Introduction
In this election blog, I will be diving into a post-election campaign narrative of Michigan. I will begin by explaining Michigan’s demographics, history, geography, and 2024 down-ballot to contextualize the presidential election. After that, I will reflect on expert poll predictions, and contrast it to the actual results in Michigan. Finally, using election theories and existing analysis, I will pose my own hypotheses about why Michigan either followed or deviated from its predicted performance.
Understanding Michigan
Michigan, known as the “Great Lakes State,” is in the Midwest and is distinguished by its two peninsulas—the Upper and Lower Peninsulas—bordered by four of the five Great Lakes. This geography gives Michigan the longest freshwater coastline of any political subdivision in the world. It’s unique shape famously resembles a mitten!
As of 2023, Michigan’s population is about 10.1 million people, making it the 10th most populated state. The demographic is a majority of White residents, followed by significant African American and Asian communities. One notable part of Michigan is Dearborn Heights, which is known for being the only major city in the US with a majority Arab population. Other major cities in Michigan include Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, Lansing, and Grand Rapids. These cities lean Democrat, while the rural areas lean Republican, making it very reflective of the larger American political context. Michigan also hosts many large universities, like University of Michigan and Michigan State University.
In the 2024 presidential election, Michigan allocated its 15 electoral votes to Donald Trump (R), contributing to his electoral college majority. Historically, Michigan has been a pivotal swing state, with its electoral preferences shifting between Democratic and Republican candidates over the years. Notably, the state supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Trump in 2016, Joe Biden (D) in 2020, and again Trump in 2024. The state’s electoral system operates on a plurality vote in single-winner contests for both state legislators and key executive positions, including the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
There were a variety of down-ballot races and ballot initiatives this year. Following Senator Debbie Stabenow’s retirement, the U.S. Senate race featured a competitive matchup between Democrat Elissa Slotkin and Republican Mike Rogers, while key congressional contests, such as Republican Tom Barrett flipping the 7th District and Paul Junge challenging Kristen McDonald Rivet in the 8th. At the state level, all 110 Michigan House seats were on the ballot. Voters also engaged with ballot initiatives, including school funding measures across the state and a Traverse City proposal requiring voter approval for changes to Tax Increment Financing plans.
Michigan’s Pre-Election Forecast
In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Michigan was closely monitored since it is a swing state. I will be using expert prediction from FiveThirtyEight and Real Clear Politics to analyze the pre-election forecasts.
Forecasts from FiveThirtyEight indicated a highly competitive race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, with Harris holding a slight edge in the months preceding the election. From August to October, Harris consistently led Trump by a narrow margin, with her projected popular vote share hovering around 50.6% and Trump’s around 49.4%. Initially, Vice President Kamala Harris held a slight advantage in the state, with FiveThirtyEight’s model reflecting this edge. However, as the campaign progressed, former President Donald Trump gained momentum, narrowing the gap. By late October, the forecast depicted a near-even race, with both candidates having approximately equal chances of securing Michigan’s electoral votes. The RealClearPolitics forecast was similar, showing Harris with a slight but consistent lead throughout August, polling around 48% compared to Trump’s 46%. By September, Harris widened her advantage slightly, peaking near 49%, likely due to campaign momentum and positive coverage. However, Trump gained ground steadily, and by October, the race tightened significantly, with Trump briefly overtaking Harris in mid-October, possibly reflecting strong debate performances or targeted efforts to mobilize his base in this critical swing state. In the final weeks leading up to the election, the contest stabilized, with Harris holding a razor-thin edge of 48.3% to Trump’s 47.8%.
However, historical polling inaccuracies in Michigan, notably the overestimation of Democratic support in both 2016 and 2020, made many wary. For example, Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who, despite polls showing Harris with a significant lead, anticipated a much closer contest. Ultimately, these fears were validated as Michigan’s 15 electoral votes were awarded to Donald Trump, despite both polls saying otherwise. The final election results in Michigan reveal that Donald Trump narrowly defeated Kamala Harris, securing 49.7% of the vote compared to Harris’s 48.3%. There was a slight underperformance by Harris and a corresponding over-performance by Trump, particularly in rural and traditionally Republican counties. Trump reclaimed two counties won by Biden in 2020, while Harris reclaimed none. The county-level results reinforce the stark urban-rural divide, with Democratic support concentrated in urban centers like Detroit and Ann Arbor, while Trump dominated in rural and suburban areas, ultimately flipping the state in his favor.
Election Campaigning in Michigan
As usual, campaigning in Michigan was active, whether it be rallies, field offices, or advertisements. Both candidates fervently worked to sway undecided Michigan voters for months and months. To begin, the rallies and speeches in this election received great media attention, especially for Trump who was frequently featured for his provocative soundbites. To briefly summarize, between August and November, the candidates visited Michigan more than five times each. Both candidates tailored their strategies to Michigan’s unique demographic and economic concerns. Harris emphasized labor rights, reproductive freedoms, and bipartisanship, often rallying in urban and union-heavy areas. Trump targeted rural and suburban voters, focusing on economic revitalization, border security, and energy independence. For example, in August, Harris held a rally in Detroit focusing on economic recovery, and attended a United Auto Workers (UAW) conversation in Wayne, emphasizing labor rights and her commitment to working families. Trump, similarly, gave many speeches in Michigan, including one on crime and public safety in Howell, addressing concerns over rising urban crime rates and law enforcement support. He also held a rally in August in Potterville, focusing on economic policies and his plan to bring back manufacturing jobs.
A week before Election Day, Trump and Harris made a visit to Michigan to make their last attempt at persuasion. On October 28th, they both gave speeches that can be contrasted in order to identify the speech strategies and content differences between the two. With an appearance from Michelle Obama, Harris’ rally in Kalamazoo had a speech focused on contrasting her vision with Donald Trump’s, addressing key policy issues, and rallying voters for action. She extensively critiques Trump, describing his agenda as harmful and authoritarian, warning against his “termination of the Constitution” and plans to impose policies like a national sales tax. Harris shifts to her policy priorities, including lowering living costs, expanding healthcare, and protecting Social Security, emphasizing her middle-class upbringing to connect with voters. She spends significant time advocating for reproductive freedom, denouncing Trump’s abortion bans, and vowing to restore Roe v. Wade protections. Trump’s rally speech was very different in speech style, lasting much longer than Harris’, directly attacking the other candidate, and also focusing on a greater variety of topics relevant to Michigan, including economic revitalization, particularly for Michigan’s auto industry, critiques of Kamala Harris and her policies, and promises for immigration reform and border security. He heavily criticized Harris, calling her “incompetent” and accusing her of advocating policies that would “destroy millions of jobs.” Immigration policy was also a major theme, with Trump pledging to secure borders and invoke strict measures against criminal networks, saying, “I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to dismantle every migrant criminal network.” Additionally, Trump highlighted his outreach to diverse communities, particularly Arab and Muslim voters, knowing that the Dearborn population was upset at the lack of involvement in Gaza from the Democratic party. This likely had a strong effect in helping him win the county, considering his past rhetoric and policy around Muslim bans.
Analyzing the Outcome in Michigan
In our last class, we examined Lynn Vavreck’s campaign theory. The theory claims that candidates can overcome unfavorable fundamentals with a strong campaign strategy. Depending on economic conditions, candidates should either adopt a “clarifying” or “insurgent” campaign approach. In a favorable economy, candidates should lead a clarifying campaign that centers the election around economic success. Conversely, when the economy is not in their favor, candidates should focus on an alternative issue with broad voter support to displace the economic narrative. This theory provides a lens to analyze the 2024 election, where voters ranked the economy as their top issue. Despite improvements in job growth, inflation, and GDP over the past year, voter perceptions of the economy were largely negative, driven by a disconnect between reality and public sentiment—-a dynamic Vavreck attributes to contrasts in media narratives and campaign messaging.
Harris’s failure to effectively implement Vavreck’s theory likely contributed to her loss. As seen in the speech’s analyzed earlier, the economy in Michigan is a pivotal issue, because of the manufacturing jobs in rural areas, as well as the unemployment crisis coupled with cost of living. Unable to leverage a clarifying campaign due to widespread pessimism about the economy, Harris pivoted to reproductive rights as her “lopsided” issue. While this issue could’ve been effective in other states, Michigan already established reproductive rights as a constitutional right in 2022, so voters were not focused on it. Harris also emphasized protecting democracy, a strategy that might have been effective under different circumstances, but the economy’s perceived decline overshadowed her efforts. Trump, meanwhile, addressed the economy, but immigration served as his dominant lopsided issue, striking a strong chord with voters. He dominated rural counties in Michigan, increasing voter support in both Latino and Arab populations, and claiming two counties won by Biden in 2020. Notably, both candidates devoted significant time to attacking one another rather than fully capitalizing on economic messaging. At the end of the day, Harris was haunted by the Biden administration’s lack of help in Michigan-specific issues, such as the automotive industry and war in Gaza, and she did not have an issue strong enough to distract from that.
Sources
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/business/economy-voters-election-data/index.html
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx
https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/harris-trump-rallies-michigan-election-day/
https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/michigan/trump-vs-harris