Why the presidential visits to Michigan aren’t stopping

It’s no secret why presidential candidates show up in certain states. It’s high Electoral College states where the race is tightest.

This year, out of the nation’s 50 states, the major-party presidential candidates and their running mates will only show up in eight or nine states. This year, Michigan is one of them.

President Donald Trump’s Lansing visit was his and Vice President Mike Pence’s sixth visit to Michigan since the conventions. Pence will make it seven when he lands in Flint this week.

Joe Biden is showing up somewhere in Michigan on Halloween. At that point, he and Kamala Harris have been in the Great Lakes State eight times. Only Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have seen more visits from the campaigns.

In 2016, Trump and Pence showed up in Michigan 14 times to Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine’s nine.

John McCain and Sarah Palin was here seven times in 2008 until they gave up and basically handed the state to Barack Obama and Biden, who had shown up five times up to that point.

In 2012, Mitt Romney figured his birth state was an automatic “L” and didn’t show up one time. Since the Republican didn’t come, neither did Obama after the convention.

An outfit called “Fair Vote” tracks these things to prove a critical point. Presidential elections at this stage of a campaign are all about these “swing states.”

If your state isn’t competitive, your state is essentially ignored come campaign time. Is Trump going to Alabama or Louisiana? No. He’s already got the South locked up.

Is Biden bothering with Illinois or California? No. Those states are considered wins in his column.

It’s not a new concept. John F. Kennedy could count electoral votes in 1960, and so could Richard Nixon. Both came to Michigan. Same with Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Fair vote makes the case that moving toward a system that awards the presidency to popular vote winners, as opposed to who wins the most Electoral College votes, would be fairer. Michigan’s issues certainly seem to rise to the national spotlight a lot.

Would construction of the new Soo Lock be moving if Michigan weren’t a critical state for Trump’s r-election? Maybe, maybe not.

Would Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump showed up in Flint four years ago to bemoan the water crisis had it been in Idaho or Arkansas? Likely not.

Would Barack Obama have bailed out the auto industry if it were based in red Texas as opposed to Purple Michigan? I guess we’ll never know.

Here’s some things we do know.

The Boston media market isn’t getting anything close to the volume of presidential TV advertising as the Detroit media market, if it’s getting any at all.

Our friends in Maryland aren’t seeing their mailboxes flooded with presidential fliers. No pollsters are giving the folks in South Dakota a call to see who they’re picking for president.

The extra attention to Michigan may be a nuisance, but it’s good for our economy ... which is one of the big reasons our state politicians haven’t jumped on the National Popular Vote concept.

Under this plan, participating states with Electoral College votes that, combined, equal the winning number of 270 agree that their electors will cast their votes for whoever wins the national popular vote.

This effort, which includes former Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis, is up to 196 Electoral College votes. Not surprisingly, Michigan votes aren’t counted among them.

Again, why would they?

Would Trump go out of his way to jab Gov. Gretchen Whitmer if she weren’t the leader of a swing state? Would she be on the national Sunday talk shows as often? Would her voice be as relevant in the national conversation?

If the answers ran counter to the obvious, Michigan would have joined something like National Popular Vote long ago.

(Kyle Melinn of the Capitol news service MIRS is at melinnky@gmail.com.)