Michigan Governor's Race

[Uncledave54]

Demonocrat------ Rebumlican....... doesn't matter, their all idiots.

Vote Libertarian.

[Richard]

Demonocrat------ Rebumlican....... doesn't matter, their all idiots.

Vote Libertarian.

Depends,left libertarians might as well be married to the socialist party,but I agree with the right libertarians who are more conservative leaning.But I like the do not mess with me and I will not mess with you concept.

As much as I agree with it,I do not think as a society it is sustainable,there are just way to many people that like to stick thier noses in others business and try and control how they live thier life,heck Florida is loaded with them,all transplanted.

[Jimaz]

As a point of reference, Shri Thanedar isn't ashamed of using his party's name prominently in mailings.

[Pam]

I'm starting to receive some mailings from Republican candidates that make minimal or even zero reference to their party name. One contained an image of smiling, conspicuously diverse constituents — something previously more likely to be found in Democratic brochures.

What else could this mean but some internal self doubt about the viability of their Republican brand?

Sometimes it's the information that is omitted that reveals the truth.

I saw a TV ad for somebody who just referred to himself as a conservative, no party mentioned.

Speaking of Shri- this ad is surprising- taking a stab at the party pre-anointing Whitmer:

https://youtu.be/IEw1q1Tgy2s

Here's a goofy one about potholes. He seems to have hired a more creative ad agency than the rest of the candidates.

https://youtu.be/T657Jm96yQA

[Cincinnati_Kid]

They all lie, and when they get in office, it's business as usual. Besides, Michigan is going to put another Republican back in as governor anyway. They seem to like what Trump is doing, regardless of how uncouth he is.

[Pam]

Get your non-partisan voting info. here.

https://www.vote411.org/

[coracle]

^After seeing his arrogant TV Ad, I definitely absolutely, positively will not vote for Abdul.

I will vote for Colbeck because he has engineering and business training; so he’s a logical thinker and understands the value of an earned dollar.

[Pam]

^After seeing his arrogant TV Ad, I definitely absolutely, positively will not vote for Abdul.

Ad or no ad, I doubt you were ever going to vote for him.

[coracle]

Ad or no ad, I doubt you were ever going to vote for him.

You’re right Pam. Not even if he claimed to support Trump [[or Bernie). I was hiding behind his arrogant Ad - but it still shows his demeanor!

[gnome]

Folks fall in love with the idea of an Outsider charging in on the wings of a magical steed and slaying the dragons of the past.

Horseshit.

You should vote for the creep who can do the job. You don’t hire a first-time plumber to fix a leak; you hire the best expert available.

You don’t hire a lawyer to take out your gallbladder, not a surgeon to get you off of death row.

You hire the best expert available.

We have an Electorial College that elected an outsider to occupy the White House; and -8years ago- an outsider to be Governor.

We elected Carter and Regan and Clinton and Obama in part because they were Outsiders.

We love Outsiders.

I don’t think that serves the general good of the Nation or the State.

One should look dispassionately at the candidates and objectively view their experience at knowing how to work the levers of governing.

With that in mind, the two folks who know how the appropriations and committee systems work are Calley and Whitmer.

Hold your nose in either case.

[Richard]

^ and that is about the jist of it.

[Pam]

This ad bugs me. Keep your eyes on the road Ms. Whitmer! I hope she's just fake driving.

https://youtu.be/s_-VEiWTzuk

[Richard]

This one that she has is funny.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RRrcyPju_Kk

she does kinda look like she just came out of the kitchen.

[coracle]

The democrats have got an impossible choice to make between a Granholm II, an Asian Indian and a muslim. The result can only be a Republican Governor; but who wants Shulette, Calley or the medical guy? WE NEED BETTER CANDIDATES.

[Ray1936]

WE NEED BETTER CANDIDATES.

The problem is the same as here in Nevada; nothing but hacks running for the office. It is my sincere view that any person who runs for political office does so for one of three reasons:
1. "What's in it for me?"
2. Overwhelming ego; "I am God's gift!"
3. [[1) and [[2) above.

[Jimaz]

... any person who runs for political office does so for one of three reasons:
1. "What's in it for me?"
2. Overwhelming ego; "I am God's gift!"
3. [[1) and [[2) above.

Two words: Bernie Sanders

[bust]

The democrats have got an impossible choice to make between a Granholm II, an Asian Indian and a muslim. The result can only be a Republican Governor; but who wants Shulette, Calley or the medical guy? WE NEED BETTER CANDIDATES.

You say that as if being Asian Indian or Muslim is a disqualification.
Candidates should be measured by their policies, not their ethnicity or religion. As long as the candidate makes the same separation.
So obvious.
Equally obvious there are still people who can't.

[O3H]

Untraceable cash spills into governor's race

Democrat Gretchen Whitmer and Republicans Bill Schuette and Brian Calley have benefited from huge sums of cash flowing into the governor's race that can't be easily traced to its original source because it runs through not-for-profit entities that don't have to disclose their donors.

We really need to find a mechanism to stop this senseless hemorrhaging of money exchanging hands in political campaigns here in Michigan.

Never forget that MASSIVE Companies like
Blue Cross Blue Shield are considered non-profit

[coracle]

^ Historically their cultures haven’t demonstrated they can run their own homelands very successfully so why should I trust them with Michigan just because they can mouth the same policies as those that have demonstrated they can, or because of their ethnicity or religion?

I don’t see many people beating a path to live in lands administered by them and their ancestors. I’m not voting for them for the same reason I’m not voting for Granholm II; they’re democrats - there’s equality for you.

Vote for them if it makes you feel righteous.

[Zacha341]

In Detroit, near midtown and near westside area I am seeing mostly Shri signs on yards. Billboards. I don't think he will get many Detroit votes however. Then again ....?

[Honky Tonk]

In Detroit, near midtown and near westside area I am seeing mostly Shri signs on yards. Billboards. I don't think he will get many Detroit votes however. Then again ....?

I went into Highland Park Saturday, after a stop-over in Hamtramck. I swear, every street corner between I-94 and Highland Park had a Shri sign on it.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Yep, but he has too much baggage etc. and not enough resonance with the black community to win.

[Wesley Mouch]

Why is it a problem when money 'runs through' a non-profit [[or any company or union)? So long as the donor is made public, you know all you need to know. If you see too much money coming from, say, BCBS... then you can infer what you wish -- and vote as you wish. No problem.

Well, I know why its a problem -- or rather why its a political issue. There's a desire for public shaming these days. For a great example, see the Boycott, Disinvest, Sanctions [[BDS) movement. If you don't know who contributed some opposition corporation -- then you can't go public and try to shame them, boycott their products, etc. The real reason for this push to disclosure contributors is to give political actors access to an enemy list.

This is all just part of a political game.

All politics is a game of influence. Money is one big form of influence, but not the only one. Money is most obviously speech. And shutting down speech of others is desirable. Thus, campaign spending limits are loved by politicians who desire to keep control of the process. The public is better served by zero limits on contributions -- and full transparency of the final personal giving money to every candidate. [[But without any need to explain how you go the money. That's your business.)

[Canadian Visitor]

Why is it a problem when money 'runs through' a non-profit [[or any company or union)? So long as the donor is made public, you know all you need to know. If you see too much money coming from, say, BCBS... then you can infer what you wish -- and vote as you wish. No problem.

Well, I know why its a problem -- or rather why its a political issue. There's a desire for public shaming these days. For a great example, see the Boycott, Disinvest, Sanctions [[BDS) movement. If you don't know who contributed some opposition corporation -- then you can't go public and try to shame them, boycott their products, etc. The real reason for this push to disclosure contributors is to give political actors access to an enemy list.

This is all just part of a political game.

All politics is a game of influence. Money is one big form of influence, but not the only one. Money is most obviously speech. And shutting down speech of others is desirable. Thus, campaign spending limits are loved by politicians who desire to keep control of the process. The public is better served by zero limits on contributions -- and full transparency of the final personal giving money to every candidate. [[But without any need to explain how you go the money. That's your business.)

I fail to understand the need to allow artificial entities that are not citizens of the country in question to possess 'speech rights'.

In Ontario and Canada we do not allow corporations, unions or any other non-individual to donate to political party or a politician.

As a shareholder of a business, you have the individual right of speech, as you do as an employee of said business/non-profit etc. or as union member etc.

That is because YOU are a citizen, the entity is not.

It is also entirely reasonable to limit the size of contributions and the amount parties and candidates spend.

We can have a reasonable debate on where the line should be drawn.

Federally, Canada is $1,575
Ontario is roughly $1,222
Quebec is $100

[[all amounts per year)

There are also rules on traceability.

Quebec requires any donation at or above $50 to be paid to the election authority, which will then turn it over to the political party or candidate.

Donations under that must have a contribution slip w/relevant info.

I don't see why any of that should be controversial.

If you're going to allow unfettered donations/spending, you might as well just give rich people 1000 votes for every ordinary person's vote.

It makes a complete sham of democracy.

[aj3647]

So long as the donor is made public, you know all you need to know. If you see too much money coming from, say, BCBS... then you can infer what you wish -- and vote as you wish. No problem.

???

You DO know don't you that the very point is that the donor is NOT made public, right? BCBS can funnel dark money to a candidate via a PAC for the specific deliberate purpose of concealing where the money came from. That's why it's called "dark" money. We don't know who BCBS is giving money to, or how much they are giving if they give it through a third-party PAC. We don't have this information.

So how exactly are we supposed to vote accordingly when it's all kept private?