Based on this information...

Do you still see the MI-Gov race at this stage being in the "Tossup" category?  Based on this data, plus the fact that Granholm is unpopular, I'm not banking to much faith on the Dems retaining this seat.  I'm wondering if this race should be "Lean R" at this stage of the game.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 18:50:10 PM UTC

Speaking only

for myself and not the entire SSP star chamber where we make such decisions, I think there's enough instability here that I'd wait until after the primaries to make such a call, based on what matchup we end up with. Bernero polls a little better than Dillon, and Snyder polls a lot better than Hoekstra, who polls better than Cox. Bernero/Cox, for instance, we might have good odds there. But, in general, no, I don't feel too optimistic about this race, but then I haven't for the last year and a half either.

---

by: Crisitunity @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 19:05:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think Granholm is not the problem

You can compare Michigan with New York. D Paterson is clearly more unpopular than J Granholm.

What is the diference? So obvious.

NY-Gov: A Cuomo.
MI-Gov: V Bernero and A Dillon.

Unknown candidates in Michigan, not strong frontrunners in the race (D Bonior, D Archer...). I think J Granholm without term limits would be still more competitive than the current democratic candidates.

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 21:29:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I agree

The Democrats, unfortunately, don't have a strong, well-known field of candidates.  I would feel more confident if Granholm was running again.  She's unpopular but she was unpopular in 2006 too.  She's a great campaigner and I think she could have won again.  

---

by: blue_onyx @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 03:12:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Never would have thought

Cox would be their weakest candidate (among the four).

---

by: ID Panhandle Dem @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 18:57:41 PM UTC

Cox

Cox is being sunk because his supposed connections to Kwame Kilpatrick.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

---

by: Ryan_in_DelCo @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 20:16:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bernero

Is going to win the primaries.  Almost all the winning outcomes so far this primary season has been for the most liberal candidate.  The conservadems (most notably the anti-HCR crowd) have been getting pounded in election after election, state after state.  Bernero's deficit in the general is mostly due to name recognition as well.  

True, the republicans should be feeling pretty good about their chances because of Granholm's suckiness, but Michigan is a blue state through and through.  Even in this environment, they are going to have to work hard to win.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 18:58:47 PM UTC

Michigan as a blue state

I agree partially with you that Michigan is a blue state.  Especially on the federal level, Michigan is for the most part a reliable Democratic state.  However, just a few years ago Michigan had a 9-6 advantage in the US House of Reps, and the Republicans currently hold the advantage in the Michigan State Senate.


40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 19:04:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gerrymandering

Yup yup.  

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 19:43:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily

The districts generally fit to identifiable regions.  There are a few that deviate from the norm, but most are representative of the regions that legitimately exist in the state.  

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

---

by: Ryan_in_DelCo @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 20:20:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe there is some geographic sense to it

But it does seem VERY fishy that just about every district outside of Detroit metro falls between even and R+5.  That's usually indicative of a gerrymander, and the simple fact that there are only 6 of 15 districts that lean democratic in a democratic state is pretty bad representation.  

At the very least, McCotter's district should be democratic, and maybe Rogers's too.  

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 21:34:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes but Stephen is right

Michigan is still under pro-republicans redistricting for the US House and for the state senate and house. The democrats still can not correct this in Michigan like in other blue states. But I think Michigan is a blue state.

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 21:50:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Definitely a blue state

Michigan is a blue state for sure.  I would say its more Democratic than any state between New York and California actually, but geographically its districts are not gerrymandered.  They reflect the general polarized nature of the state.  

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

---

by: Ryan_in_DelCo @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 22:19:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you think

Michigan is more Democratic than Illinois?

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 22:36:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not A Solid Blue State

Michigan is still a swing state with a blue lean. Fact is there just aren't many big cities outside of SE Michigan, and the Dutch population on the west side of the state is very conservative. Michigan also has a lot of hunters and outdoorsmen that tend to vote Republican. And after the uber-liberal Wayne County (home of Detroit), Republican Oakland County is home to the largest population.

Michigan's Attorney General, Secretary of State, and State Senate are all Republican (the former two were both re-elected by wide margins even in a Democratic year, 2006), and the Supreme Court still has a Republican majority. It's pretty likely that Republicans will capture all 3 top offices this year and come pretty close to taking the House (which they also held until 2006).  

---

by: MIJunkie @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 22:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republican Oakland County?

You mean the same Oakland County that voted 56-42 for Obama and hasn't gone republican in a presidential election since 1992?  You mean the same Oakland County that elected Gary Peters representative in 2008, and will in all likelihood re-elect him in 2010 despite a moderately-sized red wave?  

And republicans possibly taking the Michigan House?  You mean the same body that currently sports a 66-43 democratic advantage, meaning that the GOP would need to flip 12 seats to control?


23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 23:54:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I look to Michigan or Pennsylvania with the same eyes than to Georgia...

...Arkansas, or West Virginia.

Michigan is still turning blue, and republicans win the statewide offices because they have still more candidates and candidates with higher political level. The statewide offices are the next step in the political career of many state senators, and still they have majority in the state senate.

Movements like Michigan turning blue are structural movements, low speed movements and more powerfull than the different "waves". Under this movement I think is so difficult the state house turn red again with the current difference, and I think is more likely see the senate turning blue despite the republican "wave". This is year of open seats by term limits. This year we can see in the Michigan state senate the results of the last eight years turning blue.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 00:49:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oakland County

Oakland County has a Republican County Executive, a Republican advantage on the County Commission (which had been larger that it is now, and soon will be again), a Republican Sheriff, a Republican Clerk, 3 of 5 Republican State Senators (one of the other two seats, Deb Cherry's, is a swing seat and she'll be termed out), and have 8 of 14 state house seats. It didn't vote for Bush in 1996 because of Perot, and George Bush isn't an Oakland County Republican; the area is a classic Chamber Republican area, where people were turned off by social conservatism. DeVos only lost it in 2006 because he ran an awful campaign.

With regard to the State House, Democrats pretty much won all the competitive seats in 2006 and held them because of the second wave in 2008. With a red wave in 2008, it's likely that Republicans will win more than a few seats in the House. Maybe not a majority, but a lot (again, they held it as recently as 2006).

Michigan is not a blue state, and I should know, I live here (in Oakland and Ingham Counties). People hate Granholm (29% approval, anyone?), they disapprove of Obama, and Democrats here are probably heading for a bruising in November. In my estimation, Hoekstra, Schuette and Ruth Johnson (or one of the other Republicans) will win Gov, AG and SOS, and Republicans will take Schauer's seat back. Peters stays put because of awful candidate recruitment in the 9th (neither Bishop in the AG's race or Bouchard in Gov will drop down to run it instead). 1st is a tossup, but I'd put it at Lean R. Presidential results aren't anything, and to call this anything other than a swing state (much less "the bluest state between New York and California") is just wrong.

---

by: MIJunkie @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 02:41:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

correction

I said red wave in 2008, I mean 2010. My bad

---

by: MIJunkie @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 02:45:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

MI is a blue state

Michigan has voted Democratic in the last 5 presidential elections.  Our senators are both Democrats.  Michigan is not as blue as California or New York but it's still a blue state.    

Considering that Granholm, a Democrat, was elected twice, it's odd that you use her low approval as evidence that MI isn't Democratic.  People disapprove of Granholm because our unemployment has been high for years.    

Oakland county has voted for Granholm (2002 and 2006), Levin (2002 and 2008), Stabenow (2006), Gore, Kerry, and Obama in recent elections.  The county, at the very least, is a toss-up (that's becoming more and more Democratic)

I think the race for governor is a toss-up.  The GOP candidates are weak and the Democrats can still win.  I feel confident, however, in predicting that David Leyton will be the next AG and Jocelyn Benson will be the next SoS.

---

by: blue_onyx @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 03:06:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan remains a swing state

Levin will be a senator until he dies, he's an institution, but Stabenow will get all she can handle in 2012. Either Rogers or Candice Miller will probably run against her, and either one (Miller would be better) would have a great shot. Bouchard lost in 2006 because of a wave and because he was more or less abandoned by the party (who generally wanted Keith Butler to run instead).

Michigan hasn't really had a good top-of-the-ticket race in awhile. Even in 2006, DeVos was a terrible politician, and couldn't really compete with Granholm on panache. She only won in the first place because of Engler fatigue after electing him 3 times. Honestly, I don't think this year will be any different. Dillon doesn't have a prayer of getting out of the primary, and even if he did, Dems would probably stay home rather than vote for him. Bernero bills HIMSELF as "the angriest mayor in America." I somehow do not see this as a winning strategy (plus he's done nothing for Lansing and is the consummate career politician, running for another office about every 4 years, not a good thing this year).

Hoekstra would win easily, I believe. He's got a solid West Michigan base and has the backing of Mitt Romney, Newt and a host of Michigan pols. Snyder is more moderate and would crush if he wins. Cox is more controversial but would probably still win (he's been elected statewide twice). Bouchard has an Oakland County base and is a surprisingly good politician. I simply don't see this race going to the Dems barring crazy circumstances.

For AG, the Dems at least didn't nominate a personal-injury lawyer (to their credit), but Leyton is a Flint prosecutor who wouldn't get elected statewide. He's made waffling statements on drugs and crime, and he won't beat a veteran like Schuette. Benson I'm less sanguine about. She's smart, pretty and engaging, all good things. Still, I think that she's simply too liberal to beat any of Norlander, Johnson or Brown. Republicans will tag her with encouraging voter fraud and win.

---

by: MIJunkie @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 03:36:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice round up of GOP talking points

If I was a swing voter and read this post, I'm pretty sure I'd vote a straight Dem ticket.

Having the backing of Newt isn't going to help you get you elected in Michigan or any other blue state.

---

by: NewMex9999 @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 03:38:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm just trying to provide perspective

I'm a pretty longtime reader of this site, but there seems to be this mistaken assumption here that Michigan is a blue state as much as Minnesota or Illinois. As a libertarian Republican and a lifelong Michigander, I'm just trying to point out a thing or two, and game out how the races will likely go.

And I didn't mean to imply that Newt is popular in Michigan; he's not, and his endorsement means nothing to Michigan voters. But having his and Romney's endorsements gives him access to their fundraising networks, which is no small advantage. That, and the Romney name is still pretty good around here.

---

by: MIJunkie @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 03:46:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Romeny name is good in MI?

Many voters are probably too young to remember that Mitt's father was governor.  If the Romney name is so strong in MI, why did 61% of primary voters pick someone other than Mitt in 2008?  Mitt left decades ago and his endorsement means about has much in MI as Madonna's would.

Michigan is certainly as Democratic as Minnesota.  I think you may be trying to make Michigan seem less Democratic to suit your political preference.  

---

by: blue_onyx @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:01:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree with even this

"but there seems to be this mistaken assumption here that Michigan is a blue state as much as Minnesota or Illinois. "

Michigan is at least as blue as Minnesota today.  It is not a mistaken assumption.  And while Illinois is more blue than Michigan, until recently it wasn't much more so.  

The Democrat has performed better in Michigan than they did nationally in the last 5 elections.  Obama won the state by 16%. While the GOP has won statewide races in Michigan, the Dems have won statewide races in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Alabama too.  Do we call those states a tossup?

To suggest that very conservative candidates like Hoekstra "win easily" because "he has a Western Michigan base" ignores how poorly candidates like him do in the Detroit area.

As far as Romney, he got less than 40% in a primary where he had roots.  Far from still popular, IMO.  I wouldn't give Romney even a 20% chance to win Michigan against President Obama in 2012.

As a whole, your posts sound like a bunch of Redstate propaganda rather than a reasoned analysis of the races in Michigan.  It is possible, even likely, that the GOP could win back the Governorship this year.  But that makes it far from a tossup state.  

---

by: NewMex9999 @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:14:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Poor analogy

Couple of points:

Democrats at the national level have done well in the last 5 elections. Nobody is disputing this. That does not, however, indicate that Michigan isn't a swing state. Comparing it to Tennessee, Oklahoma or Alabama is a bad analogy because in none of those states do Democrats control AG, SOS, have solid control of one house, and control the Supreme Court.

Second, all Republicans do poorly in the Detroit area; it's a large, poor city that's majority-minority. That said, the Detroit area is shrinking, even more so than the state in general. As it does so, Democrats are slowly losing some of the cushion that they could once count on in statewide races.

Also, and again, this is something that people who don't live in the state and only know the candidates from reputation may not know is, Hoekstra isn't the most conservative guy in the race. He opposed ending affirmative action, he voted for the Brady Bill, he voted for TARP, and he opposes right-to-work. Cox and Bouchard are both more conservative than him (even if Hoekstra makes inflammatory statements sometimes).

You guys might instantly disagree with me because I'm a Republican, and that's fine, but as someone here on the ground who has worked on campaigns, I'm telling you that the posts I've read are based on flawed assumptions about the state. In November we'll see who's right.

---

by: MIJunkie @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:01:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also

Obama won the state by 16 points because McCain pulled out completely and the state party left the race to die. You might argue that McCain would have lost anyway, and you'd be right, but the margin would have been smaller. The PVI of the state is more a reflection of that than it is reality. Michigan had no real competitive elections at the top of the ballot in 2008 (Hoogendyk against Levin is NOT competitive), so Republicans chose not to turn out, driving up Obama's margins everywhere.

Republican Mike Nofs won Mark Schauer's old state senate seat in a contested election by nearly 2 to 1 last year. Republicans are raising money at a big-time clip. Both Democrats are underwater in favorability. These are not the ingredients for Democratic success in 2010.

---

by: MIJunkie @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:05:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

McCain pulled out of MI

because the polls showed him down by 16%.  I believe there was even one poll that showed an Obama lead of over 20%.  Additionally, there were still McCain ads on TV, even after McCain pulled out.    

The ingredient for Democratic success is weak Republican candidates who stand for nothing other than business tax cuts.  I think Republicans are in for a shock this fall when they don't make the significant gains they're expecting.        

---

by: blue_onyx @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 14:45:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What?

The last 5 elections have been good Democratic years?  2006 and 2008 were, indeed, good years for Democrats.  The previous three elections (2000, 2002, and 2004), however, were not strong years for the Dems.

Your political preference is distorting your view of MI.  MI is a blue state.  You don't like that...I get it.  But you can't just decide MI isn't a blue state because you're unhappy with that reality.      

---

by: blue_onyx @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 14:55:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree

Bush lost it both times by at least three points. It is a blue leaning swing state, in the same group as Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin. These would be the first states that Bush didn't win either time that would go Republican in a year when the GOP nominee did better than 51% in the national popular vote.

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 15:04:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're not understanding

In MICHIGAN, at the national level, the last 5 elections have been good for Democrats. That's what I was saying.

Second of all, you're wrong. McCain did not continue to air ads in Michigan after the 3rd of October:

http://www.mlive.com/politics/...

You may have seen 3rd party ads or the (very) occasional MRP ad for him, but there just wasn't any real money going here. McCain pulled out because he was behind, yes, but he did so to focus on what he (wrongly) saw as a better investment in Pennsylvania. No poll showed him down by 20; in fact the RCP average for the last 4 (non-Strategic Vision) polls before the pullout had Obama up only 7. It was after the pullout that Republicans stayed home and the margin ballooned to 16.

Michigan is a blue-leaning swing state. Its Congressional representation, top offices, state legislature, local offices and competitiveness in contested national elections bears that out. You can tell yourself Michigan is solid blue, but the facts simply don't support you.  

---

by: MIJunkie @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 19:03:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand just fine

How was 2000 a good year for Dems, in MI or nationally?  How about 2002?  Yes, the Dems won the governorship but still didn't control the House or Senate.  You seem to hold the believe that Dems only win in MI when it's a good Democratic year but that's just not true.

There were McCain ads still being shown.  Whether they came from the RNC or McCain, they still count.  

The Big Ten Battleground Poll 10/19-10/22 showed a 22% lead for Obama.  Polls showed Obama leads of at least 10% as early as 9/22.  McCain pulled out on Oct. 2.  Polls around that time showed Obama leads of 18% (Oct 3-7) and 16% (Oct. 7).  While these polls came out shortly after McCain leaving MI, I'm sure McCain's internal polling was no better otherwise he would have stayed in MI.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/...

Sen. John McCain has decided to pull his campaign out of Michigan, deeming it a lost cause after internal polls showed the Republican trailing badly in the economically hard-hit state, according to a senior Republican official.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

Who said MI was a "solid blue" state?  You're moving the goal posts.  I said it was a blue state.  Sure, Republicans can be competitive here...just as they can be in Mass. (Sen. Brown) and California (two-term GOP governor).  MI isn't as blue as Mass. or California but it's certainly more blue than you seem to think.    

---

by: blue_onyx @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 23:24:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Poor analogy?

Oklahoma today:

Governor: B Henry (D)
Lieutenant Governor: J Askins (D)
Attorney General: E Edmonson (D)
State Treasurer: S Meacham (D)
State Auditor and Inspector: S Burrage (D)
Commissioner of Labor: L Fields (D)
Insurance Commissioner: K Holland (D)
Superintendent of Public Instruction: S Garrett (D)

Oklahoma has not Secretary of State.
Democrats lost the majority in the Oklahoma senate in 2008 (despite the blue wave, just like I tell for Michigan).

Alabama today:

Alabama state senate:
20 Democrats
15 Republicans
Alabama state house:
60 Democrats
45 Republicans

And you can look to West Virginia, Arkansas...

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 19:13:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Voter fraud is total bullshit

and any Democratic candidate worth a damn would counter such a canard by pointing to real Republican caging.

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

---

by: Pan @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 07:55:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan is as much a tossup

as is Kentucky, Tennessee, or Alabama.  After all, the Democrats have won the Governorship in those states as well as many state offices there.

---

by: NewMex9999 @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 03:32:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan is blue. If a D+5 is not blue...

Only we need to look the Cook rating.

Michigan D+5
Minnesota D+3
Oregon D+4
Washington D+4
Wisconsin D+3
Pennsylvania D+2

Arizona R+5
Georgia R+6

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:13:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just because it's a good gerrymander

... doesn't mean it's not gerrymandered. I've always been really impressed by that redistricting plan, because it does maintain geographically nice districts.

But that being said, the lines were drawn in a way to extract Republican seats-- more so than is natural.

Look at the 1992-2000 map:

And the 2002-2010 map:

Nothing looks especially gerrymandered in either one, and everything seems sensible geographically. We lost one seat in the 2000 census, but if both maps reflect the "general polarized nature of the state," it shouldn't change the balance of power too much, right?

In 2000, Michigan was split 9D-7R. In 2002, with a new map, we were split 6D-9R.

So even if they seem geographically nice, that doesn't mean it wasn't drawn to benefit Republicans. The GOP just did a really good job.

It's a polarized state, sure, but it isn't that polarized.

There's no reason why Ann Arbor should be in Dingell's district, except to force Dingell and then-Democratic Rep. Lynn Rivers into a primary battle for the same seat.

There's no reason for Battle Creek and Kalamazoo to be in separate districts, unless you wanted to prevent them from being the combined base of a Democratic West Michigan district.

There's no reason for the 10th district to include the thumb, except to make it impossible for David Bonior to win reelection.

The Republicans knew what they were doing when they redrew the map.

---

by: Fitzy @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 01:10:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree totally with your comment

Looking to the Cook Partisan Voting Index rating you can see the next:

Michigan is a D+5 with 15 house districts.

They are 5 districts with better rating than D+5.
They are 10 districts with worse rating than D+5 (9 of they with EVEN or worse rating).

This is absolutely pro-republican gerrymandered. The democratic vote is concentrated in very few districts while the redistricting find very much districts leaning to republicans.

Michigan have still republican gerrymandered constituencies at all levels.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 03:20:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Part of it is the VRA

ensuring that Democratic votes are crammed into Conyers' and Kilpatrick's districts.

Even so I agree that MI is a Republican gerrymander (albeit more skillful and aesthetically pleasing than, say, Pennsylvania or Ohio).

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:04:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have to take issue with

your reference to Jennifer Granholm as a "sucky" governor. She is a bright and competent lady who just happened to be our governor when the economy tanked into the worst recession since the thirties, the auto industry (which has been the underpinning of Michigan's economy for nearly a century) beached itself, and the Republican-dominated state Senate under Mike Bishop's tight-fisted leadership has refused to allow spending any money on virtually anything.  Jennifer has taken the lead in enticing high-tech and green business to Michigan to replace some of our old rust-belt industries, and we would be in even worse shape without her.  I agree that she has not been very effective in working with the State Legislature, whether jawboning, or negotiating, or cracking heads, but in any other time she would have been remembered as an able administrator and a better-than-average governor.

68, Dem-leaning indie, MI-8

---

by: jimmich @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 20:00:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely agree

I think that Jennifer Granholm has done as well as anyone possibly could in an impossible situation.  No one is going to look good being governor of Michigan right now, and to talk about her "suckiness" is a really unfair cheap shot.

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 20:07:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What kind of initiatives

Has Granholm taken to re-vamp Michigan's economy?  What steps has she and the legislature taken toward moving the state toward green energy/jobs and 21st century style industries?  I'm curious, because I don't know as much about these things as perhaps I should, all you ever hear about is how Granholm and the republican-led Senate are always tied up bickering, and that the State House and her aren't on the same page.  

Of course, being down here in Ohio, the common answer to "How do you get to Michigan?" is "Drive west until you smell sh*t, then head north."  it's certainly possible that a lot of the media outlets here don't present a balanced take on our neighbors to the north.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 20:19:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Having lived there...

I think blaming Granholm for the current plight of the state really does not address the long term structural causes of the state's decline.  Both parties have refused to diversify the state's economy.  Both parties have defended the auto industry at every turn regardless of the economic or environemntal consequences.

The biggest problem facing the state is not political, but cultural.  Large swaths of the state still have this industrial era mentality that is not going away.  Granholm can be blamed for playing to this a lot by blaming everything on NAFTA.  Having lived in Michigan and now Pennsylvania, the handling of industrial decline by Granholm and Rendell would make you believe they were from two different parties.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

---

by: Ryan_in_DelCo @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 20:34:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rick Michigan

I don't buy it. I mean, I'm sure the polls are accurate, and Rick Snyder is leading, but he's also been running ads for a while now, and was the first one on the air. I really think it's nothing but name recognition, and he'll fade when the primaries and/or general heat up.

(Full disclosure: I, too, self-identify as a nerd. Frankly, I think my nerd credentials beat his. And I don't think "One tough nerd-- I ran Gateway!" beats a populist message like the one Virg Bernero could put together.)

The saddest part, though, is that no one except, well, the politics nerds recognize Dillon or Bernero. I think Bernero has a lot of potential, but I don't think either of them are the leadership Michigan needs right now.

---

by: Fitzy @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 19:05:49 PM UTC

Snyder

Isn't he the "it's time for a nerd" guy?

---

by: Xochi @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 20:20:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bernero in debates?

I was impressed when I saw him interviewed on CNN (I believe it was). Have any of you seen how he performs in debates? I'm wondering if that could turn the election campaign.

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

---

by: Pan @ Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 21:56:37 PM UTC