tbreport

(Posted March 22) Ready for a “probability” theory?

Walt DeVries, longtime executive assistant to former Michigan Gov. George Romney, Mitt Romney’s father, has responded to Mitt’s challenge in early March to replace GOP frontrunner Donald Trump as the party’s presidential nominee.

DeVries, now retired in North Carolina, was a fellow delegate of George Romney at the 1961-62 state Constitutional Convention, which drafted Michigan’s current charter. He is also the author of the famous political science treatise, “The Ticket-Splitter,” which is responsible for the currency of that term in today’s politics.

DeVries articulated his argument just after Mitt Romney denounced Trump’s campaign, thereby establishing himself as the face of the anti-Trump movement within the GOP. To DeVries, Romney has certified everything that DeVries remembers about what Mitt’s father, George, was up to back in the 1960s. Like father, like son.

According to DeVries, “I believe what Mitt is doing — while openly seeking another candidate to challenge Trump ( it turned out to be John Kasich in Ohio but then Ted Cruz in Utah) — is also quietly firing up a potential Draft Mitt campaign to step in if he and the other “Establishment” Republicans succeed in stopping Trump short of the majority of delegates Trump needs going into the national convention.”

“What Mitt is attempting,” says DeVries, “is much like his father tried in the 1964 (Barry Goldwater) and 1968 (Richard Nixon) pre-convention campaigns when George implored the GOP party “Establishment” of those days to change course in the nomination process and “save” the delegates from choosing possible failed and unrepresentative (i.e. too conservative) nominees.”

DeVries continued: “Both of those 1964 and ’68 efforts stumbled as, I suspect, Mitt’s will as well. It is just too late, and Mitt as the leader of an “Establishment” charge seems highly improbable with only one Republican major officeholder (U.S. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska) currently in the “Won’t Vote for Trump” movement. George Romney, at least, had progressive GOP governors like Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Scranton and Jim Rhodes behind him in 1964, as well as some other prominent members of Congress. The same was true in the 1968 Miami Beach convention.”

“I know,” says DeVries, “Because I was George Romney’s executive assistant at those 1964 and ’68 conventions. And the probability, irrespective of all the current speculation of countless pundits and political strategists, of derailing Trump when seen from an historical perspective is so slight that you can bet it won’t happen.”

DeVries contends that Mitt Romney’s rhetoric in his March 3 speech was “such a personal attack on The Donald and was so, shall I say, Trump-like that he turned off a large part of the delegate base needed to overturn Trump’s nomination. Mitt’s father, George, would in my opinion have abhorred the tone and content of the speech, but probably not the strategy.”

Continues DeVries: “Now that Mitt is completely committed and firmly tied to the ABT (Anybody But Trump) crusade, which I believe he will lose, he may have to accede to the “Run, Mitt, Run” chorus coming from his fans at the Utah Institute of Politics. And isn’t that the long-range goal?”

“When the inevitable happens,” argues DeVries,  “Mitt may be forced to recharge his 2012 presidential campaign donors, staff and advertising agency consultants, and put Humpty-Dumpty back on the wall one more time. In my view, history tells us that they cannot win, but they may have to try. Indeed, thanks to Mitt’s strong commitment, it seems he is now trapped in his own Catch-22.”

DeVries argues that what Mitt Romney has done is “tear apart the GOP’s intra-party wounds even further, making it likely that a Clinton-Trump November contest may be as disastrous as the 1964 Goldwater convention and election, especially for down-ballot results.”

“In my view,” DeVries concludes, “Mitt should have studied the presidential efforts of his father and pondered those results. Call it a learning experience. But call it what you may, it is the beginning of the Draft Mitt Romney for President campaign.”

(Posted March 9) It looked like Michigan would continue to get no respect in presidential politics.

Before March 8, the conventional wisdom was that the Great Lakes State wouldn’t be a factor in determining whom the major parties’ presidential nominees were likely to be. After all, we never have been.

This was despite the fact that,  behind the March 1 “Super Tuesday” states of Texas (155 delegates) and Georgia (76 delegates), Michigan was offering the third biggest haul of Republican delegates (59) that any state has had up until March 8. And the 252 delegates up for grabs among Michigan Democrats outnumber those of any other state except Texas.

But then Hillary Clinton suffered a shocking upset loss to Bernie Sanders in Michigan’s Democratic presidential primary election.  And Donald Trump’s decisive win on the Republican side (+ wins on the same day in Mississippi and Hawaii), combined with Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s disappointing third-place finish,  gives The Donald some impetus heading into the March 15 winner-take-all primaries in Ohio and Florida. Virtually all Michigan polls going into the final week of campaigning before March 8 showed Trump and Clinton well ahead of their competition, by anywhere from 20-30 percentage points. Neither did that well — Trump won by about 12%, and Clinton lost by nearly 2%.

Michigan is among the last states to award delegates proportionately based on its March 8 results. Right now, the polls show that Trump would be most likely to wind up with about 25 delegates of the 59 Michigan will send the GOP National Convention. and Ted Cruz and Kasich perhaps 17 apiece. Marco Rubio, whose polls numbers dropped like a rock in the weeks approaching the election, will be completely shut out because he failed to reach the 15% threshold needed to qualify for a small piece of the action.

On the Democratic side, you could expect Clinton and Sanders to split the “earned” delegates (based on the election results), but Clinton is still likely to walk away with a majority of the 147 delegates that will be going to the Democratic National Convention because of her current monopoly of  “Super Delegate” potentates (which could change depending on what happens on down the road).

What are the ground rules in Michigan for awarding delegates to the national conventions, based on the March 8 results?

For the Republicans, each of Michigan’s 14 Congressional districts will be awarded three delegates to the national convention. That’s 3 x 14=42. In addition, three delegates will be taken up by the state party chair, the national committeewoman and the national committeeman. That leaves 14 delegates to be apportioned based on the statewide vote for the GOP presidential nominee on March 8.

What happened to “Winner Take All”? Could anybody have expected to get all 59 of Michigan’s delegates by winning more than 50% of the vote on March 8? No. Any state, like, Michigan, that has its primary before March 15 cannot be a “Winner Take All” state, according to Republican National Committee rules.

There’s no “Winner Take All” by Congressional District, either. If  Trump, Cruz and Kasich each got 31% of the vote in a particular CD, and Marco Rubio got, say, 7%, Trump, Cruz and Kasich will each get a delegate from that district while Rubio will get none. Of course, that’s way too simple, and it didn’t happen precisely like that anywhere, especially with multiple names on the ballot, including those who dropped out by March 8. So, ultimately, who gets what will be based not only on how well they do in that district but how well they do statewide. Only those candidates who achieve at least 15% of the vote statewide will be guaranteed any delegates at all. If a candidate meets the 15% threshold, he will be guaranteed approximately 15% of the delegates, or as near to that as can be determined by the party’s credentials committee. That committee will scour the district results statewide and determine where that particular candidate should get his delegates, or use the 14 “at large” pool to reach the number that candidate deserves.

These rules are not appreciably different from 2012, practically speaking, except that four years ago it really was “winner take all” for whoever won a CD by more than 50%. Not any more. This year, the results will be apportioned, not just statewide but within a Congressional district.

What about the delegates as people? How must they behave? If the 4th CD results say that Ted Cruz deserves one delegate from the 4th, the 4th must provide one. Whoever it selects, s/he will have to sign a pledge saying s/he will vote for Cruz on the first ballot at the national convention. The other two delegates from that district will go to whomever deserves them, based on not only the vote in that district, but, to a certain extent, on what each candidate deserves based on what s/he has earned statewide. After the first ballot, however, it could be “Katie, Bar the Door!” (and it will be legal).

Is it any different for Michigan Democrats? Not really, except that they award a lot more delegates (147), including 10 national committee members (to the GOP’s two), and seven members of Congress who will be automatically seated. But the 15% threshold in votes must be reached by a candidate in order to get delegates (just like the Republicans), all of which will be awarded proportionately (also like the GOP). That won’t be an issue for either Clinton or Sanders. It will take 2,382 delegates for a candidate to get a majority at the Democratic National Convention; the GOP will require only 1,237 at their conclave in Cleveland.

Let the games continue!

(Posted March 16) On global trade, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has made it clear that he believes the USA is getting “a bad deal.” Most of his criticism has been directed at China and Mexico, but most recently he has also mentioned “the Japanese.”

That may have made one foreign dignitary concerned, if not nervous, but if so he’s not showing it. He’s Mitsuhiro Wada, the Consul General of Japan, headquartered in Detroit’s RenCen. Interestingly, Wada-sama’s political jurisdiction embraces only two states — Ohio and Michigan. That means he represents Japan’s interests in Buckeyeland, where one of Trump’s rivals for the GOP nomination, John Kasich, is governor, as well as Michigan, where Gov. Rick Snyder, who wisely never made an endorsement in the presidential race, is embroiled in the Flint “water crisis.”

Japan is a major investor and job producer in the Midwest, employing more than 100,000 in Ohio and Michigan alone. “I feel encouraged by the fact that, in Michigan, there are currently 487 Japanese companies providing more than 38,000 jobs,” notes Wada. “As this investment grows, so does the Japanese resident population.  We sincerely appreciate the warm hospitality shown to Japanese businesses and residents alike.”

Wada says he’s “very impressed” with the numerous people-to-people exchanges at the grassroots level among “the Michigan-Shiga and 27 sister-cities’ relationships.” He says the Lansing-Otsu relationship is one of the most successful examples, and he notes that in 2018 Michigan and Shiga will celebrate the 50th anniversary of their state-prefecture relationship, begun under Michigan Gov. George Romney in 1968.

Last September, Wada returned to Japan to participate in the 47th Annual Japan-Midwest Conference in Tokyo. There, he met with Snyder and Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan as well as state and city government officials, economic development officers and business leaders from both Japan and nine Midwestern states.

Wada also notes that, here in Michigan, more than 2,000 university/community college students from K-12 schools are enrolled in Japanese language courses.  He also will encourage youth exchange such as the Kakehashi Project-Bridge for Tomorrow and the Japan Exchange & Teaching (JET) program. Kakehashi is an annual program for high school and university students to travel to Japan to interface with local organizations; the JET program allows college graduates to work in Japan as assistant language teachers or as international relations coordinators.

A majority (273) of the Japanese facilities in Michigan operate in the manufacturing sector, 61% of which are automotive-related. There are 116 commercial trade operations, accounting for 24% of Japan’s business presence  in Michigan.

Geographically, more than 90% of Japan’s facilities in Michigan are in Metro Detroit, primarily in the R&D, engineering, sales and service industries, providing 23,976 jobs (60% of the Japan’s total in the state). Facilities in outstate regions are predominately in manufacturing, and they provide a disproportionately large number of jobs — 15,662, which is 40% of the total.

As of January, there were an estimated 13,282 Japanese nationals living in Michigan, most of whom reside in Metro Detroit. There is a bigger population of Japanese in Novi than anywhere (3,487), followed by Ann Arbor (1,738), West Bloomfield (1,039), and Farmington Hills (716). Battle Creek ranks fifth in the state with 423.

(Posted March 16) The “Blame Game” over who is most responsible for the Flint “water crisis” reached a crescendo in the March 6 Democratic debate in Flint when Hillary Clinton finally echoed her rival Bernie Sanders’s demand made in January that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder should “resign” over the imbroglio.

But Virginia Tech Professor Marc Edwards, the“Water Quality” expert who drew attention to Flint’s contaminated water last year and whose research has been cited by Democrats repeatedly, has deviated from the script.

Edwards now says FOIA-Procured Emails Reveal that Snyder, while initially slow off the mark, has acted responsibly in the crisis and that bureaucrats, federal and state, are primarily to blame.

Suddenly, mention of Edwards’s name was dropped by Democrats. Reference to Edwards fell off in the Mainstream media, too, until they were forced to acknowledge his testimony before a legislative committee on March 14 that bureaucrats in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had covered up facts they had uncovered on the Flint water contamination issue and steered the federal government away from making Flint a battle worth fighting.