Susan J. Demas: Trump Taxes and Tariffs Squeeze Michigan GOP in 2018

If President Obama had socked Michigan with a one-two punch of higher taxes and steel tariffs, Republicans would be licking their chops about 2018.

The GOP playbook of running against a tax-’n’-spend liberal president who just knifed the domestic auto industry practically writes itself.

But it’s actually a Republican president — the first to win Michigan in three decades — who’s pushed this rather bizarre economic agenda.

Last week, President Trump angrily announced tariffs on steel and aluminum, shocking many conservatives and ultimately leading to the resignation of economic adviser Gary Cohn.

We’ve seen this movie before. When President George W. Bush tried steel tariffs in 2002, every state lost jobs. That confirmed for most fiscal conservatives that protectionism, even in small doses, is a bust. As the home of GM and Ford, Michigan was one of the hardest hit, shedding almost 10,000 jobs.

The leading GOP candidates for governor are both running hard on the economy. Lt. Gov. Brian Calley is selling himself as the right person to continue the “Michigan’s comeback” since the Great Recession. And Attorney General Bill Schuette is pitching a “Paycheck Agenda.”

Trump’s tariffs could sour both their plans, but so far, Schuette and Calley have been awfully quiet about this.

The auto industry is far from the only one that will be affected. Aluminum tariffs will squeeze beer and soft drink makers, particularly smaller craft brewers, many of which make their home in Michigan.

If you think this isn’t going to be a big deal here, consider the fact that Michigan’s beer tax hasn’t been raised in more than 50 years. And any time a politician proposes doing so, the idea dies within days, if not hours.

While soda taxes have gained some currency in cities as a way to combat obesity, good luck making that case in Michigan. Last year, Gov. Rick Snyder signed a law banning local governments from taxing pop (even though Republicans supposedly love local control, at least when it’s ideologically convenient).

Naturally, other countries quickly vowed to retaliate against the United States. The European Union wants to raise tariffs on bourbon, which basically means anything you try to drown your financial sorrows in will end up costing you more now.

But no worries. Trump tweeted that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” demonstrating, once again, his grade-school-level grasp of economic policy.

At least when Bush started his ill-conceived trade war, it was after he signed a tax law giving almost every American a tax rebate.

Trump has taken a different tack. The 2017 tax law does achieve the Republican Party’s greatest priority, slashing taxes for the rich and big corporations. But its tax relief for middle-class and lower-income families is modest at best. The law also eliminates some big deductions so many will actually owe more to the IRS.

One of those deductions is the personal exemption, which is $4,000 in Michigan. That amounts to a pretty hefty tax increase, so the Michigan Legislature and Gov. Rick Snyder scrambled to restore and increase it over time, so the GOP could run on a tax cut.  

Republicans were careful not to criticize the president or GOP-controlled Congress, just as they would have done if Democrats were in charge (snort).

I mean, Schuette is still running against Jennifer Granholm as the Ghost of Tax Hikes Past, even though she hasn’t been in charge since 2010 and had GOP help in passing the ‘07 income tax increase.

And because Schuette keeps pushing this misleading narrative, I’m going to keep pointing out that Republicans have been in complete control of Michigan’s government for more than seven years. Instead of killing the income tax, they enacted in 2011 a $1.4 billion tax hike on individuals to help pay for an almost $2 billion corporate tax cut.

Between taxes and tariffs, Trump hasn’t done the GOP any favors in the 2018 election in Michigan.

But if worse comes to worse, they can always go back to the tried-and-true tactic of blaming Obama. And remember, anyone who points out actual facts to the contrary is just peddling “fake news.”

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: Another GOP Stabenow Challenger Bites the Dust

What a difference a year makes. And U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Lansing) probably couldn’t be happier.

This week, yet another one of her high-profile opponents, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Young, bowed out. The Harvard alum known for his erudite eviscerations from the bench had tried to metamorphose into an angry Trump acolyte, from his Facebook Live announcement in which he yelled about being “the disruptor” to his cringey slogan, “Bow Tie. Bad Ass.”

It was like if William F. Buckley suddenly tried to transform himself into Vanilla Ice. And it didn’t work.

Young follows in the footsteps of Lena Epstein, a Trump surrogate who decided her talents would be best used in an open metro Detroit congressional seat. And of course, U.S. Rep. Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph) and rap/rock star Kid Rock never pulled the trigger, despite considerable hype.

That leaves the GOP field with three candidates: John James, an Iraq war veteran and political newcomer; businessman Sandy Pensler; and historic preservationist Bob Carr.

President Trump’s numbers have tumbled in Michigan. Our Senate election hasn’t even cracked the top 10 races in 2018. And more and more analysts are predicting a national Democratic wave next year.

Stabenow, who’s sitting on a $7 million war chest, probably isn’t shaking in her boots — but she’ll run like someone who’s 20 points behind. That’s just the Stabenow way.

But let’s remember that at the onset of 2017, Republicans were riding high. Trump had just become the first Republican to win Michigan since 1988, pushing him over the top in the Electoral College. And victory was all the sweeter since even many conservatives had resigned themselves to four years of another Democratic president.

So Republicans were feeling buoyant about 2018. They’d already had an impressive run since 2011, controlling the governor’s mansion, attorney general’s office, secretary of state’s domain, state House, state Senate, state Supreme Court and congressional delegation. And most GOP strategists expected the good times to keep on rolling through the next election, especially as Michigan was Trump country now.

They even set their sights on the most powerful Democrat in the state, something that had seemed laughable before Nov. 8, 2016. I’d even written a column in the fall of 2015 with this lead: “Every six years, Michigan Republicans get to play their least-favorite game: Who wants to lose to Debbie Stabenow?”

Consider the electoral history of Michigan’s senior senator. Stabenow won the seat in 2000 by coming from behind to knock out incumbent Spencer Abraham, who Republicans had thought was a lock. Since then, she’s dispatched both her challengers, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard and former U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, by double digits.

The three-term senator is the once (and perhaps future) Senate Agriculture Chair, as she’s never lost touch with her farm roots in Clare. Nobody outworks her and she’s always a prodigious fundraiser.

But as Republican powerbrokers eagerly awaited President Trump’s inauguration, they tittered that Stabenow’s time was finally up.

Some dejected Democrats worried they were right and confided that if the GOP could oust Stabenow, that would be the death knell for the party in Michigan. The state’s other Democratic senator, freshman Gary Peters, would be toast in 2020 and nobody with a “D” after their name would ever win anything again.

If there’s one thing that Democrats excel at, it’s dreaming up elaborate Chicken Little scenarios.

Republicans began jumping into the ‘18 Senate race with abandon. But everyone was overshadowed by the prospect of Kid Rock teasing a run, with even former White House senior adviser Steve Bannon reportedly wooing him.

The national media nearly collectively lost their mind, spinning cliché-strewn stories and tweets about how the hardscrabble Macomb County kid (who grew up in a sprawling mansion) would capture the hearts of all the hard hats at the Warren bowling alleys and become the Donald Trump of the Senate.

After exploiting everyone’s credulousness and selling out some concerts, Kid Rock went on “The Howard Stern Show” last fall and almost admirably declared, “F--- no, I’m not running for Senate; are you kidding me?”

By then, Epstein had already dropped out of the Senate race to pursue the seat left open by the retirement of U.S. Rep. Dave Trott (R-Birmingham).* But at least she left behind the gift that keeps on giving, a deliciously awkward 55-second YouTube video titled, “Lena Epstein Welcomes Kid Rock 2 the Party,” complete with her flashing a Sarah Palin-style wink.

Upton took a pass on the race before Thanksgiving (thankfully before he had to degrade himself on social media). And now Young has taken his badass bowtie and gone home.

As it stands now, Republicans find themselves in the familiar position of trying to coalesce around a less-than ideal nominee, kicking in some cash and hoping against hope that Stabenow slips up.

They could always get lucky in 2018. But not too many would take those odds.

* Party affiliation corrected.

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: Democrats Learn to Love Liberalism Again

As a kid with an abnormal interest in politics growing up in the 1980s, I quickly learned a couple of maxims: The Russians were our mortal enemies hellbent on destroying the American way of life and “liberal” was a dirty word.

Nobody wanted to be labeled a liberal in the Reagan era, except, perhaps, Ted Kennedy. In politics, liberalism was shorthand for government bloat and old ideas. But more generally, it was synonymous with whining and failure.

Talk about an effective branding campaign by Republicans. It’s little wonder that in the decades since, many on the left have tried to escape this negative frame by favoring the term “progressivism.”

So I have to admit to experiencing a bit of whiplash in our post-2016 election world. I still have to rub my eyes and wonder if I’m truly awake every time President Trump or Republicans defend the Russians, who may have ditched communism but are still dedicated to undermining the United States on the world stage. They demonstrated that plainly by meddling in our presidential election, something undisputed by our intelligence agencies.

It’s even more bizarre to hear some conservatives decry those of us not down with a hostile foreign power as “McCarthyites.” (It’s less surprising coming from the far left, which has always had a blind spot for Russia).

Another fascinating development is seeing many Democrats embracing liberalism, both elected officials and activists. And it’s not just defending specific policies, but arguing that liberalism is the mark of a forward-thinking society. That’s a 180 from the 80s-style Republican caricature of the ideology.

To see this transformation in action, look at Democratic primaries. Candidates are jockeying over who’s the furthest left, even for seats that favor Republicans in general elections. My inbox is jammed with releases like this: “Progressive Candidate Fayrouz Saad’s Statement on Rep. Trott’s Retirement” (Saad is a Democrat running in the 11th congressional district, which has been represented by Republicans for years). Some Bernie Sanders-style candidates are proudly declaring themselves to be socialists.

For decades, Republican primaries have been “who’s the most conservative” measuring contests. Candidates typically make the case with their platforms, arguing over who could cut taxes and ban abortion fast enough.

Incumbents love to trot out their voting records as proof of their conservative bona fides. Every year, my publication, Inside Michigan Politics, ranks the most liberal and most conservative state legislators on how they voted on dozens of key social, economic, taxation, environmental, civil rights, and public health/safety issues. In 2017, IMP used 31 votes taken in the Senate and 32 votes in the House.

Those who win, place or show on the conservative side are usually thrilled and often trumpet the honor in their campaigns. But the reaction from the “most liberal” honorees has often been mixed. Some, like state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor), a five-time “Most Liberal Senator” champ, wear it as a badge of honor. Other lawmakers, especially those in marginal seats, have been less than thrilled to be tagged with the liberal label.

But given the leftward turn in Democratic politics, I expect more legislators to celebrate their liberal voting records in the 2018 election.

So who took home the honors in IMP’s 2017 rankings?

In the House, the “Most Liberal” House member was state Rep. Yosef Rabhi (D- Ann Arbor), with an 87.5 percent liberal voting record. State Rep. Jeff Noble (R-Plymouth) is the conservative champ, voting liberal only 18.8 percent of the time.

For the Senate, state Sen. Morris Hood III (D-Detroit) was the “Most Liberal” member, posting an 88.9 percent liberal record. State Sen. Peter MacGregor (R-Rockford) was the 2017 “Most Conservative” titan with a 19.4 percent liberal voting score. The complete rankings of all 149 legislators are in the December editions of IMP.

In 2018, it’s worth watching how the furthest left candidates fare in their primaries and how many triumph in fierce general election battles. That’s a key way to assess if the Democratic Party will keep swinging left.

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: Can Levin and Conyers Hand Down their Seats to their Sons?

This is America, where we instinctively detest monarchies and political dynasties … until a dynamic scion catches our particular fancy.

For every Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton (who’s yet to even run for anything yet) that the political class bemoans as tiresome emblems of nepotism, there’s a George W. Bush, Mitt Romney or Joseph Kennedy III whose political pedigree and charisma captures their hearts.

The difference between disdain and acclaim usually comes down to whether people believe a family-connected politician has earned his/her position and therefore the right to run for a more prestigious office. And that’s, of course, somewhat subjective.

Michigan has a fine tradition of rewarding powerful political families at the ballot box, including two members of Congress. Dan Kildee (D-Flint) succeeded his uncle, Dale Kildee, in the MI-5 in 2012 after serving as Genesee County treasurer and founding the nonprofit Center for Community Progress.

Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) was elected to the MI-12 in 2014 after the retirement of her husband, former Dean of the House John Dingell Jr. (who had succeeded his father, John Dingell Sr.). Mrs. Dingell has been a Democratic National committeewoman, Wayne State Board of Governors chair and longtime Democratic fundraiser.

It’s safe to say that the extensive résumés of both Debbie Dingell and Dan Kildee would put them in the “worthy” category of familially linked politicians, although the former is derided more than the latter (which naturally isn’t uncommon for women).

But even if you disagree, consider the fact that neither of them have faced any real competition in their respective Democratic primaries, even though there are plenty of ambitious politicians (often stunted by term limits) who would have run in a heartbeat if they thought they had a chance. So if Kildee and Dingell were just riding their families’ coattails with no significant accomplishments of their own, you can bet they would have had to overcome serious rivals.

For the last week, political nepotism has been back in the news, thanks to two other Michigan members of Congress who announced they’re stepping down. There’s Sandy Levin (D-Southfield), who will next year under favorable circumstances, and John Conyers (D-Detroit), who left this week in shame amid several women accusing him of sexual harassment.

Conyers has declared he wants his son, John Conyers III, to succeed him in the MI-13, while his great-nephew, state Sen. Ian Conyers (D-Detroit) is almost certainly expected to run. Even Conyers’ once-estranged wife, Monica Conyers, has been mentioned as a candidate, even though she went to prison over a bribery scandal when she was on the Detroit City Council.

It’s pretty clear that Monica Conyers has no business running — having a felon replace her scandal-plagued husband would send a terrible message. Their son, John Conyers III, got busted for driving a taxpayer-funded Escalade and is a 9/11 truther (as a prolific social media user, he also tweeted in 2010 that his dad is a “f------ player and reckless as hell.”) It’s safe to say that if his surname wasn’t Conyers, no one would take him seriously as a candidate.

His cousin, Ian Conyers, hasn’t put in decades in politics like Kildee and Dingell did — he’s only 29. But he’s been a congressional aide, worked on President Obama’s 2012 re-election and was elected to the state Senate in 2016. Conyers is a serious candidate, but not so formidable to chase off other Dems. He’ll have to fight his way through a crowded primary next year.

Meanwhile, Levin — who’s the brother of former U.S. Sen. Carl Levin — has long wanted his son, Andy Levin, to take his place in the MI-9. When the younger Levin revealed right before Thanksgiving that he wouldn’t run for governor, most politicos took it as a signal that his father was retiring. Less than two weeks later, Sandy did. And Andy promptly declared for the seat on Wednesday.

Like his father, Andy Levin is a Harvard-trained lawyer, but he has never held elective office. He lost a state Senate race in 2006 and the consolation prize was go to work for the Gov. Jennifer Granholm administration, where he briefly served as director of the Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth. Afterwards, he founded Levin Energy Partners.

Is that enough to win his father’s seat next year? Time will tell. But other Democrats don’t seem particularly intimidated and a big field is expected.

The next generation of Conyerses and Levins will have their work cut out for them if they want to carry on their respective political dynasties.

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: With a Key U.P. Victory, 2018 Looks Brighter for Michigan Democrats

If you’re looking for a window into 2018 in Michigan, the most important race took place last night in the western Upper Peninsula.

On first blush, it looks like a pretty routine result in the special election for the 109th state House District: Democrat Sara Cambensy held a seat that’s been blue for more than a half-century. The district has a solid 56.9 percent Democratic base, per Inside Michigan Politics, and became vacant after Rep. John Kivela (D-Marquette) tragically killed himself this spring.

But Republicans made a real run at this 109th. Why? They knew that this election was bigger than a single state legislative seat.

Democrats were palpably nervous about the race after Cambensy narrowly won her August primary. Divisions in the party reared their head, as leaders fretted her pro-choice and liberal politics wouldn’t play in a district Donald Trump won by 5 points in 2016. Cambensy’s history of primarying Kivela last year hadn’t been forgotten. And the memory of Trump defying all expectations and winning Michigan in 2016 certainly put a fire under the Dems.

So if Republicans had managed to flip the 109th, I noted that they would have changed the narrative that 2018 would be a good Democratic year in Michigan. Democrats’ efforts to take back the House next year (now split 63-47 in the GOP’s favor) would have instantly been seen as lost cause and fundraising would have mostly dried up.

The GOP has controlled all three branches of government here since 2010. Trump became the first Republican to win Michigan since 1988. A Republican victory this year in the U.P. — an area that’s been shifting conservative since 2010 and went big for Trump in ’16 — would have confirmed that Michigan really is an emerging red state. And so even if 2018 continued to look bright for Democrats nationally, we’d have had good reason to believe that Michigan would be immune from the trend.

But those fears were laid to rest, as Cambensy didn’t just win. She won in a 14-point rout. Any divisions in the Democratic Party didn’t hurt the outcome — just as we saw in the marquee gubernatorial races last night in New Jersey and Virginia.

Republicans really did give this Michigan state House race their all and their nominee, Marquette school board President Rich Rossway, was up on TV. He didn’t run a bombastic, base-inspired Trump campaign, either. In fact, he played down his party affiliation (much as Democrats in red areas have done for years) and even walked a picket line, something relatively unheard of for Michigan Republicans since they rammed through Right to Work in 2012.

So now House Democrats are back in the same place they were on Nov. 9, 2016, with two victories Tuesday (the other was the 1st in the Detroit area). Republicans once again have a 63-47 majority, meaning Democrats have to flip nine seats next year to take control.

That’s the exact situation the Dems faced in 2016 when they failed to make any net gains. But Democrats’ smashing successes in Virginia legislative races last night — a state that, like Michigan, boasts heavily GOP-gerrymandered districts — has definitely made leaders more optimistic. And with clear evidence of an energized base, Democrats are also feeling better about their chances at the top of the ticket with next year’s gubernatorial race.

Winning the governor’s mansion or the state House in 2018 would give Democrats a seat at the table during Michigan’s critical 2021 redistricting — something that hasn’t happened for three decades.

And of course, a big Michigan Dem victory would be a stunning reversal for a newly minted Trump state, portending serious problems for the president in 2020.

Susan J. Demas: How a Michigan Special Election Could Shake up the 2018 Narrative

Democrats have racked up an impressive record in special legislative elections across the country this year. They’ve flipped six seats, while Republicans haven’t picked up any.

Most Democratic candidates have vastly improved on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 showing, as well. So in spite of the fact that the party has lost some high-profile special congressional elections in Georgia and Montana, many political handicappers believe the Dems are well-positioned for a good year in 2018.

And yet, an obscure race in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula next month has the power to change that narrative.  

Democrats are palpably nervous about a special House election they should easily win. The 109th has a solid 56.9 percent Democratic base, per Inside Michigan Politics, and has been held by a string of Democrats, most recently by the late Rep. John Kivela (D-Marquette), whose suicide devastated members on both sides of the aisle.

The Democratic nominee is Sara Cambensy, a former Marquette city commissioner who eked out a win in the Aug. 8 special primary. Her history of primarying Kivela in ‘16 has not been particularly helpful with the base. U.P. unions have been out knocking doors and the Michigan Democratic Party has ramped up fundraising for her.

Republicans believe this one could be a sleeper, as I’ve noted. The U.P. has definitely been getting redder. Last year, President Trump triumphed in three of the four counties in the 109th, although he lost Marquette County, the district’s population base.

The GOP state House nominee, Marquette school board President Rich Rossway, is ensconced in the community and notably isn’t stressing his party label (much like Dems in red areas have done for years). In fact, Rossway joined striking UP Health System-Marquette nurses on the picket line this month (along with Cambensy) — something that’s become rarer for Republicans as the party has adopted a stronger anti-union bent.

This is one of the two special state House elections on Nov. 7 (the Dems are fully confident of holding the 1st District that includes Detroit and Wayne County suburbs).

There’s a lot on the line. Losing the 109th would result in a 64-46 GOP majority. That’s a feat Republicans only briefly achieved in 2012 when then-Democratic Rep. Roy Schmidt switched parties right before the filing deadline (he went on to lose his seat).

The Ds would then have to flip 10 seats next year to regain the majority, which would probably give donors pause and cause the state House to tumble down the priority list.

Taking an “L” in the 109th could depress fundraising for Democrats across the board in Michigan, from the governor’s race on down. And it would certainly result in a devastating storyline that Democrats truly are in a freefall in the state.

After all, Democrats haven’t held the governor’s mansion, state House, Michigan Supreme Court or a majority in the congressional delegation since 2010. They haven’t controlled the state Senate since 1984.

In 2016, the Ds were fully expected to pick up state House seats during a presidential year and Clinton was supposed to handily win Michigan. Neither of those things happened.

And so, if the Dems can’t even hold what’s supposed to be a safe state House seat at a time when the party is ascendent nationally, the storyline will be that Michigan is clearly now a red state.

A loss like this has the power to change the national narrative, as well. Expect election forecasters to declare that a Democratic wave in 2018 is now in doubt. Some will predict that Dems will have to settle for a more moderate year — which means dreams of winning back either chamber of Congress is kaput. A more pessimistic read is that states that have been growing more conservative, like Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio, will continue that trend next year.

So how competitive is the 109th? Is this all just standard Democratic angst? That’s not clear. No one’s confident about what the electorate will look like in this special election and there’s been no public polling.

And hey, I talked to plenty of Dem leaders in 2008 who were convinced Barack Obama was going to blow the election right up until the very end. He ended up beating John McCain nationally by 7 points and conquering Michigan by an astounding 16 point-margin.

We went through the same dance in 2012, with a prominent Dem official texting me during the first Obama-Mitt Romney debate that all was lost for sure. The incumbent president went on to win re-election by a 4-point margin nationally and took Romney’s native Michigan by almost 10 points.

In 2016, many of the same Dem “Chicken Littles” told us the sky was falling again. Of course, this time, they were right. Trump pulled out a roughly 10,000-vote win over Clinton, helping push him over the top in the Electoral College.

It’s possible that the Ds are being paranoid about the 109th and they’ll pull off a win on Nov. 7. It might not even be particularly close. But given how ‘16 turned out, most Dems are OK with hitting the panic button on this one, especially if it motivates fundraising and the base to turn out.

After all, everyone knows there’s far more on the line than just that particular House seat on the ballot.

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: Trump, Snyder Could Drag Down GOP in 2018

Michigan Republicans are facing some ugly political winds in 2018.

Recent polling shows that Gov. Rick Snyder’s numbers remain dismal — and only look good in comparison to those of President Donald Trump.

In fact, EPIC-MRA found in its Aug. 27-Sept. 1 poll that 53 percent of likely ‘18 voters worry about Trump having access to the nuclear launch codes and 43 percent believe he’s a “mentally unstable person.”

And NBC/Marist had in its Aug. 13-17 survey that 62 percent said the new president “embarrassed” them and 59 percent said Trump’s decisions have “weakened the global image of the United States.”

Those are some jaw-dropping numbers for the GOP to contend with in ‘18, especially as every election cycle since 2006 has been dominated by national, top-of-the-ticket concerns.

We’re still more than a year away from the election. As we saw in 2016, the political landscape can change dramatically and conventional wisdom can be proved a farce. And Republicans have some key advantages in Michigan: a deep bench, generally good economy, favorable legislative maps for down-ballot races, and strong fundraising, aided by ever-laxer campaign finance laws.

Still, the fundamental question for any political party before an election is: Would you rather be us or them?

Right now, Democrats have some big positives in election fundamentals with poll numbers, an ignited liberal activist base, and voter fatigue after almost eight years of Republican rule in Michigan — and now they have total control in Washington.

Let’s drill down into some recent statewide surveys. Michigan has been a source of endless national fascination after giving Trump a narrow win last year, which helped put him over the top in the Electoral College. That was after Democratic nominees, win or lose, had won Michigan every cycle since 1988. Former President Obama’s margins of victory were 16 points in 2008 and almost 10 points in 2012.

So Trump’s 2016 victory in the Mitten State appeared to be a sea change.

But in poll after poll, indicates that Michigan’s infatuation with Trump was short-lived. His job approval sat at 62 percent negative in the EPIC-MRA survey. And when asked who was a more effective leader as president, 56 percent said Obama and only 32 percent answered Trump.

NBC/Marist had the new president with a 55 percent negative job approval rating. They also polled the other two Rust Belt states that flipped to Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where his job approval was at 56 percent and 54 percent negative, respectively.

Snyder’s job approval was 57 percent negative in the EPIC-MRA poll. He’s the fifth most unpopular governor in the country, according to a July roundup from Morning Consult.

His numbers have been in the dumps since the Flint water crisis made international headlines in late 2015, but the governor has languished in negative territory for much of his tenure. Snyder managed to win re-election in 2014 anyway.

So if Snyder and Trump continue to post brutal numbers next year, Republicans can always hope that even some demoralized and disgusted voters will mark their ballots for them in 2018, just as they’ve done in years past.

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: Schuette Wants To Be the Change Michigan Believes in

If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought Barack Obama was still president based on Attorney General Bill Schuette’s speech this week announcing his 2018 gubernatorial campaign.

And if I really wasn’t paying attention, I may have assumed that Jennifer Granholm was still the governor of Michigan, even though she left the Romney Building in 2010.

Schuette mentioned both Democrats no less than eight times apiece in his roughly 20-minute oratory delivered in his hometown of Midland, a picturesque mid-Michigan hamlet he lovingly wrote about in his 2015 book, Big Lessons from a Small Town.

As I noted back in March, Obama was the perfect foil for Schuette. The Republican AG cast himself as a “rule of law” conservative, frequently joining lawsuits against the administration’s “overreaching” agenda, including overtime rules, the contraception mandate and Obamacare.

And so when Schuette came under fire for his right-wing positions, like taking Michigan’s fight against same-sex marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court (and losing), he claimed he was just doing his duty to defend the Constitution.

It was a two-fold strategy. Schuette was able to make the case that he was a rock-solid man of principle, even when he took positions outside the political mainstream. And going after a Democratic president’s priorities thrilled the GOP base, although Schuette never made his attacks personal, even as the birther movement raged.

That’s just not who he is. Schuette carries himself as an old-school, George H.W. Bush Republican who prefers glad-handing in parades and the rubber-chicken circuit over dissolving into long-winded rants savaging his political enemies.

After being first elected to Congress in the Ronald Reagan era, Schuette has adapted to the changing tenor and priorities of the GOP during his long career as a state senator, Michigan Agriculture director, judge and finally AG. He’s ingratiated himself with the business-driven establishment, religious right and Tea Party, now pivoting to the Trumpists.

And yet, President Donald Trump — the first Republican to win Michigan since 1988 — didn’t even warrant a mention in Schuette’s speech (even Reagan popped up once). Now it’s true that Trump’s bombastic, tweet-driven style clashes with the AG’s deliberate, genial image. And the president’s sinking poll numbers in Michigan are making Republicans sweat.

But Trump remains popular with the GOP base and Schuette does have a partisan primary to win. Given the fact that he’s not naïve — indeed, Schuette is, hands down, the most gifted politician in the state — there’s clearly a strategy at work here.

It would seem that Schuette likes his chances enough in the primary enough not to give Trump a bear hug right now. Since his main competition is expected to be Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, who yanked his Trump endorsement after the “Access Hollywood” tape, Schuette may be making a smart bet that he’ll carry the president’s supporters next year, even if mainly by default.

And Schuette has weaved some Trump populism into his messaging, declaring, “For Michigan to reach higher, we need a governor who won’t accept the fate assigned to us by liberal elites who look down on manufacturing and the plumbers, electricians and builders — and head potato boys — the skilled trades that built our country and are needed to rebuild our infrastructure.”

But Schuette mainly chose to prove his conservative mettle by jabbing Obama and Granholm (which is much more comfortable territory for him). Raising the specter of the state’s first female governor helps him draw parallels to his most likely general election opponent, former Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing), with Schuette not-so-subtly warning that “Granholm’s lieutenants want to take back control of our state in 2018.”

In his speech, Schuette marveled that “it’s amazing we’re still standing” after eight years of Obama and Granholm. His press release had the headline, “We Need to Cop an Attitude. Because We're Michigan, and it's Time to Win Again,” followed by the subhead: “My one goal: to make Michigan a growth state, a paycheck state, a jobs state.”

That’s a bit curious, since we’ve had a GOP governor for almost seven years, who presumably could have done something about growth, paychecks and jobs. If you check in with Rick Snyder — who did get one brief mention in Schuette’s remarks — he’ll tell a very different story about Michigan’s economy.

Of course, Snyder is of little use to Schuette right now. He’s one of the most unpopular governors in the country and can be expected to back his LG in the primary. Snyder and Schuette also have chafed on a variety of issues, like Detroit pensions, but the AG’s decision to charge key administration figures in his Flint water crisis probe has brought tensions to a boil.

Indeed, after listening to Schuette in Midland, you just might forget that Republicans have controlled all three branches of Michigan government since 2011 and that the party now enjoys the same status in Washington.

And you just might believe that a Republican candidate for governor would be the change agent Michigan desperately needs right now.

We’ll see if Schuette’s gamble works.

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: Thanedar Tries To Shake Up ‘18

What does $3.2 million of your personal fortune get you in the 2018 gubernatorial race?

In the case of Democrat Shri Thanedar, it’s paid off in some good fundraising stories (sadly, his name had been axed from most headlines by the end of the news day after the shock wore off) and a within-the-margin-of-error polling performance.

Thanedar, who last year sold his company, Avomeen Analytical Services, “for a lot of money” (as he told the Detroit News), has a fascinating story to tell, something he heavy-handedly does on his campaign website: “My story is one of grit and determination, of the highs of success and the lessons of failure, of unwavering optimism in the face of harsh adversity. It is about pursuing the American dream and never giving up.”

Here’s the thumbnail version: Thanedar escaped poverty in India to earn a PhD in polymer chemistry in America. He settled in Missouri and bought a business, which ballooned and then went belly up. Thanedar remade himself in Michigan with a new company and has now decided he wants to be the state’s next CEO.

Meanwhile, frontrunner Gretchen Whitmer, a former state Senate minority leader known for her leadership on women’s issues and establishment support, raised $1.5 million the hard way. And former Detroit Health Department head Abdul El-Sayed, who’s captured the imagination of many Bernie Sanders supporters, posted an impressive $1 million.

Thanedar needs to make up ground quickly, as his name ID is nil. Though it’s unfair, his accent won’t help him tell his story with some voters in Michigan. Moreover, Democrats are wondering what the newcomer stands for, especially on issues he doesn’t touch on his website, like the Second Amendment and abortion rights.

If no one else jumps into the race, most expect Thanedar to play the role of footnote or spoiler, possibly splitting up the non-establishment vote.

In a February column, I noted that there was some hankering for nontraditional outsider gubernatorial candidates in both parties. Michigan Democrats traditionally have a smaller donor base than the GOP, so a self-funder is always attractive (it’s one reason why many were eager for well-known attorney and University of Michigan Regent Mark Bernstein to get in).

Thanedar, however, isn’t exactly in the mold of other wealthy Dems like Illinois gubernatorial hopeful J.B. Pritzker, a key Barack Obama fundraiser whose family owns the Hyatt hotel chain, or Tom Steyer, a hedge fund manager and climate change warrior who could run for California governor. Thanedar’s fortune isn’t as vast and he’s not ensconced in the party (he gave just $60 to the House Democratic Fund last year and $2,300 to Republican John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign).

The blueprint for a Thanedar victory is obvious: Our current governor, Rick Snyder. There’s no shortage of similarities. Both are Ann Arbor entrepreneurs who never ran for office before their self-funded outsider gubernatorial bids.

At this point, few would be surprised if Thanedar copied Snyder’s signature move, releasing a biographical Super Bowl ad next year (perhaps declaring himself to be the compassionate nerd Michigan needs right now).

In 2010, Snyder kicked in nearly $6 million of his own money to win a five-way GOP primary. That might explain why the buzz around Lansing is that the Thanedar plans to dump close to eight figures into the ‘18 primary alone, which could make some on his campaign team millionaires themselves. The former CEO could also make things interesting if he can tap into the national Indian-American donor base, as former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal skillfully did.

However, the governor was certainly better known around business and political circles when he embarked on his campaign than Thanedar is. Snyder has always had powerful connections with the more moderate corporate wing of the Republican party (which tolerates the social conservative platform in the name of tax breaks). He also served on the Michigan Economic Development Corp. board and supported the ‘08 embryonic stem cell amendment.  

Thanedar, the 2016 EY Entrepreneur of the Year, has tried to make up ground quickly and has met with dozens of reporters, lobbyists and GOP and Democratic strategists across the state. (Full disclosure: He met with my husband, Joe DiSano, who declined to work with him, and talked with me about writing his biography).

Thanedar has also courted the Small Business Association of Michigan (SBAM), which is smart, but this could ultimately end up costing him. President Rob Fowler told MIRS that Thanedar was initially questioning whether to run as a Republican or Democrat, which is not terribly helpful in winning a partisan primary (especially in these polarized times). While Thanedar has denied the conversation, Fowler is a Lansing institution and a straight shooter respected by both sides.

There’s certainly no shortage of fodder for Thanedar’s rivals if he starts edging up in the polls. But right now, that’s still a big “if.”

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: What’s the Future of the Rust Belt?

“In so many once-thriving communities, young people have fled, and the residents who do remain have grown frustrated over diminished job prospects, and are anxious about the future. The very same anger and anxiety that found an outlet at the ballot box in 2016.” — John Austin

If you’re looking for a clear, just-the-facts-ma’am look at how the industrial Midwest is changing and how that gave us President Trump, you can’t go wrong with John Austin’s new piece, “A Tale of Two Rust Belts,” for the Brookings Institution.

No, it’s not one of those cloying columns national pundits have been churning out by the dozens after spending 10 minutes chatting up laid-off workers in Warren or Youngstown. It’s a well-researched, accessibly academic article by someone who actually lives here.

Austin is a fellow at the esteemed think tank. He also was recently ousted from a job he did exceedingly well — president of the state Board of Education (more on that in a bit).

I met with Austin a few weeks before this piece was published and much of our conversation revolved around Michigan’s evolutionary growing pains. He’s deeply concerned about what happens to areas with shrinking industrial bases, like Macomb County, Flint and Saginaw, as well as the largely rural northern swath of the state that Bridge Magazine has dubbed the new “Disability Belt.”

Austin notes that many of these areas voted for Trump in 2016. In contrast, cities with highly educated workforces (which usually have a university nearby), like Ann Arbor, Lansing and Kalamazoo, are thriving economically and voted for Hillary Clinton.

Bridging these vast cultural, educational and political divides in Michigan is no easy task. However, Austin believes the next governor must try to do exactly that.

Once upon a time, Austin was considered a prime Democratic gubernatorial prospect for 2018. He’s deeply thoughtful and has an envy-inducing résumé in addition to Brookings and his public service: He holds a master’s from Harvard’s Kennedy School, directs the Michigan Economic Center and previously was founding director of the New Economy Initiative for Southeast Michigan.

Austin’s work has earned him a bipartisan fan club (at least if you count old-guard Republicans). I noted last year that he might also be able to appeal to idealistic Bernie Sanders supporters.

But Austin ran into a big roadblock when he lost his 2016 re-election bid. He was rather bizarrely, and completely unfairly, targeted for his strong support of transgender students.

After spearheading the drive for completely voluntary school guidelines for trans kids, Austin butted heads with fellow board member Eileen Weiser, whose husband, Ron Weiser, is now Michigan Republican Party chair. The Detroit News — which used to run periodic editorials practically begging the GOP to drop incendiary stands on social issues and focus on conservative economics — ran staff columns siding with the culture warriors replete with the “special rights” canard straight out of the 1990s.

It’s unconscionable for anyone to make our most vulnerable children into a cheap and easy political target. And it’s admirable that Austin was willing to stand up for them.

That’s the kind of courage we could use in the governor’s mansion. But that’s not the next fight Austin is planning to take on. Instead, he’s looking to assist with Michigan’s future in other ways. For starters, he’ll be following up on his Brookings piece on on what can be done at the state and national level to help hollowed-out Rust Belt cities and those who still live there.

That sounds like the sort of thing people who are running for the state’s highest office just might want to pay attention to.

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.