Susan J. Demas: A Déjà Vu Debate: The Trump-Clinton Slugfest Has Echoes of DeVos Vs. Granholm

During her final debate in 2006 against billionaire businessman Dick DeVos, then-Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm unloaded a memorable zinger that ended up defining the race.

“You’re an expert yachtsman,” the embattled Democratic incumbent tartly began, adding that his philosophy was “each man for himself.”

But the effectiveness of Granholm’s attack wasn’t just slamming DeVos as an out-of-touch rich guy. The key was moving on to framing the election. The governor called herself the “captain of the ship” and declared, “We are all in this boat together.”

This wasn’t even Granholm’s best debate performance or her best line. But it summed up the stakes of the election for voters. Granholm would go onto to win re-election a few weeks later by a whopping 14 points, even though the state was suffering through its sixth year of recession.

And on Monday night, she was in the audience for a different slugfest between her longtime friend, Hillary Clinton, and another billionaire (at least, allegedly), Donald Trump. Granholm, who was termed out of office in 2010, is now co-chairing the Clinton transition team and a favorite for a cabinet slot or Democratic National Committee chair.  

Trump has bragged that only he has the business acumen to fix the country. And while we’re not in recession, the Republican nominee routinely describes an America that resembles a dystopian hellscape.

So Granholm must have had some sense of déjà vu as the debate unfolded.

Now Trump was a much more aggressive and disrespectful debater than DeVos, interrupting her 51 times in his quest to be Mansplainer-In-Chief. His rambling, ranting and raving was so over-the-top at times that “Saturday Night Live” writers are probably flummoxed as to how to parody it.

And Clinton isn’t nearly as polished a debater as Granholm, as her early stumble through the canned line, “Trumped-up, trickle-down economics” shows.

Trump fired off his share of attacks, such as, “You’re telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.” Of course, none of this is true, starting with the fact that the Islamic State isn’t 50 years old. But it probably fired up supporters who routinely shout, “Lock her up!” at his rallies.

The problem is alpha-male performance art, punctuated by frequent falsehoods, only holds appeals for his most loyal supporters. Undecided voters and soft Clinton supporters didn’t buy what he was selling, as the CNN poll showed.

The primary challenge in debates is to come off as presidential. Voters need to be comfortable waking up on Nov. 9 knowing this will be the person in the Oval Office armed with the nuclear launch codes. It’s usually not about issues –– the way a candidate talks about issues is largely just telegraphing his or her values.

Donald Trump failed the commander-in-chief test in Round 1 in such a way that it will be hard to bounce back –– and look authentic. More importantly, Hillary Clinton easily vaulted over the high bar set for her.

She didn’t do it with clever quips. She did it by serenely smiling through Trump’s attacks and interruptions. She did it through demonstrating her policy expertise. Voters may not recall her answer on cybersecurity, but they know she grasped the issue as a president should (and didn’t tout her 10-year-old’s computer skills like Trump).

Clinton was the Iron Lady, our own Margaret Thatcher. And she did manage to distill the election, not through a zinger, but in her own steady, wonky voice:

“I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.”

Somewhere in the audience, you can bet Jennifer Granholm was smiling.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: The Battle Up North: A Democrat Flips the Script on Guns in the MI-1

Sleeping Bear Dunes, Susan J. Demas

TRAVERSE CITY –– Can a Democrat still win in the 1st congressional district?

That’s an open question –– and one that’s plagued the party for the last six years. And that’s partly why I made my third trip up north this summer.

This seat, left open by retiring U.S. Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Crystal Falls), represents the Democrats’ best prospect in Michigan this year. In fact, the matchup between former Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lon Johnson and Lt. Gen. Jack Bergman could be a top 10 race nationally.

The Dems’ woes go beyond the fact that a Republican has held the seat encompassing the entire Upper Peninsula and now a good chunk of the northern Lower Peninsula since 2010.

In 2012, President Barack Obama lost the MI-1 by 8 points to Mitt Romney after edging out John McCain by 1.3 points in 2008. And now polling shows Hillary Clinton decisively losing to Donald Trump there, even as she leads statewide.

It’s true that conservative Democrat Bart Stupak represented the district for the 18 years prior to Benishek. But the district is larger and more conservative now than when Stupak was in office.

The MI-1 now spans 32 counties, thanks to the fact that Michigan lost a seat in the last redistricting. Republicans, who completely controlled the 2011 process, lopped on plenty of GOP-friendly territory south of the Mackinac Bridge. Inside Michigan Politics rates the district as now having a 54.4 percent GOP base.

The sprawling northern Michigan fiefdom is home to the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, which is now teeming with tourists from across the country, thanks to “Good Morning America” naming it the “Most Beautiful Place in America” back in 2011.

The Upper Peninsula also has its fair share of spectacular scenery, including Tahquamenon Falls and the Porcupine Mountains. But its remoteness (it’s an eight-hour drive from Lansing to the Porkies) has made the U.P. insular.

And the district’s natural beauty masks some of its economic pain. Counties in the MI-1 have long been plagued by some of the highest unemployment rates in the state, especially when summer tourists skedaddle. Despite the economic recovery, Mackinac County (home to fabled Mackinac Island) still saw its jobless rate spike above 20 percent in March.

It’s not surprising that Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan is resonating. This is the uncertain backdrop for this critical congressional race.

The MI-1 used to be a haven for socially conservative voters whose views were tempered by economic liberalism, i.e. support for the social safety net (especially Social Security and Medicare) and yes, government pork (it’s tough to make it up there, where the snow can start to fall in September and linger well into May).

Now voters are more willing to roll the dice on candidates who backed big cuts to the welfare state (even Social Security), like Benishek and Romney. And cultural conservatism is ascendent, with anti-abortion billboards and mom-and-pop gun shops dotting the lush countryside.

It’s rough territory for Lon Johnson, who’s pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights and has spent years working in politics and venture capital outside Michigan. He also happens to be married to one of Obama’s chief fundraisers, Julianna Smoot, which symbolizes his political insider status.

In contrast, Bergman is an outsider –– which is how he toppled two long-serving state senators in the GOP primary. He’s also lived outside Michigan, but Republicans are banking on his military service to blunt “carpetbagger” charges.

But Johnson is a frenetic campaigner who’s clearly outworking Bergman. His ability to raise money sets him apart from most Democrats in the region –– and has allowed him to go up on TV early and often.

In the end, the two issues that might save him are the environment and gun rights. It’s safe to say that many downstate Democrats are comfortable with the former, but not the latter.

Johnson has come out swinging against Enbridge’s aging Line 5 pipeline running below the Straits of Mackinac. He’s appealed to northern Michiganders’ pride in their natural surroundings and fear of another drinking water disaster á la Flint. That’s the smart play for voters who are deeply wary of government overreach.

He’s also donning his hunting fatigues in ads, which isn’t for show. Johnson has been sitting in northern Michigan deer blinds since he was a kid and will talk your ear off about his adventures.

Both he and Bergman sport “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association. But some Republicans inadvertently did the Democrat a solid in the rough-and-tumble primary by slamming Bergman for supporting background checks and waiting periods “like Obama.”

There’s been grumbling from Dems (who don’t live anywhere near the MI-1) that Johnson shouldn’t be running to a Republican’s right on guns. It’s the same folks who don’t support pro-life Democrats running in northern and western Michigan, even though that’s what voters demand.

It’s a valid ideological debate. But if Johnson’s pro-gun stance helps the Dems finally take back a key congressional seat, are liberals really going to complain?

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: The Post-Labor Day Presidential Election Freakout Is Here

Presidential politics has veered into post-Labor Day hysteria, where every poll, every candidate movement (cough, cough) is wildly over-analyzed.

Cable news and Twitter are perfect vehicles for these breathless hot takes, which tend to obscure the fundamentals of the race. As the owner of Inside Michigan Politics, I routinely get interview requests from reporters across the country (and occasionally the globe). I’m sure I disappoint some by failing to dispense a breathless “This will change everything” soundbite, but it’s my job to be a political realist.

Here’s what we know. The presidential race has predictably tightened both nationally and in Michigan. The post-convention polls showing Hillary Clinton with double-digit leads have disappeared. But the Democrat still holds a steady polling lead in RealClearPolitics’ national average and its Michigan average.

Naturally, we’ve all heard a lot about outlier polls because of media bias. That bias isn’t favoring Donald Trump, by the way.

It’s the (often subconscious) desire of reporters and editors to have an exciting race to cover. Otherwise, the blackness starts to descend, and you start questioning the meaning of your life. Devoting 14 hours a day to writing about highly probable outcomes is a joyless existence. (Believe me, I know. I used to cover floor and committee action for the Michigan Legislature every day).

Remember all the media hyperventilating in 2008 and 2012, even though political fundamentals favored two Barack Obama victories? But there were endless stories that something would rock the races –– John McCain suspending his campaign when the economy collapsed in ‘08, Mitt Romney’s first debate performance in ‘12, and various gaffes no one recalls.

Sure, it could be different this year. Trump is an unusual candidate with a penchant for saying outrageous things and pulling stunts, like a last-minute sojourn south of the border. We have apparent meddling in our election by Russia, an unfriendly foreign power, between Wikileaks and other email hacks. And there’s always the possibility of a game-changing domestic or world event.

But the economic and political fundamentals always favored a small Clinton victory, not a blowout. It should be said that Trump has, thus far, shown to be a particularly poor candidate, as he hasn’t consolidated Republican support as much as a traditional nominee would. His numbers with women, minorities and college-educated whites make victory virtually impossible, both in Michigan and nationally, unless they start to shoot up.

Trump also refused to set up a professional campaign apparatus for months after winning the nomination, like opening campaign offices in key states, hiring competent staff, getting a fundraising operation going, etc. Clinton’s operation, on the other hand, has been humming along since 2015 (and with far less drama than its ‘08 iteration).

It should be said that Republicans would be in a much stronger position right now with either fresh-faced Marco Rubio or experienced, steady John Kasich, both of whom hail from swing states. They would sport professional campaigns and know how to exploit Clinton’s weaknesses far better.

There’s also a popular theory on the left that Bernie Sanders would have been a stronger candidate than Clinton. (Some progressives on social media are currently reveling in “I told you so” mode, and seem to be touting positive Trump polls more than Republicans are).

But Sanders’ general election poll numbers were always artificially high. Clinton pulled her punches, so as to not alienate Sanders supporters. And Republicans were praying that Sanders would win, as they thought he was the feebler candidate, so they never piled on.

As a history major who grew up during the tail end of the Cold War, I believe that Republicans would have eviscerated Sanders as Chairman Mao in the first week of the general election. When push comes to shove, Americans will choose an authoritarian strongman over a weak socialist any day. And Sanders also couldn’t capture Clinton’s high-profile Republican endorsements like Meg Whitman and Carlos Gutierrez.

Regardless, it’s important to remember that the odds of a blowout presidential election nowadays are rare, no matter who the nominees are. We live in an era of negative partisanship --- where people’s political affiliation is defined by their hatred of the other party and its values. So many people will vote Trump, despite their many reservations, just because of their deep-seated loathing of Clinton and liberals --- and vice-versa.

One of the most predictive (and overlooked) polls is who voters think will win. And right now, they think it will be Clinton. I know that’s boring. I know that’s not what roughly 40 percent of people want to hear. But that’s where we are.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.