That's ridiculous.
"Michigan Republicans should forget Stabenow and focus like a laser on dumping Granholm."
Michigan is very red in most of the state (like California), and much of the blue is composed of Reagan dems. Outside of the union - NAACP - university coalition there is not much support for Stabenow.
Granholm ran as a moderate, and generally she still is. Unfortunately she's not done much with the (admittedly awful) hand she's been dealt. If she finds her charisma again it won't be a close fight. Then again, she lost the charisma 3 years ago....
I would also like to add that as a former union member I wouldn't be so sure that union members blindly vote democrat. I never did and few of my friends who are still union members do. I suspect that may be different among Detroit area union members.
That's ridiculous.
Ah yes ... "like California." I'm certainly not looking for Feinstein to lose this year, either.
The Reagan Dems weren't able to deliver the state for Bush, and they won't deliver it for Bouchard this year.
There aren't enough of them, or they aren't Republican enough.
I would bet against DeVos, too. But he has a chance because people actually give a moment of thought to a gubernatorial race, especially when the economy is bad.
I'm aware that Michigan is a two-party state. Just saying that the Republicans aren't in especially good shape in statewide races, due mainly to 70 years of union propaganda. Partisanship is most powerful in Senate races, and the state's Rat majority, plus incumbency, plus a bad national climate for Republicans make it impossible to beat Stabenow this year.
In terms of the Senate, any money going to Bouchard should go to Jim Talent, Mike DeWine and Rick Santorum instead.
(I know DeWine sucks, but we need his vote.)
Granholm is not a moderate. Her asinine "cool cities" program and her proposed state-wide land use proposal places her firmly in the soviet socialist camp.
Granholm couldn't run a kiddie lemonade stand, much less a state.