[papafox]

Can someone explain why Michigan has reliably gone Democrat in the last several presidential elections, but on the other hand has a Republican governor and also Republican control of both chambers of the state legislature?

I'm not here to start a political fight, but am genuinely curious as to why there is a split like this.

Thanks

[tuebor]

The state has more Democratic-leaning voters than GOP, but many of them are low-info voters who don't bother to vote in non-presidential election years. That plus the ineptitude of the state's Democratic party plus massive infusions of out-of-state GOP money plus shameless GOP obstructionism when in the minority has allowed the GOP to take the governorship and state legislature at strategic times, which then allowed the GOP to engage in gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Term limits for state legislators, which passed by a ballot initiative, is an example of those low-info voters voting against their interests, swayed in part by massive funding from outside Michigan. This allowed the GOP to take several seats in the state legislature that otherwise would not have been in play, breaking a long stretch of Democratic control of the legislature.

[VM1138]

Gerry-mandering explains why the legislature is Republican. They re-draw districts to keep their own party in power, so you end up with districts that elect the most extreme example of Republicanism or Democratism. The way it worked out, they were able to make enough GOP districts to keep the legislature reliably Republican. As for the Governor, we just had a Democrat governor. We alternate back and forth. On that area we're just less partisan. People were unhappy with the economy under Granholm and thought Snyder's business savvy would be good for the state. Generally voters have different criteria for a governor than, say, a state Senator.

As for going blue in the Presidential races, that's simple, the Democratic areas of the state are the most heavily populated. Whereas rural voters can swing the legislature in their favor, it doesn't work that way with Presidential elections because it's winner-take-all when it comes to the state's electoral votes.

[clawsondude]

Originally Posted by tuebor

The state has more Democratic-leaning voters than GOP, but many of them are low-info voters who don't bother to vote in non-presidential election years. That plus the ineptitude of the state's Democratic party plus massive infusions of out-of-state GOP money plus shameless GOP obstructionism when in the minority has allowed the GOP to take the governorship and state legislature at strategic times, which then allowed the GOP to engage in gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Term limits for state legislators, which passed by a ballot initiative, is an example of those low-info voters voting against their interests, swayed in part by massive funding from outside Michigan. This allowed the GOP to take several seats in the state legislature that otherwise would not have been in play, breaking a long stretch of Democratic control of the legislature.

Agreed.

Republicans typically have a higher voter turnout than Democrats in mid-term elections. This is not only true in Michigan, but nationally. If our gubernatorial election was held on the same cycle as the presidential election I'm willing to bet there would usually be a Democrat in Lansing.

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by clawsondude

Agreed.

Republicans typically have a higher voter turnout than Democrats in mid-term elections. This is not only true in Michigan, but nationally. If our gubernatorial election was held on the same cycle as the presidential election I'm willing to bet there would usually be a Democrat in Lansing.

Politics are also cyclical. Do not forget there was a democrat governor for 8 years prior to the current one. This is usually also true of presidential politics. Repub-Dem-Repub-Dem it's something that can be fairly well documented. It is also not un common to see republican leadership cycle into stereotypically liberal states as well. Lets not act like it's some how an anomaly specific to Michigan.

[craig11152]

Originally Posted by tuebor

Term limits for state legislators, which passed by a ballot initiative, is an example of those low-info voters voting against their interests

It won in what politically could be described as a landslide almost 59%-41%.

And while the downsides are certainly there I think its very debatable whether we were better off with a good old boys network of corruption and bought votes verses the current network of corruption and bought votes.

[snoopygirlmi]

Michigan voters also love to split their tickets.

For a lot of people, it depends on the person, not the party.

[Geo-Aggie]

From what I understand about Michigan, things weren't exactly great here in 2010. There was likely a large, and understandable, desire to vote out anyone with power. While I'm sure some of the economic rebound can be attributed to the recent success of the automotive industry and its windfall from the bailout recently a non-partisan think tank compared the manufacturing rebound in Michigan with Ontario and found good things going on in the mitten.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...nt-vs-mich.pdf
(FWIW I have no idea if they're non-partisan, they just call themselves that)

Which is similar to a similar report from a conservative think-tank contrasting the continued decline in Illinois with the rebound of its neighboring states (Michigan)
What's the Matter With Illinois? - WSJ

My two cents is that despite being a social-liberal and holding many liberal perspectives on economics as well, Michigan had fallen victim to corruption and the politics of self-interest. Democrats are every bit as notorious for this as Republicans. Snyder was a reprieve from this. He's not a great politician and I disagree with him on many, many things, but I think at his core he has the best interests for the state in mind and we've been fortunate that his policies have largely played out in positive ways, a couple glaring mistakes aside. His "run the government like a business" model has all kinds of flaws and issues, but it's probably what was needed at the time. Now that momentum is in the right direction, let's hope we can get someone a bit more populist-minded in 2018. Too much "run it like a business" ends up with New Mexico. That's not something anybody wants.

[censusdata]

Democrats have a more voters who only vote in presidential elections (young people, etc) while Republicans have more voters who show up for every election (older, retired people), these people are also the main people to vote in all local elections. After Obama won in 2008 GOP focused on winning state races to take majorities in most states and then gerrymandered at will when districts were redrawn for the 2010 Census.

[belleislerunner]

Even local areas flux - take Macomb County - for years (most of the 90's) they were represented in Congress by David Bonior - a very popular Democratic candidate. Then Candice Miller (ex Sec of State) ran and took over breezing to re-election each year as a Republican. She retires this year - so will be interesting to see if it flips back to Dems or stays in the GOP column.