990s (perhaps one of the reasons for voting Democratic over the past 12 years). Many of Obama’s policies, such as “redistributing wealth”, sound appealing to the constituents of Michigan who are just looking for a little change for the better.
Finally, we can examine the current polls in senate races and the presidential race to see if that could give us a hint at where the state is leaning. In the 2006 senate election the Democratic candidate won by 16%. The 2008 Michigan senate polls (RCP average) show that the Democratic candidate is going to win by a margin of 27%. According the Rasmussen poll of 500 likely voters Obama holds 16% lead over McCain and the RCP average has Obama leading by a percentage point less than that.
My final answer, in a sense, is that Obama will win the state of Michigan rather easily. I am going to predict that he wins by about 12%. I am estimating a lower percentage than most polls because I really believe that many of the younger voters and potentially the race factor may make the election closer in some areas, perhaps Michigan is one.

Who will win the following state?

In each of the battleground states, which candidate will win and by how much? On what logic and evidence did you base your prediction?

When I make my predictions, I start with some objective criteria. I begin by estimating the vote in each state without considering the candidates or the campaign. How should a generic Republican do against a generic Democrat in this particular political climate? Then I add the candidates and their campaigns to the mix.

What you do not want to do is start by looking at the current poll numbers. That is not an explanation. These numbers do give you some indication on how effective their campaigns have been in that state, so you can use it to help you estimate the final numbers.

McCain strategy not hitting home with voters, polls suggest

McCain's Joe the Plummer strategy at the debate didn't seem to hit with voters at home. Research showed that only 80% of Missouri voters had even heard of Joe the plumber. Only 8% said they would vote for McCain because of this and 3% for Obama. While the rest were not affected by his story. McCain needs to look for a new strategy to gain voters because as time goes on, more and more people are unaffected by McCain's attacks on Obama. Studies show that not many people care about Obama's relationship with Ayers. It seems unimportant because Obama was so young at the time. I think it is time for McCain to stop campaigning against Obama and start campaigning for himself. He needs to find a new strategy for gaining support while playing a fair race. What should McCain's new strategy be?

article: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/

Obama Hasn't Closed the Sale

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411909182439021.html

This article outlines the important campaign tactics that each candidate will focus on in the next few weeks. It goes over the advantages and disadvantages that each candidate has over the other, and although the title seems to say that Obama is not already too far ahead, it is not exactly encouraging for the McCain campaign. Like many other articles in the news today, it says that McCain has some catching up to do, and his campaign faces a difficult challenge. The debate last showed us the confidence Obama had when sitting next to McCain, who resorted to sarcastic attacks while Obama kept his cool and certainly appeared to think he had it in the bag. The article outlines a weakness of Obama's that I think is McCain's best chance at winning the election - plans for the economy. Obama has not shown us any of his black and white plans to help fix the economy, and people have paid attention to this. If McCain can stick to clear policy proposals that appeal to voters, he can stand to gain a lot of ground. It's no secret that the focus of this election is now on the economy.

This recent article in the Wall Street Journal explains Pakistan’s actions in turning to “strong ally and friend” China for financial help. Pakistan’s near bankrupt country has been hit hard by the recent global financial crisis and is now reaching out to other countries including China (as aforementioned), Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom. It is interesting to see that Pakistan, considered an important American ally, has not whole-heartedly sought after the United States for such financial help. Pakistan’s ties with the U.S. certainly remain “fraught with tension” but is Pakistan’s reaching out to China, rather than the United States for help, a sign of the times to come? The president of Pakistan is quoted on saying simply, “China is the future of the world.” The question raised here is, with China quickly rising to a world power, if not the strongest world power, what will be the fate of the United States in terms of global impact? Will we take a second seat to China and lose industry as a result, or will something be done to help support and stabilize America as the world’s most powerful country? With China suspect to helping Pakistan recently develop nuclear weapons, what kind of world will we be living in with China as the new superpower?

Here is the link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122400985382133155.html

Don't Call It A 'Comeback'

It is clear that news sources are not supposed to show a bias to one political party over another, but every news source is drawn to a story. The current story after a McCain rally in VA is that he is “making a comeback.” McCain’s advisors are going with this idea, saying that this underdog from the past few weeks is going to come from behind and surprise everyone. If this were to happen, McCain would have to do a few things. One, he would have to swing the older white male demographic, who have gone more-so towards Obama because of the recent economic crisis. Also, he would have to win a majority of the “undecideds,” as well as the battleground states that Bush won in ’04. One, do you think this campaign method is effective, or will drive more people to the democratic party? Or is this election a lot closer than how the media is portraying and the polls will be neck and neck?

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/14/don-t-call-it-a-comeback.aspx

Is Era of Dominance Over for Conservatives?

The article I read from Real Clear Politics discussed how the Republican era within the United States is possibly coming to an end. It was also noted in the article that even last week in National Review; Michael Barone was quoted saying, “Are we looking at another inflection point today?” It truly seems as if a different era of politics is in the near future. With the current condition of our economy, and the ongoing situation in Iraq, many Americans believe that Republicans put us in this situation and are therefore looking for significant change. By initially not supporting the financial bailout, Republicans seem to be offering no other means of solution to the underlying problem, and Americans want a winning resolution now. In my opinion, I feel Republicans did dig themselves in a deeper hole by not initially supporting the bailout. Although it is against many conservative core values, American voters want a tangible answer and correction to our fragile economy and Democrats seem to be offering that with this bailout plan. Are there still hopes that Republicans can turn this entire economic crisis into something that can benefit them in the election? Or is the extreme dislike of the Bush administration and the idea that the Republican “ideology got us into this mess” going to ultimately decide the election in 2008. In my opinion, the average American voter wants change and a way to move past the current administration, something the Republicans have had difficulty in promoting thus far.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06caucus.html?_r=2&ei=5070&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1223294803-IQ1K6xueNKy5zCE+8NnMsg&oref=slogin

Panic engulfs global stock markets

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081006110653.q6nnqf0d&show_article=1

The article gives an overview of how the recent turmoil in the financial markets is not limited to America. The stock market recently dropped below 10,000 for the first time in four years. Analysts say that the main reason for this has been a recent drop in world markets, which is also being perpetuated by the recent weeks of turmoil in the American markets. Relating this issue back politics, my question lies in which candidate would not be the most effective in calming the nerves of American investors, but which would be the more effective person to help calm the foreign markets? For example, this could be achieved either through which candidate is perceived "better" by foreigners, or who has a stronger foreign economic plan.

Lessons Taught By FDR

Click Here

If Obama is going to put confidence back into the public, he is going to have to start making plans that are going to help the economy. In the debate, he failed to give a valid answer to the economic woes. The American public is looking for answers. We are in a new era now. Things will not be the same as they were prior to the failure of the corporate giants. The nation needs a president who can function in this new era. Who is the person for the job? It is a tough question to answer. With the bailout being such a controversial issue, the candidates are not willing to take a pertinent stance. Obama should not have backed the Bush administration’s bailout plan because it restricts Obama’s freedom to act. The nation wants to see a person who can come up with answers. The nation wants a person who can make the answer not just agree with someone else.

McCain Abandons His Efforts to Win Michigan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03michigan.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

This article was very interesting to me because it shows how important the economy is to the presidential election and the candidate’s campaigning strategies. For instance, previously, McCain said how important Michigan was to the election, but now he is not campaigning there at all. The article mentions “Mr. McCain’s somewhat unsteady response to” the financial crisis. If this is how the general public views his response, it could seriously affect his chance at the presidency.

I’m curious if the McCain campaign will really stop all advertising in Michigan. I wonder what effect this strategy will have on the Republicans in Michigan. Will Obama win the state? How much of Obama’s funds will be redirected away from Michigan?