Divisive?

In Michigan, a state John Kerry won in 2004 with a 3.42% lead over an unpopular George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton scored 55% in an effectively uncontested election.

Now pretend she has a Republican opponent in November.

You can see why the Republicans reckon they have a chance against the New York Senator. Let's not forget that she has vastly more resources than all her opponents combined, if we include the backing from George Soros' proxies, for example.
If I had to define "divisive"...

About the turnout, here's the score:
Democratic votes total= 592,798
Republican votes total= 867,577

Now the question is, how much did Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney affect this result? Did a lot of Democrats stay at home? Or is Michigan the first hard evidence that Republicans might do better in 2008 after George W. Bush?

My guess is that the wrong Democratic party candidate could get hammered in November. But so could the wrong Republican. A communicator like Ronald Reagan against Clinton-Edwards-Obama on current form would probably take the 50 states, leaving the District of Columbia to cling to. As for Bill Clinton against the current Republican field? No need for Ross Perot or an Oklahoma bombing.