Michigan mischief with Mitt

January 11, 2008

Looking at the presidential fields, it seems only natural that Republicans would size up the Dems and consider who’d they most like to face, and who they’d least like to face, in a general election. Dems, looking at the GOP field, are doing the same thing.

Now, people are often wrong about this. In the 1980 race, Dems were delighted when Ronald Reagan got the Republican nomination, assuming he’d be the easiest to beat. In 2000, I knew plenty of Dems who were thrilled to see Bush beat McCain in the primaries. In 1992, a lot of Republicans thought there was simply no way Bill Clinton could win a national election.

And yet, political observers play this game anyway.

I’m on record saying that I sincerely hope Mitt Romney gets the Republican nomination, because of the credible GOP candidates, he seems the easiest to beat. Of course, Dems have their own contest on their hands, and it doesn’t much matter who Dems want as the Republican nominee; it’s not up to us.

On the other hand, that might not be entirely true.

In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state’s Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian’s lawyer — quack Geoffrey Feiger — win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor’s mansion that year.

With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don’t we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. (emphasis in the original)

But what about the Democratic primary on the same day? That’s actually part of the beauty of the plan.

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hampshire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he’s out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

This is, of course, looking at the contest with negative advertising in mind, but I’d go a step further and say Dems also want Romney to win because he’s Dems’ best chance.

I know, I know, be careful what you wish for. Sure, it’s possible that Romney gets the GOP nomination and wins a 49-state landslide. There are certainly no guarantees.

But I doubt it. Helping him win in Michigan certainly sounds like a good idea to me.

Romney is putting it all on the line in Michigan, scaling back in Florida and South Carolina so he can get this win under his belt and parlay it into future success. Why shouldn’t Dems give him a hand?

It’s my guess that Huckabee is the least electable Republican, not Romney. Or maybe it’s Thompson. Or is it Giuliani?

All the Republicans seem unelectable, don’t they?

With no primary of their own, this is indeed a wonderful opportunity for Democrats to make some mischief.

How about voting for Ron Paul? He could use a few more Republican delegates! 🙂

  • Not to mention that it would once again throw the pollsters and pundits a curve ball, and if they get it wrong again, maybe they will lack enough credibility to be marginalized – or at least come with huge asterisks that say “we don’t know what the hell we’re doing – or talking about.” And then there’s my new favorite line from teh Jack Nicholson – Morgan Freeman movie, delivered by Jack: “No one cares what you think,” which can be our response to their prognostications.

    The caveat, I suppose, is that whole law-of-unintended-consequences thing that can bite hard and deep.

    Even though Clinton is the only Dem on the ballot, can voters write-in candidates? Might be something to consider if the eventual result will be that the DNC decides to restore the state’s delegates.

    I’m starting to look fondly back at the days when I just voted for the candidate I supported, and didn’t have to game-plan my vote to give it the maximum effect and benefit.

    Sigh.

  • I think Ron Paul, aside from having a healthy view on the war scene, is a tad too frightening to me. First, he’s a gooper which automatically eliminates him from my radar. But putting that aside, he’s a little too libertarian which is not what our country needs right now, IMHO.

  • I’m not so sure. Huckabee really scares me – he’s charming and telegenic and easygoing, and has a good sense of humor. I can see a lot of people not looking any deeper than that.

    But then, all the republicans scare me, each in his own special way.

    And as a resident of MA, I harbor a particularly strong feeling of revulsion towards Mittens.

  • I vote like this in MA every time in the primary. Vote for the republican the republicans hate (in 2000 it was McCain). Plus I got to vote against GW 3 times, it didn’t help but it felt good. This year it will be, whoever is behind in the polls. We’re undeclaired in MA, not indies. Alot of people do it here and in N.H. My rightwing cousin from N.H. voted for Hillary.

  • Why not vote for Duncan Hunter? If he won the primary it would derail everyone’s momentum, completely change the debate and send campaign donors scrambling to hide their checkbooks.

  • Some how, dirty tricks are just not the Democrats cup of tea…

    Speaking of dirty tricks:

    In another vein, do you believe In Diebold We Trust? Many “progressive” and “liberal” websites do not seem to want to talk about or investigate any possible electronic vote flipping in the recent New Hampshire Democratic Party. Check out http://www.bradblog.com or http://www.blackboxvoting.org or http://www.opednews.com for some detailed info on the monkeybusiness that went on there on the optical scanning equipment by Diebold on Tuesday. It would seem that the Obama votes were flipped for Clinton votes (exchanged), thus giving Clinton her “amazing” “come from behind” blah blah blah election “victory.” I am not suggesting that this was done by Hillary operatives, no it was mostly likely done by the Bush gangster regime, just to screw up Democatic primary politics… There seems to be no limit to which the Bush gangsters will stoop…. The coming “Super Tuesday” primaries may be “Super Diebold Tuesday” for all we know…

    Progressives and liberals better get their heads out of the sand and start demanding 100% hand-counted paper ballots in all elections or we are going to see a repeat of the Bush electronic theft of the 2004 Presidential Election.

    As long as we have Republican corporations, such as Diebold or ES&S, “counting” our votes in private with secret proprietary software, we are going to be ruled by Republican fascists…

  • The longer it takes the pubs to winnow their field, the better. Willard is most urgently in need of a flotation device, let’s throw him one.

    On the dem side, you can write in absentee, but that gets the ballot discarded. Catch 22.

  • I really don’t think we should encourage crossing over to vote for the Ken Doll.

    Still, while it would be amusing, it plays too much into Guiliani’s playbook.

  • I don’t think this tactic would do much either way, except to give the GOoPers something to cry about, something which they will no doubt use as an excuse to do any number of nasty things to us later on (as if they need an excuse). That said, what’s done is done, and this game is already on, so Michigan Dems might as well have some fun with it.

    Maybe this episode could help us develop a better understanding of how the dynamics of this kind of chicanery actually play out (any game theorists out there?) and thereby get some actual long-term benefit.

  • The key to why I am fine with this, is that we have nothing to lose – dailykos generates a few e-mails, Michigan Dems don’t feel left out.

    Let both primaries be prolonged, as long as the Dem money is spent on clarifying the issues, and the Repub money is spent on mudslinging. If it’s the other way around it’s not good.

    Now don’t say Repubs will not focus on the issues – it’s about taking control of issues, example McCain is taking control of Iraq and no one on the Dem side is criticizing him.

  • CB is right. It needs to be Romney to keep him in the game. Hunter and Paul won’t be close enough for crossover votes to make a difference. The longer that Romney, McCain, and Huckabee keep slugging it out, the more damage they do to each other and the more entertaining the GOP convention will be.

    Digby has posted on why Huckabee is dangerous, even if he can’t win the general election. She says that giving theocons more national prominence is unhealthy and I think that there is something to that.

  • Since the rules allowed it, its an individual voter’s choice and people are free to advocate for the plan. Personally, the farther I stay from the R party, the better. I would hate to be the victim of unintended consequences. On a tactical level, I can see this type of plan working on a state election; but not on a election with national consequences.

  • Even though I want the Democratic candidate to win in November, am I the only one who wants to win honestly? These tactics damage the integrity of our system. We’ve seen what happens if the only goals are winning elections and attacking the opposing party – it’s the exact approach we criticize the GOP for taking.

    So many of our institutions rely on the general support of their members to carry out the spirit of laws, not just the letter. For example, the GOP discovered that many of the traditions of respect in the Senate were merely convention, not rules. They went on to exploit the technicalities by holding votes open, or having closed-door meetings on bills, denying members of the minority party a voice in discussions. I don’t doubt that the Democrats have done the same thing, but recently it seems to have gotten worse (check out The Broken Branch).

    I disagree with the ‘win at all costs’ approach. I hope you do, too.

  • Electability is not an issue in this election. No republican will win the WH in ’08. Republicans are simply looking for the least embarrassing candidate. Perhaps dems should take a look at which republican candidate would be least embarrassing to the democratic party. Just saying.

    Sounds like an excellent plan…keep Romney in the race by all means.

    ***btw*** I think it is wholly unfair that Michigan delegates can later be allowed, after their primary results are in. If Clinton or Obama win we’ll make the delegates count…if it’s Edwards or Kucinich then they won’t be allowed? What’s up with this?

    And to all Paul supporters…He’s still a republican…and if the republicans won’t work with him nor the dems how can anything get accomplished? Change the party first.

  • A MASSACHUSETTS moderate Republican who got universal health care in the Hilary model passed on his watch?

    Documented family donations to pro-choice groups?

    You think Romney’s the best bet against us?
    You GOTTA be kiddin’ me.
    Democrats don’t care if he’s Mormon. There are crossover votes to be had aplenty.
    Go for Huck. He’s broke and business HATES him. He’ll stay broke and we’ll march spots about that early parole snafu past the voters noses until they keel from the stench.

  • I’d call this “The Survivor Gambit”, like when groups of contestants on that wretched show get together to vote the strongest competitor off the island. And I worry that it might backfire the way votes for Nader have always seemed to. Then again, I’m the sort that would just hope to win an immunity challenge or two and spend the rest of the time chattin’ up the ladies on the island. I’m not so good with “strategy.”

  • Now, people are often wrong about this. In the 1980 race, Dems were delighted when Ronald Reagan got the Republican nomination, assuming he’d be the easiest to beat.

    I don’t agree that because, for example, Reagan won, that means ‘people are often wrong’. Why can’t both things be true: Reagan won, AND he was the easiest to beat.

    am I the only one who wants to win honestly?

    Jesse, I don’t agree that this is ‘dishonest’. Vote rigging is dishonest. Voter disenfranchisement is dishonest. Using my vote to help my favored candidate get elected may be mischievous at times, but I don’t see it as being dishonest. I see what your saying, but it seems to me to be a bit of false equivalence, of equating two things that are not the same.

  • Jesse, if you think all this is dishonest, please read about how government functioned in past eras. We are very clean in comparison. It wasn’t until Andrew Jackson that individuals voted in elections for selecting the president and then only individuals who were white and men. Prior to that state legislatures did the voting.

  • Silly, silly games. All this will do is create the impression of a large voter turn out for the GOP in Michigan. I’d rather see the 2 to 1 Democrats to Republican ratio we’ve been seeing so far, despite the issue with delegates.

    To me, that has a much greater impact than any figurative wrench thrown in the GOP race. Don’t they have enough problems already as it is?

  • Both races need to keep going as long as possible, even if February 5 finds us with something close to de facto nominees; the longer a period of consideration we have, the better.

    The longer it takes, the more we see the shifting and adjusting of message, and the better an idea we have of what these candidates would do as president when confronted with ongoing pressure from their constituency, as well as from the other side.

    The compressed nature of the primary season has me convinced more than ever that we need 100% public financing of elections, and we need spread-out primary season. It’s time for quality candidates who, under the present system are forced to drop out, to be able to stay in the race, and the only way that happens is with public money and only public money.

  • Michigans Dems should stay out of the Republican race and either vote for their candidate or vote uncommitted in the Democratic race.

  • Anne said: I’m starting to look fondly back at the days when I just voted for the candidate I supported, and didn’t have to game-plan my vote to give it the maximum effect and benefit.

    Just vote for who you like. Since a single vote is statistically insignificant, the only person affected by your vote is you.

  • Looking at the presidential fields, it seems only natural that Republicans would size up the Dems and consider who’d they most like to face, and who they’d least like to face, in a general election. Dems, looking at the GOP field, are doing the same thing.

    If I were a Republican troll, I’d write something- more or less- like this:

    “Of course Republican string-pullers are thrilled at the chance of Hillary Clinton occupying the White House and running against her. That’s why when Hillary and Bill first visited Camp David, the Secret Service opened up their luggage without telling them, went through their things, left all their personal belongings on their bed in their bedroom, and only afterward told them that some threat justified it.”

    “And as for Barack Obama, of course, we are not going to use any more tactics pointing out his Muslim name, pretending he is a terrorist, or implying that he is an infiltrator. Don’t look to the last 6 or 7 years of demagoguery about Muslims and the war on terror to predict anything about what our behavior on that issue will be.”

  • Even though Clinton is the only Dem on the ballot, can voters write-in candidates? Might be something to consider if the eventual result will be that the DNC decides to restore the state’s delegates.

    Actually, no. We’ve had a plethora of TV bobble heads, and some Democratic Party officials, let us know that no write ins will be counted.

    This stunt sounds like a bit of a hoot. Guess I’ll be going to the polls on Tuesday…

  • Assume it doesn’t matter too much how Clinton does against Uncommitted.

    McCain is the only pub with potential to break out of the pack early. So better to vote for NotJM, whoever the best NotMcCain is.

    Rudy, Paul, and perhaps Fred are no-hopers. This brings it down to Mitt and Huck.

    Huck doesn’t look all that survivable either. Plus, Huck legitimizes pandering to the Young Earth gang. I think Mitt is the horse to back.

  • If you believe that voting in the Michigan Democratic Primary for whomever is the right thing to do, then do so. If you believe that voting in the Michigan Republican Primary to help defeat them is the right thing to do, then do so. War has been declared on working Americans by terrorists such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Respond in kind.

  • IMHO the least electable is Ron Paul and Giuliani.

    While the Huckster would seem to be unelectable you don’t have to look any further than the fool in the White House now.

    Of course the author has a valid point if Romney wins and Paul or Giulani pick up delegates this race is still on for the GOP and let the mud slinging and spending begin. 🙂

  • I think Huckabee’s the easiest to beat. If he’s the nominee, the odds go up big that Bloomberg will jump in. That will hand the race to the Dems, because the only Dem to join the ticket would be from a red state, one no Dem would win anyway.

    Could Bloomberg take NY? Not a chance.

  • I forgot to add: Mitt would be acceptable to Bloomberg and he’s already got the Bush backing. People may not like him but Republicans won’t cross over against him.

  • Playing dirty, eh?

    I’m curious. What is the policy for write-in candidates in Michigan’s primaries? If they’re allowed, just have all Dem voters cross over and write in their favorite Dem candidate—in the Republican primary. Now THAT would be truly evil—the GOPer convention calls the count—and they’ve got delegates assigned to Obama and Clinton.

    Even worse—imagine a Dem winning Michigan’s GOP primary. Talk about “stake-in-the-heart politics….”

  • am i the only one who wants to win honestly?

    yes.

    why not vote for duncan hunter?

    i stopped even even considering him when he dropped me from his blogroll.

    oh, you said duncan hunter. sorry…

  • Say, I have a novel idea. Why not actually vote for the best Republican candidate. This is a race for the President of our country we’re talking about. Clearly I want a Democrat to win, and I feel all of the Dem candidates are better than any of the Republican ones, but a Republican may actually win in November. And some of them are truly abhorrent. Mitt (“I’d double Guantanamo”) Romney is probably the worst. I mean, wouldn’t you really rather have the best candidate from each party going at it in the general election?

  • shoobee, there is no “best” Republican candidate. None of them is a reasonable option.

  • If you want to use this tactic, vote for Huckabee. . .a 23% national sales tax, Jesus as his VP. . .in the general, he’s the weakest of the viable candidates.

  • Regardless if Romney is easiest to beat (I think he is) he also seems to be the least batsh*t crazy of the Republicans. If the Republicans win, I would rather have moderate pretending to be conservative than a crazy conservative pretending to be moderate.

    • Comments are closed.