 Hello everyone, my name is Patrick Cooney and as a student leader from Apple, we'd also like to say thank you to Chuck for bringing us on board for this series. If you guys all look around, you guys have note cards in your areas with pencils. If you guys have questions during the talk that you don't want to lose and you want to write them down, you can write them down and just give a signal and we have a couple folks over here who can run around and pick those up for you. Tonight, we're very pleased to start our series of talks with Mr. Bill Ballinger. Mr. Ballinger has been active in Michigan politics for many years. He serves as a state senator, a state representative, state racing commissioner and the director of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulations. He also serves in the Ford administration as the deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Mr. Ballinger holds a B.A. from Princeton and you got his M.P.A. at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. For over 20 years, Mr. Ballinger has been running inside Michigan politics, Michigan's leading political newsletter, which he founded in 1987. He's been dubbed by the Detroit News as Michigan's undisputed crown prince of political pundits and we are excited to have him here to set the stage for the 2010 elections. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Mr. Bill Ballinger. Thank you very much Patrick Cooney, ladies and gentlemen of Ann Arbor. I'm glad that Patrick said undisputed crown prince because some people pronounce it clown prince. Anyway, I'm not a University of Michigan grad, but I have a daughter, class of 1971 who went here and my great grandfather, graduated from the law school before the Civil War. So my family goes way back, you know, there's been some breaks and service here, but here I'm the latest Ballinger to show up here and I'm very honored to be asked to come. And I must note that one of our politicians passed away last week, you wouldn't know about it, it was in another state, but he was a senator. And unexpectedly, he found himself before the pearly gates and St. Peter met him. And St. Peter said, you know, senator, we're not used to getting many people in high public office up here, we're not quite sure what to do with you. And the senator said, no problem, just let me in. And St. Peter said, no, he said, I pay obeisance to a higher authority and we have a way of dealing with these things. And I'm going to give you a choice. And what we're going to do first is send you down to the other place. And then we're going to bring you back and you can see how things are here and then you make up your mind. So the next thing the senator knew, he was on an elevator going down, down, down. And the doors opened and there was this fantastic beautiful golf course. In the distance he could see this huge Georgian clubhouse. There was a band playing, violin music, wine, women's song. All his old buddies were there, fellow politicians, lobbyists. I mean, it was, you know, one of the most idyllic scenes that he'd ever seen in his life. And the devil was there. And the devil was a nice guy and everybody was dancing with him and they were all drinking and crowding. And it was just terrific. And this went on and on, but it came to an end. And the next thing the senator knew, he was on the elevator going back up, up, up, up, up. And he went back up to the pearly gates. And he was led off by a couple of angels holding hands and they were strolling along over a couple of clouds. And there was a lot of harp music and it was very, you know, very quiet, be calmed, very pleasant, very pastoral. And all this little bit boring maybe, but, you know, it was a pleasant experience. But next thing he knew, he was being taken over to St. Peter. And St. Peter said, well, okay, what's the verdict? And the senator said, you know, he said, I never thought I'd hear myself say this. But I think I actually prefer the other place. And St. Peter said, wish granted. And the senator found himself in the elevator going down, down, down. The door is open. There are all his friends, lobbyists, the politicians, but the place was a wasteland, a desert. There was garbage falling from the heavens. People, all his friends were stooped over picking it up. It was a disaster. And the devil was standing there. And the senator turned to him and he said, Mr. Devil, what happened? I was just here yesterday and this place was paradise. What's happened? And the devil looked at him and smiled mildly and said, yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted. Okay, so think about that. That kind of encapsulates a lot of what you've been seeing and reading and experiencing this year. What I thought I'd do is I'm just going to kind of set the table of everything that is going to be on the ballot on November 2nd. So you have a clear idea of the choices we're faced with. Some of them I know we've been absorbed with and about for a long period of time, such as the governorship. And there are a lot of offices, a lot of people are unaware even on the ballot. But I'm going to go through them all and then I'll go back over them a little bit if you want me to. And then I hope we're going to have a lively question and answer period because that's really the most fun and that's where I think the most information gets imparted. So let me start out and point out that this year all four of what we call our constitutional offices are on the ballot. Our governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state all open with no incumbents for only the second time since the year after World War II ended. And furthermore, a lot of people don't know this. This is really fascinating. This is the first year since 1930 that we have no governor or lieutenant governor running for the governorship in any way, shape, or form at any point in the process. There were people who were lieutenant governors and governors running for election or reelection in the past who got bumped off in a primary or whatever. But this year neither our governor nor our lieutenant governor ran at all for the first time since 1930. So it really is kind of a startling year just in that sense before you even consider anything else. Lieutenant governor is open, nominees are picked at state conventions. Those conventions were just held about three weeks ago. Attorney general open, secretary of state open. Beyond that, the entire legislature is on the ballot this year, 110 members of the state house of representatives, 38 state senators. And the really remarkable thing is in this era of term limits, out of 38 state senate seats that are up, 29 are open. 29. Only nine incumbents are running for reelection. And if they all get reelected, yes, nine will be there. Maybe some of them won't make it. So there could be more than 29 new senators come January 2011. On the house side, this is really almost more fascinating to me, there are 110 members and out of that 52 are open seats. Now by term limits statute or constitutional language actually only 34 are open. But we've had one death, one resignation and most significantly in this era of term limits, 16 house members who could have run for a second or third term and probably would have been reelected, voluntarily gave up their seats to run for another office. In almost every instance it's the senate, the state senate. One case the incumbent state rep gave up his seat after one term and grand rapids to run for congress. And one guy just quit completely. So you add those all together and it comes up to 52. So half, almost half the house is going to be new, minimum. And we haven't even cast a vote yet. No incumbents were knocked off in primaries, but if any incumbents of either party are knocked off in November, you will have even more than 52 new members beginning in January next year. So you add 52 and let's say 30, so you got 80, 85 new members of the legislature beginning in January out of a legislature of 148, that's over half. And if you think we've got problems within experience now up there, it's just going to get worse beginning in January. And then you're going to have a new governor and you're going to have all these other new constitutional officers. By the way, all the educational boards are on the ballot this year. A lot of people don't realize, believe it or not, that we elect the governing boards of the University of Michigan, the Board of Regents, MSU Board of Trustees, Wayne State University Board of Governors, and the State Board of Education statewide eight members, eight year staggered terms so that every two years, two members on each one of these boards is up for election. And by the way, we are the only state that does this, the only one. I mean, there are other states that do elect some of these board people. Most of them do it by district or they do a combination of appointment and statewide or appointment in district or whatever. But Michigan is the only one that does this statewide every two years. And by the way, because I won't go back to this unless you ask me to, I'll just mention the partisan makeup of these boards if that really makes any difference and I don't think it really does. But the Democrats control all four of these boards right now. And the good news for the Democrats is this election isn't really going to make much difference to them, they're still going to control all four of these boards even if the Republicans sweep everything in November. University of Michigan Board of Regents, for instance, Democrats control six two. And the two seats that are up this year are guess what? The two Republican seats. So even if the Republicans are reelected, it's still going to be six two. If the Democrats can get one of the seats, it'll be seven one. If they sweep, it'll be eight zip for the first time since 1964. MSU Board of Trustees, six two Democratic, difference there is one Republican up, one Democratic is up. But even if the Republicans sweep both seats, Democrats will still control five to three. State Board of Education, same situation as Michigan State. Six two now, one Republican, one Democrat up, so you can see how that'll turn out. The big one for the Democrats is seven to one. They control the Wayne State Board of Governors. And one of the two seats up this year is that one Republican seat. So if that one Republican woman loses, it'll be eight zip there if there's a Democratic sweep. If the Republicans get one of the seats, it'll stay seven one. If they win both, it'll be seven two. So that's how we do business in higher education here in Michigan. Okay, now one other thing that is extremely important this year. We were just talking about this at dinner and a lot of people just don't totally, I think, appreciate the significance of this, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court. Now most states in this country don't even elect their justices or their judges. We're one of about 18 states that does, but nobody does it quite the way we do. You're probably aware we have this very weird system whereby political parties nominate candidates for the Supreme Court at party conventions. And then the candidates magically divest themselves of their partisan color. They kind of waft out of the convention hall like butterflies in the sunlight with their black robes streaming behind them. They're nonpartisan. And that's the way they appear on the ballot. If you don't know when you go into vote on November 2nd that Bob Young, let's say, or Alton Thomas Davis, the new Democratic Justice, are on the court right now. Who they were nominated by, you're not going to find out from looking at the ballot. The only thing that distinguishes Young and Davis in particular out of the three other people running for the court on November 2nd is they are the incumbents. And so they will actually have beneath their name justice of the Supreme Court. And that's a big plus. That's worth its weight in electoral gold most of the time. And everybody thought until 2008 that made you impregnable as an incumbent. But then Cliff Taylor, remember the subject of the sleeping judge ads was ousted and he was the chief justice as an incumbent. So that was the first time in 24 years that an incumbent justice had been defeated. This year we'll see what happens. The Democrats have nominated one other person for the court, Denise Langford Morris, who's a circuit judge in Oakland County. Republicans have nominated a circuit judge in Wayne County named Mary Beth Kelly. And there is a mysterious Libertarian candidate, but again, you won't know that he's a Libertarian candidate for looking at the ballot named Bob Rodis from Gross Point, who's on the ballot. So there are five of them. They all run in a pack. The top two finishers are elected. The court is now, right now, four to three Democratic for the first time in a dozen years. As of the resignation you may have read about of Elizabeth Weaver, a Republican justice about three weeks ago. She was replaced by Davis, the Democrat, and he gave the Democrats an instant for three margin of control of the court. Now, why am I babbling on and on about the Supreme Court? Well, it is very important what happens with litigation at the Supreme Court level. But what really makes it important this year is this is a census year. So what happens next year and the year thereafter? Reapportionment, redistricting of all the congressional delegation, the entire state senate and the state house for the next decade. Who does that? The legislature and the governor are supposed to do it, but if they can't do it and most of the time over the years they've deadlocked, it gets appealed to court. And it eventually finds its way to the Supreme Court. And so the Supreme Court is going to be the ultimate arbiter of what these maps look like. And remember, the way these maps are drawn can influence the results of elections for the next decade. Every two years, 2012, 14, 16, 18, 20 is going to be decided to a certain extent by the way these maps are drawn. I've been following politics in this state for almost half a century. I have never seen anybody or any institution short of the Supreme Court decide what ultimately happens on these redistricting maps other than the Supreme Court. And by the way, they always rule in favor of whichever party controls the Supreme Court, even though they're nonpartisan. You know, they insist that they're nonpartisan, that once they get on the bench they put all the partisanship aside. Don't believe it. Every time this is what happens. Maybe this year will be an exception. I'd love to see it, but I doubt it. So we don't know what's going to happen, but that much could happen. I shouldn't forget, Congress, all 15 of our U.S. representatives are going to be on the ballot this year. We've already, we're already guaranteed four new U.S. representatives beginning in January of next year because of open seats and because one incumbent, Carol and Sheik's killed Patrick in Detroit was ousted at the polls. And we could have more new faces beginning in January because there are two other districts of 7th and 9th where Democratic incumbents who are freshmen could be defeated this November. So there could be six out of the 15, but guess what? This will be the last year Michigan probably ever has 15 members, okay? Because I know this is a young crowd, but as recently as 1982 we had 19 U.S. representatives, then we had 18, then we had 16. Now for the last 10 years we've had 15, and for the next 10 years we're going to have 14. We're going to lose at least one. We couldn't lose another as early as 2020 because even though we're now still the eighth biggest state, we are actually losing population right now. And before we started losing population, we were flat and we were not gaining population while states like Virginia and Georgia, Arizona, Texas were gaining population. There's a finite number of U.S. representatives you probably know, 435. So every 10 years, you know, the Congress sees some shifting within its membership and the various states are awarded extra members if they grow and they lose members if they lose population. So right now we've got eight Democrats in the delegation and we have seven in the Republican part of the delegation. But we don't know what it's going to be like next year. It could be as high as 10-5 Republican. It could stay the same as it is right now, 8-7. I don't think the Democrats can pick up a seat, but it's going to be very interesting to see what happens in November. And then we'll see how the lines are redrawn. And of course of the three bodies, State Senate, State House and U.S. House, the U.S. House is the only one that's actually going to change in the number of members it has from 15 to 14. The other bodies are going to stay 1-10 and 38, but you're going to move the lines around because there are population shifts within the state. Other than that, we have county commissioners on the ballot this year. They run for two-year terms every two years. We do not have this year. There's a lot of stuff we do not have. We obviously don't have the presidency. We do not have a U.S. Senate race this year. Neither Carl Levin nor Debbie Stabenow are running this year, not until 2012 and 2014. None of your countywide officials are running this year. Your prosecutor, your sheriff, clerk, etc., they're not running. They've got four-year terms. They were elected in 2008. None of your township officials are running this year. There are a couple of county executives like Bay County where they're running. McComb County has got a county executive for the first time. They're on the ballot this year, but that's a big exception. There are two ballot proposals this year, so I'm going to break with tradition here and not ignore the cards that might be coming. I'll just ask, what's going to be proposition 10-1? What is it? Con Con. That's right. Con Con Constitutional Convention. Every 16 years, the current constitution says we have to have a vote, a public referendum on whether we want a new constitutional convention. The last one we had was in 1961 and 62. So it's been on the ballot twice before. 1978-1994. It got clobbered both times. Three to one. No. People said we do not want a new Con Con. This year, with all the hijinks up in Lansing and plunging approval ratings for our public servants in the capital, a lot of people are saying, you know, maybe something is broken in our constitution or our laws. Maybe a good idea to have a Con Con. So my guess is the vote's going to be closer, but it's still going to fail. Because I think the more people think about whether they really want to have a constitutional convention, which by the way would probably cost in total from start to finish anywhere from 50 to 100 million dollars with no promise that it's going to deliver a result that the voters will approve. People start thinking, you know, maybe the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. And so they think, well, maybe if there's something wrong with our constitution, we can amend it piecemeal. And we don't really have to have a Con Con. So that's 10-1. Then there's 10-2. Anybody know what that is? Yes, ma'am. That's right. This young lady is from Detroit and she knows that this is in the colloquial sense called in Lansing the Kwame Con. The Kwame Kilpatrick Amendment. Or you may remember Marion Barry, the mayor of Washington, D.C., who returned from the Huskow to govern the city once again. And people apparently are nervous that the public might get the idea that either Kwame Kilpatrick or anybody else who commits a felony while in public office could get back in public office. So didn't it show great courage of our legislators to come up with the two-thirds majority and put this on? I said, we're not going to allow this to happen here in Michigan. So I mean, I don't want to sound overtly cynical about this, but I think this one will probably pass overwhelmingly for whatever it's worth. Somebody looked at this language the other day and said to me, you know, they could murder somebody and they could still be governor. And I looked at it and I said, yeah, you're right. Just so long as they're not in public office, what the heck, you know? So we could have Lizzie Borden or somebody, you know, running any one of these days but don't commit a felony while you're in public office or you're in trouble. So those are the two proposals on the ballot. One automatic and the other one by action of the legislature. No petition drive initiatives got on the ballot this year. So that's the big picture. That's everything that's going to be on the ballot. And I'll just go back and just make a few, you know, political comments because that's probably what a lot of you're more interested in anyway. And I'll just say that, you know, there is speculation that this is going to be a good year for the Republicans nationally and in Michigan. We don't know that is going to prove to be true necessarily in November. There's still six weeks to go. But all the polls indicate that the Republicans at least are not going to take the drubbing that they did in 2008 and 2006. And they could do very well in some places. Will they do that well in Michigan? Well, the bottom line is I would tend to think right now it's Rick Snyder's race for governor to lose. He's ahead by anywhere from 20 to 27 points in the polls. As we were discussing at dinner tonight, his opponent, Virgil Bernero, who's by the way the mayor of Lansing. And I was also mentioning, you know, there have been only two mayors in the entire history of Michigan for 180 years who've ever been elected governor. And they were both mayors of, as you might guess, Detroit, which is our big city. But nobody has even come close to getting elected governor who's mayor of a medium size or city of any size other than Detroit, like Lansing or Grand Rapids or Flint. They haven't even really bothered to run. So this is really an unusual situation where Virgil Bernero winds up as the nominee of the Democratic Party. And the tough thing for the Democrats is that the polls show that between one and four and one and five voters literally have no idea who Virgil Bernero is. They don't know. And another one out of four or five have heard of him, but they don't have a clue who they'll vote for in November based on what skimpy information they just, they don't know. And then out of the roughly half people who know him, most don't like him very well. I mean, his disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating, not a good position for a candidate to be in. It was six weeks to go. Now Snyder is not exactly a household word either. Maybe one tough nerd is, I don't know, but Rick Snyder is not really very well known. He's about 80% name ID. A lot of those people have heard of him, but they don't know enough about him to know whether they could cast an intelligent vote for or against him. But his approval rating is much better. It's like four to one more favorable. It's like 43% favorable, 9% unfavorable. So, you know, the Democrats have launched a lot of attack ads against Snyder now. You're probably reading and hearing all about these debate on debates, which is a kind of fascinating story in and of itself. And so we'll see whether these debates actually happen or not, or a debate or whatever. And one of Snyder's conditions is supposedly that the debate has to happen by October 1st. Well, last time I looked, it's September 15th and only two weeks to go. So I think we could say this is running out the clock. Doesn't that what it sounds like to me? So we don't know for sure what's going to happen there, but I think that's going to help the Republicans. Secretary of State, Attorney General, these races could go differently than the governorship. For instance, in 2002, when Jennifer Granholm was elected governor, Republicans won Attorney General and Secretary of State. So just because Snyder might win the governorship doesn't mean automatically the Republican nominees who are, by the way, Ruth Johnson, who is the Oakland County Clerk, and Bill Shudy, who's a former state senator, former appeals court judge from Midland, are going to win those two offices. Their opponents, Jocelyn Benson, who's a Wayne State law professor, nominee for Secretary of State, or David Layton, who's the prosecuting attorney of Genesee County around Flint. They're the nominees there. I think a lot depends on how much money they have. Supposedly Jocelyn Benson's done a very good job raising money. Better than Ruth Johnson, who just got into the race about three months ago. Jocelyn Benson's been running for two years. So, you know, that could produce a surprise. We'll see. Preliminary polling shows Shudy and Johnson, the two Republicans ahead, but there's a lot of undecided, a lot of unknown voters out there. So that could produce a change in the next six weeks. State Senate now controlled by the Republicans 22-16. I predict they'll retain control of the State Senate. Some think they might even add a seat or two. I think probably not. They'll probably stay about the same. They might even lose a seat, but they would still control 21-17. State House, the Republicans are in their third weakest minority in their entire history as a party, since they were formed before the Civil War. They've only got 42 members going into the election. Democrats have 65. There are three vacancies. Republicans would have to pick up 14 seats, 14 seats to get the majority. I'll just ask you one question. Since 1996, how many incumbent Democrats have Republican candidates for state representative defeated in a general election? Since 1996, 14 years. One. In 2004, one Democrat they knocked off. That's all. And yet they got to pick up 14 seats. Now I know a lot of them are open, but even if they're open, they're going to have to knock off some incumbents and their record there is not good. So I predict they're going to fall short. I think they may make some gains. I think they may get up to maybe 50 seats, but they're still going to be in a 60-50 minority. We're going to have split government again next January. We're going to have probably a Republican House, a Democratic House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican governor probably. Or it doesn't make any difference. If it's a Democratic governor, it's still going to be split government. And then the real question is going to be that Supreme Court when it comes to reapportionment. So I'm going to stop there. I'm probably forgetting something or things or whatever, but I know you'll remind me. And so let the questions commence here. So I think how we're going to do it is just class to prepare some questions. So I'm going to start off with those. I'll just read them from up here and then hopefully at the end we'll have time to just open it up for general questions and Bill can call on folks. So the first question we have is how much of a role do you think education will play in state-centered house races, given that jobs and the economy are such dominant concerns? And if it does have a role, how might it affect these races? Well, first of all, let me say education is always a huge, huge issue with all legislators and all policymakers in Lansing, particularly at the K-12 level. Where, you know, really legislators, I think, feel the pressure to deliver and reform and perform. So, I mean, I think it will be an issue and since it's tied in with the budget so much in terms of how much spending goes on, they're kind of inextricably bound together. But I think what you indicated is probably correct. The economy, jobs, unemployment are so overwhelmingly dominant in this election this year that the pure concept of education in all its permutations and all facets that should be being debated seriously by candidates is not really going to get the attention it deserves. Because people are going to be talking about job development and unemployment and everything else. But let's face it, our ability to deliver the dollars for K-12 public education and for that matter, higher education depends heavily on economic recovery here in Michigan. And we haven't seen anything approaching economic recovery in a decade. Let's face it, we never have really emerged from the recession of 2000, 2001 in this state. We're about the only state that hasn't. I mean, most of the rest of the country climbed out of the ditch for most of the first decade of the century. But, you know, beginning in 2007, certainly 2008, the rest of the country began to suffer again economically. Michigan has been suffering all along. Jennifer Granholm was dealt the worst hand of any governor in history because not only did she come in faced with a huge deficit and economic challenges, but her predecessors who had faced similar challenges, John Engler, Jim Blanchard, saw recovery within two years of the time they took office. Jennifer Granholm has never seen recovery. In fact, it's gotten worse. And, you know, you can make an argument that she could have done more or whatever. Yes, she probably could have done more, but it wouldn't have pulled Michigan out of the morass that it's been mired in for the last 10 years. So that's our real problem and our real challenge. And by the way, when it comes to higher education, and I don't mean to just eerily dismiss higher education, but I gotta tell you, when I was in the legislature back in the Paleolithic era, two-thirds of the higher education budget came out of the state treasury. Today, it's down to less than one-third. Okay, I mean, that's how much support for higher education has fallen off in 40 years. And that's a lot. And I gotta tell you, I don't see it getting any better anytime soon. The squeaky wheel that gets more grease is always K-12. Everybody in Lansing seems obsessed with how we keep the so-called foundation grant where it was the year before, and it can't go backwards any way they can to save that. And higher education, there seems to be an almost dismissive policy of they can raise their own money. They can fend for themselves better than public education, and they're gonna have to do it, and that is what they've been doing. So that would be the best answer, and it's a poor one that I can give that question. All right, and the next question we have from Chuck's class is, what role does the MEA play in state, senate, and house races, and is this changing? Did it or is it? Is it? And is the role changing? Well, I think it's very important in some races. We were discussing at dinner, I mean it was big, not just the MEA, but hard had organized labor like the UAW in the Democratic primary for governor. I think organized labor was pivotal in deciding that Andy Dillon would not be the nominee. Basically that was the message that labor sent out. He is not one of us, we don't want him. Pick anybody but Dillon. Well, they looked and there was only one other name, nobody knew what it was, or who he was, but they said okay, we'll take him, and now they've got him, and still nobody knows who he is, which is not surprising based on the way he got the nomination. In state, house, and senate races, I mean the MEA, they provide money, they provide boots on the ground, they make endorsements, and they're very important. And the MEA has been very cagey in the way it makes its endorsements. There are a lot of districts in out state Michigan where the Republican Party is clearly dominant, whoever is elected from those areas is going to be a Republican. The MEA has been most favorably disposed toward the Democratic Party, and the Democratic legislators have been most favorably disposed toward policies espoused by the MEA most of the time. But if you're in out state Michigan and a Republican is going to be elected, the MEA has been very shrewd, and in some cases they've actually put up candidates in Republican primaries, or they pick out a Republican in a Republican primary because they know whoever wins that primary is going to be the next state representative of the state senator, and they give that candidate a lot of support. And the Democrat doesn't get the support, even though the Democrat is frantically waving his arms like a semaphore out there in Imlay City or Rose City or Alanson or someplace up north and saying, wait, wait, wait, I'm actually more favorably disposed toward K-12 education than the Republican, and he's right, but they're not going to pay attention to him because he can't get elected. So they're putting their eggs in the Republican basket and it's had an effect. There are some Republicans on key votes over time, every time people talk about reforming teacher tenure or lifting the cap for the number of charter schools and so forth, you see those MEA-backed Republicans stand up for the MEA and stop any Republicans or renegade Democrats from trying to make any changes in the law in that respect. Okay, and this next question has to do with campaigning here in Michigan. How has new media like Facebook and Twitter influenced legislative races? Has it increased exposure and financing? And are campaigns still run in the same way they were previously? Well, I think they're becoming more sophisticated all the time for all the reasons cited basically in your question. Yes, I think Facebook, Twitter, those are huge factors. I mean, you know, as recently as six or eight years ago, I mean, most of these legislative candidates really hardly penetrated the electorate or the news media or people like me on line or, you know, in cyberspace or in any way, shape or form. Now it's deregurs, the French would say, that every single candidate in every single race whose self-respecting or has any chance has got to be up and running, up to speed on the Internet, online, on Facebook, and they've got to be fully engaged and they've got to be sending out tweets. There's got to be rapid response online anyway if not in a personal press conference or any other way to every twist and turn that a campaign might take or any issue that comes up that causes a problem. So yes, and I think it's helped raise money and I think it's been a huge important factor and it probably is fueling the gradually escalating rise in campaign spending. Now this year campaign spending is actually down a little bit from where it was two years ago and four years ago because of the economy, but still there's a generally upward trend. For instance, in the governor's race this year, this was the second most expensive governor's race we've ever had in our entire history. Ironically, the only one that was more expensive, this is in the primary I'm talking about, we haven't even had the general election yet. Ironically, the only one that was more expensive as you can imagine was four years ago when both nominees of the Democrat and Republican, Dick DeVos and Jennifer Granton were unopposed. But Dick DeVos spent $25 million of his own money against nobody in a primary and Jennifer Granton spent, I don't know what she spent in the primary, not too much, but you know, Dick DeVos by himself, $25 million was a record. Jennifer Granton then actually did raise a lot of money and spent it in the general election between them. I think they spent, I think it was like $35 million, I think it was around $60 million between them. So that was the most expensive race in history and ironically, through the primary, it was only between two candidates, neither of whom had any competition. This year, we had five Republicans and two Democrats, and between them they spent about $18 million, $18.5 million. So that was the second most expensive. And the third most expensive was back in 2002, just eight years ago, when Jennifer Granholm and David Bonier and Jim Blanchard, and Dick Posthumus had a, you know, token opponent who didn't spend much, but between them they spent around $13 million back in 2002. So that's the way the spending is going. All right, now moving on to your role in all this. What do you believe the role of inside Michigan politics is in the upcoming races? Is it just to report and inform, or are you trying to shape the debate and discussion in any of the races? I don't try and shape the debate, and inside Michigan politics, I hope people don't read it that way. You know, we're kind of an equal opportunity basher, and we insult everybody with equal enthusiasm, and we try to call them as we see them. I mean, more than anything else, probably particularly in a campaign year, inside Michigan politics is a handicapping tip sheet, kind of. More than anything, we pick winners and losers. By the way, one batch of races I didn't mention this year are judgeships below the Supreme Court. There are going to be 165 judgeships in Michigan elected this year, in addition to the two seats on the Supreme Court I mentioned. There are Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, District Court, Probate Court, and inside Michigan politics picks the winner in every race. Even in the primary, we pick winners and losers. What was our batting average in the primary? 88%. So we got them almost nine out of ten in the primaries. In the general election, we haven't made our predictions yet. But every election year, we predict all judicial races in the state. We're the only newsletter in the country that does that. We pick every race on a statewide level, so that's really what we do. We don't try and shape the debate. We may insult somebody along the way, deservedly so, we hope, but we're not trying to shape anything. This next question reads, if Rick Snyder wins, will he be able to move Republicans and the Legislator to his more moderate positions? I guess my short answer would be yes, on fiscal and economic decisions and policymaking. When people say Rick Snyder's more moderate positions, I'm always a little bit intrigued by that because when you get right down to it, all that I know of that shows that Rick Snyder might be a moderate or more moderate than a lot of Republicans or most Republicans nowadays is that he supported stem cell research and that apparently he's not an avowed opponent of gay marriage. I mean, he may have even voted against the ballot proposal. I think he did in 2004. Well, I mean, these things are not issues in Lansing right now. I mean, there's not going to be any gay marriage controversy in Lansing next year. I can guarantee it. It's settled right now. We've passed the constitutional amendment. There might be some federal court decision that would affect things. And as far as stem cell research, that's a settled issue. The order has approved it. And I mean, I haven't seen anything so far that indicates we don't really, frankly, know what Rick Snyder is going to exactly propose when it comes to the state budget and revenue and taxes and everything else. He's made some very broad statements that he said he doesn't like the Michigan business tax. Who does? Everybody dumps on the Michigan business tax, but we really don't know. But furthermore, we don't know that he has any difference with the rank and file Republican membership of the legislature. So the idea that somehow he's some kind of George Romney striding in the Lansing back in the 60s and facing these troglodyte knuckle dragging farmers who are mired in the 19th century and that he's going to whip them into shape quick. I don't, there's no evidence of that. I don't see that. So I think he'll probably get some cooperation. I think another real question will be, what is the Democratic response going to be to Rick Snyder? The legislature races more competitive. And what are the greatest barriers to those reforms? Well, two things. Actually, there's a poll that's going to be done next week. It goes every six months. It's done by a group in Lansing called Marketing Resource Group. There's a lot of questions in this poll. And so I've actually put two questions in this poll that nobody or very few people talk about. In fact, I brought it up with some of my colleagues up there and they just poo poo it and laugh it off and go faw and slap their thighs and everything else. But I'll tell you what these questions are and they would shake things up depending if something happens. I'll tell you what they are and you've probably heard of them. There are some countries, as you know, that are disturbed by a lack of participation by voters, right? We all are. I mean we got poor voter turnout, right? Very low percentage of voters. In Australia, you know what they do, right? You know what they do? They find people. You don't vote, you're fine. And it's not a particularly steep fine, it's $20, about $20 for every citizen. And they have gradually over the last couple of decades worked voter participation up to 95%. So that's my question. Why can't we do that here in Michigan? Should we do that here in Michigan? What do you think? I'm going to ask that question. We're polling it statewide. Nobody's ever polled it here in Michigan. So I'm going to get an answer. That would shake things up, wouldn't it? Okay. Jungle primary. You know what the jungle primary is? Top two primary? California, just approved it in June. 53 to 47, you know what it is? All candidates of all persuasions. It could be Democrat, Republican, U.S. taxpayers, natural law, socialist workers, green party, libertarians. You all come, you're all on one big primary ballot. Primary ballot, okay? Top two finishers face off in November. Now, what is that going to mean? In the city of Detroit, two Democrats are going to face off in November, okay? Outstate Michigan in some districts, two Republicans are going to face off in November. And people say, well, what would that do? Well, I mean, just stop and think about it a little bit. Everybody talks about polarization in the legislature. Everything is so partisan. People aren't meeting across the aisle, et cetera, et cetera. If you're in Detroit, and let's say, and you're running as a Democrat against another Democrat, wouldn't it make sense to not just be going after Democrats who are going to be voting, but maybe some Republicans or independents out there who might otherwise be so demoralized and discouraged or there are so few of them that they're not going to vote for their candidate or their candidate doesn't have a chance, but all of a sudden they say, wait a second. We have two Democrats here. We really don't like either one of them, but we like one less than the other. So let's get involved here, and it would make some of these candidates maybe appeal more to centrist, independent, or Republican ideas. So you might get more contest between liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats and between right-wing Republicans and moderate Republicans. So I've asked that question, too. Don't we want a jungle primary here in Michigan? Okay, so we'll see what the answer is. So that's coming next week. Now, what are the chances of this happening? I mean, again, how can you get things changed in Michigan? By law, you know, the legislature can pass a bill and it can be signed by the governor. But if you're going to amend the Constitution, there are only two ways that that can be done. What are they? Anybody know? What? Well, you could do it by convention. That's a third way. But petition is one way, certainly. You have a petition and you get a proposal and you get enough signatures and you get it on the ballot. The other way is two-thirds majority of each chamber of the legislature, just like this proposal 10-2 that they put on this year. So, you know, the problem is getting that two-thirds majority in the legislature because neither party controls either chamber by a big enough margin that by themselves they can vote to put anything on the ballot. They need bipartisan support. Like, I might get a question tonight. I generally always do about term limits. And I'm asked to explain, you know, is there any chance that we can amend or change term limits or get rid of them? And I go through this long drill. I won't do it unless somebody asks. But the point is to change term limits in Lansing, you have to amend the Constitution. And all these groups and the news media who don't like term limits and you hear all this coveching and moaning and whining, I notice nobody in 20 years has undertaken a petition drive to put it on the ballot. And that's the way it was done before by people who wanted to impose term limits and they collected signatures and got it on the ballot. Nobody has been, I don't know what you call it, courageous or had the stomach enough or whatever to do this. They keep trying to get legislators to walk the plank and come up with a two-thirds majority. And I can cite several reasons why that's a non-starter. So anyway, that is, you know, it's very tough to get the legislature to put anything on the ballot to change. And the problem is for a lot of people that the two parties are like Ralph Nader used to say, two wings on the same bird of prey. And, you know, you can make an argument that there aren't enough independence or independent thinking. And furthermore, the two parties have basically written the law to make sure it stays that way. They've made it very tough on third parties to get any traction, to be able to exercise any more clout in the electoral process than they do right now, which is next to nothing. And so it's a real struggle. Alright, we're going to go ahead and open up to general questions. Yes, sir. Oh, yeah. Can you compare it to in certain relative to a uniditorial campaign in the past? Well, I honestly, if you heard the question, he's asking about the Town Hall event that Rick Snyder held at a country club, I think. Hawthorne, was that it? I think his 59th Town Hall meeting he announced he had. And this was after negotiations had broken off last Friday between the Bernero and Snyder campaigns about holding debates. And Snyder had this Town Hall on Monday night. And who should show up at the Town Hall but Virgil Bernero? And Virgil Bernero had this letter for Rick Snyder saying, you know, I'd like to sit down and have coffee with you. Some people say, Virgil Bernero does not need any coffee. And if I were Snyder, I would not have coffee with Virgil Bernero. You don't know what might happen. But anyway, can we sit down and discuss this just between ourselves? Get rid of these aides and lawyers. And, you know, just the two of us, we can have an agreement on this. Well, Snyder actually really got it. I mean, he showed the polish of a political pro really. I mean, you know, he could have been dismissive or standoffish or he could have been rude or boorish or sent out his henchmen to get rid of Bernero. But he didn't. He was gracious. He came out of that verge, come on in here. And they stood up on the stage together and he let Bernero make a statement. And he made a statement and they, you know, debated certain issues and questions for about 45 minutes. And I think basically Snyder handled it extremely well. And Virgil went away with still no promise that there was going to be anything more. And I thought to myself, you know, I can see Snyder saying, well, we had a debate, you know? We don't need any more debates. I mean, you know, you saw the debate. What's the big deal? So, I mean, I don't know what's going to go. But honestly, you talk about is it going to get, you know, any worse than this? Well, I think you can get a lot worse. I mean, I remember when we had, you know, a senator from Iowa a few years ago got in a wrestling match, I think, with one of his opponent's supporters that was captured on television. Nowadays, it would be all over YouTube and the world. I mean, things can really get out of hand. Obviously, Jet Free Figer by his rhetoric in 1998 was not exactly Mr. Diplomacy. And he gave John Engler a good reason to just basically say, I'm not going to have anything to do with this guy. And Engler got away with it and never had any debates with Figer. So actually, I mean, there hasn't really been any personal animosity manifest itself that we've seen right now between Snyder and Bernaro. And I must say, Snyder's done a good job of kind of presenting himself as somebody who's not interested in antagonism. He's, you know, claims to be this very upbeat, positive person who wants to, you can think it's corny and be cynical about it, reinvent Michigan. But he's not that kind of campaigner. He didn't campaign that way in the primary as opposed to, let's say, Mike Cox. Okay. So there was, I think, a big difference there. Bill, you talked about the incumbency designation for the Michigan Supreme Court. That has always been so coveted justice of the Supreme Court on the ballot. But this is a big anti-incumbent year. Is it possible that that's going to be a negative this year instead of a positive? Well, it was a negative two years ago and nobody thought it would be. I mean, the point is, most people go in and vote in the East. And I was, we were talking again about this at dinner. You know, one-third of the electorate that shows up to vote on November 2nd will not even vote for judges. One-third is lost. It's only two-thirds of the people that show up even vote for judge. And they get down there and they look at these names and they say, who the heck are these people? And if the only thing they really see is justice of the Supreme Court or Washington or County Circuit judge, they think, well, I don't know who these people are, but I, you know, the guy's there, he's done a good job, I guess. So what the heck? And they vote for him. And that's it. Only if you can succeed in demonizing the incumbent, as I think Mark Brewer and the Democrats did with Cliff Taylor two years ago, and, you know, the sleeping judge ad and a bunch of other stuff, it got to the point where people went in to vote and they saw Taylor, you know. There was this great story, Mike Bishop, you know, the conservative Republican majority leader in the Senate was driving with his wife to the polls two years ago. And he said something to her, like, well, who are you going to vote for, Supreme Court? She says, well, I'm going to vote against that guy, Taylor. He's, you know, he almost drove off the road. He said, what? And she said, yeah, he's the guy who's sleeping on the bench. Bishop says, that's an outrage, you know. What are you talking about? She said, I saw it on TV, you know. And this is the wife of the majority leader. So, I mean, if you can do that, you know, you've got the battle, you know, halfway one, maybe all one. This year, I mean, basically Brewer has been calling incumbent justice young Sleepy Bob Young for the last two years. I mean, every time I see a press release from Mark Brewer, it refers to Sleepy Bob Young. Like, this is the second coming of Cliff Taylor. And pretty soon, we're probably going to see some more ads with Sleepy Bob on the bench, maybe caught in mid-blink or something. I don't know what. But, you know, I think this, to answer your question more directly. I haven't seen evidence anywhere this year that people are taking out anti-incumbency on judges, you know. I mean, it's usually on, you know, U.S. senators and primaries or maybe state legislators or something like that. People at the legislative level, I don't think people are necessarily mad at the courts and they're not particularly, you know, they're not mad at judges. I think you've got to make the case against specific judges. So, I tend to, I mean, if what you say is true, both Davis and Young are in trouble because they're both incumbents on the ballot. One happens to be a Democrat, one happens to be a Republican. But the reason one might be in more danger than the other is that maybe Young has been a target for negative advertising longer than Davis has. It was kind of an unknown quantity. Unless the Republicans are going to come up with something, a lot of money, and try and demonize Young, which they might be able to do because so little is known about him. He doesn't really have his own reputation. So, we'll just have to wait and see on that. Yes. This is sort of a follow-up to that. Do you see that there's going to be in any of the races that you've talked about at the state level where there's going to be a Tea Party effect now that they've been ruled off the ballot and so forth? I mean, do you see any of the things that they're putting together that may have an impact on some of those? Well, I think, you're talking about here in Michigan in particular? Yeah. Yeah, this Tea Party, by the way, that was ruled off the ballot, I mean, there's no question. I don't think it was a phony Tea Party and, you know, it was designed by some people to try and siphon off votes from above. But that's a dead issue. So we look at what impact the Tea Party can have in November. Yeah, I think here's the deal. You can go around the state and look at certain districts like you can look at the first congressional district in the U.P. Bart Stupak's district, northern tip of the lower peninsula, where the guy who won the Republican primary probably won it by 15 votes over a state senator because of the Tea Party. Dr. Dan Beneshek, who was a surgeon from Crystal Falls, had a lot of Tea Party support. And so he won the primary. The question is, can he win the general election? I think where the Tea Party can generate support and enthusiasm on behalf probably of Republican challengers or at least candidates in Key House and Senate districts that are very marginal. Yes, it could have an effect. And believe me, any success that a candidate has that is attributable to the Tea Party, you'll hear about it from the Tea Party. And maybe even the candidates themselves saying, you know, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the Tea Party. But the bottom line is these victories like Kristina O'Donnelly, Estridian Delaware, I mean, they're dazzling and stunning, but she's only won a primary. And basically the Democrats are thanking their lucky stars that she did because they think for sure that they would have lost the seat to Mike Castle. And now they're probably the favorites to win it in November against her. If she should win, I think a race like that, this is in another state, would have a big effect. I was listening to Mara Eliason this afternoon, an NPR coming down here. And she was making the point in all these states where the Republicans have yielded these seemingly wacko right-wing nominees like Buck in Colorado and Joe Miller in Alaska. And Rand Paul in Kentucky and now Kristina O'Donnell. And, you know, there are several others, Sharon Engel in Nevada, that the Democrats have been saying, boy, this is the death of the Republicans in November. These people are too extreme. And yet the polls right now show all of these candidates with the exception of O'Donnelly, they haven't even taken any polls there yet after the election, show that each one of these Tea Party nominees is equal to or even with or ahead of his or her Democratic opponent right now. So the idea that these people are trailing way behind 10%, 15%, 20% behind Harry Reid and all these people, it's not true. So that's going to be what's really important. Here in the state it's hard to see, I mean races like that that are crystal clear. But there probably will be some that are going to be very close and there are certain candidates in the state identified with the Tea Party. We know who they are, we know what happened in the primary and let's see what happens in November. This gets back to positions of Snyder, a candidate for governor. If you keep going through his websites when he opposes the business tax, he suggests that the solution to the reduced revenue that would result should be made up by privatizing some of the state operations and by cutting salaries of state employees and reducing welfare and Medicaid and so forth. Is that likely to play any role in the election? Well, that's a good question because that's one of the reasons Bernero would like a debate. You know, on some of these issues where you could really get some specific responses from Snyder and Bernero could respond because that's pretty fuzzy. I think basically there's going to be huge pushback from the Democrats about privatizing a lot of stuff in state government. But if it looks like the only alternative to doing that is continuing hemorrhaging of state dollars because of the laggard economy, he may be able to get some traction on it. On welfare, the governor we have now, Jennifer Granholm has been quite resistant to making certain tweaks in welfare reform that Republicans have been demanding. Probably Snyder will come in and try and make those, but again, we're going to have divided government. So a lot depends on whether the Democrats control the House, which I think they will. I think it's going to be a diminished majority, but it's still going to be there. And I think you're going to find some Democrats who are there may be attracted to what Snyder is proposing and they don't want to look like they're against it, or it might cost them in 2012 when they run for reelection. But I think there will be, I mean Snyder has got a Fisher cut bait sooner or later on some really hard decisions such as you're proposing. All this gobbledygook on TV that you're reading, which is almost unreadable, I think is going to have to end at some point. And it's going to have to become crystal clear to the news media and the general public and certainly to the politicians exactly what he's proposing in bill form. And there are going to be specific pieces of legislation which people are going to have to be voting on. The only thing we can really hope for that promises may be a brighter day in Michigan in state government is there are going to be so many new people. The bad part of it is they're going to be inexperienced, but the good part of it is I think there is a feeling out there in the public, in the electorate, that you know Michigan government is broken and screwed up and the people that we've had doing a job have not been doing a good job and let's start afresh, start new and meet with some good will. And we'll see what happens. Yes, sir. Is this group of freshmen the bipartisan caucus? Bipartisan caucus, yeah. Okay, what he's referring to is there were a number of freshman Democrats and freshman Republicans two years ago decided already that things were screwed up in Lansing enough that they got to figure out ways to work together and come up with proposals. The co-chairs of that committee were Bill Rogers, who's a Republican from the Brighton area, and Alicia Liss, who is a Ukrainian American from Warren, a Democrat. And they actually have come up with a lot of really good proposals. They have a lot of good will toward each other. They came to the speaker of the house at one point and said, we think we can come up with a plan that will solve our education funding crisis. And he said, well, good luck, show me what you got. I don't think they ever really came up with anything that was tangible that people could get their arms around that said this is different than anything else we've seen. But I think if that spirit persists and continues, not only among the people that are already there that were part of this bipartisan caucus, but among the new people coming in and there are going to be a lot of new people. Yeah, I think it bodes well for greater cooperation. I really do. Alicia Liss, when she found out that Brian Kelly had been chosen by Rick Snyder to be his running mate as Lieutenant Governor, was ecstatic. She said, I love Brian Kelly. She was quoted in the press. She said, this is a great choice. She sounded like she was getting ready to join the Snyder campaign or something. And this is a Democrat from Warren. So, I mean, I think there's some spirit there like that that we haven't seen in the last couple of years. Other questions? Yes. Great. Yes. Let him go first and then you. I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. The explanation of why. Yeah. Thanks. Snyder winning the Republican nomination. Was that just a function of not liking the career politicians? Number one. And a follow up. His seems like his appeal, his approach of not not debating. He jumped out of a lot of the Republican debates. He's ignoring the debate challenge for Bernaro. Why, why that strategy and why do you think it's working? Yeah. Well, that's a good question. I mean, look, I've met with Nick Rick Snyder twice at his request way back in the spring of last year. He wanted to meet with me. He came to my house and Lansing my home office on the West side. He sat there for 15 minutes. And the first thing he said was he pointed out the window and he said, my parents are buried over there. And I said, what? And there's a cemetery across the road, Deepdale cemetery. He was from Battle Creek. I didn't know his parents had ever lived in Lansing, but he said, yeah, they'd come up there and they were buried there. So he talked for about an hour and 50 minutes. I got to say this. He claimed at that time he had a plan about what he was going to do, you know, how he was going to win the nomination. At that time, it wasn't even totally clear who all his opponents were going to be. And even though it took him a while to get the plan underway, all the way, I would say until, at least in terms of what we saw visibly in February, Super Bowl Sunday when he began the one tough nerd ad. Really, he delivered on his promise to me anyway of what he was going to do. I mean, I didn't care whether he succeeded or failed necessarily, but it was interesting to me. He was so positive with such a lack of experience in politics about what he thought he could do. And then about three weeks before the primary, I got a call from one of his staff people and they knew I was going to speak up in Traverse City and Rick Snyder and the other candidates were there and they were speaking too. And he asked, he said, can Rick meet with you afterwards? So, you know, we went into a coffee shop in the Park Place Hotel and I sat there with him for 45 minutes and I asked him a lot of the questions that you probably would have asked him if you'd been there. And, you know, one of the things, I mean, he said, I said to him, I said, look, you know, you're in a position where you can win this thing, but you're going to have to close the deal. You know, you're going to have to spend the money here because it's not clear, you know, that you are going to be able to pull this off. And he said, believe me, he said, we know exactly what we're going to do. Maybe he knew I was racing commissioner. He said, we're right behind the lead horse at the top of the stretch. You don't want to be in front. He said, we pour it on in the stretch. And by God, like clockwork they did, the ads came out more another wave of ads at the end. And he surged past everybody in a way that nobody thought would be possible. And to answer your question more directly, you know, first of all, he bought the nomination to a great extent. I mean, he won it with money. I mean, he spent probably $8 million altogether and $6 million out of his own pocket. That was way more than the other candidates. He did it in a way that he did separate himself from the other candidates. He made a virtue out of the fact that he was not a politician. A lot of people poo-pooed the one tough nerd ad when it came out. They thought it was so dorky and boorish and amateurish that they laughed at it. But, you know, something had got people's attention and it made him look really different. And, you know, he cemented this and he did not, he did not run a dirty campaign and attack campaign against his opponents. You talk about him ducking debates. I'll be sympathetic with him to this extent. He participated in a lot of debates. I saw him in debates. Okay, over, I mean, these guys were running for a year and nine months, you know, before the election. He got down to the end where the Republican Party was sponsoring debates in a very controlled environment. He participated in one. And I think he finally decided to hell with this. I've been in about six or eight of these, maybe ten, over the last year. I don't see what good it's done me. And I've got my own schedule. I love these town halls. And I'm just going to continue to do that. And he basically told his own party, take a hike. And, you know, some people were fuming and fussing saying this is disrespectful of the party leadership. And, you know, he's going to pay a price. Nobody cared. You know, he didn't, he got away with it. And, and I mean, he could be, you're right. He could be trying to get away with it now and he can get away with it. I think probably. That's my feeling now. Maybe it'll blow up in his face. We still got some time, but it could happen. You talked about your hopes for more cooperative state legislature. And this new group and the legislature, that sounds all fine. But nationally, the Republican Party has not been talking conciliation. You probably noticed. And has been saying in various settings that they would rather stand up for their principles than get anything accomplished. What is the effect of this going to be in Michigan, even if the Michigan electorate would like some cooperation? What kind of pressures do you see happening on elected Republican representatives not to take positions that could be viewed as in any way conciliatory or compromising of their principles? And is this going to just lead to just as bad or worse legislative gridlock? Okay. Good question. I would say a couple of things. Number one, you're right in the polls. I mean, the Republicans are not viewed as a party or even their individual members necessarily as lovable characters compared to Democrats. They're not. They're held in just as high disrepute as the Democrats. But I think there's a perception out there in the public that the Democrats are running the show in Washington. They got the presidency. They've got the Senate and the House by huge majorities, and they're running the show. And a lot of what they're doing, people don't like. And furthermore, the economy has not been doing well and has not improved to the extent that people thought or hoped it might when President Obama was elected. So they're simply saying it's almost like the Dillon-Bernero primary. We'll take the opposite, okay? We'll vote for the other guy. We'll vote for the people who now you call them obstructionists. Of course, the Republicans would argue the Democrats won't give us conciliation. They won't adopt any of our ideas. And they're basically ramming things down our throat that we're, you're right, philosophically opposed to. And we're simply not going to roll over and accept what they want to dictate. If they want to do this, they've got the majority. They got the presidency. They can do it. And we'll let the voters decide in the next election whether they've made the right decision. Right now, I hate to tell you, the Republicans are winning that argument. Okay, you may think it's unfair. It's wrong. They shouldn't be winning it, but they are winning it. But they're six weeks to go. So maybe some things will change. But that's basically what's happening. Here in Michigan, do you think there's a backlash against congressional Republicans? Because their feud is obstructionist? No way. No backlash. No. If there's anything, there's deep-seated contempt growing for Democrats in Congress. I mean, it may be unfair, but it's helping the Republicans. And it's helping them in the 7th and 9th District. And it's helping them in the 1st District. And even people like John Dingle has got a fight on his hands. Okay? Dale Kildey has a fight on his hands. These are people that are used to winning by 65, 70, 75%. So that's reality. That's the truth. I hate to be the bearer of bad news. All right, we have time for one more question. Sorry. So with all the races happening in Michigan and with the money being very competitive, how does inside Michigan politics predict who they're going to name as the winner and what criteria do you use? All these people. You mean all these races? You want me to pick all of them right now? No. How? 212, you know, whatever. Yeah. Well, I mean, look, all I can do is, you know, ingest information from, you know, you mentioned the internet, you know, tweets, hard copy newspapers. They do still exist in scarce supply. TV, radio, talk to people. And just do the best I can to keep my finger on the pulse all the time. Sometimes, in certain, when I have to pick these judicial races, you know, I have to call like Aunt Nuggin County and, you know, get a hold of some political cronies of mine or experts or people up there that I know and get a couple of opinions about exactly what is going on and what is happening. And I can usually get a sense pretty quickly of what's likely to happen. I don't sit there in my living room and divine this by looking out at the trees or something like that, you know. It does take some homework. It takes some shoe leather and some calling and stuff like that. So that's the way I try to do it. I think that's all said. Bill, thanks very much. Thank you.