Tim Skubick, the well-known Michigan capitol reporter, has a provocative column this weekend in which he suggests that President Obama might be planning to force Lt. Gov. John Cherry from the race for the Democratic nomination for governor of Michigan in favor of MI House Speaker Andy Dillon.
Skubick: Obama to Dump Cherry?
Obama, of course, has reasons to become involved. Michigan is a moderately center-left state. Yet it has a strongly Republican congressional delegation and state senate. This is the result of past redistricting. The new governor would preside over redistricting. The new governor would also be the point person for the Obama reelection campaign in Michigan.
I have not fully formed my opinions on this theory, but here are some gut-level reactions.
- I do think that Obama is right to be concerned about the strength of a possible Cherry candidacy. One's first impressions of the man do not automatically scream "Governor!" He's kind of frumpy and big. Kind of like Carl Levin used to be before he got a bit of a makeover. Still, that might be a good contrast to the super-cool Granholm and hyper-strategic possible Republican opponent Mike Cox.
- Get the Hell out of our state. Obama didn't even campaign in Michigan during last year's Democratic primaries. And the idea that he feels justified in messing with Michigan's internal state politics is kind of a joke. This is especially true given the man's past record messing with races in New York, New Jersey and Virginia. Obama would be wise to keep a low profile.
- Do we need more proof that Obama has a union/working-class problem? During the Democratic Party nominating process, Obama was the candidate of African-Americans, coastal liberals and the urban/college-town young. Clinton ran strong in places with strong unions, rural populations and more working class Dems. In fact, Obama would likely have gotten his ass beaten by Hillary if he had actually run in Michigan. So, he is culturally out-of-step with much of Michigan's party establishment.
Cherry, like him or not, is the pick of Michigan's party establishment. And he is very definitely the pick of Michigan's union leadership. Dillon has very quickly become a pariah to much of the Democratic Party establishment in Michigan. He cut a backroom deal with Republican Mike Bishop that essentially sold out most of the Democratic budget positions that would have protected schools, universities and local governments from draconian budget cuts. And he is running an outsider campaign for governor.
Obama involvement in state politics could be taken as a slam on Michigan's union establishment. And this would occur at the same time that Obama pushes a health care plan that could heavily tax the health plans of union members. Obama also pushes merit pay and other "school reform" measures that have spotty records of success and vociferous opposition within the nation's teacher's unions. Obama also, generally, supports free trade policies that have long raised the ire of union members. And, of course, there is the stagnant nature of the card check provision, which Obama supports, but only half-heartedly.
Now, unions have some problems. And they are not held in high esteem by some people, most especially Republicans. But they have allowed many people in Michigan's industrial sectors to have a soft fall during this current recession with early retirements, buyouts and other worker protections. And they have long established the baseline on wages and healthcare for much of America's working class. An Obama incursion into Michigan could be viewed as another in a line of anti-union actions by the Obama campaign/administration.
- Would Dillon fare any better than Cherry? While Cherry might be charismatically-challenged, Dillon doesn't seem any more of a showpiece to me. He is not African-American and could not rely on driving Detroit turnout up heavily. And after burning so many bridges with the still-formidable union machines in this state, I have a hard time seeing Dillon with a strong base on which to win a general election.
- Archer as compromise candidate? Former Detroit mayor Dennis Archer has been named by many, including Skubick, as a possible compromise candidate for governor. And, the more I think of it, the more this seems like a great possibility. Archer had a reasonably successful run as mayor of Detroit. Leaving that job with a reputation intact seems like more of a major accomplishment by the day.
Archer would drive up Detroit turnout, his recent foray into Ohio casino gaming notwithstanding. Archer also has a pretty good relationship with labor. I could see Michigan's labor groups getting wholly behind Archer. And he also has the charisma that Cherry lacks.
Would Archer be able overcome anti-Detroit bias in outstate Michigan? Would Archer be able to overcome any residual racism present in Michigan?
These are interesting questions. Well, Obama did win the general election in Michigan. And the more I think of it, the more I think that we just might get answers to those questions with an Archer run.
What do you think?