Question 1): Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist II has the worst attendance record in Michigan history in presiding over the state Senate, even though he’s showed up for work this year at a higher rate (20%) than he did in 2025 (7%) or in previous years. The state constitution makes the Lt. Gov. the president of the Senate and allows him a tie-breaking vote if needed when the chamber is divided. That’s really his only official duty. Democrat Gilchrist has presided over a Senate that Democrats have controlled, 20-18, most of the past four years except for a 17-month period when it was 19-18 because of a vacancy that has now been filled by another Democrat. Democrats haven’t really needed Gilchrist’s tie-breaker because they have been so united on their agenda for nearly four years. Both of Gilchrist’s predecessors, Republican Brian Calley and Democrat John Cherry, had far better attendance records than Gilchrist over a period of 16 years, as did their predecessors extending back to Michigan’s founding as a state in 1837.
The question is, does this really matter? Do voters really care, or even know about this execrable record? Can the Republican nominee (Anthony Forlini) for Secretary of State, an office Gilchrist is now pursuing, take advantage of his opponent’s flawed record in the only office Gilchrist has ever held?
Answer 1): It should be an issue, but the answer is that it will NOT be. At one time deep in Michigan’s past it would have been, but under today’s dumbed-down standards the only things that matter are campaign cash, partisan affiliation, and which way the political winds are blowing in a given year. Michigan Republicans simply don’t have the fund-raised money to make an issue of Gilchrist’s record, and they realize they would be wasting their time and scant resources even mentioning Gilchrist’s chronic absenteeism. With everything else working against the GOP in 2026, even if Gilchrist is guilty of far more grievous offenses, Democrats shouldn’t be worried that Forlini or some GOP-affiliated PAC can take advantage of the situation.
***************************************************
Question 2): Who is the face of the Michigan Republican Party at this moment?
Answer 2): It should be Mike Rogers or John James, but it’s not. It’s President Donald J. Trump.
Yes, Rogers has been campaigning with no opposition for more than a year. He’s raised a bunch of money and he’ll get a lot more. He’s got crossover support from Haley Stevens supporters. He’s got whatever is left of the Republican grassroots. There are Jews for Rogers, Democrats for Rogers. He, not James, is the best Michigan face of the party and that’s appropriate. He’s got respect, if not total agreement, on policy. He’s hitting the doors and making voter contact without having gone through a nasty primary. Ultimately, however, this won’t matter — it will be a question of whether Rogers can convince voters that his opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, is “The Other” — that he’s unthinkable as a U.S. Senator representing Michigan.
But Trump is the unofficial running mate for each and every Republican on the ticket — John James, Mike Rogers, incumbent Congressmen Tom BARRETT (R-MI 7) and Bill HUIZENGA (R-MI 2), as well as “Captain” Mike BOUCHARD in the open 10th CD. All of them have to contend with Trump’s economy — including tariffs and the Iran War –and the voter perception of the president’s toxic personality and character. Outside of the electorate’s 30% hard core MAGA base, a heavy majority of voters of all stripes view the sad state of affairs as having been 100% inflicted on them by Trump and his vassal Republicans.
********************************************
Question 3): . Who is the face of Michigan Democrats at this moment?
Answer 3): Michigan Democratic Party leaders would certainly like it to be their nominee for Governor, Jocelyn Benson. She’s supposed to be carrying the Democratic standard message, and she is, but she’ll never inspire anybody. If, however, we ask the Democrat-leaning rank-and-file electorate or anyone who reads or sees the news, it’s obviously U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed. He is sending the message that’s connecting with voters, for good or ill.
*********************************************************
“Dumbed down standards “is the norm, statewide and nationally, Tragically, Ones’ Character for leadership is no longer a relevancy. Just comply with Whomever exercises the power!
1. Mr Murphy is 100% right
2. Trump party ads are Slime. And Moronic !
The more the better for the Dems!
3. Dems are killing themselves with Solicitations
50 a day from candidates all over the country . At this point they are pissing off
The Loyalist!! The polls show 70 D 30R!
Hopefully His royal Highness will continue his missteps !
ANSWER#!:
Right now the Detroit News/Glengariff poll that shows Mike Rogers leading by 46%-44% also shows Garlin Gilchrist performing the best of any Democratic nominee to statewide office – leading Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini by a 42%-36% margin. Doug Lloyd trails Eli Savit by a 36%-35% margin.
Garlin Gilchrist has served as lieutenant governor for 8 years and has much broader name recognition than Mr. Forlini. That explains the polling result – however Forlini is clearly the better candidate for a number of reasons – including Gilchrist’s poor attendance record.
Forlini has impressive Lansing experience as well as ability to lead election administration.
The Michigan Democratic Party insiders who have excoriated the April 19th convention voters for nominating extremist candidates that may fall flat with voters on Election Day – however current polling suggests that likely Michigan voters will vote in significant numbers for these nominees and they may be elected in a clean sweep for Democrats.
Compare this to the 2010 MIGOP nominating convention when the Tea Party energized the convention and later the general electorate into giving Michigan Republicans an electoral sweep that election cycle.
ANSWER#2:
There is a joke going around that it is Jake Lang.
But seriously, I believe that it is Doug Lloyd – at least among Republicans – he is a no-nonsense tough-on-crime successful prosecutor that has won kudos in a “purple county” – he has placed politically neutral and effective law enforcement as the cornerstone of his political messaging. He is the antithesis of Dana Nessel.
ANSWER#3:
Conversely, Eli Savit has been the face of the Michigan Democratic Party as he has united various factions in a way that Dr. El-Sayed has not.
Firstly, he came from the Duggan political machine in Wayne County – thus avoiding being tarnished with brush of being a MDP “insider”. he was elected initially as Washtenaw County Prosecutor with strong black and progressive support.
Secondly at the convention, being a Jewish-American with large Muslim-American and Arab-American support, tended to negate the claims of anti-Semitism within the party. He was a uniting force among the various factions.
His policies may be viewed as extreme – but are welcome by civil libertarians and progressive liberals in Michigan.
Ann Arbor is the current “nerve center” of Democratic policy leadership and Mr. Savit embodies those values as well as anyone.
Nice article, Bill.
Regarding Question 1, Mr. Gilchrist’s work habits makes Charlie LeDuff’s description of his qualifications for Lt. Governor made about eight years ago to be quite accurate. As to the question, this becomes an issue only if the media makes it one. There will be probably one “debate” in front of Tim Skubick. If Gilchrist’s work habits – last seen in Michigan government by the late Ethel Terrell are not raised by Mr. Skubick and a determination on his part to get an answer from Mr. Gilchrist, then probably not. Newspapers that will most likely endorse Mr. Gilchrist – here’s looking at you folks at the Freep, LSJ and other newspapers – you should at least make an attempt to excuse Mr. Gilchrist’s apparent aversion, or allergy, to work and how such absent leadership will make the Secretary of State office work.
Regarding question 2, this is not news. This happens in every off-year election. The party of the President – regardless of who the President is – always has the President as the head of their party. Look at the 1974 (Richard Nixon), 1994 (Bill Clinton), 2006 (George Bush the Younger) and 2010 (Barack Obama). This is not new, neither is it news.
As for the economy, what, pray tell, did people expect with a plan designed to bring work back to the US from other countries? Did they expect corporate America, hedge funds, private equity and large shareholders to forego the practices that enabled them to attain such wealth to bring work home? Did they expect corporate/establishment Republicans to cheerfully tell the aforementioned to “take one for the team”? Did they expect folks to willingly do the things needed to not have economic consequences?
As for the conflict with Iran, Trump has done an appalling bad job explaining it. Recalling my high school and college science classes (more than half century ago), you only need to enrich uranium to about 4% to run a nuclear reactor. There is no other scientific, industrial or medical justification to enrich more than 4%. Anything more, you are trying to build nuclear weapons. That’s it. In his Substack post of May 16, 2026, noted lawyer Lawrence J. Siskind wrote: “ONE RARELY THINKS OF “PROFILES IN COURAGE” WHEN ONE THINKS OF DONALD TRUMP..
ORDINARILY, HE DOES NOT EVOKE THE IMAGE OF A STATESMAN RISING ABOVE POLITICS, TO SAY WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID REGARDLESS OF ITS UNPOPULARITY. INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP OFTEN APPEARS PETTY AND VINDICTIVE. JUST ASK HIS FORMER ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, A MAN THREATENED FOR ASSASSINATION BY IRAN. BOLTON’S SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION WAS REMOVED AFTER HE CRITICIZED TRUMP.
BUT GIVE CREDIT WHERE IT’S DUE. IN THE FACE OF DROPPING POPULARITY NUMBERS, TRUMP HAS TAKEN AN UNPOPULAR POSITION ON A MAJOR ISSUE, AND HE HAS REFUSED TO BACK DOWN.
ON MAY 12, ON THE EVE OF HIS TRIP TO CHINA, TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF BAD ECONOMIC NEWS ON HIS DEALINGS WITH IRAN. HE SAID: “I DON’T THINK ABOUT AMERICANS’ FINANCIAL SITUATION… I THINK ABOUT ONE THING: WE CANNOT LET IRAN HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON” ASKED BY A REPORTER HOW MUCH THE TOUGH ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ARE “MOTIVATING [HIM] TO MAKE A DEAL,” TRUMP RESPONDED: “NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT.” WHEN PRESSED, TRUMP STOOD BY HIS STATEMENT, INSISTING THAT “THE MOST IMPORTANT THING BY FAR IS IRAN CANNOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON….” Mr. Siskind continued by quoting the late Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis’ comments about the Iranian leadership in his August 8, 2006 column in the Wall Street Journal, “MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION, THE DETERRENT THAT WORKED SO WELL DURING THE COLD WAR, WOULD HAVE NO MEANING [FOR THEM]. AT THE END OF TIME, THERE WILL BE GENERAL DESTRUCTION ANYWAY. WHAT WILL MATTER WILL BE THE FINAL DESTINATION OF THE DEAD – HELL FOR THE INFIDELS, AND HEAVEN FOR THE BELIEVERS. FOR PEOPLE WITH THIS MINDSET, MAD IS NOT A CONSTRAINT; IT IS AN INDUCEMENT.”
Mr. Siskind continues, “FORMER IRANIAN PRESIDENT AKBAR HASHEMI RAFSANJANI, ONCE DEEMED A MODERATE BY WESTERN OBSERVERS, GAVE A FRIDAY SERMON AT TEHRAN UNIVERSITY IN 2002, IN WHICH HE SAID THAT BECAUSE OF ISRAEL’S SMALL SIZE, ONLY ONE NUCLEAR WEAPON WOULD BE NEEDED TO “DESTROY EVERYTHING AND WIPE IT OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH,” WHILE A RETALIATORY STRIKE WOULD “ONLY DO DAMAGE” TO THE MUCH WIDER ISLAMIC WORLD WITHOUT COMPLETELY DESTROYING IT.
RAFSANJANI LATER TRIED TO WALK BACK HIS GHOULISH STATEMENT, CLAIMING THAT HE WAS NOT THREATENING ISRAEL, BUT MERELY TRYING TO SHOW WHY HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS WAS NOT EVEN IN THE JEWISH STATE’S INTEREST. BUT WHY SHOULD ISRAEL TRUST THE FORMER LEADER OF A COUNTRY THAT UNABASHEDLY CALLS FOR “DEATH TO ISRAEL” AS A ROUTINE CEREMONIAL CHANT”. Yes, Donald Trump could have, and should have, done a better job explaining. Why he hasn’t beats the Hell out of me. But Iran with nukes is not a pleasant thought and the resulting Hell that would cause makes the current problems we have look like a church social.
As for Mike Rogers, I agree, but this will be the case only if he wins. John James – should he win – would try to be, but as the last TBR noted, the Senate race is sucking up all the oxygen in the room.
Barrett benefits from having William Lawrence as his opponent. He has taken many positions in the past that should be problematic for normal people. Even those in greater Lansing. Democrats may come to regret not voting for either of his two primary opponents.
Bouchard does benefit from his father and his own resume. He just has to get the voters out.
As for question 3, the face will be Al-Sayed—if he wins—. This is not to say that Benson can’t become the face of the party, but she will have to deal with the problem raised in the Flag Day 2026 TBR on Eli Savit. Let me quote from that issue, again direct quotes will be in all caps as is my wont: “THIS ALL STARTED BACK IN 2021, WHEN NEWLY ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR SAVIT AGREED TO A COMPENSATION PACKAGE THAT ALLOWED HIM THE UNLIMITED USE OF A COUNTY-OWNED CAR AND USE OF A COUNTY CREDIT CARD TO PAY FOR ITS FUEL. SAVIT, UNDER THE IRS CODE, IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE THE CAR’S USE AS PERSONAL INCOME LIKE EVERYONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WHO HAS THE OVERNIGHT USE OF A COMPANY CAR.
THEN SAVIT CHOSE TO RUN FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL, THIS YEAR. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WILL NOW HAVE TO DECIDE IF SAVIT CAN CONTINUE TO USE THAT COUNTY CAR AND A COUNTY CREDIT CARD TO PAY FOR ITS FUEL AS HE CAMPAIGNS FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHICH IS A STATE OFFICE. IN ADDITION, HAS SAVIT’S PRIOR USE OF THESE PUBLIC RESOURCES VIOLATED SECTION 57 OF THE MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACT (MCFA)?
SAVIT TAKES THE POSITION THAT HIS USE OF THE COUNTY CAR IS UNRESTRICTED. HE CLAIMS HE CAN USE THIS COUNTY CAR FOR CAMPAIGNING BECAUSE HE DECLARES THE CAR’S USE AS INCOME ON HIS INCOME TAX. YET, THE COUNTY’S CAR IS NOT HIS PERSONAL POSSESSION. HE DOES NOT HOLD TITLE TO THE CAR. THE CAR IS NOT HIS TO SELL. ABOVE ALL, THE MCFA BANS THE USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES FOR A POLITICAL PURPOSE.
LABRANT ASKS WHETHER SAVIT SERIOUSLY THINKS THAT A WRITTEN WASHTENAW COUNTY POLICY ON PERSONAL USE OF A COUNTY AUTOMOBILE SUPERSEDES OR TRUMPS SECTION 57 OF THE MCFA?
SECTION 57 OF THE MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACT (MCFA) PROHIBITS PUBLIC BODIES SUCH AS STATE AGENCIES, COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNSHIPS, AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM USING PUBLIC RESOURCES TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES OR BALLOT QUESTIONS. THAT PROHIBITION SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES THE USE OF A PUBLIC BODY’S VEHICLE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.”
You concluded your article with, “THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT FILED BY LABRANT IS BEING HANDLED BY THE REGULATORY DIVISION IN THE BUREAU OF ELECTIONS IN JOCELYN BENSON’S DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS “REASON TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION OF THE MCFA OCCURRED“ IS REQUIRED 45 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINANT’S REBUTTAL AND MUST BE POSTED ON THE DEPARTMENT’S WEBSITE. THAT DEADLINE IS NEXT MONTH, ON JULY 24, LESS THAN TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE AUGUST 4 PRIMARY IN ADVANCE OF THE NOV. 3 GENERAL ELECTION.”
To the best of my knowledge, this deadline has passed with nothing done by Secretary Benson or the SOS Bureau of Elections. Whether this becomes an issue or not, much like my earlier comment concerning question 1, it’s an issue only if the media decides it is. All this said, El-Sayed will be the face of the Democratic Party.
And as they used to say when I was younger, Film at 11.