From the Hill:
Less than a week after being reappointed as the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) will announce that he will not seek a tenth term in 2010, according to a source with knowledge of the decision.
Hoekstra, who has denied earlier reports that he will retire and consider a run for governor, will make the announcement on Monday, the source told The Hill.
There’s no word yet whether Hoekstra, who will turn 57 in 2010, will run for the Governor’s office, but this news certainly points in that direction.
On its face, Hoekstra’s district isn’t particularly compelling turf for Democrats to play on — Bush won it by 21 points in both 2000 and 2004. However, SSP’s Pres-by-CD crowdsourcing project revealed that McCain barely held his ground in this district, winning by only 50.8% to Obama’s 47.5%. Of course, some pretty extraordinary circumstances contributed to that result: McCain flipped the bird to the entire state of Michigan and retreated from the playing field weeks before E-Day, so no doubt the conservative base was pretty demoralized here. Even still, perhaps a local Dem can come out of the woodwork and make this an interesting race. Anyone know who we got on the bench?
I used to argue right up until after election day that Michigan is a strong two-party state. But the Republican Party “F-U” message to the state mat cost them the race for governor 2010 and who know what other effect it may have. On the other hand, we have a very thin bench in that part of the state.
Hoekstra and Moran make 2. I like the progress we’re making so far, with two retiring senators. This makes for a good distraction for the MI-GOP while Democrats target MI-11 and possibly MI-08
She might have a good shot at the district, though she might not have the rural appeal. Doug Bennett is another state house rep that might have a chance. I don’t know though. The Dem bench there is pretty thin, according to my uncle that lives in Muskegon.
Can someone explain to me why the GOP have had an advantage in the representation of Michigan? After the 2006 election, the GOP still had a 9-6 advantage in representation. I imagine a big reason is because of gerrymandering, but I’d like to know if there are any other issues involved.
We have a couple of people here-including Fred Johnson (the 2006 Dem candidate) and Mary Valentine. I doubt that Valentine would run, given that 1) she has one more term left to serve in the State House, 2) this state house seat is a swing seat that the state Dems really want to hold on to, and 3) she has her eyes on the State Senate (District 34). So, I doubt that you’ll she her running.
That said, it is very likely that Michigan will lose another house seat in 2010, and a whole round of redistricting comes up. If the Dems control the state Legislature and Governor’s office, they could easily take out the most gerrymandered state in the union and create two more solid Democratic districts.
My thought is that Vern Ehlers (R-3rd District) will also retire this year. He represents GR, and is while this seat is the same GOP PVI (+9), you might see a more contested race.
Michigan may well be ground zero for any backlash to the GOP brushoff of the Big 3. There are still seven GOP House members from Michigan and while all voted for the bailout it was their party that sent things down in flames (with a decidedly southern accent).
Many Michigan (and Ohio) Republicans may finally decide that they did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left them.