Michigan Governor Election

Remember the ad that compared Governor Granholm to Hitler? Remember how information was released yesterday that tied prominent Republican donors to the ads?

Well, those donors say they are "angered" about the ads and had nothing to do with it.

Peter Cummings and John Rakolta said Wednesday that they were appalled after learning how their money and their spouses' money had been spent. They said that Detroit political consultant Adolph Mongo, who solicited their contributions, had told them it would be used to increase voter turnout in Detroit.

I find that a very hard pill to swallow. Just based on previous experience and cynicism about the political process, I am almost positive they knew exactly what that money was going to be used for. Come on, "voter turnout in Detroit"? For a Republican in Michigan, that's not the most efficient use of resources during an election season.

Besides, if they knew there was such a fuss about where Mongo got the money, wouldn't they have came clean during the election? Why did Mongo go to such lengths to hide where the money came from?

Also, check out this gem from Mongo's stepdaughter, who ran the group:

"People knew what our message was, and they chose to support it," Harbin said.

My bullshit meter is screaming wildly.

It's only eight months late.  Wizardkitten has the breakdown.

UPDATE:  See related Michlib discussion here.

Just a heads up: Scott Pohl (huh? that name sounds familiar :-P) interviewed Tim Skubick about "See Dick and Jen Run" for WKAR.

UPDATE: Matt did an interview with him as well this past Sunday.

...or he might not.

In one of his first public appearances since losing the race for governor, Republican Dick DeVos said Wednesday he intends to remain active in public affairs, but declined to say whether he would run for political office again.

"We're not commenting on that," he said after meeting with Kent County Republicans, but he added: "I'm not ruling anything in or out." (emphasis added)

The money to fund such an effort will be there, but I expect that the Amway baggage will stay with him as well. It is more likely that he'll keep up with his advocacy for vouchers and contributions to groups like the mackinac center and the AFA "behind the scenes."

According to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, Jennifer Granholm and Dick DeVos spent a total of more than $56 million on this past election cycle. This doesn't include at least $15 million spent by the state parties and outside interests.

Each vote for Dick DeVos cost $26 on average. Seems a little excessive to me.

The News-Herald has posted excerpts from Tim Skubick's book on the 2006 gubernatorial race in Michigan.

Based on what I've read, his retelling suffers from a couple big problems: the writing is poor, and he is severely biased in favor of DeVos (at least in these chapters).

This isn't opinion or analysis, but rather a story that is being told. Skubick is out of his usual element, and it shows in the writing.

Skubick's retelling is also very biased. Again, I don't think that he is biased in favor of Democrats or Republicans. However, DeVos' frequent quotes set the context of the entire story. DeVos gets a chance to explain and reflect upon his actions, but we don't see Granholm get a chance to share her perspective. Its told entirely from the viewpoint of DeVos, which isn't fair to Granholm and is a reflection of the fact that Skubick was closer to DeVos' side than he was to Granholm's.

Here's an example:

And then she masterfully outlined for the audience what that meant to them. She reported that the GOP wanted to increase state aid to the cities by 2 percent, but they left Detroit out. (She declines to tell them that she never introduced a revenue- sharing increase, either.) She recalled that they wanted to allow Grand Rapids to create a new mass transit authority, but left Detroit out. And for a dab of frosting on the cake, she said the GOP was increasing funding for every university — except Wayne State, which was in Detroit. (emphasis added)

That is absurd. We have no idea of why Granholm may not have decided to introduce a revenue-sharing increase, or what the impact on state government would be. Maybe she didn't because she knew that there wouldn't be support for it? Especially since Skubick doesn't substantiate that statement or provide any context, it seems like a cheap shot at the Governor. It appears that DeVos gets his message across unchallenged and unfiltered, but Skubick can say anything he wants about Granholm and she doesn't have an opportunity to defend herself. Great "journalism."

Despite how poor the writing is, I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm going to read it anyway. Its going to have neat little bits of information that we won't hear about from anyone else.

I'm happy with the way that the graphs of trends reflected popular sentiment, and plan on using them again the next election cycle. I think they did a pretty good job of showing how things were moving during any given period of time. They aren't always going to indicate what the election results might be like (due to factors like turnout, survey errors, etc.) but they are useful for stuff like discarding unreliable numbers and tracking shifts in opinion.

Speaking of bad numbers, were those Mitchell results garbage or what? Like we had mentioned before, the entire narrative about the gap "narrowing" near the end was absolutely false. The trends showed the gap widening, and that's what happened. This is why it is difficult to trust partisan pollsters -- they spin the results based on what they think will motivate the troops. We saw the MDP do this with the poll showing Amos Williams ahead, as well as pretty much everything that came out of Mitchell.

One of the things I saw emphasized on election day in the news were problems with electronic voting, especially when there is no paper trail involved. Hopefully, coverage of all of the problems and inconsistencies involving this kind of voting will lead to improvements in the electoral process. I'd like to see some other "process" improvements as well, such as more competitive house districts in Michigan, stronger robocall disclosure laws, better financial disclosure requirements (think DeVos disclosure problems), and campaign finance improvements. There were other voting problems in Michigan that need to be addressed as well. For example, precincts in Pontiac ran out of ballots for several hours in the night, which caused many people to not be able to vote.

Obviously, the SBT replacement is a major issue that needs to be dealt with. Hopefully, it will be easier to go through with that and other initiatives like Granholm's health care plan and jobs plan with the change in power in the House. DeVos would have dismantled those, so I'm glad that he wasn't re-elected.

I think the blogs and "netroots" played a huge impact on the outcome of these elections. At the state level, Michigan Liberal had a major impact on the narrative of several races, most notably MI-Gov. At the national level, Webb and Tester are "netroots" candidates who were backed by the blogs long before anyone else thought that they even had a chance. Now, they are credited as the reasons that Democrats won the Senate.

Poor Sharon Renier. At least she helped make that race competitive, and caused Republicans to divert valuable time and resources to that district instead of in other races.

We need to start thinking about our candidates for statewide races in 2008 and 2010. They've got Cox and Land, and we don't have anyone of comparable stature yet.

Now that we've taken back the national house, members of our Michigan Congressional Delegation have been attracting attention. Its a shame that Republicans have already started to slander John Conyers. Good to know that John Dingell is going to be one of the key players in the debate about net neutrality:

"Clearly, we're going to have to address the question of network neutrality," Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, told reporters on Wednesday. Dingell, who has served in the House for more than 50 of his 80 years, is set to be the next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which writes telecommunications laws.

Dingell didn't elaborate. But he's previously gone on the record as a staunch supporter of extensive regulations that would prohibit network operators from charging content providers extra for premium placement or faster delivery, dubbing it "private taxation of the Internet." (Network operators say they may need to do this to recoup their vast investments in new broadband infrastructure.)

The unfortunate reality of our political system is that political change occurs through our two political parties. Although Greens may be well intentioned, by taking money from Republicans to "spoil" competitive races, they work against many of the principles they support. That energy could be focused more productively on attempts to change the Democratic Party itself. This was kind of frustrating:

Also in the Senate races, the presence of Green Party candidates hurt Democrats Andy Levin of Bloomfield Township and Carl Williams of Saginaw, who lost by 776 and 520 votes, respectively, said Tom Lenard, Senate Democratic spokesman. Green candidates there drew quadruple those losing margins.

I think Kathy Barks Hoffman and Chris Christoff get it right (not having specifics and Amway).

I originally posted this over at Michlib:

Well, this is it.

We have all put in a lot of hard work into this upcoming election over the past many months.  With things trending in our favor, that work appears to be paying off.  People understand that we cannot move our state forward under the current status quo, and that electing Democrats will help to bring the change that we need.  They understand that the future of our state is in our hands, and not those of fancy lobbyists and narrow-minded special interests.  Most importantly, they understand that we have some real choices in these races, and that our choices tomorrow will determine the direction of our state for many years to come.

Despite all of this, we must keep working to close the deal.  We cannot make the mistake of being complacent these next 24 hours.  It would be awful if we nearly had these races, but lost them in the last moments because we didn't work hard enough.  It is our duty to not only vote, but to turn out our supporters so that we can ensure that our values are represented in our government.  When it comes to Prop. 2, Bouchard, our state legislature, and the Amway Guy, nothing less than our very way of life is at stake.  Michigan is worth fighting for, so let's get out there and fight!

That brings us to election day.  Hopefully, the results will be good to us.  Maybe they won't be.  Regardless of what happens tomorrow, our work continues on November 8th.  We are a long-term movement and must stay organized if we want to outlast this election cycle and become a coherent political force in Michigan politics.  While tomorrow's election is very significant in itself, what happens now will also set the stage for many battles to come.  We are going to remain a part of Michigan's political process no matter what the outcome, and I look forward to our discussion about where we go from here after the election.

Finally, thank you all for making the past months such a meaningful experience.  This is hands down the best community on the 'net, and I know that many of us would have stopped blogging a long time ago if it weren't for the advice and encouragement of this incredible community.  I don't want to start listing names because I would inevitably leave someone out by accident, but there are a couple people that I would like to mention:  Matt and Laura.

Matt has sacrificed a lot to keep this website going, and it shows -- Michlib is the best website for Michigan politics, period.  I know I don't just speak for myself when I say that his work inspires us to give blogging our 100%.  Although Laura is not as visible on the front page, she does an incredible amount of "behind-the-scenes" work to develop the Michigan "netroots" that deserves to be acknowledged.  If it weren't for her advice, e-mail updates, and logistical tips, I might not have ever made it off the ground.

Anyway, that's enough babbling from me -- good luck with your races, and I'm sure we'll be talking and analyzing the results soon!

Dear [Supporter],

The race for Governor ends tomorrow when Michigan votes. I hope that I have earned your support and that you will encourage everyone you know to get to the polls and vote to keep Michigan moving forward.

There are a number of very important differences between Dick DeVos and me. I have fought for you, for all Michigan citizens. My opponent has stood on the other side of my most significant battles.

While I’ve fought to create jobs in Michigan and diversify our economy, Dick DeVos eliminated nearly 1,400 jobs in Michigan when he was CEO of Amway. While I fought George Bush’s outsourcing and unfair foreign trade policies, my opponent is one of George Bush’s biggest backers and has supported the unfair trade practices that have hurt us. I went to Asia to bring home 22 companies, 1,000 jobs and $200 million in investments. Dick DeVos went to Asia and invested $200 million and created thousands of jobs there.

I strongly believe that a woman’s personal health care decisions should not be made by politicians. My opponent absolutely opposes a woman’s right to choose, even in the case of rape or incest. When I see a woman who has been raped, I see a victim. When my opponent sees that same woman, he sees a criminal. I support embryonic stem cell research, he opposes it. I support public education, he led the voucher movement that would hurt our public schools. I believe in health care for all. Dick DeVos’ health care plan is “get a job.” I will not gut public safety or open our Great Lakes up to drilling to pad the pockets of corporate executives. My opponent’s business tax scheme jeopardizes our police officers and prisons and puts corporate executives first.

I am a Governor who works hard every day, for everyday people. My opponent, time and again, has made decisions to help himself and the fortunate few at Michigan’s expense.

In the past four years, I’ve cut more out of state government than any Governor in state history. I’ve set in motion the most comprehensive and aggressive jobs plan in the nation. And I’ve protected and invested in education and health care and public safety for all Michigan citizens. We’ve made incredible progress, but there is a lot more still to be done.

Tomorrow, Michigan votes. I’m depending on you to help me keep our plan, and our vision of Michigan’s future, alive. Forward this email to your friends and family and remind them to vote. Get on the phone and make sure that everyone knows what is at stake. You can make the difference in this election.

Sincerely,

Jennifer M. Granholm
Governor

View "preview" size.
View "full" size.

This includes the most recent Strategic Vision poll, as well as the most recent Survey USA.

We're seeing a lot of instability. Also, the median date of when the most recent polls were conducted is Nov. 3rd, and the election is November 7th. Its tough to tell what is taking place between Nov. 3rd and the 7th.

Despite that, things are looking very good right now.

A new Strategic Vision poll was released showing Granholm up 52 to 42. Also, it has Stabenow up 50 to 44. Remember, Strategic Vision is a Republican firm.

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1200 likely voters in Michigan, aged 18+, and conducted November 2-4, 2006. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

I promise, updated trends are coming shortly.

The results of a new Survey USA poll were released today. The data was collected between 11/02/2006 and 11/04/2006, and the poll was sponsored by WDIO-TV Duluth, WDIV-TV Detroit, and WZZM-TV Grand Rapids.

It shows Granholm up 51 to 45, Stabenow up 52 to 42, Cox leading by 16, and Land up by 20.

I'll update with trends in a bit.

View "preview" size.
View "full" size.

New data points are based on the most recent EPIC-MRA poll, a new Mason-Dixon poll released today (showing Granholm at 52%, DeVos at 38%), and a Free Press poll released today showing Granholm with a 54% to 41% lead. They all had the same median survey date, so its interesting to see how they compare.

UPDATE (1:15 PM): Saul posted today about the new Freep poll that came out.

This late in the game, polls in Michigan are notoriously wrong…and misleading. This poll actually used samples taken on Holloween…a day many of our voters are out with their kids. The numbers are also way off from all the other polls taken in Michigan, including Democrat pollster Ed Sarpuolus EPIC-MRA’s poll.

Dick DeVos and Mike Bouchard for the last two weeks are running closer than any other challenger have in recent history. The momentum and activity has been going our way.

There is NO rationale reason, political event or other rationale that would justify a huge shift like the Detroit Free Press is showing…except a “bad” poll, which is to say an aberration or a bad sample…and that happens.

I can tell you with certainty that he is just spinning for his side. That's not to say that DeVos can't win, but he's trying to keep morale among his volunteers up.

The Halloween thing: One of the days the survey was taken may have been Halloween, but that's not relevant. Pollsters generally pick a random sample, and then keep calling them until they get a response over the span of a few days. By the third day, they eventually get responses from most everyone. Its not that some of their data was collected only on Halloween, but that Halloween was one of three days that they used to try and get responses from the same set of people. That's why polls are done over several days in the first place, because different kinds of people may be out of their house on any given day.

Trends: He neglected to mention the new Mason-Dixon poll altogether, which is closer to the Freep poll. Generally, these national studies like Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon, and Survey USA can be counted on to be very reliable. Looking at the trends based on all of the reputable polls done on this race, including ALL of the recent EPIC-MRA surveys, to say that things are trending in DeVos' favor would be an outright lie.

Yes, these are results released today, not the poll from yesterday. Once again, hat tip to wizardkitten for the scoop. Her post was up faster than the mechanism I use to track news caught the story, which is astounding. WK and Zack are always ridiculously fast when it comes to featuring new TV advertisements and poll results, so be sure to check them out frequently if you want to stay up on that kind of stuff.

Anyway, here's the good stuff:

A Detroit News/WXYZ-TV poll of 600 likely voters taken Tuesday through Thursday shows the incumbent Democrat leading 49-42 with 9 percent undecided. Daily surveys earlier in the week had Granholm over the crucial 50-percent threshold. She led 52-42 and then 52-43.

Margin of error is 4%, which means that there is no significant difference between Granholm's support in today's poll and their earliest poll this week. I emphasize this because a news organization (this time the Detroit News) has once again run with the headline "Race for governor tightens in last days".

We cannot say if there is a real difference or not. The only way to say that is if multiple polls are all saying the same thing, otherwise it is impossible to tell if the results are a fluke or just experimental variation. As it stands, every "shift" from the polling this week is within the margin of error. We know that DeVos is doing his own tracking, and Granholm is probably doing her own as well. If this is the case, we might be able to use all of these together to get a better sense of how things are shifting on a daily basis. Unless the sample sizes are huge, just one polling firm can't tell us that because any real shifts taking place are going to be smaller than our experimental error.

Of course, the Detroit News/WXYZ-TV/WOOD-TV are paying for all of this polling, so they want a catchy headline to go along with it. "Everything stays the same" is not catchy. Although dishonest, "the race is tightening" is. They also have an incentive to talk about only "their" poll instead of all of the polling that has been done on this race, so it isn't going to present an accurate picture of where we're at.

The other thing I'm concerned about is how fast they're putting these polls out. I hope that when they are releasing their results each day, they're talking about 600 independent samples, not just 200 new people a day. This means that the 600 people surveyed for the poll released on Thursday is a different 600 from the survey released today. If not, the margin of error for comparing day-to-day results is really much higher than 4% (since there are only 200 new people surveyed each day), and its impossible to make any conclusions about day to day fluctuations.

The bottom line is that this will be news when someone else does this. I'll feel more comfortable about knowing where we're at when a different polling group releases some results. Again, having the tracking data from both campaigns to match with EPIC would give us much more solid results.

This isn't to say that EPIC's methodology is bad or wrong, just that there isn't enough information to be releasing headlines like this. The EPIC results do seem to agree with the rest of the polling done on this race.

I'm not updating the graph yet, since the new graph will be virtually unchanged from the old one. We will surely have more polls done on this race before the election, so I'll update it after the next one comes out.

Anyway, I'm off to watch the Borat movie that comes out today. Peace.