We need someone better than Cherry

He can't win.

---

by: jmartin4s @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 22:56:21 PM UTC

Michigan citizens seems ungrateful with Obama administration

I can not understand like they can think in vote no-one republican after see Obama saving GM and Chrysler, and after see republicans rejecting this public help for GM and Chrysler.

Michigan people voting republican for governor in 2010? I can not understand. Seems the forget easy the help.

---

by: abgin @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 23:30:24 PM UTC

Exactly what I was thinking.

You'd think Michigan, and to a lesser extent other Great Lakes Industrial states, would categorically reject anyone with an R next to their name after Republicans tried to kill that entire region's economy in order to win a few southern votes.

---

by: Kanamit @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:06:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course, the politics of Michigan have always baffled me.

The Upper Peninsula is more Democratic than the state of the whole, for example. What's up with that?

---

by: Kanamit @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:11:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's because of the very strong union presence.

And the Liberalness of Marquette County, where I live.  Northern Michigan University, lots and lots of Iron miners. Sort of like the South/Appalaicha, but more liberal and not trending Republican.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:21:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That makes sense.

My perceptions are probably skewed by the fact that I've spent all my time in the UP on the Keweenaw Peninsula.

---

by: Kanamit @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:25:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's actually the most republican part

and the most beautiful. Almost no one lives there, though.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:26:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also

Historically, it's been populated by Scandinavian immigrants, who tend to lean left-ish. It's the same story as the Minnesota Iron Range, which is as Democratic as the Twin Cities, but with fewer people.

But man, I love the UP. It's absolutely gorgeous.

You non-Michigan people should definitely visit and spend money. Spend lots of money.

---

by: Fitzy @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:50:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

lol

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:57:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ha ha

but I think there are also a lot of Catholics in the UP, who are economically liberal and anti-abortion, and somewhat socially conservative on other issues.

---

by: JSmith @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 03:43:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hahahahaha

That's what keeps the Iron Range and north western MN afloat.  It's gorgeous with tons of lakes and everyone goes up North to their cabins and spends tons of money.

---

by: Andrew @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 05:36:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe the UP alone, but not MI-1 as a whole

I'd also note that in a lot of Midwestern rural areas like the UP, Northern Wisconsin, Northern Minnesota, and the Dakotas to some extent, there is a strong tradition of people being socially conservative and fiscally progressive.  

For example, Gov. John Hoeven of North Dakota (GOP) is a social conservative but also increased higher education funding by the biggest percentage in the history of North Dakota.  Remember the abortion ban that South Dakota passed in the legislature, which was later overturned via referendum?  A significant number of Dems voted in favor, a significant number of GOP against.  Bart Stupak (MI-1) and Collin Peterson (MN-7) are pro-life Democrats.  Dave Obey is mostly pro-choice but has broken with the Democrats on some votes regarding abortion.  

So, part of the reason why the UP and areas like it are "baffling" is that they simply don't fit into the standard left-right spectrum that we currently have.  

---

by: ajwagner @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:28:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The difference between Stupak and Peterson

is big.  Stupak is basically a down the line vote on everything but abortion.  You can also add Oberstar too, he is a pro-life liberal.

---

by: JSmith @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 03:45:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Peterson's district

isnt NEARLY as old-school union and progressive.  His district put the F in Farmer and Oberstar's L in Labor.  (Walz was another F yet all the counties that border the St Croix are pretty liberal so not as conservative due to the river.)  As we've seen nationwide, farmers are not nearly the firebrand populists they once were.  Everyone should go read about the Farmer-Labor Party (wikipedia it).  I am fairly certain it was the most successful third party ever, having won the Governor's mansion, US Senate seats, and once controlled a majority of Minnesota's delegation to the House.  Maybe not ever as my knowledge is quite limited but post WI for sure.

Oh, and this shows the delegations in case people havent dinked around on wiki enough to have found these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

What other major third parties have there been?  Progressives in WI is all I really know for sure.

---

by: Andrew @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 05:56:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh and

Im a bit bummed this one blog merged into a bigger better one so I wont be able to find the post, but it was from a guest blogger, MinnesotaBrown who is an Iron Ranger.  He said that Iron Rangers were practically communists up there, extremely populist, anti-corporate, pro-union/worker while maintaining a moderate/conservative social policy.  Although Oberstar is so liberal because Duluth holds it down as not being too socially conservative.  (80k)

---

by: Andrew @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 06:04:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is the beauty of that public option opt-out thing

Let Pete Hoekstra, Mike Cox, or Mike Bouchard argue that Michigan should opt out of the public option...see how that flies.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:37:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

People don't generally vote for Governor

as a referendum on Washington. I disagree with your line of thinking. I also can perfectly understand voters in a state with something like 25% unemployment voting all incumbents out.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:10:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not quite 25, thank god

I think about 15. Although the County right to my West, Baraga, is at 25%, the highest in the Nation I believe. It's a disaster.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:22:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "unemployment rate" is well known to be inaccurate

because it reflects only those on unemployment insurance, not those whose unemployment insurance has lapsed and still don't have jobs.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 14:37:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MI GOP

No Michigan Republicans were dumb enough to oppose help for the Big Three.  Their national party didn't do them any favors, but even the red-baiting Thad McCotter supported the "socialism."

---

by: Sean Fitzpatrick @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:16:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Has Granholm directly contributed to the crisis?

Or is she simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?  If it's just a case of folks being upset that things aren't getting better, the Democrats might be ok, though it would be nice to have a candidate with more inspiring polls.  Still, I can't see the Republicans running and winning on Michigan on the economy.  So who knows, this could end up being the equivalent of New Jersey to some degree.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 23:33:13 PM UTC

Kind of

I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this, but it seems like Gov. Granholm would have been a fantastic, incredibly popular mid-to-late 1990s governor. That is, if the economy was doing well, I think she could have gotten a lot done and really left a mark on the state.

As it turned out, she inherited a lot of problems from Engler, which coincided with the economy plummeting. I think things would be a lot worse without some of the things she's been doing, but Michigan has been in need of big ideas and someone who can level with people and say, "Yeah, times are tough. But they'll be worse if we don't raise taxes. I know it hurts, but it'll hurt more when your kids can't take music classes, the public library closes, and rural counties stop maintaining paved roads and let them return to gravel."

Which, of course, is exactly what's happening. Granholm and the Democrats in the legislature just don't have it in them to make the tough calls, and every year we play this game with the Republicans of trying to cut a little bit less than they want, but cutting all the same. There really isn't meaningful wasteful spending in Michigan any more. We've stopped cutting the fat and started cutting directly into the bone.

I think John Cherry has the history and clout to be an effective administrator and get legislation passed, but so far, I haven't seen anyone who can say all that with any credibility.

So, in answer to your question, Granholm hasn't contributed directly, but she hasn't shown the leadership the state needs. Neither have the Republicans, but I think that's the big reason why the Democrats are hurting in Michigan.

/rant.

---

by: Fitzy @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:59:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think Granholm has shown leadership.

MI would be in much more trouble if we had a Republican governor.  She made sure to balance the need to cut the budget while not devastating state services.  She's also done a lot of work in bring alternative energy and film companies to our state.  Green energy will play a huge role in the American economy in the decades to come and Gov. Granholm has set our state up to take advantage of this growing industry.

Could more have been done? Yes.  For example, we need tax reform.  That, however, is never going to happen unless the Democrats maintain control of the House and governorship, as well as winning the Senate in 2010.  The Republicans controlled both houses of congress during the first term and the Senate during the second term (with DINO Dillon controlling the the House of Representatives).  This limited Gov. Granholm.  She has been a very good governor during an awful situation.  

Like you mentioned, if she had been in office during the 90s, instead og Engler, she probably would've been one of the most popular governors in the country.  It's disappointing that many blame her when the economy was clearly going down hill years before she came into office.  

---

by: blue_onyx @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 02:24:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe

Granholm has done a lot of good, and we're way better off than we'd be under Governor DeVos or Governor Posthumous. And maybe I wasn't being especially fair in my previous comment. It's a tough situation, and the fact that unemployment is only at 15 percent is evidence of what she's been doing right.

But it feels like so much of the time, the state government gets bogged down in petty and stupid things. I blame the Republicans for a lot of it, but it can get really discouraging. I can't help but long for the ideal governor that cuts through that stuff and makes things work.

---

by: Fitzy @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 03:05:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, no. Das ist nicht gut.

I'm glad Hoekstra leads the primary though.  He won't win Oakland, Macomb Counties, nor will he play well up north.  Bouchard and Cox very well might.  Hoekstra is a joke anyway.  He is a walking gaffe machine and too conservative for Michigan. He'll play well in Kent County and bring out the base in Ottawa. Cherry is a disappointment, but we've got a poor bench and I would never ever support Andy Dillon.  Nor would the state as a whole, I think.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 23:41:13 PM UTC

Yeah, I tend to believe in the end

Hoekstra has about 46% ceiling statewide, winning big margins in Western and Central MI, while losing the UP, and losing counties like Wayne, (and where Ann Arbor is), by landslides, while also losing Oakland and Macomb narrowly, losing Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Flint, I think Cherry could carry it off with about 54%

Bouchard might be slightly stronger, but Republicans spent plenty of money running against Freshman Senator Debbie Stabenow and she beat him by 16%.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:46:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah, and don't forget the special election

coming up on election night next month.  District 19, Mark Schauer's old Senate seat.  Very competitive.  I think that the Republican has the edge but we'll see.  It is very important to who controls the Senate in 2012.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 23:44:14 PM UTC

I'm only moderately worried

the best a Republican can do is 45%, this seems to have "Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters in a holding pattern" written all over it.

---

by: DTOzone @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 23:46:10 PM UTC

I wouldn't be too worried about Cherry yet

Cherry isn't really that well-known.  He hasn't been a high profile person in the state.  I would guess that his name recognition is fairly low.  Granholm polled poorly early in the 2006 campaign and won by 14%.  So I wouldn't put too much faith in polls this early.    

I think Cox's numbers will drop.  He has personal baggage and is also connected to very disliked former mayor of Detroit.  News on his connection to former Mayor Kilpatrick continues develop.

Rick Synder is very unknown and would likely run the same failed 2006 campagin that DeVos used ("I'm a businessman, vote for me!).

I think it will come down to Hoekstra (the "real conservative") and Bouchard (the moderate alternative).  I think Boucahrd, who got a big endorsement from L. Brooks Patterson yesterday, will be the GOP nominee.  Considering that Bouchard lost to Sen. Stabenow in 2006 by 16%, I'm not too worried about him.

In the end, I think the Republican candidates are fairly weak.  I don't see any of the current GOP candidates defeating Cherry.  

---

by: blue_onyx @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:27:27 AM UTC

So in other words, Michigan might be turning into another New Jersey?

Where the Democrats always look like they're going to lose, but the Republicans always manage to choke?

---

by: ajwagner @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:30:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In the past few years

with Stabenow's initial 2000 upset of Spencer Abraham by one percentage point after trailing most of the race.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:57:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd say so

The situation my friends in Michigan see is roughly the same idea as NJ.  There are some regionally concentrated strongly Republican demographics that keep Republicans in the game despite constant fail.  And there's an enabling state Democratic Party that (like the Detroit car company management) has been weirdly/stupidly insular, it's heavily working class/labor based and those folks just won't get along with upper middle class liberals.  It sort of ignores national trends and currents, has obsolete and corrupt sectors and fiefdoms, readily compromises with conservatives, etc.  

Granholm didn't/couldn't break this pattern and the Ruy-Texiera Latino/high tech professional alliance centered renewal in the Democratic base is really slow to happen.  Like Corzine in NJ, Cherry is suffering from voters wanting someone to attack and clean up the bad Democratic local organizations/machines.

It all reflects the general misère and facts of the state.  The intelligent young leave and few inmigrate, so the electorate is net aging and the Party is in a rut too.  The statewide partisan split has just about stagnated at 53-55% generic D/45-47% generic R for a couple of years now.  National trend has been +1% liberal/Democratic shift per year.

---

by: Baystater @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 16:40:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, have MI Democrats ever campaigned on single-payer?

You'd think it would attract the support of not only the electorate but also the big three.

---

by: Kanamit @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 00:39:22 AM UTC

I think you can safely scratch Mike Cox off the list.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/...

Detective Testifies In Greene Suit - Slain Stripper's Family Sues City

DETROIT -- Testimony of one of three Michigan State Police detectives heard Tuesday during a lawsuit hearing brought by the family of slain Detroit exotic dancer Tamara Greene revealed that they believed the Detroit Police Department was destroying evidence in the case. But his testimony also said because of actions by Attorney General Mike Cox, they were powerless to stop them.
...

The officers said Cox killed the investigation by refusing to allow investigators to subpoena witnesses, insisting that Carlita Kilpatrick not be interviewed at all and that Kwame Kilpatrick have only a one-on-one interview with Cox.

"It's the idea that the state troopers were trying to investigate and they were denied subpoena power by the attorney general's office. So shut down, well if you have no subpoena power you have no opportunity to move forward," said Yatooma.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 02:23:44 AM UTC

You'd think Cox would have been eager to let state troopers go after the Kilpatricks

That wouldn't have even been partisan.  It just would've been the right thing to do.

---

by: ajwagner @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 03:17:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shockingly this is not breaking news

Cox's involvement in the shenanigans have been being looked at for a while.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

---

by: ArkDem the Ragin Cajin @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 06:41:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So if we don't got with Cherry, then who?

Are there any other viable candidates we could run?

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 05:10:28 AM UTC

Unfortunately

the best Democratic candidate, Dennis Archer, former mayor of Detroit, bailed months ago--he would have been far and away a more formidable candidate than Cherry.  I also believe, though, that it is way too early to give up on John Cherry.  He is a populist and a good politician.  As Jennifer Granholm's lt gov, he has been tarred with a lot of the garbage that has been thrown at her; some of which she deserves, but a lot of which she doesn't.  Jennifer has been enmeshed for years in a knock-down drag-out with Mike Bishop, the Republican Senate majority leader (Michigan has a 21-17 Republican majority is the state senate),  who is on a crusade to balance the state's budget without raising any taxes.  If he succeeds, it will result in serious damage to things like K-12 education and Medicaid, as well as eliminate the Michigan Promise Grants for higher education.  Jennifer's main problem has been that she has not been able to sit down with Bishop and talk him into any compromises--I don't know whether this is due to her lack of LBJ-style arm-twisting gravitas or to his intractibility.  Probably both.  In any case, IMO the real loser in this situation has been Andy Dillon, who is an able and competent Democratic House majority leader, who has tried over and over to broker compromises, has passed compromise bills in the House which have foundered on the rocks of the Senate, and (I'm afraid) has just had it at this point with the politics of the whole situation and is just waiting for his term to end so he can get on with his life.  

68, Dem-leaning indie, MI-8

---

by: jimmich @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:59:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cherry is going to be it

As stated by others, he has the backing of the local party bosses and is a huge backer of labor so no Democrat with a lot of weight will want to take on a suicide mission.  It's almost as if the bigger players are going to wait until 2014 under the assumption that John will lose and the GOP incumbent will only preside over a worsening state economy.  

The guy who I think would be a great candidate would be Virg Bernero, the mayor of Lansing.  He's not only a strong progressive, but he's pretty down-to-earth and is way more articulate and charismatic than Cherry, whose more of a behind the scenes guy.  Plus, it would be nice to have someone with a political base outside the Detroit area running.  Alas, it will likely not happen.

---

by: DFLer @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 17:16:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Out of curiousity

Does anyone know how the polling data was collected?  This may seem to you like a silly question, but I used to do the phoning for some EPIC/MRA polls through outsourcing by EPIC/MRA.  While I can attest to my efforts to conduct the interview as it was correctly structured, I can tell you that many of my coworkers did not.  And I witnessed interviews, horrible at worst and sloppy at best, that the supervisors didn't give a shit about.  My coworkers' motivations were to complete as many as possible in order to achieve productivity (the job depended on it) with no concern for methodology and with incredibly ignorant supervision.  The supervisors were happy to turn completed surveys into EPIC/MRA (which we quantified for them) as long as someone was actually interviewed.  Based on my experience, I could never trust EPIC/MRA polling unless I trusted how their data is collected.  How do these results line up with other polling sources?

---

by: phonatic @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 15:48:55 PM UTC