Question 1): Polls show most Americans don’t want to see a Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump re-match for President of the United State in 2024, but right now it looks like that very well may happen. Could there be an alternative scenario, like a plausible third party candidate? It’s happened before — Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace and Ross Perot all come to mind. Today, there is serious talk about the new, so-called “No Labels” party, which could nominate a ticket of ‘centrist’ or moderate candidates for Prez and VP like Democrat Joe Manchin or Republican Jon Huntsman. If such a political party were to qualify for the ballots of various states in 2024, it’s difficult to see it winning, but would it be more likely to draw votes away from Democrats, or from Republicans?
Answer 1): To have any credibility with voters, a splinter party ticket would have to possess either tons of money (like Perot in 1992 and ’96) or a strong ideological or geographical base (like George Wallace in 1968 or the ‘Dixiecrat’ Strom Thurmond in 1948) or be a rock-star, high name ID politician like former president Teddy Roosevelt in 1912). All lost, although TR actually carried Michigan over President William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, who won the election (so in that case it was the Republican Taft who had votes drawn away from him). Today, a Green Party candidate (like Jill Stein in 2016) would hurt the Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton). A Libertarian usually hurts the Republican nominee, but in 2016 there is evidence that Gary Johnson (a former moderate Republican governor) may have hurt Hillary Clinton as much as it did Trump. ‘No Labels’ seems to be operating on the premise that both major political parties are either too far Right or too far Left and so maybe what would appeal to voters would be a ‘balanced’ ticket of one centrist Democrat and one centrist Republican who could draw support from the broad ‘middle’ of the electorate consisting of independents and ticket-splitters, plus the more moderate elements of both of the major parties — enough to win a plurality of the vote. Is that plausible? Theoretically, maybe, but in reality NO. First of all, there don’t seem to be any viable high name-ID possibilities out there who could inspire voters’ confidence. Huntsman and Manchin and others like them won’t get it done. Mitt Romney? Hmm … well, he’s already said he’s too old and, besides, he’s ticketed to publish a ‘tell all’ book before he leaves the U.S. Senate. And where would these No Labels types get their money? Perot drew 19% of the popular vote in 1992, but he didn’t carry a single state in the Electoral College. So, to answer the original question: The party that would be hurt the worst by a ‘No Labels’ candidate would depend entirely on WHO the nominees turned out to be and what their ‘compelling message’ might be (if they have one). Plus, of course, they would have to be fueled by enormous amounts of campaign cash.
*************************************************************
Question 2) . What are the odds that actor Hill HARPER could defeat U.S. Rep. Elissa SLOTKIN (D-Holly) in Michigan’s Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in 2024? Even if he doesn’t win, could he force Slotkin to take more ‘progressive’ or left-leaning stances on issues that could handicap her in a general election against a Republican opponent, especially if that is a moderate?
Answer 2): The odds against Harper winning in a match-up against Slotkin are about 20-1, which means 5%. It’s true that Slotkin has never had a tough Democratic primary — her races have always been about winning close, extremely expensive general election races against Republicans in marginal districts — but that doesn’t mean she’s likely to fold like a cheap suit when faced with a supposed ‘progressive’ like Harper. Harper has already tested what might be his strategy by noting that Slotkin was one of only two U.S. House Democrats to oppose flying the LGBTQ flag at the Pentagon — we’ll see whether that gets traction. Yes, Harper has ties to national Democrats and major funders, but his name ID is more among TV drama addicts than those in the political sphere or, for that matter, voters. Slotkin is battle-tested and should be able to fend off anything Harper might throw at her. Additionally, she can report nearly $4 million cash on hand, and small-dollar donors in every county across the state, burnishing her image as the kind of candidate who can appeal to every kind of Democrat. What will be most interesting is to see if the Democratic Senate primary race becomes a two-person race (as depicted by most of the media), and, if it is, whether Harper is in fact the only valid threat to Slotkin. Aren’t there other candidates? Yes, there are currently a half-dozen announced aspirants. What’s likely to be Harper’s biggest problem is that there are two other credible African-Americans in the contest —Pamela Pugh, president of the state Board of Education, and former state Rep. Leslie Love. Even if the black vote is as large as a quarter or a third of the Democratic total, any support Pugh or Love get will come mainly at Harper’s expense, not Slotkin’s.
*******************************************
Question 3): Earlier this summer, there was serious talk that the Michigan Republicans’ vaunted Mackinac Island Biennial Leadership Conference, scheduled for Sept. 22-24, actually might not take place. The party is dead broke, with little sign that its usual funders are ever going to ride to the rescue because of the GOP civil war pitting the Trump MAGA wing majority against lingering elements of traditional Republicanism. Now, it appears the conference will in fact happen, but in a dramatically different form — scaled back attendance and only one little-known national presidential contender. No big name elected officials from other states. So, is this year’s conclave a disaster waiting to happen? How much media coverage will there be? And what might be reported? Headlines and stories that will drive voters away? Fights among the participants? Puny turnout compared unfavorably with past conferences? Decisions by the Republican state committee on next year’s hybrid presidential primary/convention system for electing delegates to the 2024 national convention that will draw still more unfavorable press?
Answer 3): The answers to the above questions are: “YES. LESS LIKELY THAN FORMERLY. BAD NEWS UNLESS YOU’RE A DEMOCRAT. YES. PROBABLY. FOR SURE. YES.” For nearly seven decades, the Mackinac gathering has been one of Michigan Republicans’ flagship events, and it looks like they’re about to blow it BIG TIME. If so, that will alienate the GOP’s donor class even more. The big shocker is the lack of prominent speakers who have actually accomplished what any self-respecting political party is organized to do — get elected to public office. For a while, the only one who came close to meeting that definition was U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, but now it appears he’s been scrubbed. The biggest hope to avoid a complete speaker meltdown is presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy, now running third in national polls behind Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Otherwise, the party’s slate of speakers includes former television news anchor and Republican Arizona politician Kari LAKE, long forgotten former presidential candidate Alan Keyes, actor Jim CAVIEZEL and British rapper Nzube UDEZUE, also known by his stage name “Zuby.” Featured earlier but now apparently scuttled is conspiracy theorist and filmmaker Dinesh D’SOUZA. None of these people has ever been elected to anything.
What will be the final speaker line-up next week-end? Who knows?
One goal of the Mackinac conference has always been to show ‘unity’ to the outside political world, no matter what internal divisions Republicans may have.
That looks less likely to happen at Mackinac than ever before.
****************************************************
Url preview:
www.theballengerreport.com › three-unanswered-questions-in-michigan-politics-2
SEO title preview:
Meta description preview:
| Select Layout | |
|---|---|
|
Output before the closing |
|
TZ wrote that the slow creation of the Mackinac leadership conference agenda was concerning. The Grand Hotel, which is typically sold out for this conference, still had multiple room selections available this evening, nine days away from the conference.
“With the projected attendance down, we need to take a good hard look at the inside leadership of the Michigan Republican Party,” Tietz wrote. “Many of those planning this event have said that they had never attended this normally blockbuster event before . . .
“It is undeniable that the MRP is in trouble, and the administration are using a teacup to bail water out of the ship,” she added.
**************************************************
Oops. “Readability: Needs improvement.” We love your analysis and your readers know what to expect. Adopt the breezy USA Today format and your faithful readers will miss the Real Bill Ballenger!
On the other hand, we respect Dinesh D’Souza, and question those those who impugn his work.
Great questions. Great answers.
My take on Question #1:
H.Ross Perot ran the last serious third-party candidacy in America – he was a reform candidate that engaged heavily in self-financing and destroyed the Bush re-election. George H.W. Bush received only 42% of the vote in his home state of Texas – beating Bill Clinton by 2%.
Trump has a mammoth following among anti-establishment GOP activists and someone like Perot in 1992 could not expect to extract many of the electorate to draw such votes from Trump as Perot did in 1992. There is further no other burning issue that would draw votes from a Trump candidacy. Like it or not Donald Trump will be the GOP nominee.
My take on Question #2:
Why Elissa Slotkin may have problems in the primary include:
(A) the youth vote being siphoned off by a progressive candidate like Hill Harper – Pugh and Love are not serious contenders and will likely drop out early;
(B) the LGBT vote is crystallizing in Michigan against those who oppose their interests and Slotkin’s conduct toward this community has been cool at best;
(C) there are several hundred registered Arab-American Democrats in Metro Detroit who are likely to support declared candidate Nasser Beydoun in the Democratic primary – and are further unlikely to support Slotkin in the general election under any circumstance – given her background in national security and AIPAC links;
Democratic State Senator Sylvia Santana – whose district covers east Dearborn – recently infuriated Arab-Americans by accepting trips to Israel furnished by the Jewish Federation. This was heavily covered in local Arab news outlets and Santana met with constituents to profusely apologize.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel appeared in Hamtramck to demonstrate against a city ordinance banning the Pride Flag on city property. The Yemeni-American mayor of that city invited GOP celebrities to speak in the city – including Mike Flynn, who spoke at a gathering to residents.
While Slotkin has a funding edge, there are intangibles working against her.
My take on Question #3:
The Michigan Republican Party does clearly have fundraising problems and divisiveness. It borders on chaos and poor Kristina Karamo has her hands full.
Maybe Nessel is a clandestine organizer for the GOP? I strongly suggest any future fundraising in Hamtramck for her may not go as well as she would like.
The GOP did well in east Dearborn in 2022, maybe it’s Hamtramck’s turn in 2024?
The Sylvia Santana episode had to be one of the most egregious political gaffes in the long history of Michigan politics.
It would be tantamount to a Miami Florida elected political officeholder taking an all-expense paid junket to Cuba at the expense of CPUSA.
The Institute For Black Solidarity With Israel however congratulated Santana after her trip became public. Senator Santana’s Facebook page received comments criticizing her apology on the grounds that she should NOR be apologizing for visiting Israel.
It shall be interesting to see what happens in the next election in her district.
Nice article, as usual, Bill.
Just a few points on the questions.
Question 1: No one should expect much from “NO Labels” this presidential election cycle if Donald Trump is running. You’re right that they have no real top tier candidate running. That coupled with the fear of taking votes away from Joe Biden, the risk of running is too great. A lot of talk, very little action.
Question 2: Hill Harper is looking at the past in Michigan. A Hollywood connection got Melissa Gilbert a nomination to Congress, though she later dropped out due to health issues. Bridget McCormich was able to bring in Hollywood “star power” through her actress sister – including the cast of West Wing – and that helped get her elected to the Michigan Supreme Court. So his TV past might help and give him a slight puncher’s chance. He might have possible Arab American support for those who object to Slotkin’s positions on Israel. But only if he gets his Hollywood and political friends to rain a monsoon’s worth of cash on him. I don’t see that happening.
Pamela Pugh and Leslie Love will draw votes most likely from Harper and not Slotkin. His best hope is that they drop out. I don’t think that Ms Pugh can carry her “war” over the new education department of Whitmer to election.
Question 3: The Mackinac Conference epitomizes the clash in today’s Michigan GOP. The populist base vs. the donor class. As has been noted earlier, the donor class is upset that they forgot how to organize; that their choice for governor could not get enough valid signatures (though the Trumpian candidates did); and that the populist folks were the ones who did the work, ran for and got elected as precinct and convention delegates. Where were the donor class candidates? Instead of doing the work, they look at the party’s base as peasants who are supposed to do what they are told. That did not work real well for them in 2022, unless the outcome is what the donor class wanted.
As for the speakers, Vivek is a good speaker. Not everyone’s cup of tea, but a good speaker. As an Indian-American, it’s a voter base the GOP wants to make inroads with.
Kari Lake is a good and polished speaker (but that was a requirement for her TV job). There is a reason her Democratic opponent Katie Hobbs refused to debate her. A perfect cheerleader type for the faithful.
Alan Keyes, not my cup of tea, but he is certainly entertaining. Maybe Zuby’s opening act, but certainly entertaining. And you need that to fire up the troops.
And do not underestimate the appeal of Jim Caviezel. I believe his movie “The Sound of Freedom” has taken in more money than the last Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible movies. And with a astronomically smaller advertising budget. Its audience base is heavily Latino, a segment of the population that the GOP made inroads with and wants to make more inroads with now and the future. This is a voter base that Ms Karamo desperately wants to make inroads with. And these inroads were made since 2016 with Trump at the helm. As an aside, “The Sound of Freedom”, along with Gavin Newsom’s ambition, may have influenced California politicians to finally pass Senate Bill 14 that treats child sex trafficking as a serious felony (in California-speak, this makes the felon eligible for the “Three strikes” law). The audiences were heavily Latino, and sometimes politicians have to actually do something that population wants and not what the extremist base wants.
The only question is whether the donor class sees this or not, or prefers to see the GOP collapse in hopes they can remodel it once again in its own image. As they used to say on TV, film at 11.
Interesting read, Bill. As usual.
1) Interesting the 3 examples you use for 3rd party candidates (TR Roosevelt, G Wallace and H Ross Perot) all took votes away from Republicans. I consider this an indication the DNC machine was at work way back when. They don’t dare allow a true Democrat run against their pick . . . at least in the general election, and now even in the primaries (current plight of RFK Jr being a good example). Bottom line: a 3rd party candidate only has a chance of knocking out Trump (a real possibility in my mind, ala Romney), but not Biden
2) Unless/until a strong Republican candidate coming from SE Michigan, that can unify rudiments of the L Brooks Patterson coalition and the Devos backed west coast republicans, the GOP will remain toast. Plus, that candidate needs to be able to continue drawing the suburban housewives, Latino and Black voters Trump appealed to in 2016. I had hoped James Craig might be that person, but his execution has been poor, poor, poor. We need a harder hitting Rick Snyder type. Who? Don’t know.
3) MRP is too out-state centric. I have no confidence they understand suburban SE MI mind set. Karamo, Deperno, Maddocks group have good aspirations but don’t appear to understand the big picture. I love Tudor Dixon but when she let the media define her abortion stance (when she wasn’t even going to be the one to champion it), it was time to pack it in. They have far too much fun beating the RINO’s up than beating up the dems.
At Mackinaw?
After the fistfight at the Doherty Hotel–home of the best bloody marys in the state!–I’d be watching for a Brawl on the Porch!! Someone calls someone “RINO” and the fists fly like John Wayne cutting loose in The Quiet Man. Holy moly! Can you imagine guys getting thrown over and rolling down to the water? Rearing horses and everything. Chair Karamo bonging Matt Maddock with a frying pan!
–Forget Somewhere In Time–this would be the ultimate Mackinac Island movie. —-Except are any of the current Grassroots GOP leaders and delegates even paying out the bucks to stay on the Island? You might find this year’s action at the All-You-Can-Eat Pizza Buffet in Mackinaw City.
Bill, as you rightly point out, a perception exists that the Green Party hurts the Democrats, Libertarians hurt the Republicans (actually more 50/50, as you rightly point out in 2016). And now — along comes “No Labels”, a dubious lack of principles that would inspire nobody.
We should all demand Ranked Choice Voting. Instead of always needing to choice “the evil of two lessors”, why not give voters and affirmative list. This may be the best way back to some kind of consensus. Otherwise, we’re moving toward even more Balkanization and the demagogic nonsense of folks like Mr. Trump.
Bill, when I was elected a GOP precinct delegate in Macomb County in 2008, most precinct delegates were oriented toward the Libertarian Party. The majority supported Ron Paul. Your party never fielded very many candidates so most joined Republican groups in the county. As a result the Second Amendment and tax revolt activists in Macomb stayed away from a largely dormant Libertarian Party caucus across the county.
Today, John Birch Society members hold regular public meetings in Macomb County as do Second Amendment activists, Tea Party members, anti-tax activists and these group members have formed a patchwork that work together with the Macomb County Republican Party leadership.
Republican elected county government leaders in Macomb County for the most part stays away from the Macomb County Republican Party leadership – which is headed by Mark Forton as chairman. Their leader is Eric Castiglia. This schism has been documented in the press for the past year and a half.
If the Libertarian Party would field more candidates it would likely draw more adherents within Macomb County. Most rank-and-file GOP activists are disgusted with the elected Republicans in county government and want a choice.
Many grassroots Republican activists in 2016 in Macomb County – as well as throughout Michigan were repulsed by the spectre of Donald Trump being elected and instead voted for Gary Johnson – a level-headed former New Mexico governor who had
William Weld as a running mate. Weld prosecuted Lyndon LaRouche during his leadership of the U.S. Labor Party.
It was Lyndon LaRouche who first spread the disinformation during the 1980s that U.S. elections were rigged by compromised voting machines. Trump adopted this absurdity.
Republican leaders in Michigan had to urge many of their supporters to vote for Trump in the general election by arguing a vote for Gary Johnson was a throwaway vote. Johnson was endorsed by the Detroit News and the Libertarian Party had its best showing in Michigan and the U.S. in the 2016 election cycle.
John Tatar regularly held meetings in Wayne County and Scott Boman was another Libertarian Party leader in Wayne County.
Frankly, there has been an undercurrent of support among Macomb Republicans for the Libertarian Party running candidates in Macomb County in 2024 at the county level.
Macomb County GOP nominees have barely achieved enough votes to beat Dem nominees at the county level and if Libertarians were too field candidates for county executive, county treasurer and prosecutor in Macomb in 20244, the GOP would likely lose these seats.
Anyone who dismisses Dinesh D’Souza should be dismissed. Watch “2,000 Mules”.
I loved 2,000 Mules but it was panned by critics.
Third party not a chance. Chuck Moss, you made a Dutch Scot Presbyterian, moderate Republican lawyer, laugh out loud