Across the Rust Belt, Democrats are set to make gains this November. The Dems stand to win at least one House sea in MN, WI, IL, IN, OH, PA, and upstate NY. Notice anything missing? Michigan. That the Wolverine state is the only state from this area that won't be contributing to the likely Democratic takeover of the House is not just a shame, it's a wasted opportunity. Why have the MI GOP seats been left out of every pundit and party's target lists?
On paper, the Republicans' nine seats should be ripe for picking off two or three in the current political climate. Michigan has voted for the Democratic candidate for president since 1992. It has elected two Democratic senators since 2000. State House representatives showed new signs of life in 2004. Before redistricting in 2000, the Dems controlled 10 seats versus the GOP's six, two of which held enough Democratic votes to make them potentially competitive given the right combination of candidates. Yet today, Democrats control just six seats and the GOP has nine (one seat was lost to reapportionment). Moreover, none of those nine Republican incumbents faces a serious challenge next month. A seat-by-seat breakdown shows that Democrats have wasted a significant opportunity this year, as dozens of seats in what should be less competitive districts in other states suddenly have the chance to turn blue. Yet in Michigan - smack dab in the middle of the region that is likely to form the backbone of the new Democratic majority - results look to mimic 2004 and 2002:
MI-5, MI-12, MI-13, MI-14, and MI-15 are solidly Democratic, constituting the Detroit area and blue-collar factory towns of Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City. MI-1, filling all of the Upper Peninsula and much of the top of the Lower's "mitten," has been in safe Democratic hands under seven-term Rep. Bart Stupak. Whenever Stupak decides to step down, this will be a tough one to hold, as it voted for Bush twice, but it's ours for now.
MI-2, MI-3, MI-4, all located mostly in heavily Republican West Michigan, are safe GOP seats. However, there is no reason the remaining six seats currently held by the Republicans should not start off every election-planning season on every Democrat's potential target list.
Yes, these six districts (MI-6, MI-7, MI-8, MI-9, MI-10, MI-11) were re-drawn by Republicans after 2000 to give their party the edge. Currently, most tend to support statewide and national GOP candidates in the 55-60 percent range - enough to give the GOP the edge when everything else is equal. But 2006 is not an equal year. Democrats have the advantage, which is why seats from Minnesota to New York are now surprisingly competitive. I wish we could say the same about some of our districts. It's too late to capitalize now, as the Democratic candidates in these districts are too under-funded, under-hyped, and probably under-prepared for serious challenges (incumbents are running in five of these six districts).
Looking ahead to 2008 and beyond, it's crucial Democrats see these seats as targets. If we do wind up with a majority after November, it will be a small one, most likely under 10 seats. And if that's the case, 2008 will also probably see a "correction " that swings some seats back to the GOP in districts where Democrats got lucky from the perfect storm of scandal, poor candidates, and national momentum (PA-10, TX-22, FL-16 among the risks) - just as the Dems won back a few seats in 1996 they had surprisingly lost in the 1994 GOP sweep. In order to keep a workable majority after this likely correction, Democrats will need to pick up a few more seats not on this year's radar. With six potential targets here in Michigan, we should start thinking now about good candidates and funding strategies. Remembering that the best defense is a good offense, any of the following seats could and should be targets next cycle:
MI-6. Home to moderate Rep. Fred Upton, the 6th is the most Democratic district in the west side of the state. Before the 1990 census, the two parties split two districts dividing the Kalamazoo area. Kalamazoo, the largest city, has voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry. The union vote is the strongest here anywhere on this side of the state, and a couple of colleges add thousands of liberal votes to the Dems' side. Upton began every session of Congress by voting for radical conservatives like Tom DeLay to be his party's leaders, but he has a solid reputation as a moderate among his constituents. He's probably safe here, but his moderate voting record has stalled his career within the party and he won't be around forever. When he retires, Dems should make a strong push for this district.
MI-7 is the mid-southern Michigan district that quietly ousted a sitting Republican representative in a primary this past summer in exchange for a more conservative candidate. Soon-to-be former Rep. Joe Schwarz probably was too moderate for most Republicans in the largely rural 7th. However, a solid Democratic candidate who could combine the votes of his party, win the lion's share of independents, and attract enough of those moderate GOP Schwarz voters could certainly pull off an upset and hold the district for years. There are enough factory towns and "common sense" voters here to make this competitive in a weak GOP year. What a shame that by having no top-tier Democratic candidate ready to step in when the GooPers were feeding on themselves, we have all but conceded the only open GOP-held seat in the state.
MI-8 has all the markings of a classic swing district. The Lansing-area seat went to Rep. Mike Rogers in 2000 by just 111 votes at the same time Debbie Stabenow, the previous incumbent, was defeating a sitting senator in a statewide race. After reapportionment, the GOP-controlled state government added thousands of new Republican-leaning voters to the district and Rogers has drawn fairly weak opponents. Still, a few thousand extra votes should not scare away serious challengers when the current national disgust with the GOP is probably turning off tens of thousands of their voters per district.
MI-9 is the best example of the future of the Democratic party in Michigan, as it is one of the few GOP-held seats where Dem numbers have improved since the Clinton years. As the suburban Detroit district's towns, neighborhoods, and subdivisions take on a new character, Rep. Joe Knollenberg is increasingly seen as too conservative among more moderate newcomers. The district has probably changed enough that 2006 could have been the year to see it flip, but not enough effort was put into this open early, so hopefully local Dems will show more initiative in 2008.
MI-10 and MI-11 are home to the original Reagan Democrats of Detroit's northern suburbs. State Dems have largely written them off since the lines were redrawn for the 2002 elections, seemingly forgetting that "Reagan Democrats" are voters who are at heart Democrats, but just need the incentive not to be drawn into Republican culture wars. In previous incarnations, these seats have elected Democrats to Congress and supported the Dem candidate for senator, governor, and president. So, why are they so quickly conceded now?
I sincerely hope Democratic strategists start paying attention to these six seats and work to get well-funded quality candidates ready next time. Michigan is not a 9-6 Republican state. The majority of its voters are most concerned about unemployment, health care, and education - traditionally the Democrats' strongest issues. In a better world we'd be talking about how to turn a 9-6 Dem advantage into a 12-3 supermajority, but for now local and national Democrats need to start thinking about how to protect the likely new House majority by staking claim to these Republican seats.