Race Analysis

10/15/2012 -- For a while it looked as if Hoekstra was in this race, but Stabenow has taken command since the Democratic convention. It would take a massive shift in the dynamics of this contest for Hoekstra to win at this point.

----------Race Preview---------

For much of its history, Michigan was one of the most Republican states in the union.  In 1920, it gave Democrat John Cox 22 percent of the vote; in 1924 it gave John W. Davis 13 percent; and in 1928 it gave Al Smith 29 percent of the vote.  But in the wake of the sit-down strikes of the 1930s and the high levels of unionization that followed, Michigan quickly became competitive. The state became split between "outstate" Michigan, which retained its Republican heritage, and Detroit, which was solidly Democratic. When the Detroit suburbs, like most northern suburbs, swung toward the Democrats in the 1990s, they took the state with them.  Michigan has been reliably Democratic at the presidential level since the 1992 elections.

But in 2010, Michigan swung toward the Republicans.  Political novice Rick Snyder defeated Democrat Virg Bernero for governor by a stunning 19-point margin, while Republicans racked up impressive majorities in the state legislature.

Against this background, one would suspect that officeholders would be lining up for the opportunity to take on incumbent Democrat Debbie Stabenow.  Stabenow has never been the most popular senator in the state; she narrowly defeated Republican Spencer Abraham in the generally good Democratic year of 2000, and won by 15 points against an underwhelming Republican in the solid Democratic year of 2006.  Her approval ratings are mired in the 40s.  But Stabenow's competitor, Pete Hoekstra, inflicted a fairly serious wound upon himself with a widely panned Super Bowl commercial, and he has trailed consistently in the polls.  Michigan looks to be closer this year than in a typical presidential year.