Sorry about that.
Four years ago Romney carried the five-county metro Detroit area 45%-27% over John McCain; this time he carried it 45%-32% against Rick Santorum. His metro Detroit margin enabled him four years ago to convert a narrow Outstate 35%-32% margin to a convincing 39%-30% victory. His metro Detroit margin this time was enough to overcome a 42%-38% Santorum margin Outstate.
Are there implications here for the general election. I have a hunch there are. Romney has shown in Michigan as elsewhere a capacity to win votes in affluent areas—which is exactly where (at least in the North) Republicans have been weak in presidential general elections over the last 20 years.
Barone goes on to compare Romney’s showing in the Detroit metro area to both Bushes – and to note that Romney looks like he’s emulating more the elder Bush (who won Michigan in 1988) than the younger one (who did not, in either 2000 or 2004). This detail may not cheer up conservatives, but it is at least interesting for Republican party loyalists – two groups that overlap significantly, but not completely…
Wait: I’ve seen this movie before.
At the end of July 2006, I remember being… fairly optimistic about the Congressional elections. Oh, I knew that there were going to be problems. It was year Six of a Presidential administration, and the Other Side was kind of fired up. And, sure, the economy was slowing down a bit – we were all the way down to 5% growth that quarter! – but at least unemployment was ticking along at less than 5%. It would have been better if it had been at 4%, but we were still dealing with the remains of the 9/11 disruption. And, yes, the problems down in the Gulf were going to have an impact, and there were scandals in Congress. You had to expect losses in an off year. Still, the idea that we were going to lose both Houses? Maybe we’d come close to losing one – but the national election committees were flush with cash, they were on top of the situation, and it was their jobs on the line. Surely we wouldn’t lose either branch of Congress; no way we could lose both.
Does all of this sound familiar? – Because it sounds familiar to Michael Barone, too. He notes the problems that Democrats are facing with the generic ballot right now, but he also notes another warning sign: incumbents trailing in polls. (more…)
(Via Instapundit) Contra Michael Barone (who I both like and respect), there’s a simpler answer to the question of why Speaker Pelosi hasn’t cut Charlie Rangel loose yet: by Democratic standards, he’s not particularly corrupt. We are after all talking about a political party whose collective inability to pay their taxes became the first national political joke of 2009.
That being said, Barone’s point that Rangel’s replacement would be problematical for the Democrats is well-taken. Just imagine Pete Stark as Ways & Means Chair, for example. It’d be like Christmas had come early.
*The albatross was only a problem after they shot it, remember?
Crossposted to RedState.