Question 1): If, as seems likely, a ‘Blue Wave’ really is coming to Michigan on Nov. 3, and Republican gubernatorial nominee John James loses to Jocelyn Benson at the top of the ticket by a margin in the high single digits, or worse, are there offices down ballot where Republican candidates can manage to survive and win? If so, which offices are most likely salvageable for the Michigan GOP?
Answer 1): There are a few. Just below the top of the ticket there is, of course, the race that everyone considers the most prominent this year — for an open U.S. Senate seat. Most polls show Democrat Abdul El-Sayed with a slight lead, but Republican Mike Rogers is definitely in the hunt. Remember, almost all surveys before the Aug. 4 Democratic primary showed El-Sayed with a hefty double-digit lead over Haley Stevens, yet he beat her by only 1%. The same late-breaking now-hidden voter behavior may be in play in the general election, too.
Michigan’s U.S. House delegation is now 7R/6D. None of the Democrats’ six seats are imperiled, but three Republican seats are — the 4th, 7th, and 10th CDs. If the Democrats succeed in knocking off Bill Huizenga in the 4th and Tom Barrett in the 7th, plus winning the open 10th, they’ll flip the delegation to 9D/4R. It could happen. The best chance for the GOP is for Tom Barrett to buck the tide in the 7th, where he’s running against a challenger, progressive William Lawrence, who in an ordinary year wouldn’t have a chance in this purple enclave but who in 2026 could become one of those fluke “accidental” winners we’ll remember for years to come.
Among other possibilities is Attorney General, where Republican nominee Doug Lloyd has a good chance to edge Democratic nominee El Savit, hobbled by his controversial record as Washtenaw Co. prosecuting attorney. Perhaps a longshot but also possible is Secretary of State nominee Anthony (Tony) Forlini, a well-qualified candidate with experience administering elections. He would have to beat the current term-limited Lieutenant Governor, Garlin Gilchrist II, who has the advantage of higher name ID because he was elected twice statewide as Gretchen Whitmer’s running mate even though he has never won any election in his own right for any office. By contrast, Forlini has won numerous races for the state House of Representatives as well as Macomb Co. clerk and township supervisor in Michigan’s third largest county.
Also on the table is control of the state House of Representatives, where Republicans currently hold a 58-52 edge. The House GOP would have to hold onto at least two of the four marginal seats in the 27th (Linting), 44th (Frisbie), 58th (Robinson), and 109th (Bohnak) districts while hoping that none of their other 54 incumbents or GOP-held open seats lose. They might even be able to knock off a Democrat or two, such as in the 61st district (Metzger) or the open 31st district. That’s a tall order. Most of the talk is about 2006, when the result (Dems took back the majority) turned out to look much like what may happen this year. Another analogy might be 1968, when House Republicans went into the election with a slim 56-54 edge. Even with Democratic presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey winning Michigan at the top of the ticket by nearly 7 %, Republicans managed to upset a Democratic incumbent in the Upper Peninsula (Iron Mountain and environs) — but they lost four marginal seats to the Democrats elsewhere and thus their majority. Democrats netted three seats and gained 57-53 control. The Dems retained their House dominance all the way to 1992 — a 24-year run that was the longest for their party since the Civil War. History might not exactly repeat itself this year, but, as Mark Twain said, it could certainly rhyme.
Then there is the overshadowed race for the University of Michigan Board of Regents, which is almost a microcosm of what is going on higher up on the ballot. Two seats on the board are up for grabs, and the top two finishers in a five-candidate field will be elected. One incumbent is running– Democrat Paul Brown, but the other seat is essentially open because sitting regent Jordan Acker, who is Jewish, was denied re-nomination by his own party at the Dems’ April 19 state endorsement convention. His place has been taken by Amir Makled, a controversial progressive pro-Palestinian attorney from Dearborn. The two Republican nominees are both Jewish — Michael Schostak and Lena Epstein, each of whom may put more than half a million dollars into the race. A fifth candidate is a Libertarian, who won’t come close to finishing in the top two but who could hurt the two Republicans’ chances. Even if it’s unlikely that both Epstein and Schostack could win on Nov. 3, if just one of them could finish second, he or she would represent a pickup for the GOP, who would thereby reduce their deficit on the board from 6-2 to 5-3. It’s possible.
************************************************
Question 2): A Political Action Committee (PAC) supporting Republican gubernatorial nominee John James has observed that Secretary of State Jocelyn BENSON warned in 2009 that election officials serving as campaign leaders posed “a significant problem.” The PAC is now using those remarks to question her role overseeing elections while she’s running for governor.
Said Benson back in the day: “It was a significant problem because, again, we saw how one Secretary of State, one person, could implement policies that could change the course of democracy and change the outcome of the election.” This was part of a five-part video series posted by Houghton Co. Democrats 17 years ago when Benson was running a losing campaign for Secretary of State. In the footage, she criticized GOP election officials who also served as co-chairs of then-President George W. BUSH’s campaigns, including Michigan’s then-SoS Terri Lynn Land, a Republican.
Now, the PAC’s press release claims Benson “has not recused herself from anything” involving the 2026 general election.
However, perhaps perceiving that what she said in 2009 might become an issue for her this year, Benson announced a “firewall” policy five months ago under which she said she would step aside from procedures that could directly affect the gubernatorial contest and delegate those responsibilities to the director of elections.
Those recusals include reviews of candidate affidavits of identity, petition processing, recount petition submissions, post-election audits, declaratory rulings, campaign finance complaint processing and supervisory actions involving local election officials (see “Benson Outlines ‘Firewalls’ To Avoid Any Conflicts Of Interest,” 5/6/26).
Michigan’s elections are administered primarily by local clerks, with the Secretary of State providing statewide oversight. The existence of Benson’s announced policy does not establish which specific matters she has delegated, but it is relevant to the PAC’s assertion that she has not recused herself.
So, what about this? Aside from what appears to be the obvious hypocrisy between what Benson opined 17 years ago and where she finds herself today, will this make any difference in the race between her and James for the governorship?
Answer 2): None at all, although it should be worth some discussion. However, in the second and final gubernatorial debate this past Thursday the subject never came up. James might have mentioned it or the moderator could have brought it up, but they didn’t. None of the millions of dollars in media ads will talk about it. Instead, the debate centered around the usual suspect issues — data centers, the tax code, gas levies, tariffs, education and economic development. The candidates produced glib, motor-mouth, eye-glazing answers that told viewers nothing they didn’t already know, and much of that defies credulity and common sense. No matter who wins, we’re in for an unappetizing four years.
***************************************
Neither Candidate declared how They would prevent Chinese C.C.P interfere with the Ballot process as exposed and documented from 2024 by the D.O.J,FBI, and reported by the NTD News network. China Iran and others have a direct interest in influencing the outcome . The 30-60 second debate time restrictions also prevent logical communication between the Candidates.( “sound bites ” are thus, the goal )
Yup.
I always enjoy reading your questions and particularly your answers on Sunday afternoon
You nailed it and I can’t add anything to your analysis.
Haley Stevens was most likely railroaded out of her seat by far left radicals.
Good thing Gov John James and Sen Mike Rogers will prevent Michigan from turning into France or the UK
Haley Stevens was an ineffective member of U.S. Congress. Beholden to the auto industry and AIPAC interests via her receipt of massive PAC contributions.
She had received more direct and indirect AIPAC-related campaign finance support than any other Congressional member in U.S. history.
As a Republican activist, I would have preferred to see her receive the nomination for U.S. Senate as she would have been an easier candidate to for Mike Rogers to defeat. Her candidacy had divided the Democratic Party.
Right now, even conservative and Republican polling organizations show Mike Rogers trailing Dr. El-Sayed by 1-2%. It will be a close race.
There is virtually no money being spent on Lloyd and Forlini, which is all you need to know. And NOTHING is being spent on the two Republicans for state Supreme Court. The Mich. GOP hasn’t run a real campaign for the whole ticket since 2014 and 2010.
I have seen in the last couple of days a couple of ads for Michael Warren, good content attacking the Parks and Czarnecki decisions on removing life without parole for 1st degree murder for 18 – 20 using apparent family members of those who were murdered. Good ads, though more than a couple of months late. Whatever the FOP’s donor class is doing, trying to win elections is not one of those things. Why the GOP gives fealty to these doofuses is well beyond me.
Oh, I have also seen some ads for Forlini and Lloyd on YouTube, but fewer ads than I’ve seen for Savit. I cannot recall any ads that I’ve seen for Gilchrist.
Interesting article, Bill.
As for Question 1, we will see on election day. His ads (at least on YouTube) seem to slightly outnumber Rogers’ ads, though most of the pro-Rogers’ ads are negative attacks on El-Sayed, and not really effective ones in my opinion. The most interesting of the ads are the “Jews For Rogers”. An interesting line of ads that reminds me of what the Jews of France were told by the Jacobins after the French Revolution that all would be well for them if they stopped being Jews.
As for the other races, the GOP will have problems with endorsements. Garlin Gilchrist got the Freep’s endorsement (no surprise) for a record that is more than a wee bit short of even minor accomplishments. In the “old days” when Stephen Henderson ran the editorial page, a Republican had a puncher’s chance of endorsement. Not anymore. The way the Freep treated Anthony Forlini is probably as good a reason as any for any GOP candidate to avoid wasting time with them, though it might count against any time one has to spend in Purgatory as punishment already received. In endorsing Gilchrist, the Freep’s description of Forlini is quite illuminating. As usual, the quotes will be in all caps. “MACOMB COUNTY CLERK ANTHONY FORLINI, A FORMER STATE LAWMAKER, ADMINISTERS ELECTIONS IN MICHIGAN’S THIRD-MOST POPULOUS COUNTY. FORLINI, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, IS A CAPABLE CLERK WHO IS LIKED BY OFFICIALS OF BOTH PARTIES. The fact he is capable and well-liked by folks of both parties means…nothing.
BUT FORLINI WON’T READILY CONCEDE THAT JOE BIDEN WON THE 2020 ELECTION – A BRIGHT LINE FOR A PUBLIC OFFICIAL’S INTEGRITY – AND HAS TRUMPETED THE MINUSCULE NUMBER OF NONCITIZENS WHO’VE ALLEGEDLY VOTED IN MICHIGAN AS THOUGH IT’S AN INDICTMENT OF THE SYSTEM, RATHER THAN EVIDENCE THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE SECURE. WHILE WE ACCEPT HIS ASSERTION THAT HE IS NOT AN ELECTION DENIER, WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT FORLINI HAS MADE AN ART OF HEDGING IN A MURKY POLITICAL LANDSCAPE WHERE, AT LEAST FOR REPUBLICANS, ELECTION SKEPTICISM IS COIN.” They accuse him of election denying after saying they accept his “assertion” that he is not. I’m old enough to remember quite a large group of Democrats who thought Bush the Younger did not win in 2000 and actively worked on the efforts to declare Al Gore the winner. Among those I believe were Jocelyn Benson and Butch Hollowell. Hmmm, does anyone think the Freep’s editorial board, as it is currently constructed, would apply the same standards to both major parties? Apparently not.
Bill is right on Mr. Lawrence. Turnout will determine who wins there or not.
Of greater interest to me is the U of M Board of Regents race. Bill is right in his description that this has similar dynamics to the US Senate race, except that Jordan Acker was subjected to vandalism of his home and business, and he was effectively thrown under the bus by his colleague Paul Brown (a venture capitalist/masturbator of money) who was facing no convention challenge, a true profile in cowardice. This gets back to my earlier comments on the Senate race in that Jewish Democrats face a moment of political truth: Can they be Jews, specifically Zionist Jews, and a Democrat. It will be interesting to see which identity they choose.
As for Question 2, hypocrisy in politics, stupidity from campaign advisors and a moderator who needed a lesson from Bill Ballenger before taking the job, just like Captain Reynaud in Casablanca, I am shocked!
I trust all of you had a happy and pleasant Columbus Day!
Amir Makled received the nomination for a U-M Board of Regents seat along with Mr. Brown.
Makled had himself sustained harassment over his ties to the prosecutions of pro-Palestine demonstration participants that supported divestment by the University from investments of companies doing business in Israel as well as opposition to the Gaza War. He was defending some of the criminal defendants on a pro bono basis.
Makled was interviewed on YouTube by attorney Jon Marko on the “Cases Gone Wild” talk show regarding his detention by U.S. Customs at Metro Airport by agents questioning him about his legal cases.
Makled supports divestment from Israel-linked university funding and likens it to the pressure that had been placed upon South Africa during the apartheid era, according to an interview in the Michigan Daily. He also has campaigned on abolishing ICE presence at the University – including its health system.
The Student Central Government at U-M in 2017 had passed a resolution encouraging the Board of Regents to establish a committee to study the feasibility and advisability of U-M divestment from Israel-related companies. The then-existing Board of Regents rejected that resolution – citing the likely impact it would have on private endowment.
The Board of Regents in 2024 again rejected a renewed call by student government to divest from companies liked to Israel. The U-M Faculty Senate has likewise endorsed calls for university divestment from companies profiting from the Gaza War.
Two weeks ago, dozens of U-M students took to the streets of Ann Arbor to promote boycott and divestment of Israel-related companies.
Democratic incumbent Regent Paul Brown opposes Israel-related divestment – citing potential impact on endowment. GOP nominees Epstein and Schostak – unsurprisingly – strongly oppose university divestment from Israel-linked investments.
I believe that voters in November will reject Epstein and Schostak and elect Makled as the first Muslim member of the University of Michigan Board of Regents where a board dialogue on university divestment from israeli-linked entities can be introduced for the first time.
Mr. Makled is on the right side of history……………………….
Leanne, once again, I respectfully dissent. Mr. Makled is NOT on the right side of history. If this works right, there should be a link to a Washington Post op-ed here from West Bloomfield native Jesse Arm at the bottom of this post. If my computer skills are, well, my computer skills, you can find the article in today’s RealClearReligion section of RealClearPolitics.
I see here actions that are going beyond antisemitism (the practice in the past of restricting the number of Jews allowed into various professions and schools) into Jew hatred. Acker’s home and office have been the sites of vandalism, including hurling jars of urine into his home (December 9, 2024); his wife’s car was spray-painted with the words “DIVEST” and “FREE PALESTINE” in red ink, alongside an inverted red triangle – a symbol associated with Palestinian resistance and, in this context, Hamas’ targeting of Israeli sites (same day); his Southfield law office was vandalized with “Free Palestine” and other messages (June 3, 2024); and a masked protester delivering a list of demands, including divestment from companies profiting from the Israel–Hamas war, to his home (May 15, 2024). Now when I used to canvas or pass out campaign literature, I was never a masked man – even in the cold. The purpose of these acts are NOT the usual give and take of politics, but overt acts at intimidation, with an implicit threat of escalation – do what we want or else. There is a reason I cited the Jacobins of revolutionary France in my earlier post. Terror, in this instance, is not an accidental byproduct, it’s the plan. And the actions of the electorate reflect my earlier post in another TBR when I quoted the late George Jonas in Canada’s “National Post” on pragmatic (or as I prefer demographic) antisemitism.
And let’s keep several things in mind. Hamas is the Gazan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The ONLY democratic state in the Middle East is Israel. None of the surrounding Arab states want Palestinians in their country. In Jordan, they set up basically a rival state, attempted to assassinate King Hussein, the Hashemite king of Jordan whose family lineage dating back to the great grandfather of Muhammed (not exactly a Zionist). In Gaza when Egypt controlled it, they were treated exceptionally well, until Sadat signed the Camp David accords then they rioted and the special treatment they received sort of went away (that can be a side effect of rioting) and the Muslim Brotherhood later assassinated Sadat. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis welcomed them with open arms, so much so that 20% of Kuwait’s population was Palestinian. Things were splendid, until Saddam Hussein invaded and not an insignificant number of Palestinians openly supported and abetted that invasion. Afterwards they were expelled. Gee, I wonder why. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a raging dumpster fire. The Gazans are unique – a great cause célèbre, but no one wants them in their country. Now that takes some doing.
As for Paul Brown, he threw his colleague under the bus. I do not recall any word of support given by him to Mr. Acker at the Democratic convention. If I missed it, I apologize to Mr. Brown.
This leads me to my final point. Voters sometimes have to decide what is more important to them. The Jacobins who describe themselves as anti-Zionist are giving some traditional Democratic voters a choice. What is more important to them? Being a “progressive” or a Zionist. How they answer that question we will find out on election day. And that is not a bad thing. It does people good every now and again to make choices then we all get to see what others find important in life.
links.washingtonpost.com/s/vb/eLpPqkoXlM9xpHU2hwd75v0uSw_ex9Vuslov-5CoKGi-H6I_wbj0OD0xh4Dv3wr0Ejo-iwj4iYVeby4E1LuYjzMrMPZGikLFqHGO3MYYwN_Q12OxX59VIlm8sAYjtDfKeFHHcLY5B6Rgqym5kI89Sbf9FWUaJZbdT0Lo1g/hjOK5_wCji0iNU1pA0oOtABz_ErRk-V8/25