As soon as they announced that former Gov. John Engler would introduce the GOP’s latest underdog candidate for governor, Tudor Dixon, you knew instantly why he was doing the honors, being a former underdog himself.

Engler, whose first choice for GOP gubernatorial nominee was James Craig, stepped into the spotlight at the so-called “unity lunch” for Dixon, who was fresh off a runaway win over a field of four men who did not even come close to upending her Donald Trump-endorsed applecart. (One of the men, Ryan Kelley, demands a recount and won’t concede, making the “unity” label a little shaky).

And, sure enough, five minutes into the ex-guv’s recitation — which, by the way, was longer than Dixon’s — there it was.

“Thirty-two years ago, they said I could not win,” he began his glorious recount of history.

Up against incumbent Democratic Gov. Jim Blanchard, Engler was more than an underdog. He told the audience that the pundits wrote him off from the opening bell, predicting that there was no way he could muster the money to compete with the largess Blanchard had amassed, as incumbents are wont to do.

But he had the last laugh, as he did, indeed, overcome the odds and tossed Blanchard into an unexpected shower.

Then he closed the deal by basically saying that, if he could turn defeat into a win, Dixon could do the same.

And, with that, he boldly announced, “The next governor of Michigan, Tudor Dixon.”

While he laid a hopeful platform for her to launch into her self-described “tough” campaign against the current incumbent, there were two things wrong with his pitch.

Tudor Dixon is no John Engler.

And Gretchen Whitmer is no Jim Blanchard.

But the fact does remain that Dixon could win.

But how?

Engler, in his remarks, noted, “It is time to move forward.”

Dixon, on a national stage over the weekend, began her pitch by moving backwards.

Namely, citing what the governor did wrong during COVID-19. It’s a popular theme that Republicans in this town have been harping on for now for more than two years, and, along the way, they nicked Whitmer pretty good, winning a state Supreme Court showdown over her misuse of executive authority.

They also blamed her for shutting down the schools, which Dixon will use over and over again, hoping to attract some soccer moms now dealing with children who have fallen behind in their education, not to mention the emotional scars the R’s like to preach about that students suffered through during the isolation. She will also harp away on inflation, which the governor counters she is not responsible for.

The governor has her own score to settle with Dixon for being part of “the extreme group that’s running and radicalized by the last presidency.”

She calls them “election deniers (and) cultural warriors (who) don’t embrace keeping women’s protective rights.”

That reference, of course, is over the emotional debate over the repeal of Roe v. Wade that flipped the abortion issue to each state, and nowhere is that hotter than right here.

To underscore the point, the first ad of the campaign paints Dixon as anti-choice, anti-women’s rights, and anti-the-rape-and-incest exeptions for abortions.

So, as the two females stake out their themes they hope propels them to an upset win or another four years, the question is, which issue will resonate more with the targeted women and independents: school kids or a women’s right to choose?