As we look toward the Republican contest in South Carolina, it may be useful to start with an autopsy on the Michigan primary. While my election-related posts often criticize those who focus too much on polls at the expense of the ground game, this post will focus on polls. However, this will mostly be to examine how polls may affect the candidates’ campaign themes going forward.
Analyzing the Michigan exit polls, Jay Cost sees Mitt Romney’s win as “decisive enough to keep him in the race,” but limited by the “sizeable boost” from his ties to state. Cost adds:
Another factor of critical importance in Romney’s victory was the economy. Romney’s message in the last few days was tailored to the economic concerns of Michigan. It seemed to work. In New Hampshire, (Sen. John) McCain won voters who said the economy was their most important concern, 41% to 21%. In Michigan, Romney won them, 41% to 29%.
This probably gives the Romney team some insight on what to say next – perhaps this economic message will translate into the other states. John McIntyre’s essay from December seems prescient to me now: with (Mike) Huckabee on his right flank, and McCain on his left – Romney can run as the down-the-middle conservative. His message? The economy.
Of course, Michigan voters were more concerned about the economy than others. For instance, 31% of New Hampshire exit poll respondents listed the economy as their primary concern, but in Michigan it was a whopping 55%. And, what is more, Romney’s appeal on the economy might be limited to Michigan. He ran on an explicit promise to revitalize the Michigan auto industry.
While I agree that the economy was important — perhaps crucial – to Romney’s win, I disagree with the specifics of this analysis.
Romney did not run as the down-the-middle conservative on the economy in Michigan, with McCain to his left:
McCain’s message in Michigan was the sort of “straight talk” for which he is famous: Some of those lost jobs will not be coming back, and those workers must be retrained for new, high-tech jobs.
Romney turned that around on McCain, vowing to help the auto industry and said the Arizona senator was offering a pessimistic message to be expected from a Washington insider.
Romney ran as the candidate arguing that, on a range of economic issues, “Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner, not a disinterested observer.”
McCain won more economists, but Romney won more delegates.
Moreover, Romney may follow the same formula in South Carolina. The Palmetto State is not suffering as much as Michigan, but it currently has the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation. Last month, a Pew poll found that 50% of Republicans thought free-trade agreements were a bad thing; only 45% of Democrats thought so.
Nevertheless, there is a degree of risk in that strategy. In the medium-term, Romney could erode his standing with economic conservatives in South Carolina and beyond. In the short-term, it should be noted that there has been friction over trade in SC GOP politics at least as far back as the Buchanan Brigades, but more protectionist candidates have tended to lose, as former Gov. David Beasley (who switched positions on the issue) did to now-Sen. Jim DeMint in 2004. As bad as that Pew poll looks to free-traders, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in October showed that nationally, 59 percent of Republicans agreed that free trade has been bad for the country (the corresponding national GOP number in the Pew poll was 45%, which reminds us not to take these numbers as literally as some do).
Moreover, following the Michigan formula puts him into competition with Huckabee’s economic populism. Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument that there is a protectionist or interventionist vein to be tapped in South Carolina, Romney and Huckabee could split that vote to the benefit of McCain or Fred Thompson.
Now that I have mentioned all of the major contenders in South Carolina, there are a few points about the horse race polls there worth noting.
As I write this (several hours before post-time), the RCP average shows Huckabee at +3.7 over McCain. However, this is one occasion where that number may be misleading.  Regardless of the establishment media’s overall narrative of the GOP race as chaotic, the individual poll results from South Carolina suggest that the numbers coming out of there so far have been influenced by the momentum of the race. Huckabee led by 12% and 17% in polls taken after his victory in Iowa. McCain led by 7% and 9 % in polls taken after his victory in New Hampshire.
Accordingly, we should not be shocked if Romney gets a bounce from his victory in Michigan. If Romney does get that bounce, it will also be telling to see which candidate or candidates suffer. The past polling would suggest that momentum could shift from McCain to Romney. It may even slow Thompson’s momentum.ÂÂ
On the other hand, the analysis of the economic issue above — if it proves out — might move support from Huckabee to Romney. It may be equally telling if he does not get a bounce, or if it seems small compared to the swings noted above. That could suggest that South Carolina voters began focusing on the race, taking in the candidates’ messages and making up their minds before the voters spoke in Michigan.ÂÂ
The nature of any shift in the horse race numbers post-Michigan may influence Romney’s spin on the economic issue between today and January 19th. We will have to wait for post-Michigan polls — if any are conducted within this small time window..  I suspect the candidates have their own, so we may be able to infer what those polls say from what the candidates say, now that South Carolina is the main event.
again, excellent Karl… if the boss is lurking, can we please have Karl’s election analyis pieces in their own category for easy perusing?
And his Iraq Big Picture one’s too.
to just add a note to the above, I noted (happily) that Romney did better with the Evangelicals than Huckabee.
it’s down to the wire between Romney and McCain. Huckabee is Great as entertainment but one problem: Huckabee’s tax policies would scare 90 per cent of Americans if and when they hear of it. A national sales tax instead of an income tax ain’t going to fly….busnessmen would know how crushing to their profitability it’d be and the average joe and jill would know they’d be even paying more on top of ‘payroll taxes’ than the upper tier which pays almost no payroll taxes. Huckabee’s tax is utterly regressive.
The rest of the pack, Ron Paul esp. are lesser than Kucinich in electability. Kucinich in the Democratic field is there just to spew out the only “left” of center view out there. The edge is for Hillary if she doesn’t have a heart attack first. I am worrying about her…don’t forget the leading cause of death for women is heart disease and she’s looking really stressed…’course I don’t expect too much sympathy here. Back in Republicanland, It’s over for those other Republican dudes esp. lame Fred. The Mayor….yeah, where’d he go?
Kucinich the “only left of center” view????
Edwards wants mandatory nationalized medicine enforced by the IRS and that’s a centrist view??
Edwards is just blowing smoke.
I don’t know Darleen. By international standards, Edward’s program is pretty conservative. More conservative than Taiwan’s or Singapore’s health care system. We already have mandatory car insurance (by threat of revoking one’s license and/or inspection sticker) and conservatives seem comfortable with that. I am pretty conservative on the Democratic plans and prefer Obama’s not forcing lower middleclass people to buy health insurance.
NPR’s ATC had a short snippit about how Republican candidates actually are more Radical than Democrats in their medical insurance policies. Fred Thompson made a point about how only 17 million Americans actually pay in full their own health care insurance bills…(I was one of the beknighted few being self employed) and if we had 50 million or more people paying their own way (with Tax Deductions to encourage it via the expanded health care accounts as already in place) that the (angry) consumer would force health care costs down. In some ways I like that as people would then really be mad at Republican conservatives for increasing average people’s costs.
Except one problem, Individuals alone have little bargaining power against an economic titan like the “health care industry” so some combination of political power has to intervene to cause health care costs to go down or else more people like me will just drop out of it all together and …… as you all say I need to take my meds more often…ain’t no meds!! w/o affordable h/c…health care….blah, blah.
I am almost ready to just give in to Hillary care. or Romney care…has anyone noticed that their solutions are very much alike?
later….I’ll read the name calling and hooting later. Of to work on a beautiful day with I wish more snow but just enough to maybe x-c ski somewhere.
“In some ways I like that as people would then really be mad at Republican conservatives for increasing average people’s costs”
Do be a sport and let me know exactly when this happened.
“Except one problem, Individuals alone have little bargaining power against an economic titan like the “health care industry†so some combination of political power has to intervene to cause health care costs to go down”
How, exactly? By price controls?
Have you considered the notion that monopolizing health care in the hands of one entity inevitably makes cost go up?
Econ 101: What makes costs go down?
a) competition
b) consolidation
c) declaring them down
Take your best guess.
Let’s all move to Taiwan or Singapore !!!!!!!1 YEah.
So he’d make them pay full price for their medical care?! Or are you saying that “lower middleclass” people would be subsidized by the rest of us?
Why the hell should I be forced to work for the benefit of someone who is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves?
Darleen,
Re: categories. Thanks for the kind words. That’s Jeff’s call and there are reasons why Jeff might not want to do that, so I won’t be offended if he doesn’t do that.
However, I do try to refer to “The Big Bicture(s)” in the updates to it. So if you pull up most any update, you can get to the original, which in turn should have trackbacks from the updates.
NPR’s ATC had a short snippit about how Republican candidates actually are more Radical than Democrats in their medical insurance policies.
This says a lot about NPR and nothing about Republican healthcare policies.
NPR’s ATC had a short snippit about how Republican candidates actually are more Radical than Democrats in their medical insurance policies.
I can state this simply. Were a Republican to have a national healthcare plan like the Dems have – 1) They would not really be a Republican, and 2) no chance in hell they could win the primaries.
Now with his second win, Mitt Romney is the clear front-runner in both total delegates earned as well as total votes received. Romney now has more delegates than McCain and Huckabee combined.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R
*** Although McCain lost Michigan by a whopping 9.25%, the news of the loss was not all bad.
Exit polls show that McCain won among voters that identified themselves as Union Members, Democrats, and Atheists. He also won among those who
• want abortion “legalâ€Â
• are “angry†with Bush
• earn less than $30,000/yr
• “never†attend church
• want a path to citizenship for Illegal Immigrants, and
• disapprove of the war in Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MIREP
So, Eric. It looks like McCain did pretty well amongst the Democrats.
McCain looks like he could be the captain of The Love Boat though, if they let you do that at his age, which I would kind of doubt cause it’s a big responsibility. I think this is a big part of his appeal.
Captain Merrill Stubing for President !!!!!!!!!eleven!!!!111
I think I saw Bill and Hillary on the Aloha deck. Set a course for adventure!!!