Susan J. Demas: Democrats Learn to Love Liberalism Again

As a kid with an abnormal interest in politics growing up in the 1980s, I quickly learned a couple of maxims: The Russians were our mortal enemies hellbent on destroying the American way of life and “liberal” was a dirty word.

Nobody wanted to be labeled a liberal in the Reagan era, except, perhaps, Ted Kennedy. In politics, liberalism was shorthand for government bloat and old ideas. But more generally, it was synonymous with whining and failure.

Talk about an effective branding campaign by Republicans. It’s little wonder that in the decades since, many on the left have tried to escape this negative frame by favoring the term “progressivism.”

So I have to admit to experiencing a bit of whiplash in our post-2016 election world. I still have to rub my eyes and wonder if I’m truly awake every time President Trump or Republicans defend the Russians, who may have ditched communism but are still dedicated to undermining the United States on the world stage. They demonstrated that plainly by meddling in our presidential election, something undisputed by our intelligence agencies.

It’s even more bizarre to hear some conservatives decry those of us not down with a hostile foreign power as “McCarthyites.” (It’s less surprising coming from the far left, which has always had a blind spot for Russia).

Another fascinating development is seeing many Democrats embracing liberalism, both elected officials and activists. And it’s not just defending specific policies, but arguing that liberalism is the mark of a forward-thinking society. That’s a 180 from the 80s-style Republican caricature of the ideology.

To see this transformation in action, look at Democratic primaries. Candidates are jockeying over who’s the furthest left, even for seats that favor Republicans in general elections. My inbox is jammed with releases like this: “Progressive Candidate Fayrouz Saad’s Statement on Rep. Trott’s Retirement” (Saad is a Democrat running in the 11th congressional district, which has been represented by Republicans for years). Some Bernie Sanders-style candidates are proudly declaring themselves to be socialists.

For decades, Republican primaries have been “who’s the most conservative” measuring contests. Candidates typically make the case with their platforms, arguing over who could cut taxes and ban abortion fast enough.

Incumbents love to trot out their voting records as proof of their conservative bona fides. Every year, my publication, Inside Michigan Politics, ranks the most liberal and most conservative state legislators on how they voted on dozens of key social, economic, taxation, environmental, civil rights, and public health/safety issues. In 2017, IMP used 31 votes taken in the Senate and 32 votes in the House.

Those who win, place or show on the conservative side are usually thrilled and often trumpet the honor in their campaigns. But the reaction from the “most liberal” honorees has often been mixed. Some, like state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor), a five-time “Most Liberal Senator” champ, wear it as a badge of honor. Other lawmakers, especially those in marginal seats, have been less than thrilled to be tagged with the liberal label.

But given the leftward turn in Democratic politics, I expect more legislators to celebrate their liberal voting records in the 2018 election.

So who took home the honors in IMP’s 2017 rankings?

In the House, the “Most Liberal” House member was state Rep. Yosef Rabhi (D- Ann Arbor), with an 87.5 percent liberal voting record. State Rep. Jeff Noble (R-Plymouth) is the conservative champ, voting liberal only 18.8 percent of the time.

For the Senate, state Sen. Morris Hood III (D-Detroit) was the “Most Liberal” member, posting an 88.9 percent liberal record. State Sen. Peter MacGregor (R-Rockford) was the 2017 “Most Conservative” titan with a 19.4 percent liberal voting score. The complete rankings of all 149 legislators are in the December editions of IMP.

In 2018, it’s worth watching how the furthest left candidates fare in their primaries and how many triumph in fierce general election battles. That’s a key way to assess if the Democratic Party will keep swinging left.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Can Levin and Conyers Hand Down their Seats to their Sons?

This is America, where we instinctively detest monarchies and political dynasties … until a dynamic scion catches our particular fancy.

For every Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton (who’s yet to even run for anything yet) that the political class bemoans as tiresome emblems of nepotism, there’s a George W. Bush, Mitt Romney or Joseph Kennedy III whose political pedigree and charisma captures their hearts.

The difference between disdain and acclaim usually comes down to whether people believe a family-connected politician has earned his/her position and therefore the right to run for a more prestigious office. And that’s, of course, somewhat subjective.

Michigan has a fine tradition of rewarding powerful political families at the ballot box, including two members of Congress. Dan Kildee (D-Flint) succeeded his uncle, Dale Kildee, in the MI-5 in 2012 after serving as Genesee County treasurer and founding the nonprofit Center for Community Progress.

Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) was elected to the MI-12 in 2014 after the retirement of her husband, former Dean of the House John Dingell Jr. (who had succeeded his father, John Dingell Sr.). Mrs. Dingell has been a Democratic National committeewoman, Wayne State Board of Governors chair and longtime Democratic fundraiser.

It’s safe to say that the extensive résumés of both Debbie Dingell and Dan Kildee would put them in the “worthy” category of familially linked politicians, although the former is derided more than the latter (which naturally isn’t uncommon for women).

But even if you disagree, consider the fact that neither of them have faced any real competition in their respective Democratic primaries, even though there are plenty of ambitious politicians (often stunted by term limits) who would have run in a heartbeat if they thought they had a chance. So if Kildee and Dingell were just riding their families’ coattails with no significant accomplishments of their own, you can bet they would have had to overcome serious rivals.

For the last week, political nepotism has been back in the news, thanks to two other Michigan members of Congress who announced they’re stepping down. There’s Sandy Levin (D-Southfield), who will next year under favorable circumstances, and John Conyers (D-Detroit), who left this week in shame amid several women accusing him of sexual harassment.

Conyers has declared he wants his son, John Conyers III, to succeed him in the MI-13, while his great-nephew, state Sen. Ian Conyers (D-Detroit) is almost certainly expected to run. Even Conyers’ once-estranged wife, Monica Conyers, has been mentioned as a candidate, even though she went to prison over a bribery scandal when she was on the Detroit City Council.

It’s pretty clear that Monica Conyers has no business running — having a felon replace her scandal-plagued husband would send a terrible message. Their son, John Conyers III, got busted for driving a taxpayer-funded Escalade and is a 9/11 truther (as a prolific social media user, he also tweeted in 2010 that his dad is a “f------ player and reckless as hell.”) It’s safe to say that if his surname wasn’t Conyers, no one would take him seriously as a candidate.

His cousin, Ian Conyers, hasn’t put in decades in politics like Kildee and Dingell did — he’s only 29. But he’s been a congressional aide, worked on President Obama’s 2012 re-election and was elected to the state Senate in 2016. Conyers is a serious candidate, but not so formidable to chase off other Dems. He’ll have to fight his way through a crowded primary next year.

Meanwhile, Levin — who’s the brother of former U.S. Sen. Carl Levin — has long wanted his son, Andy Levin, to take his place in the MI-9. When the younger Levin revealed right before Thanksgiving that he wouldn’t run for governor, most politicos took it as a signal that his father was retiring. Less than two weeks later, Sandy did. And Andy promptly declared for the seat on Wednesday.

Like his father, Andy Levin is a Harvard-trained lawyer, but he has never held elective office. He lost a state Senate race in 2006 and the consolation prize was go to work for the Gov. Jennifer Granholm administration, where he briefly served as director of the Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth. Afterwards, he founded Levin Energy Partners.

Is that enough to win his father’s seat next year? Time will tell. But other Democrats don’t seem particularly intimidated and a big field is expected.

The next generation of Conyerses and Levins will have their work cut out for them if they want to carry on their respective political dynasties.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: GOP’s Gun Votes Could Backfire in 2018

Last week, we learned that a Michigan Republican lawmaker had lost an assistant U.S. Education secretary post over several outré blog posts, including one that called for throwing all Muslims on the no-fly list for terrorists.

There’s some irony that this First Amendment-chucking proposal from Rep. Tim Kelly (R-Saginaw) cost him a key slot with the Trump administration, which has proposed several variations of travel ban targeting Muslims.

Kelly followed the playbook of Republicans in the Trump era, bemoaning that he’d been thwarted by the “toxicity of the swamp.” He also argued that he was a “conservative Republican with opinions” that “don’t match those of the left,” which is a bit strange considering that his candidacy was rejected by uber-conservative Ed Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Interestingly, the Kelly news broke just as the no-fly list was back in the news in Michigan.

A majority of Republican senators had just voted against banning those on the no-fly list from being able to get a concealed pistol license (CPL), which flies in the face of the GOP’s usual get-tough-on-terrorists stance.

It’s also an awful position for lawmakers to defend in next year’s election. Now many senators are term-limited, but you can bet that Democrats will be pushing Republicans up and down the ballot whether they support “guns for terrorists.”

Democrats often have a problem distilling their issues and attacks into easy-to-remember soundbites. GOP messaging guru Frank Luntz, who has a history of advising Michigan Republicans, is a master of this. He’s won the rhetorical framing war on host of political topics, most famously rebranding the estate tax that affects only .2 percent of Americans as the menacing “death tax,” which many mistakenly believe they’ll have to pay, as none of us is getting out of here alive.

But Democrats have a tailor-made issue with the no-fly list loophole.

Sen. Curtis Hertel (D-Meridian Twp.), who helps run the Senate Dems’ campaign effort, gave us a nice preview of the 2018 ads to come with this quip after the vote: “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous to have a CPL.”

The Republican majority also voted against banning people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from obtaining CPLs. Just a few days before, Devin Patrick Kelley allegedly shot and killed 26 people during a Texas church service. He had a long history of domestic violence against his wife and stepson, fracturing his skull. And still, Kelley was able to obtain the AR-15 he used to slaughter people as they prayed.

Just a few months earlier, James Hodgkinson allegedly shot up a GOP congressional baseball practice, injuring Michigan native Matt Mika and U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). Hodgkinson had a history of beating his daughter and other young women.

Many mass murderers share a similar background. There’s ample research that a history of domestic abuse is a key factor in violent recidivism. But Michigan Republicans refused to take a basic step to keep guns out of the hands of those who have beaten and abused those closest to them.

And they voted against stopping sex offenders from being able to get CPLs. That was also pretty timely with the Washington Post breaking a story that former Judge Roy Moore, the GOP Alabama U.S. Senate nominee, had allegedly sexually abused four teenage girls when he was in his 30s. Moore has denied molesting girls, but wouldn’t rule out having dated teenagers during that time.

These gun policies are terrible. And the politics are just as bad. So why would Republicans take these votes?

Because their top priority before before dashing out of town for their two-week “hunting break” was passing legislation allowing people with CPLs to carry concealed weapons in gun-free zones like schools, churches, daycares, sports stadiums, college dorms and bars.

If you’re not crazy about people packing heat where your kids go to learn their ABCs or while downing a fifth of bourbon and getting riled up over the Lions game at your favorite tavern, you’re not alone. Almost 60 percent of Michigan voters agreed with you in the most recent polling from EPIC-MRA in October 2015.

But apparently Republicans decided they wouldn’t even attempt to make unpopular legislation slightly more palatable. And so they soundly rejected Democratic amendments to stop people on the no-fly list, domestic abusers and sex offenders from getting concealed weapon permits.

That decision probably made NRA lobbyists proud. But it could end up backfiring big time in 2018.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: With a Key U.P. Victory, 2018 Looks Brighter for Michigan Democrats

If you’re looking for a window into 2018 in Michigan, the most important race took place last night in the western Upper Peninsula.

On first blush, it looks like a pretty routine result in the special election for the 109th state House District: Democrat Sara Cambensy held a seat that’s been blue for more than a half-century. The district has a solid 56.9 percent Democratic base, per Inside Michigan Politics, and became vacant after Rep. John Kivela (D-Marquette) tragically killed himself this spring.

But Republicans made a real run at this 109th. Why? They knew that this election was bigger than a single state legislative seat.

Democrats were palpably nervous about the race after Cambensy narrowly won her August primary. Divisions in the party reared their head, as leaders fretted her pro-choice and liberal politics wouldn’t play in a district Donald Trump won by 5 points in 2016. Cambensy’s history of primarying Kivela last year hadn’t been forgotten. And the memory of Trump defying all expectations and winning Michigan in 2016 certainly put a fire under the Dems.

So if Republicans had managed to flip the 109th, I noted that they would have changed the narrative that 2018 would be a good Democratic year in Michigan. Democrats’ efforts to take back the House next year (now split 63-47 in the GOP’s favor) would have instantly been seen as lost cause and fundraising would have mostly dried up.

The GOP has controlled all three branches of government here since 2010. Trump became the first Republican to win Michigan since 1988. A Republican victory this year in the U.P. — an area that’s been shifting conservative since 2010 and went big for Trump in ’16 — would have confirmed that Michigan really is an emerging red state. And so even if 2018 continued to look bright for Democrats nationally, we’d have had good reason to believe that Michigan would be immune from the trend.

But those fears were laid to rest, as Cambensy didn’t just win. She won in a 14-point rout. Any divisions in the Democratic Party didn’t hurt the outcome — just as we saw in the marquee gubernatorial races last night in New Jersey and Virginia.

Republicans really did give this Michigan state House race their all and their nominee, Marquette school board President Rich Rossway, was up on TV. He didn’t run a bombastic, base-inspired Trump campaign, either. In fact, he played down his party affiliation (much as Democrats in red areas have done for years) and even walked a picket line, something relatively unheard of for Michigan Republicans since they rammed through Right to Work in 2012.

So now House Democrats are back in the same place they were on Nov. 9, 2016, with two victories Tuesday (the other was the 1st in the Detroit area). Republicans once again have a 63-47 majority, meaning Democrats have to flip nine seats next year to take control.

That’s the exact situation the Dems faced in 2016 when they failed to make any net gains. But Democrats’ smashing successes in Virginia legislative races last night — a state that, like Michigan, boasts heavily GOP-gerrymandered districts — has definitely made leaders more optimistic. And with clear evidence of an energized base, Democrats are also feeling better about their chances at the top of the ticket with next year’s gubernatorial race.

Winning the governor’s mansion or the state House in 2018 would give Democrats a seat at the table during Michigan’s critical 2021 redistricting — something that hasn’t happened for three decades.

And of course, a big Michigan Dem victory would be a stunning reversal for a newly minted Trump state, portending serious problems for the president in 2020.

Susan J. Demas: Democrats Now Have a Road Map for 2018

Democrats smashed all expectations on Tuesday, racking up key election wins across the country. To make victory even sweeter, this was almost a year to the date from when Donald Trump shocked progressives by conquering the presidency.

Indeed, the news was so bad for Republicans that Fox News barely covered the results and the only election Trump referenced on Twitter was the one in 2016.

The year after a presidential election, the marquee races are for New York City mayor, New Jersey governor and Virginia governor. On Tuesday, Democrats won the trifecta — and no election was even close, even as pundits declared they’d “blown it” in Virginia.

These elections have long been considered a barometer for what to expect in the midterms. As of now, everything seems to be coming up roses for the Dems.

In 2009, a year after Barack Obama’s first victory, Republicans took both gubernatorial races. Mike Bloomberg switched that year from being a Republican to an independent and won a third term as New York mayor.

And in Michigan, Republicans triumphed in a special state Senate race that year. As I’ve noted, the victory of now-Sen. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) was a harbinger of the GOP tsunami in 2010, when the party won the governorship, a 9-5 advantage in Congress, a 63-47 majority in the House and a 26-12 supermajority in the Senate.

The result of the special state House race Tuesday in the 109th district to replace the late Rep. John Kivela (D-Marquette) might not seem as dramatic. Democrats held an Upper Peninsula seat with a solid 56.9 percent Democratic base, per Inside Michigan Politics — one that’s been in their hands for more than a half-century. But it’s also a district that Trump won last year and the U.P. has been trending red since 2010.

Democrats were nervous, especially after Trump’s upset in Michigan a year ago. But despite Republicans’ best efforts — running Rich Rossway, a well-funded moderate who courted unions — Democrat Sara Cambensy won by 14 points.

The Dems’ enthusiasm is a great sign for 2018. That’s what they need if they want to flip the state House, which is split 63-47 in the GOP’s favor, and/or capture the big prize of the governor’s mansion. Either way, the Dems would regain a foothold in shaping the state’s agenda — and in the all-important 2021 redistricting process.

It’s significant that Cambensy won in spite deep divisions in the party. Republicans tried to exploit them, arguing the pro-choice Cambensy was too liberal for the district and pointing out that she’d primaried the popular Kivela last year. Nothing stuck.

The GOP attacks against Democrat Ralph Northam in the Virginia gubernatorial race also fell flat. Pundits speculated that menacing ads (which warned the Dem would let international MS-13 killers run wild in the state) would be the death knell for Northam. But he won the race handily.

Since Trump’s surprise victory last year, the media have been obsessed with white working-class voters who flipped to him. Democrats have been mired in debates about how to win those voters back, which has, at times, slighted women and people of color.

I’ve noted that a sect of Michigan Democrats has been focused on finding a white male gubernatorial candidate for months. They fervently believe that the only way for Dems to win back the governor’s mansion is with a “safe” nominee after Trump flipped Michigan last year.

The current field includes frontrunner former Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) and Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the former Detroit Health Department head who would be the nation’s first Muslim governor. There’s also businessman Shri Thanedar, who immigrated from India, and former executive Bill Cobbs, who’s African-American.

But Tuesday’s results don’t support the premise that Dems must adopt a defensive crouch and find the “Great White Male Hope,” starting with Cambensy’s victory in the U.P. She certainly wasn’t the safe choice for Democrats to nominate and yet she shattered expectations.

In Virginia, a trans journalist defeated the homophobic author of the “bathroom bill” in a state House race. The chamber also got its first Asian female and Latina members. And the boyfriend of a reporter killed on live TV defeated an NRA-backed candidate on a gun-control platform.

Charlotte, N.C., elected its first black female mayor and six other cities elected their first black mayors. Both of the new lieutenant governors in New Jersey and Virginia are African-American. An African-American woman beat a local New Jersey official who had posted a meme wondering if the Women’s March activists would be “over in time for them to cook dinner.”

And after enduring a campaign marked by “Don’t let TERRORISM take over our town!” fliers, Hoboken, N.J., elected its first Sikh mayor.

If you’re looking for a common thread, it would be that so many of these rising political stars are passionate about America as they see it — a beautiful, messy, diverse republic where anyone should be able to make it. Sure, it’s a rebuke of Trump, who’s fond of describing our nation as a dystopian hellscape. But it’s also a pretty appealing and uplifting message.

And even if you don’t buy the message, you can’t deny the candidates’ passion. That’s a quality that can’t be manufactured and wins races — which is exactly what Democrats need in 2018.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.
 

Susan J. Demas: Republicans Root for a U.P. Upset

In November 2009, Republicans were on suicide watch, both nationally and in Michigan.

President Barack Obama had won the ‘08 election with an almost 10 million-vote margin and still enjoyed a healthy approval rating a year later. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, including a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. And the Dems had won several special congressional elections.

In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm had the help of a huge majority in the House (67-43) and the Dems had an 8-7 congressional advantage. The one bright spot for the GOP was the Senate, which they’d controlled for 25 years. With the ascension of Sen. Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) to Congress, the GOP had a 21-16 edge.

The special Nov. 3, 2009, election to fill Schauer’s slot wasn’t a terribly exciting affair, but it was a huge morale boost for once-dejected Republicans (yes, there was singing on the Senate floor the next day).

Former Rep. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) decisively beating Rep. Marty Griffin (D-Jackson) became a bellwether for the 2010 election cycle. Not only did Griffin go on to lose his House seat, but the GOP ran the table, winning the governorship, a 9-5 advantage in Congress, a 63-47 majority in the House and a 26-12 supermajority in the Senate.

Republicans also flipped the U.S. House and came close in the upper chamber, effectively stalling Obama’s agenda. And the GOP scored big in other key states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia, which proved invaluable during the decennial redistricting process.

Eight years later, President Donald Trump has a GOP Congress and Republicans still control everything in Michigan. Now Democrats are hoping for history to repeat itself in 2018 with the president’s party getting pounded in the midterms. Having a Democratic governor going into the next redistricting is the ultimate prize in Michigan.

But Republicans see another scenario. And it starts with another special legislative election this November, one that’s largely been overlooked in the Upper Peninsula.

Many Republicans believe ‘16 was a sea change in our state, with Trump’s stunning victory finally pushing us to red (or at least reddish-purple) status. Michigan is getting older and is less educated than most states. We don’t have a significant, growing Latino population. All these demographic trends bode well for the GOP.

Republicans also have favorably gerrymandered legislative maps to fall back on. And they’ve also made big gains in key areas like the U.P., the northern lower peninsula and Macomb County, which should help them mitigate or even withstand even a powerful blue wave tearing through the legislative map.

And Republicans are making noise about coming for three-term incumbent U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Lansing), openly praying that hometown sensation Kid Rock is serious about running and not just trying to sell concert tickets and merch.

Michigan has a special place in Trump’s heart, as it’s one of the three Rust Belt states that flipped to put him in the White House. And Republican National Committee Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, a Michigan native, can also be expected to spread the love in terms of money and surrogates.

So the GOP is somewhat optimistic that they’ll be insulated from the historic precedent of the president’s party taking a hit in off-year elections.

But to get things off on the right foot, they’d love to steal what looks like a safe Democratic seat. The 109th in the central U.P., which includes Marquette, Ishpeming and Manistique, has a 56.9% Democratic base, according to Inside Michigan Politics.

The seat is open because Rep. John Kivela (D-Marquette) tragically killed himself after being stopped for drunken driving. This week, Sara Cambensy, a former Marquette city commissioner, won the Dem special primary. She’ll face Republican Rich Rossway, president of the Marquette school board, in the Nov. 7 special general election.

GOP strategists are excited about Rossway, a 17-year veteran of the board with strong ties to the community. Interestingly, he’s adopting the tactic used by many a Democrat in red-trending or socially conservative areas (like Griffin did) and isn’t stressing his party label. Instead, Rossway has been playing up his bipartisan credentials and making the case that he’ll put the U.P.’s needs before partisan concerns.

Republicans also see an opening because the Cambensy barely pulled off a win on Aug. 8. Last year, she also primaried Kivela, who was a beloved figure, which left some Dems with a bad taste in their mouths.

If Rossway scores a Trump-like upset, that gives the GOP another vote in the state House. As the Dems are expected to maintain the 1st District seat in Detroit and Harper Woods on Nov. 7, that would bring the GOP to a bone-crushing 64-46 advantage.

But flipping the 109th is bigger than that. It’s about changing the narrative about 2018 in Michigan and demoralizing Democrats, who have seen an influx of new energy from both the Indivisible and Bernie Sanders “Our Revolution” groups.

Republican operatives, no doubt, are already auditioning clever soundbites about how the Dems should just pack it in for good in Michigan.

It’s a longshot for sure. But for Republicans, it doesn’t hurt to dream.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: What’s the Future of the Rust Belt?

“In so many once-thriving communities, young people have fled, and the residents who do remain have grown frustrated over diminished job prospects, and are anxious about the future. The very same anger and anxiety that found an outlet at the ballot box in 2016.” — John Austin

If you’re looking for a clear, just-the-facts-ma’am look at how the industrial Midwest is changing and how that gave us President Trump, you can’t go wrong with John Austin’s new piece, “A Tale of Two Rust Belts,” for the Brookings Institution.

No, it’s not one of those cloying columns national pundits have been churning out by the dozens after spending 10 minutes chatting up laid-off workers in Warren or Youngstown. It’s a well-researched, accessibly academic article by someone who actually lives here.

Austin is a fellow at the esteemed think tank. He also was recently ousted from a job he did exceedingly well — president of the state Board of Education (more on that in a bit).

I met with Austin a few weeks before this piece was published and much of our conversation revolved around Michigan’s evolutionary growing pains. He’s deeply concerned about what happens to areas with shrinking industrial bases, like Macomb County, Flint and Saginaw, as well as the largely rural northern swath of the state that Bridge Magazine has dubbed the new “Disability Belt.”

Austin notes that many of these areas voted for Trump in 2016. In contrast, cities with highly educated workforces (which usually have a university nearby), like Ann Arbor, Lansing and Kalamazoo, are thriving economically and voted for Hillary Clinton.

Bridging these vast cultural, educational and political divides in Michigan is no easy task. However, Austin believes the next governor must try to do exactly that.

Once upon a time, Austin was considered a prime Democratic gubernatorial prospect for 2018. He’s deeply thoughtful and has an envy-inducing résumé in addition to Brookings and his public service: He holds a master’s from Harvard’s Kennedy School, directs the Michigan Economic Center and previously was founding director of the New Economy Initiative for Southeast Michigan.

Austin’s work has earned him a bipartisan fan club (at least if you count old-guard Republicans). I noted last year that he might also be able to appeal to idealistic Bernie Sanders supporters.

But Austin ran into a big roadblock when he lost his 2016 re-election bid. He was rather bizarrely, and completely unfairly, targeted for his strong support of transgender students.

After spearheading the drive for completely voluntary school guidelines for trans kids, Austin butted heads with fellow board member Eileen Weiser, whose husband, Ron Weiser, is now Michigan Republican Party chair. The Detroit News — which used to run periodic editorials practically begging the GOP to drop incendiary stands on social issues and focus on conservative economics — ran staff columns siding with the culture warriors replete with the “special rights” canard straight out of the 1990s.

It’s unconscionable for anyone to make our most vulnerable children into a cheap and easy political target. And it’s admirable that Austin was willing to stand up for them.

That’s the kind of courage we could use in the governor’s mansion. But that’s not the next fight Austin is planning to take on. Instead, he’s looking to assist with Michigan’s future in other ways. For starters, he’ll be following up on his Brookings piece on on what can be done at the state and national level to help hollowed-out Rust Belt cities and those who still live there.

That sounds like the sort of thing people who are running for the state’s highest office just might want to pay attention to.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Kildee Bows out and Shakes up the Governor’s Race

This week, the Lansing bubble seemed to burst.

Yes, U.S. Rep.Dan Kildee’s completely unsurprising decision not to run for the Democratic nomination for governor seems to have done the impossible. Politicos and reporters appeared to wake up to the fact that no, former state Sen. Gretchen Whitmer doesn’t have this thing all sewn up, despite the fact that they’ve known her for decades.

And why would she? It’s 15 months before the primary for an open seat, for crying out loud.

Now personally, I would have liked to see an insider epiphany over something significant, like the realization that child poverty is a thing and we should maybe do more. But baby steps.

Anyway, the uncertainty of the 2018 Democratic race for governor has been clear for awhile if you spent time talking with folks outside the Capitol.

A lot of Dems were waiting for Kildee, especially those in labor or living in areas quickly slipping away from Democrats, like the U.P. and Macomb County. But there was a growing sense that he would stay in Congress, playing the role of aggressive foil to President Trump — which is what he ultimately decided to do after Republicans rammed their draconian repeal of Obamacare through the U.S. House. Now a lot of his supporters — and he has some fervent ones — are left looking for an alternative.

Whitmer has a strong fan base and her events across the state have drawn some impressive crowds. She’s expected to report a good fundraising haul. But as I noted last week, the anti-establishment Bernie Sanders voters are starting to gravitate toward former Detroit Health Department head Abdul El-Sayed.

There’s also no shortage of more establishment types who harbor deep concerns about Whitmer, which is why there was a lot of chatter about a “dream ticket” of Kildee-Whitmer or even about her running as attorney general instead. Of course her gender is a factor and of course it’s unfair. You can’t have a conversation about Whitmer without pointed comparisons to former Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Hillary Clinton.

But if Clinton had won Michigan last year, some of the sexism would have been muted. Her epic collapse north of M-10 and inability to turn out enough voters in southeast Michigan has made plenty of Dems jittery and wonder how Whitmer wins any votes that Clinton couldn’t. Time will tell if she can better connect with these voters than Clinton, who managed to lose Michigan twice.

Whitmer, a former Senate minority leader, has played up her 14-plus years in the Legislature as an asset. But it’s true she doesn’t have much of a record to show for it, as she served in the minority the whole time. Now Republicans had long identified her as a rising star and didn’t want to move her bills. And in her last four years, Gov. Rick Snyder was able to get most of what he wanted without Democrats’ support, so he didn’t trifle with them much. Still, wonky types wonder about how effective Whitmer would truly be at governing.

All of that is pretty premature, but there’s the political reality that the Senate caucus that she led has nearly gone extinct. When Whitmer was running for leader in 2010, the caucus shrank from 16 members to 12, putting them in a superminority where they couldn’t even procedurally block bills. During her leadership in ‘14, Democrats managed to lose another seat, a feat that seemed nearly impossible.

Whitmer has had the luxury of running in blue seats in the Lansing area and only faced some minor electoral battles at the beginning of her career (which is one reason why insiders bought into her ‘18 inevitability). Plenty of Democrats, however, would like to see her test her mettle in a tough gubernatorial primary, with the idea that the winner would emerge as a stronger candidate.

So Kildee’s announcement this week did what it was designed to do. It shook loose new Democratic possibilities for governor, notably University of Michigan Regent Mark Bernstein, who could put his 1-800-CALL-SAM legal family fortune to good use (and tantalizingly free up Democratic money for races up and down the ballot).

Can Bernstein win any votes that Whitmer can’t? Will there be other big names jumping in? That’s not clear.

But what has crystallized this week is that this race is far from over.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Whitmer vs. El-Sayed Could Be Clinton vs. Sanders All over Again

A few months ago, it looked like the only thing standing in Gretchen Whitmer’s way was Dan Kildee.

Whitmer, a Democratic former state Senate minority leader, leapt into the 2018 gubernatorial sweepstakes just after the New Year, while hopefuls in both parties were still issuing (not very convincing) denials about running. Most politicos (myself included) expected Kildee to get in, as the congressman has kept a very high profile during the Flint water crisis.

But even as Kildee has continued to waver between keeping a safe U.S. House seat and taking the plunge for state CEO, a new threat is emerging to Whitmer’s nomination.

And it’s coming from a very unlikely place.

When Dr. Abdul El-Sayed announced he was running for governor back in February, even Democratic insiders had to Google him. Sure, some people knew him from his work running the Detroit Health Department under Mayor Mike Duggan or from his Crain’s “40 Under 40” profile, but that was about it. He was 32, had never run for office and didn’t appear to be very politically active.

The last part was confirmed last week on WKAR’s “Off the Record,” when El-Sayed admitted he didn’t even vote in the 2016 presidential primary. But he did tell the panel that he would have voted for Bernie Sanders, who pulled out an upset win against Hillary Clinton.

And that helps explain why there’s growing grassroots enthusiasm for the man who would become the nation’s first Muslim governor. This isn’t readily apparent to those in Lansing, many of whom have known Whitmer for decades and have assumed she’s a lock.

But a lot of activists, particularly millennials, are psyched about El-Sayed. They like that he’s an outsider who’s never run for office. While plenty of Democratic lawmakers — particularly women — took offense when El-Sayed openly scoffed on OTR at Whitmer’s 14-plus years in the Legislature, many voters don’t consider political experience to be an asset anymore. Those on the far right and far left view holding elected office as a corrupting force.

It’s true that it’s hard to get to Whitmer’s left. She’s probably best known for her pro-choice and pro-LGBT views. But those positions are a given with the Democratic base. What a lot of activists are looking for is candidates who campaign on Bernie’s platform of slamming Wall Street and getting money out of politics. Outsiders like El-Sayed are in a better position to sell that agenda.

El-Sayed is busy making moves to show he’s for real. He’s been traveling the state and said on OTR that he’s raised $500,000 already, which isn’t chump change. And he’s hired a veteran campaign manager in Max Glass, who worked for Sanders favorite U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).

The biggest question in the Democratic gubernatorial primary has always been where Sanders voters would go. In a Kildee vs. Whitmer contest, that wasn’t readily apparent, as both are establishment figures who served as Clinton surrogates. But if Kildee sits this one out, the Dem gubernatorial primary could morph into Sanders vs. Clinton, Part II, between El-Sayed and Whitmer.

This is a scenario that causes many Whitmer backers and political insiders to roll their eyes. She’s expected to clean up with money and endorsements. She hails from a political family and has an experienced team. He’s the longest of longshots as a religious minority who nobody’s heard of.

Of course, those are all arguments that people made in the ‘16 Michigan presidential primary.

It’s way too early to predict an El-Sayed Sanders-style upset next year. We’re 15 months out and the field isn’t even set. But it would be arrogant to dismiss the idea out of hand.

If 2016’s surprises didn’t teach you to question your political assumptions, I can’t really help you.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Will Dems Take Advantage of Trump Stumbling in Michigan?

President Trump has been in office for three months, and Michiganders aren’t exactly basking in the glow of all the “winning” he promised he’d deliver.

The Republican won Michigan last fall by a plurality of roughly 10,000 votes. By February — in what’s supposed to be the post-inauguration honeymoon period — 56 percent of Michigan voters in an EPIC-MRA poll disapproved of his job performance.

Trump’s popularity was underwater, as well, with 51 percent viewing him unfavorably. (In contrast, his predecessor, Barack Obama, enjoyed 59 percent favorability in the survey). And 55 percent already didn’t believe Trump would end up being a good president, with 41 percent saying he’ll be a poor one.

Michigan isn’t an outlier. Trump’s national job approval is hanging around 51 percent negative and his unfavorables are around 52 percent.

And Trump is taking the GOP down with him, with the party’s numbers sinking rapidly. You can already see warning signs for Republicans in 2018 with how they’re fighting like crazy to keep safe red congressional seats in Kansas and Georgia special elections.

Michigan Democrats should smell blood in the water. This would seem to be the time to go on offense against an unpopular president and try to tie local Republicans to him every chance they get.

Republicans have controlled every branch of government in Michigan for the last six years and have done a skillful job gerrymandering congressional and legislative districts to make it easier to stay in power. Democrats are facing enormous odds in 2018 and need a strong message and target. Trump appears ready to make their job a lot easier.

But it seems that a lot of folks aren’t sure what to do. Many Democratic politicians, especially those representing areas Trump won, don’t want to talk about him much, despite his slipping poll numbers.

You’d expect a full-on assault against “Trumpcare,” given the GOP’s shockingly unpopular health care plans. Republicans started hammering the Affordable Care Act as “Obamacare” long before the bill was even written. And they were relentless in their attacks, which paid off big-time in the 2010, 2014 and 2016 congressional elections.

Obamacare never polled particularly well, although now it’s on the upswing, as people fear their coverage will be snatched away. But from a political standpoint, you have to give Republicans credit for their doggedness in attacking the ACA (facts often be damned), which certainly drove its unpopularity up.

Even today, Republicans aren’t afraid to champion issues that poll terribly, like being against background checks for gun purchases and backing tax cuts for the rich. It helps that their most passionate supporters have their back.

But the fact that they’re willing to stand up for certain ideas, even those that are unpopular, helps them portray themselves as principled, strong leaders. Those are very appealing qualities to swing voters, who vote on emotion and personality far more than issues.

Many Democrats rarely stick their necks out on issues that are closely divided or underwater in the polls. That’s why it took so long for the party to come around on same-sex marriage. That’s why Michigan Democrats barely campaigned on Right to Work during the 2014 election, even though the GOP power grab had inspired thousands to show up for last-minute protests in the dead of winter.

Stressing policies that are popular may seem like smart messaging. But you also forfeit the chance to convince people you’re right on the issues, like the GOP did with their relentless campaign against Obamacare.

And it reinforces the idea that Democrats aren’t willing to stick to their guns. That’s not helpful for independents and it’s demoralizing for the base.

It’s one reason why Bernie Sanders, whose far-left ideas will probably always put him outside the political mainstream, inspired such a devoted following. He seemed principled. He seemed like the real deal, someone who would never sell out what he believed in. Never underestimate how appealing that is for voters.

There’s also been some muddled messaging from Dems about working with Trump on some potential areas of agreement, like on trade and infrastructure. Of course, that’s a great way to disillusion your Resistance-loving, Women’s March-going base, which regards the president as the anti-Christ. And those are the passionate folks you’re going to need to turn the state blue — or at least purple — in ‘18.

At this point in his first term, Obama was immensely popular and viewed as a transformational figure as the first African-American president. That didn’t stop Republicans from trying to block everything he did, from the stimulus to the ACA. And they embraced their far-right base, the nascent Tea Party, which fueled the angry backlash to Obama in the ‘10 midterm elections.

That would seem to be a pretty decent blueprint for Democrats heading into ‘18. At any rate, it’s hard to imagine that strategy making things any worse for the party than they are right now.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.