NO MATTER HOW FAR HE VEERS TO THE RIGHT FOR THE NOMINATION...:

Romney has shown in Michigan as elsewhere a capacity to win votes in affluent areas--which is exactly where (at least in the North) Republicans have been weak in presidential general elections over the last 20 years. Look at it this way: in 1988 George H. W. Bush carried the five-county metro Detroit area 50%-49%--a tiny margin, but one which enabled him, with a 56%-43% Outstate margin that was underwhelming in historic perspective, to carry Michigan. Similarly, the elder Bush, with big margins from affluent suburbanites, carried metro Boston, metro New York, metro Philadelphia, metro Cleveland and metro Chicago, which enabled him to win the electoral votes of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.

In contrast, George W. Bush was able to carry only one of these states, Ohio, and was out of contention in 2004 as well as 2000 in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. To focus on Michigan, the younger Bush carried Outstate Michigan 51%-46% in 2000 and 53%-46% in 2004, running just 5% and 3% in this region behind his father's 1988 showing. That trend extrapolated statewide would have left him just missing carrying Michigan in 2000 and carrying it in 2004. But in 2000 George W. Bush lost the five-county metro Detroit area by 58%-40% and he lost it by an almost identical 58%-41% in 2004. Both times he lost the target state of Michigan.

A better showing in metro Detroit--even coming short of carrying the metro area, as the elder Bush did in 1988, and even short of improving on the younger Bush's showings Outstate--would enable a nominated Mitt Romney to carry Michigan in 2012. And for similar reasons the electoral votes of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, might not be out of reach (New York, Massachusetts and Barack Obama's Illinois would still, I think, be unavailable, but Ohio would be more available than in 2000 and 2004, when Bush carried it). I think the ingredients for this may be present.

Follow @brothersjudd