DETROIT — Late last month, I came out of a lunch meeting in downtown Detroit only to be trapped in an unexpected traffic snarl; Donald Trump, traveling with his entourage, had suddenly decided to speak at a National Guard conference a few blocks away.
I wasn’t surprised; any more than I would have been had it been Kamala Harris instead. That late August visit was the eighth time Trump had campaigned in Michigan in recent months, and I expect both of them to be here again many times before Nov.5.
But why? Michigan has a mere 15 of the 270 electoral votes needed to be elected President. California has 54; Texas 40. Even Ohio has more — 17. But none of those states have gotten nearly as much attention — and they won’t.
That’s because, at least as the experts see it, none of those states are “in play” this year. Republicans know there is no way Trump can win California; he lost it by six million votes last time, and this year is running against a native Californian.
Texas may be closer, but hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since 1976. Ohio was once seen as a swing state; Barack Obama won it twice. But it has become much more Republican.
Once, candidates for president tried to appeal to every part of the nation, and the electoral map was far more volatile. Democrat Lyndon Johnson won 44 states in 1964; Republican Richard Nixon took 49 states eight years later. But since then, the map has gradually hardened into mainly unshakeable red and blue states.
Indeed, if the experts are right, there may be as few as seven doubtful states this year: Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania — and Michigan.
Eight years ago, Donald Trump won every one of those states except Nevada, and took the election. Four years ago, Joe Biden won every one except North Carolina, and he was elected.
Though there were a few “faithless electors” in 2016, the results in the last two elections would otherwise have been a mirror image: Republicans winning 306-232 the first time; Democrats 306-232 the second. That’s never happened before.
Michigan is slightly different than the other swing states. Historically, it has become more Democratic than the others, voting for a Democrat for president seven out of the last eight times. The only exception was 2016, when Trump scored an upset win by the tiny margin of 10,704 votes, two-tenths of one percent.
President Biden returned Michigan to the Democratic fold in 2020, winning it by 154,188 votes. That was the largest margin of any of the swing states last time, but considerably less than Democrats have been used to in Michigan. In 2012, President Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney, a Michigan native, by almost half a million votes; four years before, Mr. Obama won it by 823,000.
Whether they admit it publicly or not, most analysts expect that if the election remains close, Harris will win Michigan. The Hill, the online nonpartisan newspaper that covers Congress, gives her a 67 percent chance of winning the state — compared to only a seven percent chance of winning Ohio.
But if that’s the case, why are Trump and the Republicans putting so much effort here? Simple: They think that while they can win the White House without Michigan, the Democrats can’t, and they want to force them to spend resources there.
That’s because for the third election in a row, the assumption is that Democratic strategy hinges on the famous “blue wall” of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Indeed, with so few states competitive, if Vice-President Harris wins all three, she is virtually certain to win, even if she loses all the other swing states.
However, if Democrats feel Michigan is in danger, they may end up diverting resources and time to it that they might otherwise devote to what most many think is the real key state this year: Pennsylvania.
Calculations may well change, however, as the campaign progresses. In 2008, John McCain at first intended to make Michigan a primary battleground, but in October, sensing he had no chance there, abandoned Michigan to a landslide loss.
Conversely, Democrats used to pay much more attention to Ohio. Twenty years ago, John Kerry made it the center of his presidential campaign. Indeed, he would have won if he had carried it, but fell 118,000 votes short. That wouldn’t have surprised John F. Kennedy, who felt he had Ohio in the bag in 1960, only to lose it decisively to Richard Nixon.
Kennedy had been less confident of Michigan than Ohio, but ironically, it was the TV networks’ decision to call Michigan for him early the next morning that led the Secret Service to conclude he had won, and to send a detail to protect the President-elect.
Michigan has often played a significant role in Presidential elections. This year, it may well again.
-30-
(A version of this column appeared in the Toledo Blade)
