The fall of the Islamic Republic of Iran

[Mr.TaterSalad]

58 minutes ago, oblong said:

Maklid beat out Acker, who had his own issues to deal with....

A little backstory here. I was there at the Michigan Democratic Party convention yesterday at Cobo/Huntington Place. At the convention, Democrats had the chance to vote on their parties nominees for the offices of Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Board of Education, and Boards of Regents. The more progressive candidate's won and beat out candidates pushed by the Labor Caucus in some instances and other instances, who the Labor Caucus wanted was the same person that most progressives wanted to win. There were two instances where the progressive choice beat the Labor Caucus choice. One was when Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit beat out Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald for the Democratic nomination for Michigan Attorney General. Savit is your typical Ann Arbor liberal and has been a reformed-minded prosecutor. The other instance was in the UofM Regents race where, as you mentioned Amir Maklid, beat out the Labor Caucus Choice. In other instances, like the Michigan Secretary of State's race, the choices progressives and labor wanted were aligned, with Garlin Gilchrist winning the SOS nomination.

For years, the Michigan Democratic Party convention process was controlled by labor unions, more specifically labor union leadership of the major unions in the state (UAW, LiUNA, Building Trades Council, Carpenters, MEA, and AFT). More specifically than that, it was controlled by the leadership at the Michigan AFL-CIO (of which many unions belong to like the UAW) and it's President Ron Beiber. Ron Beiber doesn't like progressives. Ron Beiber loves Ron Beiber more than anyone else in the world. He also loves playing kingmaker. And for years the Michigan AFL-CIO, Labor Caucus, and Ron were the kingmakers. If you go back to pre-2016 conventions, there would be 3,000, maybe 3,500 people at most that participated in the convention nominating process. That allowed for Ron, union leadership, and the Labor Caucus more broadly to bring 1,500 or so people to a state party convention and control the nomination process and who wins these races. Now that more people, from all walks of life are showing up to the convention, they don't have the votes to run the show like they used to. This upsets Ron very much.

Yesterday, there were people from all across the state who came. People from local community Democratic Clubs and Congressional District Clubs, and College Democrats chapters. As well, there were people from activist organizations like local Indivisible Chapters, The People's Coalition, Michigan United, Detroit Action, Ranked Choice Voting Michigan, Mop Up Michigan, DSA, etc. With more local Democrats attending and more people from these types of organizations, they aren't going to follow and do what Labor Caucus says to do. Furthermore, when you nominate uninspiring candidates like Karen McDonald, not everyone in Labor Caucus is going to stick with their team. Some of those people voted for people like Eli Savit as well. So the days of labor controlling the party with a handful of voters is over it appears.

Edited 8 hours ago by Mr.TaterSalad

[Mr.TaterSalad]

11 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

with Acker out I'd put my money on Brown and Schostak. Epstein is apparently a Trumper and I don't see Maklid getting the support of Alumni, who do most of the voting in a regent's election.

It's just going to be a partisan race. Most people will vote straight ticket Dem or Republican. If it is a bad year for Republicans, like we think it could and should be, people will plunk for the Democratic ticket, which will include UofM, MSU, and Wayne State boards.

[gehringer_2]

Eli's reviews around town have been good, I'm not surprised at his success. 

I don't know a lot of alums who have been happy with the Regents handling of Schlissel, the hiring and firing of Ono, and even if they couldn't have know Syverud was going to be sick, he was at best a caretaker hire. So it's not like the incumbents have strong resumes at the most important job they do. 

8 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

It's just going to be a partisan race. Most people will vote straight ticket Dem or Republican. If it is a bad year for Republicans, like we think it could and should be, people will plunk for the Democratic ticket, which will include UofM, MSU, and Wayne State boards.

I don't think so. Governing board elections have small turnouts  and even when Trump won MI the GOP didn't do well in regent's races, which I take as a sign that MI doesn't get a lot of straight ticket voters.  I have to believe it's mostly alums from each school that decide those races. 

If there really is a wave election, maybe. I'll believe that when I see it. Not saying it won't happen, but the Dems had this level of anticipitory euphoria multiple times now only for the election to turn out to be squib.

Edited 7 hours ago by gehringer_2

[romad1]

40 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Eli's reviews around town have been good, I'm not surprised at his success. 

I don't know a lot of alums who have been happy with the Regents handling of Schlissel, the hiring and firing of Ono, and even if they couldn't have know Syverud was going to be sick, he was at best a caretaker hire. So it's not like the incumbents have strong resumes at the most important job they do. 

I don't think so. Governing board elections have small turnouts  and even when Trump won MI the GOP didn't do well in regent's races, which I take as a sign that MI doesn't get a lot of straight ticket voters.  I have to believe it's mostly alums from each school that decide those races. 

If there really is a wave election, maybe. I'll believe that when I see it. Not saying it won't happen, but the Dems had this level of anticipitory euphoria multiple times now only for the election to turn out to be squib.

the Political Science and non-aligned political campaign industry crowds seems to think a wave is happening.   What could change it from happening?   Trump suddenly much more popular?  

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, romad1 said:

the Political Science and non-aligned political campaign industry crowds seems to think a wave is happening.   What could change it from happening?   Trump suddenly much more popular?  

Of course we can always revisit this post in November like we can revisit the Bryce Underwood one. 

[oblong]

FWIW, I typically leave the regent races blank on my ballot as I don't know them and I don't really care.

[gehringer_2]

 a̶s̶s̶u̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ h̶e̶ g̶e̶t̶s̶ p̶a̶s̶t̶ e̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ A̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ o̶r̶ B̶r̶o̶w̶n̶ i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶, w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ i̶s̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ -̶ i̶n̶ f̶a̶c̶t̶

27 minutes ago, romad1 said:

the Political Science and non-aligned political campaign industry crowds seems to think a wave is happening.   What could change it from happening?   Trump suddenly much more popular?  

But beyond Wisconsin, there is little good data from full turnout elections. And Wisconsin should flip - it's a faiirly moderate state. Beyond that there is a belief that trump has managed to alienate a lot of his supporters, but so far it's all anecdote and speculation. That's OK, but it's not proof. His overall approval numbers are down, but not down enough from where they always are to indicate numbers for a major re-alignment.

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

FWIW, I typically leave the regent races blank on my ballot as I don't know them and I don't really care.

yup - I think most people do. And as carefully as I do vet UM regents, I almost never vote the MSU or WSA slates exacty because I don't follow the issues at those schools. There was point a number of years ago when I did make a point of voting against all the incumbent MSU Trustees because they had mad a bad enough muddle in E. Lansing that it got on my radar.

Edited 6 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

George Carlin nailed it as usual and it's still true today:

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Tiger337

[RatkoVarda]

MAGA will be happy to send money to the sultans, right?

Jared will negotiate a great deal; taking only a small success fee of about $3B.

OH THE WINNING!

 

[Motown Bombers]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

 a̶s̶s̶u̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ h̶e̶ g̶e̶t̶s̶ p̶a̶s̶t̶ e̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ A̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ o̶r̶ B̶r̶o̶w̶n̶ i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶, w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ i̶s̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ -̶ i̶n̶ f̶a̶c̶t̶

But beyond Wisconsin, there is little good data from full turnout elections. And Wisconsin should flip - it's a faiirly moderate state. Beyond that there is a belief that trump has managed to alienate a lot of his supporters, but so far it's all anecdote and speculation. That's OK, but it's not proof. His overall approval numbers are down, but not down enough from where they always are to indicate numbers for a major re-alignment.

His numbers are lower than they were in 2018 but exceptionally lower on the economy which turns out voters. 

[Motown Bombers]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

 a̶s̶s̶u̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ h̶e̶ g̶e̶t̶s̶ p̶a̶s̶t̶ e̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ A̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ o̶r̶ B̶r̶o̶w̶n̶ i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶, w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ i̶s̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ -̶ i̶n̶ f̶a̶c̶t̶

But beyond Wisconsin, there is little good data from full turnout elections. And Wisconsin should flip - it's a faiirly moderate state. Beyond that there is a belief that trump has managed to alienate a lot of his supporters, but so far it's all anecdote and speculation. That's OK, but it's not proof. His overall approval numbers are down, but not down enough from where they always are to indicate numbers for a major re-alignment.

Michigan historically and recently has been more to the left of Wisconsin. 
 

There’s also Virginia and New Jersey who had full state elections that Dems over performed. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Motown Bombers

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Michigan historically and recently has been more to the left of Wisconsin 

granted, but retaking  MI and WI is not a wave for the Dems, it's just getting you back to even.

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

granted, but retaking  MI and WI is not a wave for the Dems, it's just getting you back to even.

I mean no since Wisconsin has elected the likes of Ron Johnson three elections in a row. 

[romad1]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

granted, but retaking  MI and WI is not a wave for the Dems, it's just getting you back to even.

I think a lot of your stance here is sensible contrariness...worse still there is this. 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/20/election-security-midterms-voting-00872694?utm_content=topic/world&utm_source=flipboard

I still think this Fall looks to be a blowout for the party that took the country to war and whose president has decided to fight a war against its own base.   

The real key though is all the retirements by the incumbent party.  That is a known trend identifier in politics.   The other key is fundraising by individual candidates.  The Dems have that action in spades.   Now couple the above threat to destroy the integrity of the vote with an almost unlimited ability to fund via dark money...you might have some chaos. 

ONE other thing that might cause chaos.  The Virginia Gov deciding to make major gun rights changes before the April 21 (tomorrow) redistricting vote.  The loony gun strokes might come out to vent their displeasure.  I think the current money is on a 8-10 point win for the redistricting vote but the smoke from the gun crowd might be a cause for concern.