Romney trounced McCain 39% to 30%. This is not overly surprising since Romney's father was the governor of Michigan and Romney was raised in Michigan -- I think that gave him some leverage in the state. And, of course, there's the fact that McCain was bluntly honest with the Michigan people and said that we need to face facts: there are some jobs that have left the country that aren't coming back. Romney, acting slightly offended by this rhetoric, totally disagreed and said that he, as president, is going to fight for every job! Oy...(eyes rolling to heaven here). I see this as one more time when Romney is saying whatever he thinks the voters want to hear in order to gain the power he's looking for. (The 80's tune "Tell Me Lies" is playing over and over again in my head.)
I think that with Huckabee having won Iowa, and McCain having won New Hampshire, and Romney having won Michigan, we just need a new winner in South Carolina. I really think it would be a hoot if Thompson were able to pull off a win there and then Giuliani managed a win in Florida. Let's really shake things up and get the mainstream media scratching their heads.
So far, I think my favorite candidate is Thompson. In looking at his record, he seems to be a true conservative, which I appreciate. Now, I'm fully willing to admit that he could be my favorite because I haven't heard him talk enough yet. I would love to see something big shake up in South Carolina in his favor so that I could hear a little more from him.
Ron Paul finished off Michigan with 6% of the Republican vote. Less scary than 10%, but still a little weird.
I also think it quite interesting that Hillary managed to get 55% of the Michigan vote. What's so interesting is not that she got so much of the state to vote for her, but that she got so little, considering that she was the only viable candidate on the ballot. See, Michigan moved up its primary against the wishes of the Democrat party, so the Democrats "punished" Michigan, and Obama and Edwards had their names taken off the ballot. (Off the wall question: If Michigan had done as the Democrat party wanted, should they have been rewarded by having only Edwards removed?) So people could go to the primary and vote for either Hillary or Hillary. I think that Kuchinich may have been on the ballot as well, but that's barely even worth mentioning. 40% of Michigan primary voters went so far as to go to the polls and register a vote of "uncommitted" rather than cast a vote in Hillary Clinton's favor. I would love to hear a journalist ask her about that phenomenon and see her body language immediately following the question!
One other side note: I think it's interesting to watch how much influence the mainstream media still has over how people think. The MSM used to consistently report negatively on Iraq, and polls showed that Iraq was the number one concern of people going into the voting season. But Iraq has calmed down, negative reporting has subsided (any reporting at all has subsided, actually), and the MSM has really ramped up reporting on the "bad economy" and the "possible coming recession." Sound the alarm!! Now the people are polled and the number one issue is the economy! If it were only Michigan polls we were talking about, I would see this differently. But the polling is nation wide.
And here's the trip. The economy hasn't drastically changed in the last month or two - just the reporting on it. I know that people are struggling. I know that the housing thing is a problem - all over the U.S. But this has been going on for a long time...
Anyway... I'm always careful about reading the news. There's an agenda in everything -- the important thing for me is to figure out what the agenda is and try to get around it and find out what the news actually is. It's a great challenge...