Governor: 43-54 for Whitmer over Schuette. Michigan’s governorship usually flips when open. Schuette ran a lackluster campaign and was dogged by controversies inherited by Snyder and attacks from Calley in a bitter primary.
Senate: 46.3-51.7 for Stabenow over John James. Much closer than her wins by 21% in 2012 and 16% in 2006. John James was a good candidate who has a future in the MI GOP.
AG: 46.8-48.5 for Dana Nessel. Get ready for four years of crazy Dana.
SOS: 45-52 for Benson. Lang was largely abandoned in this race.
Proposal 1 (marijuana): 56-44 Get ready for legal pot.
Proposal 2 (redistricting): 61-39 This will be a mess with both sides trying to game the system. Without the governor, Rs wouldn’t have controlled the process, anyhow.
Proposal 3 (voting rules): 67-33 Easy win with no organized opposition.
Supreme Court was 30-25-24 for Clement (moderate R) and Cavanagh (D) with Wilder (conservative R) losing. Rs have 4-3 majority, but two Rs are unreliable.
Education Boards: Ds sweep all eight seats.
1. 56-44 for Bergman. If Bergman keeps his term limits pledge, this seat will be open in 2022.
2. 55-43 for Huizinga. Much closer, but not that close.
3. 55-42 for Amash. Still secure.
4. 63-37 for Moolenaar.
5. 36-60 Kildee
6. 50.3-45.7 Upton. Close call. Upton no longer overperforms. Does he retire in 2020, or hang on longer?
7. 54-46 Walberg. He will never win big margins, but he has settled in here.
8. 46.8-50.6 for Slotkin (LOSS). Bishop lost thanks to D turnout in Ingham and Oakland. Bishop didn’t work the district hard enough. Maybe Joe Hune could run next time?
9. 37-60 for Andy Levin, an heir force candidate.
10. 60-35 for Mitchell
11. 45-52 for Stevens (LOSS). Big suburban revolt for Ds in Wayne and Oakland. Lena Epstein, a Trump sycophant, was a bad candidate here. Maybe Pat Colbeck could run here?
12. 28-69 for Debbie Dingell
13. 89% for Tlaib (general) and 91% for Jones (special). Expect a hotly contested primary here in 2020.
14. 15-83 for Lawrence
The 1961 Michigan Con-Con created a new way of apportioning districts.
Though it had not done away with geographical consideration that had existed for most of the 20th century to that point, it created the commission under which Four Republicans, and Four Democrats, and Four (if any 3rd party received 25% of the vote) 3rd party commissioners. And as expected, the first commission was deadlocked.
The apportionment plan went before the Michigan Supreme Court, and the Republican plan was ruled as being as close to the apportionment rules as either plans, and ordered to be in effect. In the meantime, the US Supreme Court applied a 1962 case (Baker V. Carr) which opined the authority over apportionment matters to Reynolds v. Simms, establishing the ‘one person, one vote’ apportionment standard.
A raft of myths props up Proposal 18-1, the Michigan ballot initiative for recreational marijuana. Freedom thrives when truth is spoken, so from a health policy nurse, here are the facts about the most common myths in the mitten.
Myth #1: Prop 1 will improve access to medical marijuana and help sick people.
Fact: The most common argument is also the least supported by fact. Proposal language specifically excludes any impact upon medical marijuana, which Michigan legalized in 2008. Informed voters will discount medical arguments as irrelevant to the MI Nov 6, 2018 ballot.
Myth 2: Liberty means doing whatever we want, whenever we want.
Fact: The libertine argument in no way supports liberty. Lacking medical purpose, only escapism and substance abuse remain as reasons for recreational drugs. Freedom to become a pothead is not freedom at all, but self-destruction.
Starting off with the premise that the Democrat Party has gone off the deep end, I will save a lot of you the time by recommending that none of those from the D brand are worthy of anyone’s vote. The #PartyOfCrime has earned it’s hashtag, as well as a few more derogatory labels.
From the top to the bottom, it has defamed honorable persons on the national stage, to those locally deciding to not even show up. Brett Kavanaugh was publicly abused in a frenetic way that has never before been seen. And locally, we have a Democrat county commission candidate who forgot to let folks know she was moving 80 miles away before the election.
Ya know, while I don’t like to get too serious about some things, I believe that when selecting those who represent us in our Republic, it means something. Elections have consequences, and civil discourse is somewhat tough when dealing with those who cannot respect process or even take a leadership role seriously.
Many years ago a shabbily dressed boy trudged several miles through the snowy streets of Chicago, determined to attend a Bible class conducted by D. L. Moody.
When he arrived, he was asked, “Why did you come to a Sunday school so far away? Why didn’t you go to one of the churches near your home?” He answered simply, “Because I find love here.”
As we think about that story, we need to ask ourselves whether others can say the same about our families and our church, and it is because we all struggle with loving God and loving others. But love is the greatest need of humans and it also the greatest obligation of humans. Let me repeat that: love is the greatest need of humans and it also the greatest obligation of humans.
If you can recall the last couple of Gospel readings – and don’t feel too badly if you don’t, because I find that a hard thing to do myself – but if you do you would recall that Jesus was continuously being opposed by the religious authorities. He was opposed by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes, and in last week’s gospel by a group of Jews.
He taught them; “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” But they didn’t understand, they didn’t believe. And in today’s gospel Jesus is tested by a scribe. Now, if you aren’t familiar with scribes, they were the persons who were responsible for copying the sacred texts so the next generation would have them available. Scribes were highly educated and were meticulous at their task.
Just to illustrate how meticulous they were: I am sure you have all heard of the Dead Sea scrolls.
Gretchen Driskell is at it again, trying to convince voters that they’d be better off with less money in their pockets.
Despite losing her bid for Congress in 2016 amidst Donald Trump’s stunning victory in Michigan, liberal Democrat Gretchen Driskell is back to convince voters that it’s a good thing to give up the tax breaks President Trump fought hard to deliver.
Driskell’s approach to politics can be summed up in three words: taxes, taxes, taxes. It’s actually hard to imagine a tax hike she wouldn’t like. She’s advocated for higher property taxes, and supported a gas tax hike in 2010.
She’s also been vehemently opposed to President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act since he proposed it, calling it a “scam” that actually “raises our taxes.”
A lot of Michigan’s independents and weak Republicans are planning on voting against President Trump on Tuesday. They are being very short sighted. Actually shooting themselves in the foot. They will not get another chance to influence Michigan politics or our economy for a decade or more.
Keep in mind that Governors tend to get reelected, so if Whitmer wins on Tuesday, she could well be in charge out to the end of 2026. Projecting another lost decade for the Michigan economy is entirely reasonable. Taxes and regulation will skyrocket.
But the Democrats won’t win the State Senate, they say. They are being very short sighted. Democrats will win the Senate, but not until 2022. Here is why: