A Few Thoughts on the Michigan Presidential Primary

   I don’t consider myself particularly qualified to be a political pundit, mainly because I get most of my information the same way the rest of the public does—reading newspapers, watching news on TV, and listening to interview shows on the radio. However, the guys and gals who are regarded as knowledgeable in this field, who earn the big bucks offering their learned prognostications for public consumption, haven’t exactly been setting the world on fire.

  Conventional wisdom, it seems, has been taking its lumps.

   As for predicting outcomes ahead of time, also known as polling, the outcome in the first presidential caucus proved a bit off the mark, and the reports that Hillary Clinton would beat Bernie Sanders by a 10-to-15 point margin in Michigan completely missed the target.

   By the time you read this, all sorts of explanations will be offered as to why this inaccuracy occurred in the Democratic race. My own guess? It’s due, in part, to the large number of people who have abandoned land lines in favor of just using cell phones. In our newspaper business, trying to contact people is becoming harder as a result of this switch. In the good old days, you could find someone’s phone and address simply by browsing the phone book. Now it’s hit and miss.

   That trend is even more pronounced with younger people for whom land lines are becoming relics, like the hand-crank models of my grandparents’ era. And it’s young voters, more out-of-reach to pollsters due to this change in phone use than the older set, who are a main base of support for Sanders.

   The second part of this equation is that, if a pollster does attempt to call via the phone, Caller ID makes it easier to not pick up. I personally regard this as one of the great inventions of my lifetime; even knowing that many folks are employed as telemarketers and this makes their job more difficult.

    The scientific model used in sampling a cross-section of the population--and from the information obtained in the polling being able to extrapolate a reasonably accurate estimation of the outcome--is a model that obviously needs some adjustments given these new realities.

    I’d guess that exit polling remains accurate since the pollster is talking to a real-live voter, but of course that’s after-the-fact.

      I don’t know if Sanders unexpectedly beating Clinton in Michigan ranks up there with Truman topping Dewy back in 1948, the turn-of-events certainly has changed the prevailing commentary from what it was going into the vote. That narrative was that Clinton, having stumbled against Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire, would do well in states with a more diverse population (meaning those with a larger percentage of African Americans and Hispanic-Americans) and would slowly pull away.

    That scenario seemed to bear out with South Carolina and several of the Super Tuesday states that fit this criterion. The pundits were already measuring Sanders’ political casket. But our fair state of Michigan, which certainly has a diverse Democratic constituency, has slowed the momentum that seemed to be building for the Clinton.

   Of course delegate count is the name of the game, but much of Clinton’s advantage is in the super delegates who are not pledged by voter preference to either candidate. They can choose whoever they prefer.

    Last time around these delegates initially leaned towards Clinton, but Barack Obama’s electoral success caused many of them to switch allegiance. Prior to the Democratic Convention eight years ago, the emerging math after the primaries and caucuses had come to an end caused Clinton to withdraw in favor of Obama.

    Some questions to ponder:

    If Sanders changes the trajectory with future wins or unexpected strong showings, will a similar change-of-heart occur? And, if Clinton does prevail at the end mainly because of these super delegates backing her, is this going to leave Sanders’ supporters upset enough to boycott the General Election?

    Whatever those answers turn out to be, if the former secretary of state earns the nomination, she’s not going to be as strong going into the November General Election as she was prior to Michigan. Knocking Sanders out of the race early on, or making him more and more marginalized, would have allowed her to gather strength as she shifted her focus towards the Republican candidate.

    If, on the other hand, Sanders manages to pull the rabbit out of the hat and win the nomination, then the question will be how his message resonates beyond the Democratic base with independent voters and any Republicans he might need to flip.

    On the Republican side, Michigan gave Donald Trump a win with just under 37 percent of the GOP vote total. Senator Ted Cruz came in second with around 25 percent, just ahead of Governor John Kaisch.

    Kaisch, hailing from Ohio, had high hopes for Michigan. He didn’t do badly, but not good enough to make him the alternative to Trump that the Republican establishment and other anti-Trumpers have been searching for. More and more it looks like only Cruz is available to ride that horse. Yet, he didn’t do anything in Michigan to look like he can close the gap before the finish line.

   Michigan, in recent presidential elections, has backed the Democratic candidate, while in the off-year votes the Republicans have enjoyed electoral success. So, I think it’s safe to say we’re a state that’s nearly evenly divided in our political loyalties.

   Given the number of votes cast for Sanders and Clinton and given that nearly 63 percent of the Republican ballots went to Cruz, Kaisch, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and other listed candidates, Trump is hardly the darling of Michigan voters.

   Even so, winning is what matters in politics—whether it’s by 37 percent (Trump’s percentage) or 51 percent or 15 percent. He may have a ceiling of support in the Republican Party, but if he keeps winning, the math eventually takes over.

   The bare knuckle fights that often highlight primary races may cause bloody noses and bruised feelings, but when all is said and done, the party faithful usually rally around the flag and support the nominee. Some forecasters feel this will still happen with the Republicans. However, Trump has made things much more personal with his opponents than occurs in a more traditional campaign and, while his opponents may ‘grin and bear it,’ will their partisans do so?  

    And what about all of those conservative pundits and true believers who’ve been among Trump’s harshest critics; who view his positions as polar opposite to their principles of limited government, less presidential power, free market economics, and unrestrained trade? Will they stay true to those beliefs or toss them aside to join the Trump bandwagon?

   What about Trump? Reports are that he’s making overtures to the Republican Establishment. I assume this is an olive branch of sorts, offered in hopes of putting an end to their effort to derail his candidacy and, in turn, strengthen his position in the General Election. While that would be politically expedient, for a candidacy that took flight in part by bashing and demonizing the very same Establishment and by directing anger at the so-called elites, such strategy might seem overly cynical.

   So I wonder: Is all of this rhetoric spilling from the various candidates so much “sound and fury, signifying nothing?” And, if that’s an accurate assessment, are the passions of the supporters, when all is said and done, expendable pawns in the chessboard of Presidential politics? Used when convenient? Disposed of when no longer prudent?

  Well, that’s why commentators commentate. We can speculate, but only time will tell.