Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
is now called a Libertarian. This two party system will morf into whatever you want them to be. That's how you get the Swarzeneggers and GW Bush and all the other skin shredders. If you look at the Democratic and Republican national conventions both had UBS as a major contributor to the 100 million conventions - UBS under federal investigation by several agencies. Point is the future Governor of this great state needs to be devoid of the Republican and Democratic monikers because they are both the same and will continue the same "circling the drain" program as long as they stay in office.
Yep..and a TRUE Republican. None of these Schwarzenegger (sp?) so-called Republicans. I'm not sure a TRUE Repub exists anymore, but I know Tom George and he is a really good guy. I do like Cox's stand on guns. He is pro NRA. Not sure about the rest. Guess I best start reading up on him. I have a strong feeling he will be our next Governor unless the welfare sucking Detroit liberals have their way AGAIN. If that happens, we are all doomed.
Yeah, like it or not, I think this election is Mike Cox's to lose.
Barring the entrance of some well known, well liked candidate in either party, the GOP nominee will win and I see Cox as cruising to the Republican nomination.
At this point I have no feelings toward him one way or another.
Yeah, like it or not, I think this election is Mike Cox's to lose.
Barring the entrance of some well known, well liked candidate in either party, the GOP nominee will win and I see Cox as cruising to the Republican nomination.
At this point I have no feelings toward him one way or another.
Do you think a Republican can actually carry the state of MI these days? It seems to have gone pretty far to the (D) column since Stabenow won Senate in 2000. Both Senators and the Governor have been (D)s and the Presidential election in 2008 was won by Obama by 16-17%.
When you consider the usual blocks that support the (D)s, it just seems hard for the GOP to win. My friend moved to the state recently and doesn't see it going Red anytime soon.
Do you think a Republican can actually carry the state of MI these days? It seems to have gone pretty far to the (D) column since Stabenow won Senate in 2000. Both Senators and the Governor have been (D)s and the Presidential election in 2008 was won by Obama by 16-17%.
When you consider the usual blocks that support the (D)s, it just seems hard for the GOP to win. My friend moved to the state recently and doesn't see it going Red anytime soon.
Yes I do.
Michigan is, and always has been, just slightly to the (D) column. There will be a party-not-in-control backlash as there usually is in an off-year. Granholm is not popular and the Union mentality has been fading for some time here in southeast MI.
John Cherry will be seen as too tied with the Granholm administration and right now I don't see any other Dem stepping up. If Cherry is the best the Dems can come up with I don't see them winning.
Michigan Republicans tend to be more moderate and not as backwards and scary as on the national level. If they keep to the center and don't nominate someone like Hoekstra, who is too far to the right for a statewide office, then they have a good chance.
As an Independant who more often than not votes Democrat only because I see them as the lesser of two evils, I may have to sit this one out next year. Or go for the coin toss!
p.s. Can Steve Yzerman run? Oh wait, we already have a Canadian in the governor's seat. How's that working out?
Michigan is, and always has been, just slightly to the (D) column. There will be a party-not-in-control backlash as there usually is in an off-year. Granholm is not popular and the Union mentality has been fading for some time here in southeast MI.
As an Independant who more often than not votes Democrat only because I see them as the lesser of two evils, I may have to sit this one out next year. Or go for the coin toss!
I don't know how someone can call the (D)s the lesser of two evils. Look at the 2009 (D) party, at least at a national level. They are run by hard left commies: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer, Weiner, Conyers....
Look at the failed policies they support: more Government, higher taxes, progressive taxation, more unions, open borders, Cap and Trade, restrictive energy policy, over-regulation, activist judges, public sector union control, catering to trial lawyers...
The (R)s are far from perfect these days, but they are still much better than the (D)s. Nobody in the GOP supports this garbage from head-to-toe.
Michigan is, and always has been, just slightly to the (D) column. There will be a party-not-in-control backlash as there usually is in an off-year. Granholm is not popular and the Union mentality has been fading for some time here in southeast MI.
John Cherry will be seen as too tied with the Granholm administration and right now I don't see any other Dem stepping up. If Cherry is the best the Dems can come up with I don't see them winning.
Michigan Republicans tend to be more moderate and not as backwards and scary as on the national level. If they keep to the center and don't nominate someone like Hoekstra, who is too far to the right for a statewide office, then they have a good chance.
As an Independant who more often than not votes Democrat only because I see them as the lesser of two evils, I may have to sit this one out next year. Or go for the coin toss!
p.s. Can Steve Yzerman run? Oh wait, we already have a Canadian in the governor's seat. How's that working out?
..and that is the sad part,your an independant,and you would consider giving your vote to a dem or republican,this is where we as independents lose ground,not only at the state level,but the national as well.If your an independent,you have seen through the fog that either major major party has going,and as a consequence,should not give them your vote because they use a catchy phrase.All across the country the independent movement is gaining ground,people are tired of dem's this and republican that,and michigan should be no different,the people here have suffered enough,why should they have to subject themselves to more abuse from either party in any direction?
..and that is the sad part,your an independant,and you would consider giving your vote to a dem or republican,this is where we as independents lose ground,not only at the state level,but the national as well.If your an independent,you have seen through the fog that either major major party has going,and as a consequence,should not give them your vote because they use a catchy phrase.All across the country the independent movement is gaining ground,people are tired of dem's this and republican that,and michigan should be no different,the people here have suffered enough,why should they have to subject themselves to more abuse from either party in any direction?
In theory you are right.
I get frustrated and increasingly apolitical because as I see it one party wants to take us in the wrong direction (Republicans) and the other is too afraid or ineffective to move in any direction (Democrats).
It is the proverbial fork-in-the-road. We (citizens) are at the middle of the fork. One path is clearly the incorrect and backwards path. This is where the GOP wants to lead us. Many want to follow because any action is better than inaction.
The Dems meanwhile sit at the middle of the fork pondering what to do, bickering among themselves and worrying that they may make the Republicans unhappy.
I look with envy at the many countries, Canada for example, that have more than two major political parties. Not only does this give the voters more idealogical choices but generally no one party garnishes enough votes to form a majority and hence those wonderful concepts of compromise and consensus come into play. Granted this works better in a parliamentary system than it would ours. Nonetheless, a significant third or fourth party in this country, even on a regional level, would shake things up a bit.
You say an independent movement is gaining ground? I have been hearing that for over 30 years and wish it to be true but quite frankly I don't see it. If anything I feel it is the opposite. We are becoming increasingly polorized politically.
So as an "Indy" I will continue to have the following options on election day;
A) Democrat = bad choice. Throwing vote away.
B) Republican = worse choice. Throwing vote away.
C) Third-party = perhaps better choice than above two but zero chance
of being elected. Throwing vote away.
D) Don't vote = defeats purpose of living in a democracy. Throwing vote
away.
I get frustrated and increasingly apolitical because as I see it one party wants to take us in the wrong direction (Republicans) and the other is too afraid or ineffective to move in any direction (Democrats).
Do you think what the (D)s are proposing on the national level is good for the country? All that nonsense has been tried here and abroad and fails every single time. Obama wants to implement nationally what the left has done in the cities and states that it has run into the ground: California, IL, MI, Detroit, Baltimore, Mass.,...
One day Obama was praising Grandolm and Schwarzenegger at the same time. These are two of the most incompetent Governors we have and the situation of their respective states shows it.
I get frustrated and increasingly apolitical because as I see it one party wants to take us in the wrong direction (Republicans) and the other is too afraid or ineffective to move in any direction (Democrats).
It is the proverbial fork-in-the-road. We (citizens) are at the middle of the fork. One path is clearly the incorrect and backwards path. This is where the GOP wants to lead us. Many want to follow because any action is better than inaction.
The Dems meanwhile sit at the middle of the fork pondering what to do, bickering among themselves and worrying that they may make the Republicans unhappy.
I look with envy at the many countries, Canada for example, that have more than two major political parties. Not only does this give the voters more idealogical choices but generally no one party garnishes enough votes to form a majority and hence those wonderful concepts of compromise and consensus come into play. Granted this works better in a parliamentary system than it would ours. Nonetheless, a significant third or fourth party in this country, even on a regional level, would shake things up a bit.
You say an independent movement is gaining ground? I have been hearing that for over 30 years and wish it to be true but quite frankly I don't see it. If anything I feel it is the opposite. We are becoming increasingly polorized politically.
So as an "Indy" I will continue to have the following options on election day;
A) Democrat = bad choice. Throwing vote away.
B) Republican = worse choice. Throwing vote away.
C) Third-party = perhaps better choice than above two but zero chance
of being elected. Throwing vote away.
D) Don't vote = defeats purpose of living in a democracy. Throwing vote
away.
i couldn't agree with you more,i've been hearing that too for a long time to,but i think dc has finally ammased a big enough pile of manure that the numbers of people in the middle has grown at a rampant pace who are disgruntled,and with the crap the republicans pulled the last time around,and what the democrats are pushing this time around,now is the time for independents to put forth an agenda
D) Don't vote = defeats purpose of living in a democracy. Throwing vote
away.
I disagree. There is no point in voting if the system is completely and utterly busted and broken. Voting for "the lesser of 2 evils" as everyone puts it is even worse than not voting at all. If you are completely fed up with both parties, and those are the only 2 parties that you have the option of choosing, why choose at all? People who say what you said above are terribly incorrect, in my opinion. The point of a democracy is that everyone should have their own choice to make and the opportunity to vote for someone who they feel represents them. If no one does, then why vote? Voting in a broken system is acting in compliance with the issues we have today. If everyone made a stand and decided not to vote because the whole system is complete bull****, then perhaps something would change. Taking part in it leads our government and idiotic politicians to believe that everything is ok.
I have yet to vote for a president or really any government seats. I don't really ever see myself voting for any of them anyhow. I'll vote on the props and some local stuff, but outside of that, I don't weigh in. I'm using my democratic right to say, "this is all a scam, and I won't participate in it until things change."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
