Michigan is the one state which has very recent polling that suggests Trump may be losing ground there. Some polls show Cruz and Kasich neck and neck as runners-up, others have Cruz firmly in second place. One might assume that Ben Carson’s former votes would accrue to Ted Cruz, being that they both tended to attract the more traditional evangelical/conservative movement types. But with Rubio sinking like a stone, Kasich may be equally benefiting if those votes are going to him. It’s always possible a few Trump voters are finally sobering up as well. In the Super Saturday states, the early voting went for Trump much more heavily than the election day votes. (It’s easy to make too much of that however, since Trump hasn’t been winning the late deciders throughout the whole race so far.)
Michigan is the big prize today, and it should be an easy win for Trump. It’s filled with what you might call “Ted Nugent Republicans” — pot smoking, gun toting white guys who don’t even pretend to be religious and couldn’t care less about what the Club for Growth thinks is important for “the economy.” They like heavy metal in both cars and music, and they do not care for sensitive new-age types or holy rollers either. If Trump loses these guys, he’s lost his base.
There was a time when Ted Cruz thought he would capture this region as part of his plan to reinvigorate the alleged “missing white voters,” who were so demoralized by all the sin and depravity of the Obama years that they had simply given up. Unfortunately for Cruz, the numbers have never really added up. Ron Brownstein did a deep dive into all the data back in 2013, and concluded that it was a monumental long-shot:
For Republicans to increase the white share of the electorate in 2016 or beyond would require them to reverse the virtually uninterrupted trajectory of the past three decades. According the NJ exit poll analysis, the white share of the total vote has declined in every election since 1980, except in 1992 when it ticked up to 88 percent (from 85 percent in 1988) amid the interest in Perot’s quirky third-party bid. Otherwise, this decline has persisted through the years of both high and low overall turnout. Even in 2004 when George W. Bush’s state of the art micro-targeting and turnout operation allowed Republicans to equal Democrats as a share of the total vote for the only time in the history of polling, whites’ share dripped 4 percentage points from 2000.
This questionable theory is actually just another version of the old right-wing belief that Republicans only lose because they weren’t conservative enough. If only the candidates would stay true to the cause and eschew all attempts to broaden the appeal of the party people would vote for them in massive numbers. The problem here is that for every conservative Republican you might turn out with an extreme right-wing agenda, you also turn out at least one liberal Democrat who will be equally motivated to stop it. This leaves people who think of themselves as moderates (there are a lot of them) to swing one way or the other. What are the chances that Ted Cruz will appeal to any of those people? His own party can barely tolerate his presence.
Cruz’s strategy hinged upon the dubious assumption that he could uniquely appeal to movement conservatives, evangelicals, libertarians and blue collar workers. Having proved he could bag the Southern evangelicals, Michigan was to be one of the hunting grounds Cruz thought would bring out those missing voters — the upper midwest being he epicenter of the blue collar “Reagan Democrats,” who left their party in rebellion over its wanton ways some 35 years ago. (They have actually been called “Republicans” for a very long time now, so it’s a mystery why Cruz and others persist in thinking of them as something distinct from the blue collar white people who always vote for the party.) This would be the first big test of whether he can broaden his appeal beyond the movement conservative evangelical center of the party.
Unfortunately, Donald Trump shot holes all through his strategy by bringing in (white, of course) Southern voters from all classes and age groups with his incoherent authoritarian nationalism and an appeal to a fair chunk of the “prosperity theology” evangelical voters whom Cruz assumed were a lock for his campaign. So far it looks as though many of those missing white voters were looking for a man on a white horse, not a movement foot soldier.