JONATHAN COHN FEBRUARY 28, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
JACKSON, Michigan – Did Mitt Romney win the Michigan primary? Or did he merely survive it? That really depends on your perspective.
As recently as a few days ago, Romney was trailing in the polls. And as recently as Tuesday afternoon, Romney staffers were talking down expectations. But Romney won a clean victory on Tuesday night. He won handily in the Detroit metro area, his home turf, but he also ran strong in more contested counties, like Livingston and Jackson, to the west.
But why was it ever this close? Romney had superior money, organization, and, for a long time, name recognition. This state ought to be friendly to him – not because of his family ties, which were never as important as pundits assumed, but because the economy is the biggest issue in Michigan and Romney bills himself as the candidate best positioned to deal with it. Instead, Romney had to fight off an insurgency from Rick Santorum, who appealed to economically strapped voters by appealing to their cultural values.
Romney succeeded, but the exit polls suggested a familiar class divide. Romney won among voters who attended at least some college and those making more than $100,000 a year. But he lost among voters who attended no college and among those making less than $100,000 a year.
As New York Times economics guru and Washington bureau chief David Leonhardt tweeted, if you genetically engineered the typical Romney voter, it was a single Catholic woman who was older than 65 and with a household income of more than $100,000.
I think I met that woman, or at least some real-life versions of her, over the course of my interviews this past week. At campaign events and then on Tuesday, outside a polling place in Jackson, I met plenty of Romney supporters. And most of them made cogent arguments for why they liked him: He understood business, could turnaround the economy, and seemed more likely to win over moderate voters in the campaign to oust President Obama.
But, as best as I can recall, every single one of them – and I mean every single one – was either a small business owner, a professional, or a reasonably affluent retiree. The closest I came to a working-class or poor Romney supporter was a man in work boots and a denim jacket that I spotted at rally in Albion Monday. But it turned out he, too, owned a small business selling farm equipment. I had assumed my reporting sample was just unscientific. The exit polls suggest it wasn't so unrepresentative after all.
In a Republican primary, or at least this Republican primary, you can prevail by losing among all voters making less than $100,000. But it’s tougher in the general election. Romney and his advisors can take comfort in the fact that the downscale conservatives who voted for Santorum will generally support the Republican nominee, whoever it is. They may not love Romney, but they hate Obama, and that will be enough to get them to the polls. Still, Romney has to win over at least some middle class votes to win in November. And he’s shown very little ability to do that.
Which brings us to the other guy who was making a play for Michigan votes this week – although he was doing it from Washington. I’m talking about Obama, who gave a fiery speech to a meeting of the United Auto Workers on Tuesday.
By now, if you read this space, you know all about the auto bailout – and why it’s likely to help Obama’s reelection campaign, in Michigan and more contested rust belt states like Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin. But, as Greg Sargent observed, "Obama used the auto-bailout argument as a jumping off point for his larger case." It wasn’t just about saving the automakers or even the Midwest. It was about taking action to fix the economy – and about taking the side of working Americans.
The speech included a direct shot at Santorum, who talks about working class values. But mostly it was a shot at Romney, on biography and on policy. As Steve Benen put it,
The surface-level trouble facing Romney is that he comes across as an out-of-touch, plutocratic elitist. The just-below-the-surface trouble is that Romney, if elected, intends to help other out-of-touch, plutocratic elitist, while making life significantly tougher on those working families who are already suffering.
A recent poll from Democracy Corps warned Democrats not to be overconfident – and, my goodness, they shouldn't be. The economy is stronger but not strong. Obama's poll numbers are higher but not high. But the same poll suggested that Obama’s message on the middle class was working, while other surveys have shown, clearly, average voters are unlikely to think Romney is on their side. And, as my colleague Alec MacGillis notes, Romney did almost everything he could in the last week to reinforce that perception.
If Romney becomes the nominee, as seems likely, he could certainly win in November. But he won't have an easy time of it. That's the message Michigan sent on Tuesday.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
27 comments
As always, I am terrified of being confident. However, the temptation to think that the GOP is fanatically determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is hard to resist. Not just snatch it, stomp it into the ground, rip its shoulders from their sockets, stick red hot ice picks under its fingernails, followed by an icy enema. Is this what America REALLY wants? Stay wary. Stay wary. Be on guard. Be alert.
- skahn
February 29, 2012 at 12:06am
If Republican ideologues are allowed to take control of our economy and crash it again, most of the good folks making over $100,000 a year ain't gonna be making that much anymore. These poor fools can't see past the ends of their noses.
- magboy47.
February 29, 2012 at 12:40am
Obama will win it walking away. I've been saying it for months, and nothing has changed. 2010 was bad, but it was anomalous and made worse by several unforced errors--errors that Obama shows every sign of having learned from. The Repubs have nothing to offer--ZERO--and with each passing day this becomes more and more obvious to more a d lore voters.
- AaronW
February 29, 2012 at 6:11am
I have to say it has been fun – in a creepy, need-to-take-a-shower way – to watch that nutjob Santorum push Romney so far to the right during the primaries. If only that the president’s playbook on Romney has increased another 300 pages for the general election. I'll give Mitt credit though - he has nice teeth. As skahn says, be wary, vigilant.
- OkiSaru
February 29, 2012 at 7:00am
$100,000? Since the median household income is about half of that, how can Romney win, or even be competitive in, the general election if his typical supporter makes $100,000? One of JKG's books, the Liberal Hour (published, I believe, in around 1962) described the typical voter, who was not a liberal, but decided to vote for the liberal candidate at the last hour (the liberal hour). His thesis wasn't that the voter made a rational decision and voted for the candidate that best represented his interests, but rather made the irrational decision based on his perception of what's best for others. While the typical voter today, like the one in 1962, is not liberal and is making the decision at the last hour, the decision is not for the liberal candidate; rather, today the typical voter is deciding to vote for the conservative candidate. As with the voter in 1962, it is an irrational decision because the candidate does not best represent his interests. Both behave irrationally, but why the opposite outcome?
- rayward
February 29, 2012 at 7:40am
While we’re discussing GOP candidates… I’ve always wondered about Jeb Bush. Seemed to be a sharp, reasonable fellow. What are his thoughts in moments of honesty and solitude? His father and low-wattage brother were president, while he was left *running some Mickey Mouse nightclub* in Florida. Almost like Bizarro Godfather, where Don Corleone anoints Fredo as his successor while Michael becomes the ambassador for Family guests at the airport.
- OkiSaru
February 29, 2012 at 7:59am
Where is there any evidence whatsoever that a hedge fund manager is best positioned to run the US government? It is not like he can invest US treasuries in start ups, in fact, the entire Republican premise it not to do so. Romney got the auto bailout spectacularly wrong. Is it just tax cuts with these nuts? Who the hell do they imagine will buy their products if the poor and middle class get shafted? The reason why China, with its huge population, still has such a small economy is because China has not developed a large domestic consumer economy because there is no safety net in China, no developed health insurance system. People feel they have to save a huge portion of their paychecks, even though they make very little. Romney wants to turn America into 1950's Guatemala, I suppose he thinks the rich can just sell to the other rich.
- blackton
February 29, 2012 at 9:57am
Romney is trying to attract the middle class. The rich are doing fine, and the poor have the safety net, which he will fix if it is broken. It is the middle class that needs help, he claims. I would like to think it is because they realize that the tax cuts really are for the rich with a few crumbs for them. Could it be that after all these years people are wising up? Beyond the tax cuts and his claims of how wonderfully his business experience will carry over into the White House, what has he got? Just the same old stuff Republicans have been saying since Calvin Coolidge, which is that the best thing is for government to do nothing and we will do more nothing than ever before. This works some years, but maybe not this one.
- Vekert
February 29, 2012 at 10:33am
Frankly, I don't get the "He's Good At Business" propaganda point. All those "good at business" types on Wall-Street created the 2008 melt-down in the first place, through de-regulation followed by greed. People who are "good at business" create the business cycle of booms and busts. People who are "good at business" love firing people, hate unions, outsource to China, private school their kids, drive multiple Cadillacs, and ruin the environment. Perhaps "Good at Business" is the new dog-whistle. It SOUNDS good, but what it really means is that he'll be a President who'll destroy the Federal Government so that Business can thrive. Just like Bush-II tried to do.
- AllanL5
February 29, 2012 at 10:39am
"Romney won among voters who attended at least some college and those making more than $100,000 a year. " I didn't understand Santorum's attack on college until I read this. Santorum must be planning on running against Romney again at some point in the future, hoping less people will have gone to college in the meantime.
- Nusholtz
February 29, 2012 at 12:04pm
Yeah, blackie, far better to hand over the US economy to a man who has very limited private sector experience, as well as limited political experience, too. Wouldn't want an ex-governor. Nah, we'd never do that. Y'know, I seriously doubt that Gov. Romney, for all his faults, wants to turn us into 1950s Guatemala. Where do you get this stuff?
- butchie b
February 29, 2012 at 2:25pm
Is interesting about "open" primaries that outcomes do not have much value for predictions. The turnout in the Michigan primary included people who would have voted in a Democratic primary had one been held.
- Doug12
February 29, 2012 at 2:39pm
Romney is clearly having difficulties with blue collar conservatives. On the other hand, as this article points out, he is doing well among more affluent, white collar Republicans. I imagine he will also do well among more affluent, white collar independents. If Obama tries to run for reelection by stoking the fires of blue collar resentment, as Santorum has done, I suspect Obama will alienate many of his former supporters. Moreover, unlike Santorum or Sarah Palin, Obama makes a very unlikely tribune of the working class. He may win among unionized blue collar workers, but not among the non-union workers. His biggest problem, though, is that he's a lackluster president. A lot of Democrats will vote for Obama simply because he's the Democratic candidate, but most Republicans will vote for Romney because he's their party candidate. I could never understand the excitement Obama generated in 2008, but I think he will have a much harder time working up that excitement in 2012. He will have a frenzied, worshiping core group of followers, but I don't think he will win the support of 51% of the voters.
- Spengler47
February 29, 2012 at 3:47pm
Did Obama win his contest against Hillary Clinton or did he merely survive it? He won by only a handful of delegates in the primary and cacucus states and Hillary won a plurality of the popular vote. Obama was really nominated by the Super Delegates and because he won so big in the caucuses, attended by his youthful, adoring fans. But Obama, not Hillary, survived the process, and he went on to win the presidential election by 52.8% of the vote. Not a very big win, given the depths of the national economic crisis and the public's weariness with George W. Bush and the Iraq and Afghan wars. The country is not in good shape, Obama's popularity is stuck below 50%, and people are feeling Obama fatigue. If Romney can survive the GOP primary season, he could well go on to beat Obama in the general election.
- Spengler47
February 29, 2012 at 3:55pm
"Y'know, I seriously doubt that Gov. Romney, for all his faults, wants to turn us into 1950s Guatemala. Where do you get this stuff?" I doubt that too, butchie (nice to see you back!), but what does he want to turn us into, is the question. I have no idea what Gov. Pragmatic Romney thinks about energy, about education, about transport, about fair economic opportunity -- all the things that are important aspects of this country's future and need something more than the "market." If he thinks about them what he thought about them when he was governor, that that's fine by me. But in that sense, it's the GOP base that doesn't have any time for the ex-governor's governing.
- ironyroad
February 29, 2012 at 3:57pm
Right, Butchie b - what is it about business that makes it the model for running a GOVERNMENT? Do businesses have responsibility for the general welfare of their employees, much less the people that they don't employ; i.e., the general citizens? Do businesses provide for the common defence in times of national crises? Do businesses provide the general education for their current and future workforce? Do businesses have any other purpose than to make profits? you're right of course. It would be far better to hand over the US economy to an investment banker / hedge fund manager / wall street insider and let the plutocrats right the ship of state. After all, they were the ones who got us into this mess, and so obviously they're best qualified to get us out of it.
- bonsaibush
February 29, 2012 at 4:05pm
Somehow I think all of the recent articles about Romney struggling are missing something. In the past week or so, we've crowed over how many times Mitt's put his foot in his mouth. But at the same time he's been gaining in the polls, erasing substantial leads that Santorum had in the GOP race, and even Obama's recent lead in the general election. (See http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-pres-12) Could it be that the gaffes don't sound that way to many independents, or that the nonstop exposure he's receiving is more important to his poll standing? Papa Bush was similarly awkward, and also seemed overly patrician at the time, but maybe middle to upper-middle income businessmen (and women) trust and respect the GHWB-Romney type more than we realize.
- stanalama
February 29, 2012 at 4:09pm
I happen to agree with you, bonsai. Business and gov't are 2 different animals, though some principles can be shared. I'm for Romney, not because he's a businessman, but because I believe he'd be better than the Current Occupant. Besides, governors have at least made the kinds of decisions a President makes, at least in domestic affairs. Irony (thanks - nice to be back), his website has more detail about some of his views. I'm very disappointed about the level of coverage of substance in the MSM - it's all horse race, all the time.
- butchie b
February 29, 2012 at 5:06pm
I think Romney has contributed to that himself, however, as his pitch (which began last year as something more pragmatic and reasonable) has become increasingly rightwing and increasingly skewed as he tries to pretend it was some other guy with the same name who was that moderate governor of Mass.
- ironyroad
February 29, 2012 at 6:00pm
AaronW, I so wish you're right in predicting an easy Obama victory. But at least two big developments could get in the way: 1. The first is actually the political impact(s) of a whole array of developments that we might or can't predict, ranging from a stall in our slight economic recovery to energy prices spiking to war with Iran. 2. The second is if the idiotic Americans Elect third party initiative takes off. Even if it just drains relatively small numbers of votes away from Obama in a few states, that could make the difference.
- Thunderroad
February 29, 2012 at 6:21pm
Romney can't connect to the average, middle-class working stiff because Romney hasn't really had to "work" for what he has. Not everyone can shuffle papers and over-leverage companies into bankruptcy before sucking out what they're worth and call it something productive. What Romney did before he retired to become a full-time 'nominee' the last 10 years is alien to 99% of the average people out there who are deciding between eating mac n' cheese or ramen so they can pay the electric bill or buy a tank of gas to get to their third, low-wage paying part-time job. Santorum connects because you can honestly see the built-in uncomfortable, schlubiness of Santorum's working class upbringing versus Romney's silver-spoon childhood. You can tell Santorum is more comfortable in a sweater vest than a suit, which even if tailors, he wears as if ill-at-ease. Romney, if he does succeed in snatching the GOP nomination from the jaws of victory, he will go on to fail against Obama because he is simply incapable of connecting to those "people" that work and live paycheck-to-paycheck just to keep things going.
- singlspeed
February 29, 2012 at 6:38pm
"if it were tailored" not "if tailors"
- singlspeed
February 29, 2012 at 6:39pm
Righto, bonzai. I've had enough of business people and governors running our country. G.W. Bush was both of those and look where he took us. Jimmy Carter was both, too, and we know what a fine specimen of presidenthood he was. Uh-huh. Each presidential candidate has to be judged by his or her unique qualifications to lead America. In this election cycle President Obama is light years more qualified for that position than anybody else in the field. Bush, a businessperson and governor, inherited a booming economy and a record surplus and crashed us to the ground. Obama turned us around in the right direction and got the economy going again in less than 3 years after an economic catastrophe. The NASDAQ is back over 13,000 again and corporate America is making all-time record profits. And 243,000 jobs were added in January, 50,000 in manufacturing. Plus, consumer confidence is back on the upswing. Let's see Romney duplicate that after he and his buddies crash our economy again with their bizarre economic theories that Bush put in place with a vengeance.
- magboy47.
February 29, 2012 at 8:12pm
Perhaps, magboy, but FDR, Reagan and Clinton were governors and they all did OK, no? Um, Bush inherited the dot.com recession, mild though it was compared to our current straits, and as for surpluses, well, why we constantly use 10-year projections as facts is beyond me. No one, and I mean no one, can see out 10 years. It's all "if present trends continue" except they never do, do they? BTW, you or I could "get the economy going" after 3 years. Which of BHO's policies did it? The stimulus? Health care? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, eh?
- butchie b
March 1, 2012 at 2:50pm
Hi Butchie (also welcome back). I'll have a crack - I would say the data that we have today shows that the Stimulus pretty unambiguously left us in a much better place today (in terms of lost GDP, unemployment etc) than we would be without it. I'd also say that the auto bailout pretty unambiguously also prevented a greater downward slide (not to mention the total loss of a core heavy industry). HCR hasn't really taken effect, so clearly that can't be credited with too much. Now an argument can be made that all of these are just postponing a future reckoning, but it's pretty clear that a downturn tomorrow is much better than a downturn today, as you have more time to prepare for the future downturn. If the concern is that we wouldn't do that (fair), then you'd need to demonstrate why a downturn today is better. To some of your points, I'm not sure if you're crediting our slide from 2000 to today entirely on the dot.com bubble? As you say, confidence in projections of surpluses as far as the eye can see would seem to be province of people pretending to be adults. Which makes me wonder why you seem to have omitted aggressive deregulation, unpaid wars and rather large tax cuts without matching expenditure reductions. If you feel that any or all of these had nothing to do with forming the current situation we are in, I'm all ears. There are obviously other factors, but the government isn't all powerful. As for preferring Romney over the current occupant - I am interested in the reasoning. After all, what would have a 2008 President Romney done that Obama didn't? We've covered some items that Obama did, and we can objectively compare how Democrats and Republicans go with stimulating the economy through broad based tax cuts. Republicans - send everyone a somewhat useless $100 with great fanfare, during a fairly mild downturn. Democrats - even though I am sure they are painfully aware that they are sacrificing significant political capital, they try "stealth" tax cuts that inject far more money into people's pockets that they are much more likely to spend (and hence stimulate). As for Romney's business experience - we are talking about someone who rather cleverly developed a business model in which all risk is moved to someone else, and unless you rather foolishly purchased a company that goes insolvent before you can load them up with debt to pay back what you borrowed for the purchase and then some, has only upside for you. I am interested in how this model can be applied to running a country, especially the United States, which wouldn't appear to have too many options for similarly divesting itself of risk. That Staples, a company in which Bain had only a 10% interest in is their big "success story" is pretty telling.
- Nari224
March 1, 2012 at 5:40pm
Actually, let me rephrase of HCR. Employment in the health care sector has been one of the bright spots during the downturn, despite presumably a large exodus of customers. Clearly demographic trends are contributing mightily to this, but I'd say my understanding of the activities that even the good state of Illinois is pursuing with regards to HCR (and specifically Federally Qualified Health Centers), that Obamacare can probably be credited with creating a non-trivial number of private sector jobs! And before anymore makes any snide comments about those not being real jobs, pretty much our entire health care system is a beast of government regulation and decisions, so I don't see why such a job was "valid" yesterday but not today.
- Nari224
March 1, 2012 at 5:48pm
Well, on the stimulus I simply disagree, and counterfactual history doesn't interest me. Reality is that the stimulus was funneled to certain groups and activities. As BHO himself said, they really weren't shovel-ready after all. it's not that a stimulus could not have done some good, it's that what happened was that lots of $$ was given to states to put off their own day of reckoning. As for the bailouts, I'd have rather seen the bankruptcy process used in the way every other company does. The airlines come to mind. GM can still produce cars even in bankruptcy. and why do we still own AIG? Cash for clunkers was another bust that merely dragged demand forward while raising the price of transportation for people who could least afford it when the c"clunkers" were destroyed, thereby reducing clunker supply. My point about the 2000 economy was in response to a Bush comment earlier - he did not get handed a great economy, and then 9/11 occurred. Regarding the unpaid for wars, when have we ever paid for one? Not Vietnam - remember, LBJ wanted guns and butter, and for his trouble we got roaring inflation for over a decade. I agree that the tax cuts should have been matched by spending cuts, and I blame both parties. I suspect that a 2009 President Romney would not have done the stimulus and HCR (if at all) in the same way - certainly with a Pelosi/Reid Congress he could not have. But I think if Mitt had had a commission tasked with suggesting ways to reduce the deficit/debt, he might have paid attention to it, the way this POTUS did not. We all know that entitlement reform is vital, and we have had not one serious proposal from this POTUS. Not one. I don't place a great deal of stock in Mitt's business experience, it's that I'd rather have a former governor. And his judicial picks will be based, I hope, on something besides empathy. Again, it's been 3+ years and unemployment is higher now than when he took office. He had the whole gov't for 2 years, paid no attention to the Rs (which is his right), and so far his campaign slogan looks to be "It Could Have Been Worse."
- butchie b
March 2, 2012 at 2:16pm