Why did Peters beat Raczkowski in the 9th?

**polaar** · November-08-10, 09:55 PM

The results of the 9th Congressional district went against the national trend this last week. In a district that has historically been GOP, the Democrat incumbent [[Peters) beat back a Tea Party-styled challenger [[Raczkowski) in a year in which such challengers romped across most of the US. I find this really interesting but have not yet seen a good analysis of the election. Any ideas [[beyond ad hominem attacks) why this district bucked the national trend?

**dtowncitylover** · November-08-10, 10:35 PM

As this is my district, I'm just glad he did. However, I was surprised though.

**EastsideAl** · November-08-10, 10:41 PM

That's an upper-middle class to wealthy moderate Republican district. Many of those voters trend slightly Republican almost entirely on fiscal issues, but are essentially independents - particularly with the heavy rightward shift of the Republican party in recent years. I would think that the Tea Party movement, with its implied radicalism, would have limited appeal to these voters.

The district is also not as Republican as it may appear. It went pretty strongly for Obama in 2008 [[Oakland County went 56% to 42% for Obama over McCain). And it's undergoing some demographic changes that are making it trend less Republican over time.

Since Peters is a moderate Democrat with a business and finance background, I would think that he would appeal to a significant number of independent voters in that district. Since he's only been in for one term, perhaps a number of voters felt that he really hadn't been given a chance yet.

Raczkowski also had some significant negatives. He ran a very right-wing campaign in the primary, including a sort of social/religious conservatism that's not all that popular with voters in this half of the state. There are questions about the practices of his western Michigan-based ticket selling business. And he's primarily remembered by many voters as the candidate who was swamped in a nasty and embarrassing statewide campaign against the popular [[very popular in Oakland County) Sen. Carl Levin back in 2002.

So even though there was a national wave of increasing anger and dismay from the right, and even though Republican turnout was almost certainly higher than normal across the country, Peters was able to survive.

**chico** · November-08-10, 10:55 PM

Um-m-m, he got more votes ?!? Is that a trick question?

**Lowell** · November-08-10, 11:24 PM

My district too. The 9th and Oakland County has been trending Democrat for quite a while. A number of offices in the legislature and Oakland County Commission have flipped blue in the past decades and Kerry [by just 3K] and Obama [by a large margin] have carried the county in the presidential elections.

The Michigan 37th [Farmington Hills and Farmington], Raczkowski's former seat, has been Democrat since he was term-limited out of it and he barely held the seat in for last term by under a thousand votes even though he was speaker of the house. The current incumbent Vicki Barnett out-polled her Republican opponent by nearly 2-1 this year.

Breaking the story of Raczkowski being sued by former business partners for fraud did great damage to his campaign. He never answered it, what could he say anyway, and it stuck. Add to that a little Rocky fatigue along with his slightly oily character and result was defeat.

Peters is in trouble however. With Michigan sure to lose at least one seat in Congress and Republicans in full control of redistricting in Lansing, his district is sure to be gerrymandered to his disadvantage.

lilpup · November-08-10, 11:28 PM

WHY can't people, the media in particular, recognize that most citizens occupy the ground that exists between the extremes? Or are they just too lazy to suss out nuance?

**rooms222** · November-09-10, 06:10 AM

In addition to the lawsuit allegations, demographic changes, and distaste for his tea party roots from some voters, the attacks about his supporting the "23% tax increase" were effective, even with some Republicans. He seemed to do nothing to counteract this somewhat unfair charge. This "increase," I think it is called the FAIR tax would have gotten rid of the current income tax and given each household a substantial refund check so that the 23% only started after the first $10 or 15 thousand per year per person [[and if you didn't make that much you would still get the full check). This idea has some merit to be considered, and is actually progressive to the extent that it recognizes the right to a basis human existence. The big winner would be poorer to middle class single people who are now highly taxed for what they make.

The only people mentioning the unfairness of the attack were the news media.

**sirrealone** · November-09-10, 07:52 AM

Rocky was the wrong candidate. As someone also in the 9th, I did not really think he had a chance.

What I observed:

1) Peters came across as a likeable guy.

2) Rocky came across as a slick politician. Generally, voters were getting rid of the career politicians, not voting them in. Someone with less of a political background would have had a better chance.

3) Rocky ran a very right winged campaign during the primary, which made a lot of moderate Republicans distrust him.

4) Peters weny against many of his swept out counterparts in supporting the extension of the Bush tax cuts. This affects many Oakland County residents who felt Peters was truly representing them on this issue.

**Crumbled_pavement** · November-09-10, 08:25 AM