Stupak Retiring (MI-01)

It's being announced that Stupak changed his mind and will be retiring and not seeking another term. That's good news for Republican chances in that district.

I updated the profile of the 1st district here.

I had another post here after Stupak's vote on health care.

With Stupak out of the way, the chances of a win here increase dramatically, unless the GOP runs a poor candidate, either by ethnics, or geographical weaknesses. This still isn't going to be an easy district due to its size, population density, old traditions, and yooper/troll dynamics which aren't as jokingly when it comes to political representation. Small town politics dominates this district, even more than most areas in Michigan.

It'll be interesting to see who else jumps in with Stupak gone. For the dems, I think Saltonstall's chances are slim to none due to her outspoken pro-abortion stance and her Charlevoix address. I expect an active primary there. There's a strong bench of candidates that have a better shot at the district. Rich Brown or Gary McDowell I think is their best bet. For the GOP, I'd still look for Casperson to try again, or maybe Scott Shackleton who preceded McDowell, although I wouldn't sleep on Benishek who had a good geography and outsider mentality. He'll need some good campaign managers to capitalize on his early boost.

Many national pundits keep mentioning Jason Allen, Michelle McManus, and Jim Barcia. Allen and McManus (secretary of state candidate) are in the 4th District. McManus is from Leelanau County, and Allen from Grand Traverse County. McManus and Allen used to be in the 1st before redistricting. I have strong geographical concerns if they run for the 1st. It will be portrayed "populist UP vs rich Traverse City." I'd love to see Michelle run for the 4th district if Camp retires. That would be a very good matchup for her. Jim Barcia's in the 5th District. Bay City is not in the 1st. Part of rural Bay County is. Barcia was a former congressman, but most of his district was what is now Kildee's or Miller's. Barcia would get clobbered by a yooper GOP'er. "Big Bay City carpetbagger vs North Michigan." I think the odds of a carpetbagger, no matter the reason and no matter how much I personally like the candidate, winning this district in November is about the same as Saltonstall's chances. It would take a lot of luck. I hope Michelle McManus keeps running for secretary of state, as she has a good chance to win that statewide against a Soros nutter like Benson.

It'll be interesting to see.

Remember these votes. Defeat Stupak. Defeat Schauer. Defeat Peters.

While Bart Stupak in the first district (MI-01) is dominating the headlines for his flip on this bill, he's not the only democrat who voted for this here in Michigan. Five of them are in 60% Democrat seats and would be extremely difficult to defeat. It's still worth a shot this year, but I expect them to survive unless we have a 1994 type year. Dale Kildee in MI-05, John Conyers (Detroit), Carolyn Kilpatrick (Detroit), Sander Levin (Southern Oakland and Macomb Counties), and John Dingell (Ann Arbor, Downriver).

Two others that need the heat are Mark Schauer in the 7th District (MI-07), and Gary Peters in the 9th District (MI-09). These are difficult, but winnable districts. Bush won twice in both of these districts. With the dip in 2006 and 2008 over thanks to Bush's retirement, I like the chances for taking these seats back with Obama's overreach.

Mark Schauer is a yesman with no original thought of his own except those given by his masters. Pelosi and Obama. He also received the endorsement of NARAL already. That is not a good district for someone to be rabidly pro-abortion like Schauer. He needs to be shown the door, and Tim Walberg is the man to do it.

Gary Peters is much like Schauer. His economic leftism is not a good fit for the 9th district, and when they get taxed up the wazoo with the surcharges, there should be hell to pay. Peters needs to be shown the door and Rocky Raczkowski who has won three difficult races in Farmington Hills, is the man to do it.

Stupak needs to go, but so does Schauer and Peters. Don't forget them.

Which Republican will rise to the occasion and challenge Bart Stupak?

Stupak voted with Obama in the end like a good democrat. That's about what I expected out of him. I'm getting a lot of hits from non-Michiganders who are looking up Stupak and want to see a good opponent run against him.

This was my profile of the 1st district

This is the Democrat challenging Stupak in the August primary

Personally, I'd like to see Tom Casperson (running for State Senate) or Scott Shackleton run against him. They are both former state reps who won tough districts in the UP. The 1st district is a very difficult district to win for anybody because it is a large populist regional district where local ties strongly matter. Yoopers prefer yoopers in their voting patterns. Trolls prefer inland trolls to coastal candidates. Natives prefer natives to any "recent" (after high school) transplants. Small town politics dominate this area, in good and bad ways.

It's also a democrat leaning district, but it is a local democrat or conservative democrat leaning district. It's not a John Kerry district. McCain would have won here if he didn't abandon the entire state in a stupid public announcement. This is also 2010 and not 2008. There's a different dynamic here and the Bush fatigue is long past. Bush is gone.

Stupak has dominated this district with over 60% every time. He was held to 58% twice in the only 1990's district which was more Republican. There's a now a chance that Stupak can go down. It won't be easy, but it's possible. Why? He's gone national. That's why. He became a national democrat instead of the Menominee Democrat he is supposed to be.

So who's stepping up to the plate? Three People so far are running.

Don Hooper ran several against Stupak. He's running again.

Linda Goldthorpe ran in the 2008 primary against Casperson. She was on Ron Paul's campaign. She's running again.

Dan Benishek is a Surgeon and running as well. He doesn't have a website up, although he's getting press on blogs like Ed Morrisey's Hot Air. If Benishek wants to take advantage of this, he better get a website up ASAP. UPDATE - Benishek's campaign is working on its website.

All three, and any others that jump in, have an opportunity that was not there in 96, 98, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. There's a big chink in Stupak's armor that was not there right now. He's gone national.

A chance like this against someone as strong as Stupak usually is does not come around very often. It will take hard work, organization, money, and the right candidate. Who has what it takes? That remains to be seen.

The big government health care reform (deform) bill passes - comply or spend five years in prison

Forget tea parties. I want a torches and pitchforks party. I'll bring the beer. We'll need lots of it with this piece of trash passed. This needs to be repealed immediately after Mr. Obama signs this - unless the courts strike this, or parts of this down. Here's the bill, all 2310 pages of it. It's a long read, nearly 1000 pages longer than War and Peace.

It was a party line vote in Michigan. All the dems voted for this. All the Republicans voted against this. It's no secret all the crap that from this senate bill which was moved to the house. There's still procedural battles and this will probably end up in the courts. Supposedly, Bart Stupak had an agreement with Obama about an executive order on abortion language. I'll believe it when I see it.

How bad is this bill?  I've decided to take another look at this 2310 page monstrosity. First rule of thumb, if a bill is 2310 pages, most reps have not read it, and it's bad news. War and Peace is 1440 pages. Atlas Shrugged is 1200 pages. This bill is nearly twice as big, and on much bigger pages, and the same small print. There's plenty of small print there. Page 119

SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.

(a) Establishment of Premiums-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner--

(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN- In establishing premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include an appropriate amount for a contingency margin.

(b) Account-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established in the Treasury of the United States an Account for the receipts and disbursements attributable to the operation of the public health insurance option, including the start-up funding under paragraph (2). Section 1854(g) of the Social Security Act shall apply to receipts described in the previous sentence in the same manner as such section applies to payments or premiums described in such section.

(2) START-UP FUNDING-

(A) IN GENERAL- In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In order to provide for initial claims reserves before the collection of premiums, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.

(B) AMORTIZATION OF START-UP FUNDING- The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1.

(C) LIMITATION ON FUNDING- Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

This is Government here.Administrative costs are quadrupled. This is the home of the  $400 hammer and $600 toilet seat.

And page 126:

SEC. 225. PROVIDER PARTICIPATION.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall establish conditions of participation for health care providers under the public health insurance option.

(b) Licensure or Certification- The Secretary shall not allow a health care provider to participate in the public health insurance option unless such provider is appropriately licensed, certified, or otherwise permitted to practice under State law.

(c) Payment Terms for Providers-

(1) PHYSICIANS- The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

(2) OTHER PROVIDERS- The Secretary shall provide for the participation (on an annual or other basis specified by the Secretary) of health care providers (other than physicians) under the public health insurance option under which payment shall only be available if the provider agrees to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(d) Exclusion of Certain Providers- The Secretary shall exclude from participation under the public health insurance option a health care provider that is excluded from participation in a Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act).

Conditions to participate. Here's a question. How many doctors are going to say screw this and not participate?


Page 149:

SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

(a) In General- An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE- The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION- The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION- The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES- The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

(b) Reduction of Employee Premiums Through Minimum Employer Contribution-

(1) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES- The minimum employer contribution described in this subsection for coverage of a full-time employee (and, if any, the employee's spouse and qualifying children (as defined in section 152(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) under a qualified health benefits plan (or current employment-based health plan) is equal to--

(A) in case of individual coverage, not less than 72.5 percent of the applicable premium (as defined in section 4980B(f)(4) of such Code, subject to paragraph (2)) of the lowest cost plan offered by the employer that is a qualified health benefits plan (or is such current employment-based health plan); and

(B) in the case of family coverage which includes coverage of such spouse and children, not less 65 percent of such applicable premium of such lowest cost plan.

(2) APPLICABLE PREMIUM FOR EXCHANGE COVERAGE- In this subtitle, the amount of the applicable premium of the lowest cost plan with respect to coverage of an employee under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is the reference premium amount under section 243(c) for individual coverage (or, if elected, family coverage) for the premium rating area in which the individual or family resides.

(3) MINIMUM EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES- In the case of coverage for an employee who is not a full-time employee, the amount of the minimum employer contribution under this subsection shall be a proportion (as determined in accordance with rules of the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable) of the minimum employer contribution under this subsection with respect to a full-time employee that reflects the proportion of--

(A) the average weekly hours of employment of the employee by the employer, to

(B) the minimum weekly hours specified by the Commissioner for an employee to be a full-time employee.

(4) SALARY REDUCTIONS NOT TREATED AS EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS- For purposes of this section, any contribution on behalf of an employee with respect to which there is a corresponding reduction in the compensation of the employee shall not be treated as an amount paid by the employer.

(c) Automatic Enrollment for Employer Sponsored Health Benefits-

(1) IN GENERAL- The requirement of this subsection with respect to an employer and an employee is that the employer automatically enrolls such employee into the employment-based health benefits plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.

(2) OPT-OUT- In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

(3) NOTICE REQUIREMENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each employer described in paragraph (1) who automatically enrolls an employee into a plan as described in such paragraph shall provide the employees, within a reasonable period before the beginning of each plan year (or, in the case of new employees, within a reasonable period before the end of the enrollment period for such a new employee), written notice of the employees' rights and obligations relating to the automatic enrollment requirement under such paragraph. Such notice must be comprehensive and understood by the average employee to whom the automatic enrollment requirement applies.

(B) INCLUSION OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION- The written notice under subparagraph (A) must explain an employee's right to opt out of being automatically enrolled in a plan and in the case that more than one level of benefits or employee premium level is offered by the employer involved, the notice must explain which level of benefits and employee premium level the employee will be automatically enrolled in the absence of an affirmative election by the employee.

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.

(a) In General- A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution--

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

Basically, we have an 8 percent payroll tax.

Page 143...

SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

For an individual's responsibility to obtain acceptable coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 401 of this division).

And what does section 401 say? Page 167...

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

It's a 2.5% of your income that is fined. This is a penalty. This is a penalty fine disguised as a tax and should be challenged. The penalty for not paying the fine/tax is a trip to prison. I wrote about it here in November of 2009. Sections 7201 and 7203. They are already law, part of the Internal Revenue Code.

7201 - Attempt to Evade or Defeat tax. Felony. $100,000 fine. 5 years in prison.

7203 - Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax. Misdemeanor. $25,000 fine. 1 year in prison.

There's also a surcharge. Page 197.

SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

`(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to--

`(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

`(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

`(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

I wonder how many sole proprietors, partnerships, and LLC's are going to be out of business with this. Those aren't corporations, but are a large number of businesses.

The Attorney General has more access. Eric Holder I don't want near medical records. I don't want John Ashcroft there either for that matter. Section 1651

SEC. 1651. ACCESS TO INFORMATION NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE.

Section 1128G of the Social Security Act, as added by section 1631 and amended by sections 1632 and 1641, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection;

`(d) Access to Information Necessary To Identify Fraud, Waste, and Abuse- For purposes of law enforcement activity, and to the extent consistent with applicable disclosure, privacy, and security laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974, and subject to any information systems security requirements enacted by law or otherwise required by the Secretary, the Attorney General shall have access, facilitation by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, to claims and payment data relating to titles XVIII and XIX, in consultation with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or the owner of such data.'.

I have to relook at the HIPPA laws, but things are in bills for a reason. My guard's up, and while I don't see a wolf yet, there's a potential one.

Here's a potential wolf.

SEC. 3121. NATIONAL PREVENTION AND WELLNESS STRATEGY.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall submit to the Congress within one year after the date of the enactment of this section, and at least every 2 years thereafter, a national strategy that is designed to improve the Nation's health through evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness activities (in this section referred to as `prevention and wellness activities'), including core public health infrastructure improvement activities.

`(b) Contents- The strategy under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:

`(1) Identification of specific national goals and objectives in prevention and wellness activities that take into account appropriate public health measures and standards, including departmental measures and standards (including Healthy People and National Public Health Performance Standards).

`(2) Establishment of national priorities for prevention and wellness, taking into account unmet prevention and wellness needs.

`(3) Establishment of national priorities for research on prevention and wellness, taking into account unanswered research questions on prevention and wellness.

`(4) Identification of health disparities in prevention and wellness.

`(5) A plan for addressing and implementing paragraphs (1) through (4).

`(c) Consultation- In developing or revising the strategy under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the following:

`(1) The heads of appropriate health agencies and offices in the Department, including the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, the Office of Minority Health, and the Office on Women's Health.

`(2) As appropriate, the heads of other Federal departments and agencies whose programs have a significant impact upon health (as determined by the Secretary).

You see, government has a major stake now in health care. Tax money in spades is going towards that. In addition, my experience in Lansing showed me that one of the biggest big government statist lobbies in the business is the public health lobby. It's like out of the movie Demolition Man. Anything that is in their opinion, bad for you, must be outlawed or taxed. We see what's happening with tobacco right now. They pushed to go against firearms in the 1990's with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. Gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernero pushed for a "pop tax" while in the state senate. (soda's for you on the East Coast, Cokes for you in the South). Granholm had a "meatout" day proclaimed last Saturday. While I'm not to worried about the "meatout" day, since it was just a mouth running, I am concerned about a "meat tax" in the future. The argument will be "50% of our payments are going towards Obesity. Tax carbs and meat to pay for it."

This ain't over with Obama's signature. It's just getting started. I'm not referring to the torches and pitchforks party we need in Washington to repeal this. I'm referring to big government trying to take control of every aspect of our lives.

And howabout this to get Mary Landrieu's vote.

CHAPTER 2--SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA

SEC. 321. PURPOSE.

Grants under this chapter shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, repairing, or constructing public school facilities, including, where applicable, early learning facilities, based on the need for such improvements or construction, to ensure that public school facilities are safe, healthy, high-performing, and technologically up-to-date.

What the hell does that even have to do with health care?

There's plenty more that's bad there. All 2300+ pages of this. This isn't Fox News reporting. This isn't Rush Limbaugh reporting. I don't watch TV News or listen to talk radio. All of this is straight from the bill itself. Primary sources.

This needs to be repealed at best, and modified at worst. We can start with stopping the bleeding with getting rid of the democrats, and then firing Obama's sorry ass in 2012.

Bart Stupak has a primary challenger in Connie Saltonstall (MI-01)

Some good news in MI-01 for republicans. Bart Stupak has a primary race with Connie Saltonstall. With that, the GOP needs to recruit a good candidate for that area, preferably a yooper. Tom Casperson is planning to run for State Senate, but maybe he should give Congress another go with this opening. If not Casperson, perhaps Scott Shackleton.

The pro-abortion left is pumping money into this race. The rich leftists at Huffington Post are going crazy and giving their money to this race. Great. It's win, win for the GOP. Go Connie! For a whole difference reason.

I don't know much about Saltonstall except that she has some election history, and is mad at Stupak for his abortion stance. She was a county commissioner representing the City of Charlevoix. She also ran for the 105th State Rep against incumbent Kevin Elsenheimer. Elsenheimer won overall with 60%. Saltonstall won the City of Charlevoix, Chandler Township, and lost the rest of her home county. She did show strength in Forest Township in Cheboygan County with a tie there, but Elsenheimer won his district easily. It is a Republican leaning district unless one's a blunder machine (like illegally spending county taxpayers money on campaign mailings....) The 105th is possibly the most Republican district that resides in the 1st. Saltonstall did better than most democrats there, but was that due to her campaign, or 08 being a bad year for Republicans.

Apples and Oranges. Why?

1. Different electorate - primary. Right to Life loves Stupak. However, a lot of them lean more republican than they do democrat. Which primary will the pro-life activists vote in? In the August primary, one may vote a Republican ballot or a Democrat ballot. The Republicans and Democrats will both have a gubernatorial primary statewide, and the abortion issue will come up in both parties as Rick Snyder donated tens of thousands to the ballot proposal supporting embryonic research. Andy Dillon has pro-life leanings and Virg Bernero is pro-abortion. Most of the local offices on the yooper side of the bridge lean democrat outside of Chippewa and Mackinac Counties. The troll side is more locally competitive with democrat leaning Alpena, Bay, Ogemaw, and Arenac counties and Republican leaning Otsego, Emmet, and Antrim Counties. The gubernatorial race makes this interesting. Primary voters are more partisan, and will vote for their guys before crossvotes. I've only monkeyed around in one democrat primary (Against Granholm in 02) because usually I have races of my own to vote in

2. Money. Saltonstall has pro-abortion money flying in from the left-roots. She's also from one of the more wealthy areas of the district and can raise more money than most challengers. This will give Stupak some headaches, no matter what the real threat is.

I think this is Stupak's race to lose. He's very popular locally and runs ahead of everybody, especially in the UP. The UP, as well as the sunrise side of the Northern Lower Penninsula, have a lot of social conservative democrats. Pro-life. Pro-gun. Pro-union. The Sheltrown brothers in the SE part of the district. Andy Neumann is pro-gun. The yooper state reps are pro-gun and outside of Prusi in Marquette, I believe they are pro-life. Jim Barcia in Bay City represented part of this area before and he's pro-gun and pro-life.

A large number of the democrats are labor. Corrections officers, retired UAW, Bay City commuters, Alpena, DNR officers, and state workers, along with mining traditions. These aren't your Ann Arbor, California, or even Traverse City democrats. Saltonstall will have to sell to those people, and do so with a Charlevoix address. If I'm running for office in this district, there are four addresses I do not want to be identified with. Charlevoix, Petoskey, Torch Lake, and Harbor Springs. All of them have reputations as wealthy areas with vacation homes. It's not just a yooper vs troll thing, it's inland vs coast. Saltonstall is a native of Charlevoix, so it won't cut against her as much as it would a transplant, but how will that play in the more working class democrat strongholds there like Skidway Lake, Rogers City, Alpena, Standish, and Pinconning?

My money is on Stupak no matter how much money is spent. That said, as a Republican, I won't Saltonstall to win the primary because she will be a much easier general election opponent than Stupak.

Congressional District 1 (MI-01) - Updated

Updated 4-9-2010 - Stupak is retiring. 
Updated 4-26-2010 - Added names of candidates in.
Updated 5-18-2010 - Listed official candidates.
Updated 8-4-2010 - Allen and Benishek will probably go to a recount.
Updated 8-15-2010 - Benishek wins.

Candidates so far:
GOP:
Dan Benishek - Surgeon

Dem:
Gary McDowell - State Rep from Chippewa County


---------------------------------------

Michigan's 1st District - Congress
Incumbent - Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) - Not running for re-election
Years in office as of 2010 election - 18.
Cook District Numbers - R+3


Barone’s numbers
2008:
Obama - 50%
McCain - 48%
2004:
Bush – 53%
Kerry – 46% 
2000:
Bush 52%
Gore 45%

The  1st District is the largest district in Michigan in terms of area. It covers all of the UP, and most of Northeastern Lower Michigan as well, along with a few other Northern Michigan Counties.

It covers:

The U.P. - Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon, and Schoolcraft Counties.

Northern Michigan - Alcona, Alpena, Antrim, Arenac, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Crawford, Emmet, Gladwin, Iosco, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Otsego, and Presque Isle Counties.

Bay County -  Beaver, Fraser, Garfield, Gibson, Kawkawlin, Monitor (precinct 3,5), Mount Forest, Pinconning, and Williams Townships. Also the City of Auburn, City of Pinconning, and precinct 1 in the City of Midland (most of which is in Midland County) is included.

There are a lot of ticket splitting counties there. All of Stupak's contests under the current borders have essentially been the same, so I'm going to nitpick all of them. His weakest showing was actually in the democrat year of 2008. That's because his opponent was Tom Casperson, a former state rep, instead of Don Hooper who has low name ID. Stupak ran 15% ahead of Obama, instead of 20% ahead of John Kerry. That's like going 12-4 in NFL football instead of 14-2 because you played the Vikings and Steelers instead of the Browns and Lions....and you're still the 1980's 49'ers.

The most recent election here was 2008. It was like the others in results, although Casperson, who comes from the same state rep district as Stupak, actually did the best this decade against Stupak. That was due to his reducing the loss in Delta County.

2008 Election	Casperson	Stupak	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
Alcona	2,183	4,003	139	6,325	-1820	34.51%	63.29%	-28.77%
Alger	1,594	3,054	68	4,716	-1460	33.80%	64.76%	-30.96%
Alpena	4,095	10,613	272	14,980	-6518	27.34%	70.85%	-43.51%
Antrim	5,510	7,721	378	13,609	-2211	40.49%	56.73%	-16.25%
Arenac	2,434	5,041	289	7,764	-2607	31.35%	64.93%	-33.58%
Baraga	1,224	2,352	54	3,630	-1128	33.72%	64.79%	-31.07%
Bay	4,980	10,448	589	16,017	-5468	31.09%	65.23%	-34.14%
Charlevoix	5,199	8,596	408	14,203	-3397	36.60%	60.52%	-23.92%
Cheboygan	4,282	9,139	276	13,697	-4857	31.26%	66.72%	-35.46%
Chippewa	4,460	11,710	362	16,532	-7250	26.98%	70.83%	-43.85%
Crawford	2,245	4,500	242	6,987	-2255	32.13%	64.41%	-32.27%
Delta	7,857	11,099	125	19,081	-3242	41.18%	58.17%	-16.99%
Dickinson	5,108	8,041	162	13,311	-2933	38.37%	60.41%	-22.03%
Emmet	6,933	10,353	489	17,775	-3420	39.00%	58.24%	-19.24%
Gladwin	4,488	7,880	460	12,828	-3392	34.99%	61.43%	-26.44%
Gogebic	1,974	5,998	212	8,184	-4024	24.12%	73.29%	-49.17%
Houghton	5,797	9,714	304	15,815	-3917	36.66%	61.42%	-24.77%
Iosco	3,898	9,649	340	13,887	-5751	28.07%	69.48%	-41.41%
Iron	1,825	4,269	73	6,167	-2444	29.59%	69.22%	-39.63%
Keweenaw	544	831	29	1,404	-287	38.75%	59.19%	-20.44%
Luce	892	1,767	59	2,718	-875	32.82%	65.01%	-32.19%
Mackinac	1,864	4,366	109	6,339	-2502	29.41%	68.88%	-39.47%
Marquette	8,853	23,550	616	33,019	-14697	26.81%	71.32%	-44.51%
Menominee	3,687	7,214	112	11,013	-3527	33.48%	65.50%	-32.03%
Montmorency	1,641	3,490	135	5,266	-1849	31.16%	66.27%	-35.11%
Ogemaw	3,088	6,963	317	10,368	-3875	29.78%	67.16%	-37.37%
Ontonagon	1,088	2,705	97	3,890	-1617	27.97%	69.54%	-41.57%
Oscoda	1,425	2,677	130	4,232	-1252	33.67%	63.26%	-29.58%
Otsego	4,505	7,632	271	12,408	-3127	36.31%	61.51%	-25.20%
Presque Isle	2,168	5,097	174	7,439	-2929	29.14%	68.52%	-39.37%
Schoolcraft	1,499	2,744	66	4,309	-1245	34.79%	63.68%	-28.89%
Total	107,340	213,216	7,357	327,913	-105876	32.73%	65.02%	-32.29%

Casperson's best counties were Republican base counties outside of Delta County, which says much about Stupak's crossover strength. What makes this district so difficult is that not only is it gigantic in area, it is very rural. Marquette County, by far the largest in population, had about 10% of the vote in the congressional election.  It's not all that much different in the presidential races, which I'll throw in.The largest portion is only 10% of the vote. There's no dominating region, even if you split Yooper and Troll (in the district) regions. There isn't a lot of difference anymore between "Yooper" and Northeastern "Trolls" in voting. 150,784 of the votes were Yoopers which went 51.90% for Obama and 46.19% for McCain (which I think is still lower than Dukakis, and much lower than Clinton). McCain won the Northern lower portion 49.64% to 48.47%. Much of the wins are from the portions of the district closer to Lake Michigan than Lake Huron (Emmett, Otsego, Antrim Counties)

2008 Election	McCain	Obama	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
Alcona	3,404	2,896	120	6,420	508	53.02%	45.11%	7.91%
Alger	2,188	2,472	87	4,747	-284	46.09%	52.07%	-5.98%
Alpena	7,125	7,705	255	15,085	-580	47.23%	51.08%	-3.84%
Antrim	7,506	6,079	267	13,852	1427	54.19%	43.89%	10.30%
Arenac	3,807	4,155	166	8,128	-348	46.84%	51.12%	-4.28%
Baraga	1,846	1,725	73	3,644	121	50.66%	47.34%	3.32%
Bay	0	0	0	-	0	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
Charlevoix	7,306	6,817	244	14,367	489	50.85%	47.45%	3.40%
Cheboygan	6,920	6,720	261	13,901	200	49.78%	48.34%	1.44%
Chippewa	8,267	8,184	257	16,708	83	49.48%	48.98%	0.50%
Crawford	3,561	3,441	176	7,178	120	49.61%	47.94%	1.67%
Delta	8,763	9,974	329	19,066	-1211	45.96%	52.31%	-6.35%
Dickinson	7,049	5,995	267	13,311	1054	52.96%	45.04%	7.92%
Emmet	9,314	8,515	320	18,149	799	51.32%	46.92%	4.40%
Gladwin	6,391	6,590	145	13,126	-199	48.69%	50.21%	-1.52%
Gogebic	3,330	4,757	177	8,264	-1427	40.30%	57.56%	-17.27%
Houghton	8,101	7,476	365	15,942	625	50.82%	46.89%	3.92%
Iosco	6,583	7,309	295	14,187	-726	46.40%	51.52%	-5.12%
Iron	2,947	3,080	135	6,162	-133	47.83%	49.98%	-2.16%
Keweenaw	756	610	44	1,410	146	53.62%	43.26%	10.35%
Luce	1490	1,191	59	2,740	299	54.38%	43.47%	10.91%
Mackinac	3,268	3,027	38	6,333	241	51.60%	47.80%	3.81%
Marquette	12,906	19,635	634	33,175	-6729	38.90%	59.19%	-20.28%
Menominee	4,855	5,981	236	11,072	-1126	43.85%	54.02%	-10.17%
Montmorency	2,841	2,403	116	5,360	438	53.00%	44.83%	8.17%
Ogemaw	5,133	5,391	244	10,768	-258	47.67%	50.07%	-2.40%
Ontonagon	1,823	1,966	96	3,885	-143	46.92%	50.60%	-3.68%
Oscoda	2,320	1,887	121	4,328	433	53.60%	43.60%	10.00%
Otsego	6,752	5,634	230	12,616	1118	53.52%	44.66%	8.86%
Presque Isle	3,606	3,722	177	7,505	-116	48.05%	49.59%	-1.55%
Schoolcraft	2,058	2,184	83	4,325	-126	47.58%	50.50%	-2.91%
Bay County:
City of Auburn	590	591	15	1,196	-1	49.33%	49.41%	-0.08%
Beaver Twp	796	744	26	1,566	52	50.83%	47.51%	3.32%
Fraser Twp	715	1,006	32	1,753	-291	40.79%	57.39%	-16.60%
Garfield Twp	425	500	13	938	-75	45.31%	53.30%	-8.00%
Gibson Twp	239	294	14	547	-55	43.69%	53.75%	-10.05%
Kawkawlin Twp	1,187	1,391	52	2,630	-204	45.13%	52.89%	-7.76%
City of Midland (1)	22	41	1	64	-19	34.38%	64.06%	-29.69%
Monitor Twp (3)	650	520	20	1,190	130	54.62%	43.70%	10.92%
Monitor Twp (5)	619	644	20	1,283	-25	48.25%	50.19%	-1.95%
Mount Forest Twp	342	383	22	747	-41	45.78%	51.27%	-5.49%
City of Pinconning	200	378	11	589	-178	33.96%	64.18%	-30.22%
Pinconning Twp	614	700	22	1,336	-86	45.96%	52.40%	-6.44%
Portsmouth Twp	855	1,108	25	1,988	-253	43.01%	55.73%	-12.73%
Williams Twp	1,404	1,331	54	2,789	73	50.34%	47.72%	2.62%
Total	160,874	167,152	6,344	334,370	-6278	48.11%	49.99%	-1.88%

That was the 08, which was a big swing from the 04 and 00 elections, where Bush won this district quite easily. 08 was Obama's year, and this is no different. The Western UP (Wisconsin area) returned to the democrat roots, and Marquette was even more democrat than usual. Even still, Obama could not quite break the 50% barrier due to 3rd party votes. While Obama won big in Bay County overall, he was held to 51.74% in this portion of the county. This part of Bay County does not have Bay City.

The other big dem year recently was 06. There are a large number of state workers in the 1st district. Mostly in corrections or the DNR (you can almost throw in MEA as well, but they are strong statewide). While the numbers in the end statewide were similar between Granholm 06 and Obama 08, a closer look shows that is not the case by district. Much as Bush 00 and Posthumus 02's numbers were similar statewide, but different by district. Obama's win was due more to the minority votes and a major swing in the west side. DeVos was whacked more in rural areas in general. Democrats always do better in the 1st district in gubernatorial years as well. This was no different. Granholm outpaced Obama in a big way.

2006 Election	DeVos	Granholm	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
Alcona	2,583	2,793	88	5,464	-210	47.27%	51.12%	-3.84%
Alger	1,422	2,285	59	3,766	-863	37.76%	60.67%	-22.92%
Alpena	4,689	7,187	154	12,030	-2498	38.98%	59.74%	-20.76%
Antrim	6,115	5,103	170	11,388	1012	53.70%	44.81%	8.89%
Arenac	2,805	3,737	102	6,644	-932	42.22%	56.25%	-14.03%
Baraga	1,220	1,952	59	3,231	-732	37.76%	60.41%	-22.66%
Bay	0	0		-	0	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
Charlevoix	5,621	5,237	268	11,126	384	50.52%	47.07%	3.45%
Cheboygan	5,891	5,457	212	11,560	434	50.96%	47.21%	3.75%
Chippewa	5,564	7,463	184	13,211	-1899	42.12%	56.49%	-14.37%
Crawford	2,765	2,932	106	5,803	-167	47.65%	50.53%	-2.88%
Delta	5,973	8,792	180	14,945	-2819	39.97%	58.83%	-18.86%
Dickinson	4,372	5,251	145	9,768	-879	44.76%	53.76%	-9.00%
Emmet	7,442	6,401	228	14,071	1041	52.89%	45.49%	7.40%
Gladwin	4,962	5,588	211	10,761	-626	46.11%	51.93%	-5.82%
Gogebic	2,216	3,821	124	6,161	-1605	35.97%	62.02%	-26.05%
Houghton	5,275	6,497	200	11,972	-1222	44.06%	54.27%	-10.21%
Iosco	5,006	6,043	172	11,221	-1037	44.61%	53.85%	-9.24%
Iron	1,914	2,843	81	4,838	-929	39.56%	58.76%	-19.20%
Keweenaw	507	632	22	1,161	-125	43.67%	54.44%	-10.77%
Luce	789	1,495	28	2,312	-706	34.13%	64.66%	-30.54%
Mackinac	2,540	2,879	64	5,483	-339	46.33%	52.51%	-6.18%
Marquette	7,773	16,341	291	24,405	-8568	31.85%	66.96%	-35.11%
Menominee	3,397	4,114	157	7,668	-717	44.30%	53.65%	-9.35%
Montmorency	2,394	2,128	89	4,611	266	51.92%	46.15%	5.77%
Ogemaw	4,109	4,561	143	8,813	-452	46.62%	51.75%	-5.13%
Ontonagon	1,318	1,782	48	3,148	-464	41.87%	56.61%	-14.74%
Oscoda	1,850	1,638	65	3,553	212	52.07%	46.10%	5.97%
Otsego	5,644	4,465	168	10,277	1179	54.92%	43.45%	11.47%
Presque Isle	2,775	3,515	91	6,381	-740	43.49%	55.09%	-11.60%
Schoolcraft	1,395	1,973	58	3,426	-578	40.72%	57.59%	-16.87%
Bay County:
City of Auburn	443	552	10	1,005	-109	44.08%	54.93%	-10.85%
Beaver Twp	579	697	18	1,294	-118	44.74%	53.86%	-9.12%
Fraser Twp	488	958	25	1,471	-470	33.17%	65.13%	-31.95%
Garfield Twp	272	480	25	777	-208	35.01%	61.78%	-26.77%
Gibson Twp	183	251	9	443	-68	41.31%	56.66%	-15.35%
Kawkawlin Twp	860	1,247	36	2,143	-387	40.13%	58.19%	-18.06%
City of Midland (1)	22	23	1	46	-1	47.83%	50.00%	-2.17%
Monitor Twp (3)	456	494	12	962	-38	47.40%	51.35%	-3.95%
Monitor Twp (5)	431	539	9	979	-108	44.02%	55.06%	-11.03%
Mount Forest Twp	273	336	4	613	-63	44.54%	54.81%	-10.28%
City of Pinconning	182	306	7	495	-124	36.77%	61.82%	-25.05%
Pinconning Twp	436	649	13	1,098	-213	39.71%	59.11%	-19.40%
Portsmouth Twp	623	1,092	26	1,741	-469	35.78%	62.72%	-26.94%
Williams Twp	1,026	1,245	33	2,304	-219	44.53%	54.04%	-9.51%
Total	116,600	143,774	4,195	264,569	-27174	44.07%	54.34%	-10.27%

Compare these to 2004 (Bush/Kerry), 2002 (Posthumus), and 2000 (Bush/Gore) at the top of the ticket.

2004 was the high water mark. Can you ask for a better opponent than John Kerry? I knew that was won (nationally) as soon as he won the nomination. I wasn't laughing at Dean or Edwards though. Bush won all the counties except Alger, Arenac, Gogebic, Marquette, and the portion of Bay County in the district which he lost 50.48%-48.51%. Bush won the district by 7.69% margin.

2004 Election	Bush	Kerry	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
Alcona	3,592	2,871	68	6,531	721	55.00%	43.96%	11.04%
Alger	2,318	2,395	52	4,765	-77	48.65%	50.26%	-1.62%
Alpena	7,665	7,407	139	15,211	258	50.39%	48.70%	1.70%
Antrim	8,379	5,072	168	13,619	3307	61.52%	37.24%	24.28%
Arenac	4,071	4,076	69	8,216	-5	49.55%	49.61%	-0.06%
Baraga	1,977	1,660	47	3,684	317	53.66%	45.06%	8.60%
Bay	0	0		-	0	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
Charlevoix	8,214	5,729	196	14,139	2485	58.09%	40.52%	17.58%
Cheboygan	7,798	5,941	138	13,877	1857	56.19%	42.81%	13.38%
Chippewa	9,122	7,203	163	16,488	1919	55.33%	43.69%	11.64%
Crawford	4,017	3,126	92	7,235	891	55.52%	43.21%	12.32%
Delta	9,680	9,381	177	19,238	299	50.32%	48.76%	1.55%
Dickinson	7,734	5,650	166	13,550	2084	57.08%	41.70%	15.38%
Emmet	10,332	6,846	204	17,382	3486	59.44%	39.39%	20.06%
Gladwin	6,770	6,343	114	13,227	427	51.18%	47.95%	3.23%
Gogebic	3,935	4,421	86	8,442	-486	46.61%	52.37%	-5.76%
Houghton	8,889	6,731	231	15,851	2158	56.08%	42.46%	13.61%
Iosco	7,301	6,557	148	14,006	744	52.13%	46.82%	5.31%
Iron	3,224	3,215	72	6,511	9	49.52%	49.38%	0.14%
Keweenaw	781	630	28	1,439	151	54.27%	43.78%	10.49%
Luce	1749	1,045	35	2,829	704	61.82%	36.94%	24.89%
Mackinac	3,706	2,819	84	6,609	887	56.08%	42.65%	13.42%
Marquette	14,690	17,412	386	32,488	-2722	45.22%	53.60%	-8.38%
Menominee	5,942	5,326	151	11,419	616	52.04%	46.64%	5.39%
Montmorency	3,300	2,196	67	5,563	1104	59.32%	39.48%	19.85%
Ogemaw	5,454	5,215	127	10,796	239	50.52%	48.30%	2.21%
Ontonagon	2,262	1,863	67	4,192	399	53.96%	44.44%	9.52%
Oscoda	2,570	1,792	47	4,409	778	58.29%	40.64%	17.65%
Otsego	7,470	4,674	163	12,307	2796	60.70%	37.98%	22.72%
Presque Isle	3,982	3,432	102	7,516	550	52.98%	45.66%	7.32%
Schoolcraft	2,267	2,137	37	4,441	130	51.05%	48.12%	2.93%
Bay County:
City of Auburn	641	537	7	1,185	104	54.09%	45.32%	8.78%
Beaver Twp	792	691	16	1,499	101	52.84%	46.10%	6.74%
Fraser Twp	768	992	11	1,771	-224	43.37%	56.01%	-12.65%
Garfield Twp	391	542	15	948	-151	41.24%	57.17%	-15.93%
Gibson Twp	261	293	5	559	-32	46.69%	52.42%	-5.72%
Kawkawlin Twp	1,271	1,377	25	2,673	-106	47.55%	51.52%	-3.97%
City of Midland (1)	10	28	0	38	-18	26.32%	73.68%	-47.37%
Monitor Twp (3)	474	333	7	814	141	58.23%	40.91%	17.32%
Monitor Twp (5)	434	377	13	824	57	52.67%	45.75%	6.92%
Mount Forest Twp	337	401	15	753	-64	44.75%	53.25%	-8.50%
City of Pinconning	249	377	9	635	-128	39.21%	59.37%	-20.16%
Pinconning Twp	628	686	12	1,326	-58	47.36%	51.73%	-4.37%
Portsmouth Twp	912	1,089	17	2,018	-177	45.19%	53.96%	-8.77%
Williams Twp	1,446	1,240	27	2,713	206	53.30%	45.71%	7.59%
Total	177,805	152,128	3,803	333,736	25677	53.28%	45.58%	7.69%

2002 was a year of what could have been if the idiot pundits (excluding myself since I actually thought Posthumus could win) didn't concede the race before it began. Posthumus won the district, which is surprising for a state level candidate. It was close. He won with 50.07% of the vote, and it was strictly on lower Michigan votes. The UP's historical democrat leanings are still strong in state level races.

2002 Election	Posthumus	Granholm	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
Alcona	2,387	2,165	35	4,587	222	52.04%	47.20%	4.84%
Alger	1,623	1,855	49	3,527	-232	46.02%	52.59%	-6.58%
Alpena	4,722	6,391	110	11,223	-1669	42.07%	56.95%	-14.87%
Antrim	5,576	3,752	129	9,457	1824	58.96%	39.67%	19.29%
Arenac	2,611	2,821	74	5,506	-210	47.42%	51.24%	-3.81%
Baraga	1,170	1,263	47	2,480	-93	47.18%	50.93%	-3.75%
Bay	0	0		-	0	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
Charlevoix	5,608	3,836	173	9,617	1772	58.31%	39.89%	18.43%
Cheboygan	5,268	4,107	112	9,487	1161	55.53%	43.29%	12.24%
Chippewa	5,357	5,428	113	10,898	-71	49.16%	49.81%	-0.65%
Crawford	2,566	2,233	93	4,892	333	52.45%	45.65%	6.81%
Delta	6,590	6,862	172	13,624	-272	48.37%	50.37%	-2.00%
Dickinson	4,358	3,882	113	8,353	476	52.17%	46.47%	5.70%
Emmet	7,111	4,330	212	11,653	2781	61.02%	37.16%	23.87%
Gladwin	4,569	4,350	112	9,031	219	50.59%	48.17%	2.42%
Gogebic	2,308	3,292	86	5,686	-984	40.59%	57.90%	-17.31%
Houghton	5,119	5,026	205	10,350	93	49.46%	48.56%	0.90%
Iosco	4,817	5,031	151	9,999	-214	48.17%	50.32%	-2.14%
Iron	2,017	2,429	93	4,539	-412	44.44%	53.51%	-9.08%
Keweenaw	545	482	21	1,048	63	52.00%	45.99%	6.01%
Luce	889	1,016	39	1,944	-127	45.73%	52.26%	-6.53%
Mackinac	2,425	2,206	35	4,666	219	51.97%	47.28%	4.69%
Marquette	8,906	12,779	465	22,150	-3873	40.21%	57.69%	-17.49%
Menominee	3,576	3,335	124	7,035	241	50.83%	47.41%	3.43%
Montmorency	2,231	1,722	57	4,010	509	55.64%	42.94%	12.69%
Ogemaw	3,689	3,727	107	7,523	-38	49.04%	49.54%	-0.51%
Ontonagon	1,334	1,301	54	2,689	33	49.61%	48.38%	1.23%
Oscoda	1,669	1,242	58	2,969	427	56.21%	41.83%	14.38%
Otsego	4,982	3,346	145	8,473	1636	58.80%	39.49%	19.31%
Presque Isle	2,862	2,717	64	5,643	145	50.72%	48.15%	2.57%
Schoolcraft	1,468	1,707	49	3,224	-239	45.53%	52.95%	-7.41%
Bay County:
City of Auburn	441	372	5	818	69	53.91%	45.48%	8.44%
Beaver Twp	547	472	22	1,041	75	52.55%	45.34%	7.20%
Fraser Twp	522	657	15	1,194	-135	43.72%	55.03%	-11.31%
Garfield Twp	302	311	9	622	-9	48.55%	50.00%	-1.45%
Gibson Twp	187	169	5	361	18	51.80%	46.81%	4.99%
Kawkawlin Twp	914	963	22	1,899	-49	48.13%	50.71%	-2.58%
City of Midland (1)	9	5	0	14	4	64.29%	35.71%	28.57%
Monitor Twp (3)	394	270	2	666	124	59.16%	40.54%	18.62%
Monitor Twp (5)	321	293	5	619	28	51.86%	47.33%	4.52%
Mount Forest Twp	242	215	13	470	27	51.49%	45.74%	5.74%
City of Pinconning	176	240	10	426	-64	41.31%	56.34%	-15.02%
Pinconning Twp	428	437	11	876	-9	48.86%	49.89%	-1.03%
Portsmouth Twp	617	774	21	1,412	-157	43.70%	54.82%	-11.12%
Williams Twp	964	810	32	1,806	154	53.38%	44.85%	8.53%
Total	114,417	110,621	3,469	228,507	3796	50.07%	48.41%	1.66%

2000 was the start of a change in Northern Michigan from it's democrat swing in the 1990's. Bush won the UP, which I'm not sure his dad was able to even do. I think the UP may have gone to Dukakis, although I'm not certain.

2000 Election	Bush	Gore	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
Alcona	3,152	2,696	149	5,997	456	52.56%	44.96%	7.60%
Alger	2,142	2,071	153	4,366	71	49.06%	47.43%	1.63%
Alpena	6,769	7,053	310	14,132	-284	47.90%	49.91%	-2.01%
Antrim	6,780	4,329	438	11,547	2451	58.72%	37.49%	21.23%
Arenac	3,421	3,685	161	7,267	-264	47.08%	50.71%	-3.63%
Baraga	1,836	1,400	157	3,393	436	54.11%	41.26%	12.85%
Bay	0	0		-	0	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
Charlevoix	7,018	4,958	511	12,487	2060	56.20%	39.71%	16.50%
Cheboygan	6,815	5,484	318	12,617	1331	54.01%	43.47%	10.55%
Chippewa	7,526	6,370	458	14,354	1156	52.43%	44.38%	8.05%
Crawford	3,345	2,790	221	6,356	555	52.63%	43.90%	8.73%
Delta	8,871	7,970	472	17,313	901	51.24%	46.03%	5.20%
Dickinson	6,932	5,533	367	12,832	1399	54.02%	43.12%	10.90%
Emmet	8,602	5,451	658	14,711	3151	58.47%	37.05%	21.42%
Gladwin	5,743	5,573	313	11,629	170	49.39%	47.92%	1.46%
Gogebic	3,929	4,066	344	8,339	-137	47.12%	48.76%	-1.64%
Houghton	7,895	5,688	633	14,216	2207	55.54%	40.01%	15.52%
Iosco	6,345	6,505	372	13,222	-160	47.99%	49.20%	-1.21%
Iron	2,967	3,014	207	6,188	-47	47.95%	48.71%	-0.76%
Keweenaw	740	540	63	1,343	200	55.10%	40.21%	14.89%
Luce	1480	956	100	2,536	524	58.36%	37.70%	20.66%
Mackinac	3,272	2,533	165	5,970	739	54.81%	42.43%	12.38%
Marquette	12,577	15,503	1099	29,179	-2926	43.10%	53.13%	-10.03%
Menominee	5,529	4,597	308	10,434	932	52.99%	44.06%	8.93%
Montmorency	2,750	2,139	120	5,009	611	54.90%	42.70%	12.20%
Ogemaw	4,706	4,896	253	9,855	-190	47.75%	49.68%	-1.93%
Ontonagon	2,472	1,514	165	4,151	958	59.55%	36.47%	23.08%
Oscoda	2,207	1,677	108	3,992	530	55.29%	42.01%	13.28%
Otsego	6,108	4,034	363	10,505	2074	58.14%	38.40%	19.74%
Presque Isle	3,660	3,242	178	7,080	418	51.69%	45.79%	5.90%
Schoolcraft	2,088	2,036	77	4,201	52	49.70%	48.46%	1.24%
Bay County:
City of Auburn	551	488	26	1,065	63	51.74%	45.82%	5.92%
Beaver Twp	664	618	35	1,317	46	50.42%	46.92%	3.49%
Fraser Twp	698	837	34	1,569	-139	44.49%	53.35%	-8.86%
Garfield Twp	347	431	17	795	-84	43.65%	54.21%	-10.57%
Gibson Twp	232	236	9	477	-4	48.64%	49.48%	-0.84%
Kawkawlin Twp	1,104	1,194	52	2,350	-90	46.98%	50.81%	-3.83%
City of Midland (1)	17	31	0	48	-14	35.42%	64.58%	-29.17%
Monitor Twp (3)	413	332	4	749	81	55.14%	44.33%	10.81%
Monitor Twp (5)	373	362	17	752	11	49.60%	48.14%	1.46%
Mount Forest Twp	308	305	14	627	3	49.12%	48.64%	0.48%
City of Pinconning	239	323	10	572	-84	41.78%	56.47%	-14.69%
Pinconning Twp	541	566	25	1,132	-25	47.79%	50.00%	-2.21%
Portsmouth Twp	749	1,036	45	1,830	-287	40.93%	56.61%	-15.68%
Williams Twp	1,181	1,034	46	2,261	147	52.23%	45.73%	6.50%
Total	155,094	136,096	9,575	300,765	18998	51.57%	45.25%	6.32%

The farm club here is vast because of the geography, with democrats having a big advantage with Northern Michigan districts.

St. Senate 38 - Alger, Baraga, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keewenaw, Luce, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon, and Schoolcraft counties. Prusi is termed out.

St Senate 38th	GOP	Dem
06 - Mackin/Prusi	27974	66307		94,281	-38333	29.67%	70.33%	-40.66%
02 - Schoenow/Prusi	33063	51348		84,411	-18285	39.17%	60.83%	-21.66%

St. Senate 37 - Antrim, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Mackinac, and Presque Isle counties. Grand Traverse County is not in the 1st district, and I believe Jason Allen is from that county.

St Senate 37th	GOP	Dem
06 - Allen/Unger	63,479	43,476		106,955	20003	59.35%	40.65%	18.70%
02 - Allen/Estes	53,490	35,852		89,342	17638	59.87%	40.13%	19.74%

St. Senate 36 - Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Gladwin, Iosco, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, and Otsego counties. Tony Stamas is from Midland which is not in the 1st District, but one of the anchors of the 4th district. Andy Neumann, Stamas's opponent from 02, is from Alpena and in the district. He's rumored to be running again for this district in 2010.

St Senate 35th	GOP	Dem
06 - Stamas/Reid	65,079	39,757	18	104,854	25322	62.07%	37.92%	24.15%
02 - Stamas/Neumann	46,511	44,487		90,998	2024	51.11%	48.89%	2.22%

St. Senate 31 - Arenac, Bay, Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola counties. Only Arenac, and part of Bay County is in the district. Jim Barcia I believe is from Bay City, but he represented part of the 1st in his old 5th District.

St Senate 31st	GOP	Dem
06 - Nuncio/Barcia	23,569	78,923	1441	103,933	-55354	22.68%	75.94%	-53.26%
02 - Green/Barcia	35,486	54,352		89,838	-18866	39.50%	60.50%	-21.00%

St Rep 110 - Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, and Ontonagon Counties. Powell Township in Marquette County is also in this district. A similar district was close in 2000, but it has been solid democrat since. I'm not sure it has gone Republican since the pre-mining days. It's winnable and went for Bush twice, but only in a real good year at a state rep level. This is still Joe Mack country.

St Rep 110th	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Larson/Lahti	11,302	26,995		38,297	-15693	29.51%	70.49%	-40.98%
06 - Schmidt/Lahti	10,357	19,361	820	30,538	-9004	33.92%	63.40%	-29.48%
04 - Ashcraft/Brown	9,845	26,754	2607	39,206	-16909	25.11%	68.24%	-43.13%
02 - Fay/Brown	7,812	18,544		26,356	-10732	29.64%	70.36%	-40.72%

St Rep 109th - Alger, Luce, most of Marquette County, and Schoolcraft County - This is the most democrat district in the UP. John Kerry won this district which is anchored by Marquette, the largest city and county in the 1st district (as Bay City is in the 5th).

St Rep 109th	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Takalo/Lindberg	12,444	26,766	2870	42,080	-14322	29.57%	63.61%	-34.04%
06 - Westrom/Lindberg	10,508	21,428		31,936	-10920	32.90%	67.10%	-34.19%
04 - Kaltenbach/Adamini	13,760	28,081		41,841	-14321	32.89%	67.11%	-34.23%
02 - Hafeman/Adamini	8,954	20,396		29,350	-11442	30.51%	69.49%	-38.98%

St. Rep 108th - Delta, Dickinson, and Menominee Counties. This district was democrat until Casperson won it in 2002 in an upset over Laurie Stupak (Bart's wife).  Bush won it twice (as he did the Green Bay area in Wisconsin), but it returned to its roots in 2008 at the state level. Obama also did well in the "Wisconsin" part of the UP, as he did in Green Bay, despite being a "FIB." I'll say the I in "FIB" stands for Illinois, and I'll let you figure out the F and B portions...

St Rep 108th	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Falcon/Nerat	18,350	23,800		42,150	-5450	43.53%	56.47%	-12.93%
06 - Casperson/Nerat	17,817	14,298		32,115	3519	55.48%	44.52%	10.96%
04 - Casperson/Baldinetti	29,727	13,635		43,362	16092	68.56%	31.44%	37.11%
02 - Casperson/Stupak	15,009	13,982		28,991	1027	51.77%	48.23%	3.54%

St. Rep 107th - Koehler and Tuscarora Townships in Cheboygan County, Chippewa, Emmet, and Mackinac Counties. This district was GOP until Gary McDowell upset Walt North in 2004. North was a former State Senator who made a fatal vote as he stepped down. He was the deciding vote against legalizing the hunting of mourning doves. The NRA gave him an F rating (surprised me since he voted for CCW) over than one vote and endorsed McDowell (which I didn't have a problem with at all - SAFR also endorsed McDowell, but gave North a mixed rating). McDowell is now termed out, and this should be a good pickup opportunity for the GOP, as long as they don't run someone unacceptable to the NRA, Right to Life, or Farm Bureau.

St Rep 107th	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Strobehn/McDowell	14,500	27,304		41,804	-12804	34.69%	65.31%	-30.63%
06 - Duggan/McDowell	13,810	20,267		34,077	-6457	40.53%	59.47%	-18.95%
04 - North/McDowell	19,353	22,293		41,646	-2940	46.47%	53.53%	-7.06%
02 - Shackleton/McDowell	19,514	8,963		28,477	10551	68.53%	31.47%	37.05%

St Rep 106th - Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, and Presque Isle counties.

This is democrat leaning with Alpena anchoring the district, although it is competitive when it is open. Andy Neumann is termed out in 2010. He ran for State Senate in 2002 and lost a close race, and came back when his old seat opened up in 2008. Matt Gillard had the seat for 3 terms in between the Neumann stints. 

St Rep 106th	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Pettalia/Neumann	19,620	23,089	1353	44,062	-3469	44.53%	52.40%	-7.87%
06 - Viegelahn/Gillard	12,846	23,703		36,549	-10857	35.15%	64.85%	-29.71%
04 - Fortier/Gillard	18,498	25,834		44,332	-7336	41.73%	58.27%	-16.55%
02 - Wyman/Gillard	15,984	16,450		32,434	-466	49.28%	50.72%	-1.44%

St. Rep 105th - Antrim, Charlevoix, Most of Cheboygan, and Otsego Counties.

The 105th is a solid GOP district, although primaries there can be vicious. (2002, and probably 2010) This seat opens up again in 2010, and several people are likely running for it.

St Rep 105th	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Elsenheimer/Saltonstall	30,568	18,455	1354	50,377	12113	60.68%	36.63%	24.04%
06 - Elsenheimer/Bauer	26,291	14,635		40,926	11656	64.24%	35.76%	28.48%
04 - Elsenheimer/McKinney	30,765	18,644		49,409	12121	62.27%	37.73%	24.53%
02 - Bradstreet/Webster	21,609	12,203		33,812	9406	63.91%	36.09%	27.82%

St Rep 103rd - Iosco, Missaukee, Ogemaw, and Roscommon counties.

It's a swing district if someone not named Sheltrown is not running. Missaukee is usually the 2nd most GOP county in the state. The other three are competitive but have some democrat leanings. Ogemaw County is probably the most democrat of the bunch. Sheltrown is termed out, although it may be kept in the family if there's another family member running. Joel Sheltrown took over for his brother Dale Sheltrown. Missaukee and Roscommon Counties are not in the 1st district. Ogemaw and Iosco Counties are.

St Rep 103rd	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Ryan/Sheltrown	15,003	29,927		44,930	-14924	33.39%	66.61%	-33.22%
06 - Moore/Sheltrown	11,468	25,155		36,623	-13687	31.31%	68.69%	-37.37%
04 - Rendon/Sheltrown	19,648	25,535		45,183	-5887	43.49%	56.51%	-13.03%
02 - Carlson/Sheltrown	13,457	18,571		32,028	-5114	42.02%	57.98%	-15.97%

St Rep 97th - Arenac, Clare, and Gladwin Counties. Fraser, Garfield, Gibson, Kawkawlin, Mount Forest, and Pinconning Townships, and the city of Pinconning.

This seat flipped once after its creation in 2002. It went Democrat as an open seat, but flipped to the GOP in 2004 after the democrat voted against a gay marriage ban. It's a social conservative district, although quite populist and has some democrat leanings. Clare is not in the 1st district, although the rest of the district is in the 1st. Tim Moore is in Clare County, so he's in the 4th district. This will be a tossup seat in 2010 as Moore is termed out.

St Rep 97th	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Moore/Wilton	25,996	16,877		42,873	9119	60.63%	39.37%	21.27%
06 - Moore/Schwab	18,893	16,321		35,214	2572	53.65%	46.35%	7.30%
04 - Moore/Elkins	22,320	20,883		43,203	1437	51.66%	48.34%	3.33%
02 - Coker/Elkins	14,137	14,480		28,617	-343	49.40%	50.60%	-1.20%

96th District - Cities of Auburn, Bay City, Essexville, and Midland (precinct 1). Bangor, Beaver, Frankenlust, Hampton, Merritt, Monitor, Portsmouth, and Williams Township.

The 96th District is the 2nd most democrat district that has any portion in the 1st district. Most of this district is in the 5th district, including Bay City. Auburn, the Midland portion, two precincts of Monitor Township, Portsmouth, and Williams Townships are in the 1st. This district is the other district in the 1st that voted for John Kerry. Jeff Mayes, the incumbent, is from Bangor Township which is in the 5th District. This is not a liberal district, but it is a democrat district. Pro-life and pro-gun democrats are very common here.

St Rep 96th	GOP	Dem	3rd Party	Total	Diff.	GOP%	Dem%	Diff%
08 - Rau/Mayes	13,950	32,208		46,158	-18258	30.22%	69.78%	-39.56%
06 - Schaefer/Mayes	9,858	27,199		37,057	-17341	26.60%	73.40%	-46.80%
04 - Goss/Mayes	16,790	29,305		46,095	-12515	36.42%	63.58%	-27.15%
02 - Begick/Rivet	12,032	21,126		33,158	-9094	36.29%	63.71%	-27.43%

The 2010 election is Stupak's to lose. Despite it being competitive on paper, Stupak is possibly the toughest candidate to knock out in Michigan. He beat a good candidate in Tom Casperson with 65%. Under the current boundaries, he won with 68%, 66%, and 69% all against Don Hooper, a frequent candidate. The old boundaries were more republican, but he survived 94 with 57%, and 98 (against another strong candidate in Michelle McManus) with 59%. Chuck Yob gave Stupak his roughest semi-recent numbers holding him to 58% in 2000 when the gun issue hurt Stupak. Stupak hasn't had a bad vote on guns since 2001. That flank is well protected.

Despite Cook having this a R+3 seat, Stupak consistently wins by over a 2-1 margin. I'd give the pickup chances here at about 10%. 1% of that is Stupak not running again. 5% is angry democrats going after him on the life issue (R pickup if that happens.) The other 4% is if there is an unexpected blunder. The only way Stupak goes down is if he gets a "gone national" reputation like Tom Daschle did with the democrats. It could happen, but I'm not going to put money on it. That aside, I believe in competing in all districts, and this one needs a good fight. I don't believe in conceding any race. Stupak has 18 years of votes. They can be looked at, scrutinized, and thrown back in his face.

One important aspect here is geography. Certain areas are an advantage to run from. Stupak being from the Green Bay section of the UP is an advantage as it is a swing part of the district. Yoopers in general will vote for yoopers over trolls. On the same note, trolls don't have a problem voting for yoopers. Probably the best chance at picking up an open seat here is running a strong yooper against a democrat with a Bay City,  Charlevoix, Harbor Springs, or Petoskey address. Bay City is "Big City" and the other two areas have reputations for money. The other strategy would be to try and take the competitive northern lower portions by bigger than normal numbers. Bush actually won Alpena County, as well as Ogemaw and Iosco counties. Against someone like Stupak, this would be the better strategy as Stupak is a proven commodity in the U.P. With Stupak retiring, it's best to run a yooper, hopefully against a troll.

I think Saltonstall's chances are slim with her outspokenly pro-abortion views, and her Charlevoix address which will hurt her chances not just in the UP, but in the inland lower peninsula as well. I doubt she'll be the nominee however, and expect the dems to run someone stronger.Gary McDowell and Rich Brown I think are their best two shots. For the GOP, I think Tom Casperson is the best shot, although Benishek may surprise people.

Update 5-18 - With the filing deadline passed, the dems I think got one of their two best guys running in McDowell, and he's unopposed. I think of the GOP'ers running, Benishek is their best chance to win, although I wish Casperson or Shackleton would have run. Some national pundits think this is going to be an easy pickup, but we're going to need a little luck to take this seat. It's possible, but won't be easy.

I'd put the chances at 40% currently, depending on the candidate.