Post by Gene on Jan 16, 2008 8:17:47 GMT -5
Nice breakdown of it here:
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI
I made some predictions last week. On the Rep side, can I call 'em or can I call 'em? It's Romney with a convincing win.
The Dem side, as I say, was not what I thought it was going to be, since Clinton was the only front-runner on the ballot, so I don't think it's fair to hold me to that one. Clinton wins, with 55%, here.
The "raid" vote may have had some influence on what went on, and on both sides. I personally am not motivated to lift my buttcheeks off the couch to go down and vote for "NOT" somebody, and I believe most other people are this way, too. I think if Obama and/or Edwards were specifically listed on the ballot as well, the margin of Clinton's victory would be nowhere near what this looks like, and maybe even not a victory at all. It's all a bunch of what-if, now, though... For the Reps, it could be the Dep-leaning independants of the raid mentality just may have reasoned that their vote could do more good by being a fly in the ointment of the Reps. That could be a small factor in the Romney victory, but as to the degree, I can't really be sure...
Further on the Reps (by far the more interesting race), the messages of McCain and Romney were pretty different. The economy dominated the debate, as it should, for Michigan right now. McCain took a straight-talk, realist approach, saying things to the effect of, "Look, Michigan, it's a different world now, and those jobs you used to have ain't comin' back. The answer is a re-tooling to compete in this new market, and I want to provide programs to help you with that." Romney's approach was more hallow rhetoric that Michigan wanted to hear, in the vein of "I think it's despicable Michigan is going through a one-state recession! It sits wrong with me and I take it personally! I won't rest until Michigan is back on her feet!", and the like. One take is more aware and methodical, and risks sounding pessimistic, and the other is more naive and emotional, and absolutely positive. I personally prefer a suggestion of a plan, ANY plan, over this "I feel your pain" stuff, but for many people who vote with their heart and not their head, this "feel" stuff emoted by a candidate goes a long, long way. Voters want to believe they've done the best thing when walking away from the booth, and Romney provided a way for an emotional voter to do that, so if you're a voter where it's ALL about the feeling, Romney was definitely the pick. I think this explains the Romney victory WAY more. (This is oversimplistic, of course, since him growing up here, his father being a governor of the state and a president of an auto company, and Romney's business background were factors, too.)
Keeping an eye out!...
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI
I made some predictions last week. On the Rep side, can I call 'em or can I call 'em? It's Romney with a convincing win.
The Dem side, as I say, was not what I thought it was going to be, since Clinton was the only front-runner on the ballot, so I don't think it's fair to hold me to that one. Clinton wins, with 55%, here.
The "raid" vote may have had some influence on what went on, and on both sides. I personally am not motivated to lift my buttcheeks off the couch to go down and vote for "NOT" somebody, and I believe most other people are this way, too. I think if Obama and/or Edwards were specifically listed on the ballot as well, the margin of Clinton's victory would be nowhere near what this looks like, and maybe even not a victory at all. It's all a bunch of what-if, now, though... For the Reps, it could be the Dep-leaning independants of the raid mentality just may have reasoned that their vote could do more good by being a fly in the ointment of the Reps. That could be a small factor in the Romney victory, but as to the degree, I can't really be sure...
Further on the Reps (by far the more interesting race), the messages of McCain and Romney were pretty different. The economy dominated the debate, as it should, for Michigan right now. McCain took a straight-talk, realist approach, saying things to the effect of, "Look, Michigan, it's a different world now, and those jobs you used to have ain't comin' back. The answer is a re-tooling to compete in this new market, and I want to provide programs to help you with that." Romney's approach was more hallow rhetoric that Michigan wanted to hear, in the vein of "I think it's despicable Michigan is going through a one-state recession! It sits wrong with me and I take it personally! I won't rest until Michigan is back on her feet!", and the like. One take is more aware and methodical, and risks sounding pessimistic, and the other is more naive and emotional, and absolutely positive. I personally prefer a suggestion of a plan, ANY plan, over this "I feel your pain" stuff, but for many people who vote with their heart and not their head, this "feel" stuff emoted by a candidate goes a long, long way. Voters want to believe they've done the best thing when walking away from the booth, and Romney provided a way for an emotional voter to do that, so if you're a voter where it's ALL about the feeling, Romney was definitely the pick. I think this explains the Romney victory WAY more. (This is oversimplistic, of course, since him growing up here, his father being a governor of the state and a president of an auto company, and Romney's business background were factors, too.)
Keeping an eye out!...
