West Michigan Rising

So, this month is our 3 year anniversary!  Unfortunately, it'll be our last month.

I talked with Mark at the MDP Convention and we decided it was the right time to fold up West Michigan Rising.  It's been a great 3 years and I think we accomplished some of what we intended. So, we'll be up for another few days or weeks and then that'll be it. So, if you wrote something you want to keep, copy it now.

The problem you ask?  We'll, we basically never had to pay for WMR. Within a few months a generous benefactor from BFM was kittying up for us, then, after The Catastrophe of August 2010, Soapblox didn't charge us (as the deletion of all our work was their fault). We'll know Soapblox has been sold to a company that wants to go back to charging us to use their platform.

But, that's really just the final straw. As you've noticed first Lisa and Adam, then me, and then Mark have just had a real hard time finding the time to write for the blog. In many ways, like many bloggers, our blogs became a victim or our successes. In 2008, I was elected chair of the Kent County Democratic Party and then went on to run the LaGrand for State Senate campaign in 2010. Mark was elected to his Township board in 2008, was very active in the Kalamazoo County Democratic Party, and was just elected Chair of the 6th Congressional District Democratic Party (Congrats Mark!).  Not only did these positions take up a great deal of time, they were also a constraint on what we could say publicly. The days of being the Socratic Gadfly were over.

So, from August 2009 through 2010 the blog began to no longer live up to its promise.  We built a blog to help elect Democrats and we were too busy electing Democrats to blog about it. Great! The blog was a way to get us more informed, empowered and active. I hope that was the case for readers as well.

So, thanks loyal readers and especially thanks to our guest writers Peter Bratt and Bill Harris.

Mark may be moving on to another platform or joining a state-wide blog, but being a regional writer. Best of luck to everyone!

When Autocam offered to bring 200 jobs to Kentwood, city leaders saw an excellent opportunity.

With all the vacant industrial space in our city, the Kentwood City Commission embraced the idea of bringing in new jobs for the folks of Kentwood and surrounding areas. Autocam sought a tax abatement from the City so they could get started. It's a good deal for the City, given that the alternative - leaving the industrial space vacant - would have resulted in the same amount of tax revenue for the next couple years but without the jobs (though the City would receive new revenue in a few years; more on that later).

So Kentwood City Commissioners voted 6-1 to offer Autocam the abatement.

The one exception? Commissioner/Tea Party activist/Republican precinct delegate/twice-convicted felon Ray VerWys.

Why?
He said abatements are no different from "the targeted tax breaks handed down in Lansing" and that giving tax breaks to some only shifts the tax burden onto others. "We cannot afford to give up this kind of money," said VerWys.And in just a couple sentences, VerWys both slams the successful state tax breaks instituted under then-Gov. Granholm, while at the same time demonstrating a lack of knowledge about tax abatements and their benefits. So let me explain.
See, here in Kentwood (and in other places), the City Commission is authorized to give tax abatements to businsses that are starting up in Kentwood. This is meant to help with their start-up costs; the idea being that while they will still be responsible for their fair share of the tax burden in a few years, the City will do what it can to help them get started by not letting tax burdens prevent companies from creating jobs.

In the Autocam situation, it makes perfect sense. Without the abatement: (a) the empty industrial space would have remained empty; (b) no jobs would have been created; and (c) the city would get no additional revenue from the project.

But since the abatement was approved: (a) the industrial space will be occupied; (b) 200 jobs will be created; (c) the city will get new, direct revenue starting in a few years; (d) these new jobs will help families avoid foreclosures, meaning the City continues to earn revenue from their property taxes; and (e) the local economy will get a boost from their spending, meaning more jobs and more businesses saved (and again, keeping revenue for the City).

To hear VerWys say it, you'd think this is actually costing the City money. What would have cost the City is if VerWys had his way.

Which, thankfully for 200 West Michigan families, he did not.

Stay tuned as I keep track of how many jobs VerWys opposes for the remaining three years of his term.

I've spent some time thinking about this past election.  Not only because we didn't do well, but because it was the first election that I worked on full time.  I had helped out in David LaGrand's run for city commission back in 2007 (Christ, I was still a moody high schooler back then), and I volunteered for Obama on a regular basis in 2008.  This time was different.  This time I saw why activists and operatives always seem frustrated.

I've seen the main problem with the Democratic Party.  It's not lack of funding, or the fact that we aren't draconian enough; it's not that labor, or academics, or minority groups are too dominant.  Our problem is that the Democratic party is too democratic.  Notice the change in capitalization.  We may use the deliberative process a little too much at times.

Now, before anyone reads any further, it should be stated early that I am not advocating for traditional political machines.  We should maintain the reforms made during the progressive era to empower voters.  All I am saying is we need more of a hierarchy in making certain decisions so we can simplify what needs to be simpler, and organize what needs better organization.

The most noticeable thing I see that needs to be less democratic is crafting our message to voters. It's because of this current process that we have a wonky message.  Let's remember that only two people made the slogan "S? se puede," and only one person anglicized it when he wrote Barack Obama's concession speech in New Hampshire.  I know that doing things like messaging is fun though.  It's almost like show and tell back in grade school.  We all have our own talking points and phrases that we have come up with, and it's fun to share them.  Pardon my language, but I've heard the term "political masturbation" used to describe this more pluralist process.

What's significant to remember though is having fun isn't as great as winning elections.  The Republicans seemed to have to have realized it, and it's the only thing we need to learn from them. We should be spending more time organizing our field and fundraising operations then sitting down crafting a wonky message that everyone contributed to.  And if we do that, we can have a better GOTV operation, or reach out to the latino community.  But if we do keep on this track, then we'll just be setting ourselves up for more losses.

Like the new chair of the Kent County Democratic Party said, "Let's prove Will Rogers wrong."  Let's reorganize for 2012 to be more efficient and effective.  That's how we'll reelect the President, take back the Federal and State House, and move West Michigan into the 21st century.

State Representative-Elect Sean McCann sworn in by Judge Alexander Lipsey

This is a tad late, happened last Thursday. But it is one of the few reasons we had to celebrate the results of this year's elections. Sean has been in politics since he was a member, then president, of WMU's student government. Since then he has been a very productive City Commissioner, preparing himself for this day.

Everyone spoke well, with appropriate touches of humor, and briefly! It was a wonderful time for the many of us who have followed Sean's career up to this point, and come to deeply respect his work ethic and good common sense.

For myself, I was wondering what the experience of being in the minority, and not just in the House, but with a Republican Senate and Governor, will be like for Seanand our other Freshmen? Hopefully not too frustrating.

Two Alexes - Lipsey & McCann

Former state representative Mary Brown

Kalamazoo Mayor Bobby Hopewell

Sean speaking

A good crowd was present

Including a bunch of Democrats!

Three state representatives: Alexander Lipsey, Mary Brown, and Sean McCann

28th Street, 1959. Photo courtesy of the City of Wyoming

One of the trends I expect to see further confirmed in the 2010 census data is the decline of many first-ring (or inner-ring) suburbs. Inner ring suburbs are communities that grew rapidly during the post-war economic boom that ran roughly from 1945 to 1974. As noted by Myron Orfield and other scholars, these communities were largely developed with features that distinguished them from existing urban communities, including the incorporation separate zoning uses into the predevelopment of the built environment, the relatively low levels of population density compared to the urban core, the predominance of the automobile as a means of transportation, and general exclusion of racial minorities during its formational period.
In metropolitan Grand Rapids, the cities of Wyoming and Kentwood clearly fall into the first-ring suburb category, as do portions of the city of Grand Rapids. Walker, Grand Rapids Township, Cascade, Ada, Alpine, and Plainfield Townships all experienced the bulk of their development after 1970, putting them in the exurban suburbs category, which developed differently than their inner-ring suburb brethren. Grandville, although incorporated in 1933, was a small town much like Rockford or Lowell until the 1970s, and thus should also be considered an exurban suburb. East Grand Rapids was developed as a Streetcar Suburb between 1880 and 1930, and has remained a wealthy enclave. While the city of Grand Rapids is considered the urban core, areas that the city annexed between 1956 and 1963 are similar in many ways to Wyoming and Kentwood.

Will Wyoming and Kentwood share the fate of many declining first-ring suburbs? While I do not see the population dropping yet for either community (Wyoming's will probably be around 71,000, while Kentwood will rise to 47,000), the evidence of Wyoming's decline as a commercial center has been well documented by the Grand Rapids Press and other local media. This decline is especially evident on 28th Street, which was long the heart of the city. In the past decade, destination businesses such as Rogers Department store, Studio 28, and Classic Chevrolet closed, as did a large GM stamping plant located at 36th and Burlingame, and vacancy rates in the Rogers Plaza Shopping Mall increased significantly. Recent attempts to resurrect the commercial strip (which included the relocation of Klingmans) have failed, leaving the city scrambling to find ways to restore its fortunes.

The decline of Wyoming's commercial heart on 28th Street is compounded by the city's demographic changes. Over the past two decades, the city has become significantly less white, with a large growth in its Hispanic population, especially north of 28th Street. With the Hispanic core neighborhoods in Grand Rapids along Grandville Avenue continuing to grow, many are finding more areas of affordable housing and better schools in Wyoming. By the middle of the next decade Wyoming might find itself with two distinct communities-a wealthy white portion south of 36th Street that I like to refer to as "Voorheestan." Folks in Voorheestan are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans who like their taxes low, their God glorified, and dislike regional cooperation. The growing Hispanic neighborhoods north of 36th Street are generally much poorer, desire strong schools for their children, and have yet to find their political voice in local and state politics. Thus, while Wyoming's political elite might remain white and conservative over the next decade, the demographics underneath them will continue to shift.

The efforts over the past year by city officials, planners, and consultants to remake Wyoming's "Town Center" are interesting. A suburb that rejected everything about traditional urban form and density is seeking to redevelop its commercial core into smaller urban blocks. In Matt Van Bunte's article from November 27, 2010 Grand Rapids Press, Van Bunte notes that

"public input shows a new street peeling to the south of 28th and cutting massive commercial parcels, including Studio 28, Wyoming Village Mall and Rogers Plaza, into smaller urban blocks. The vision could become a prototype for suburban redevelopment around Grand Rapids, a consultant said. The primary concept envisions a new street veering south of 28th just east of Burlingame and arcing back to 28th just west of Clyde Park. The road would slice through the large parcels, connecting with new north-south streets to create smaller urban blocks with better pedestrian access and more green space. The sketch features a roundabout at Michael Avenue, north of Prairie Street, with a mix of commercial, residential and office uses flanking the new street in each direction."

For the full Grand Rapids Press article see the link below:
http://www.mlive.com/business/...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Map 1: Metropolitan Grand Rapids Population Density, 2008

The consultants with this project note that achieving this vision will be difficult. While people generally do not agree what the ideal density of a town center is, I bet that planners are looking at the Eastown neighborhood in Grand Rapids. As shown in Map 1 Eastown's population density in 2008 was about 13,000 people per square mile. As Map 1 shows, many of the successful commercial corridors in Grand Rapids have a density that is similar or higher than Eastown's.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Map 2: Wyoming Population Density, 2008

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Map 3: Wyoming Town Center Population Density, 2008

Perhaps the greatest problem for any redevelopment of Wyoming's Town Center will be the low levels of population density. Map 2 shows Wyoming's population density, and Map 3 shows the density in the Town Center redevelopment area. As 28th Street changes from a regional shopping destination to neighborhood shopping center, the market capture for stores in the Town Center will increasingly shrink. In order for any redevelopment efforts to succeed, the residential base needs grow significantly. Changing the urban form of the Town Center area will be helpful, but unless the new commercial buildings contain residential units located above or within a1/8th of a mile, these businesses will just not survive.

For efforts to revitalize its commercial corridor to succeed, Wyoming must think about how to draw residents to this part of town. This might require the expenditure of tax dollars to create an urban grid, as well as finding anchor institutions willing to stick it out over the next few years. I personally think that the idea of creating a satellite Grand Rapids Community College campus at the intersection Clyde Park and 28th Street would be an excellent first step to bringing people to Town Center. The satellite campus could specialize in vocational training for students interested in working at some of the city's industrial centers, which continue to provide a number of excellent paying jobs. A campus would for many new Hispanic residents to take courses near their homes, as opposed to trekking to downtown Grand Rapids. Similarly, a branch campus of Spectrum Health would provide some jobs and services for residents.

Wyoming is a first-ring suburb in the midst of continued economic and demographic changes. The question is whether its population and political leadership, especially those from Voorheestan, are willing to jettison a political ideology that has served it well for the past sixty years.

(PS-My article on urban planning in metropolitan Grand Rapids from 1946 to 1964 will be coming out in the next issue of the Michigan Historical Review. It is heavy on politics, planning, and personalities, which make for a good read. Let me know if you want a copy. PB)

More for this lame duck session today.

From a Sierra Club Press Release:

Michigan has a tremendous opportunity to expand our clean sources of energy to Wind Power will Protect the Great Lakesreduce emissions of toxins like mercury, the impact of climate change on our state, and the contamination of our waterways with toxic coal ash.  Our greatest wind capacity lies off our shorelines in the Great Lakes, which could generate more than three times as much electricity as we are producing in Michigan today.

But the siting of wind turbines in the Great Lakes is an issue of considerable concern - with attention to wildlife, environmental impacts, shipping lanes and other issues needing to be carefully researched to assure that these clean energy sources are not causing harm.

In 2009, the Great Lakes Offshore Wind (GLOW) Council was created to identify the best potential areas for offshore wind in Michigan, ensure the public interest in Great Lakes bottomlands was protected and identify other barriers to offshore wind energy development in Michigan. GLOW's recommendations were completed this fall, and they contained a comprehensive look at where wind energy development should, and should not occur in the Great Lakes.  Because the State holds the bottomlands of the Great Lakes in trust for all of the people of this state, legislation is required to allow the state to move ahead with the recommendations of GLOW.

Representative Dan Scripps has introduced House Bill 6564 that would put the policies of GLOW into effect, with one concerning difference.  Sierra Club supports HB 6564 with an amendment to remove sections that potentially open up the delegation of control over the Great Lakes bottomlands to local units of government.  Our state's tradition of protecting the public trust must be protected by making this change (remove subsections 32417(6)-(8) (page 14), regarding the issue of bottomland leasing).

This is a critical time for Michigan and the Legislature can make a huge difference by allowing our state to move ahead with Great Lakes offshore wind development.  It is good for our environment, good for the climate, and good for our state's economic future.

Please let us know if you have any questions!  Contact Anne or Gayle at 517-484-2372 or michigan.chapter@sierraclub.org.

It's a simple form to send a letter. The letter to send is on the flip....
Support Great Lakes Offshore Wind Legislation!

Dear [Decision Maker],

Michigan has a chance to move our state forward by emphasizing clean energy and moving away from dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil. Our state's amazing potential for developing Great Lakes offshore wind power promises to deliver both clean, renewable energy and economic benefits including jobs well into the future.

The Great Lakes Offshore Wind Council's recent recommendations for policies to guide the environmentally sound development of Michigan's offshore wind capacity were an important step towards making this a reality. I support these recommendations and urge the Legislature to move forward with enacting the GLOW Council's proposal.

On Tuesday, November 30, the House Energy and Technology Committee will be considering House Bill 6564, introduced by Representative Dan Scripps. HB 6564 does a good job of incorporating the proposals from GLOW, and I urge you to support it with one amendment.

HB 6564 should be modified to assure that only the state is allowed to decide how Michigan's Great Lakes bottomlands will be used. Assuring that these resources continue to be held in the public trust by guaranteeing that all decisions regarding their use stays with the State of Michigan is a necessary amendment to this legislation. This would mean that this legislation would allow for offshore wind turbines six miles or more off the shoreline, but does not prevent future legislation to allow communities supporting wind turbines closer to their shoreline from being proposed.

I urge you and your colleagues to complete passage of this legislation during this Legislative session. Michigan's clean energy future will be much brighter and promising if our state can move ahead now with the thoughtful, well designed set of policy recommendations from the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Council.

Thank you for considering my comments. I would appreciate it if you can let me know how you voted on HB 6564 and any proposed amendments.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]

From a LCV Press Release:

Michigan Senate Urged to Support $160 Million in Federal Rail Funding

Would you pay $37 to receive $161? That's the question facing Michigan, multiplied by a million, with respect to high-speed and commuter rail funding.

Michiganders distracted by the holiday hustle-and-bustle are urged to take a moment to call their senator this week about a vote on $37 million in matching funds that would trigger another $161 million for a Detroit-to-Chicago rail project.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and other state senators need to pass House Bill 6484 before the year, or the opportunity for federal funds, is over.

The Michigan LCV and Michigan Environmental Council are calling on residents to take action and make their voices heard.

"Michigan is a state built on transportation," said Lisa Wozniak, Michigan LCV's executive director.

"While automobiles remain important, especially next-generation vehicles like the Chevy Volt, our state also needs to invest in high-speed and commuter rail for the promise it holds. That includes a lower carbon footprint for our state and faster commutes that can spur tourism and job growth across Michigan."

The Senate is due to reconvene today (Tuesday, Nov. 30).

Leaders in the region have spent a decade working to improve commuter rail in Michigan, and upgrade high-speed rail service along the Detroit-to-Chicago corridor.

House Bill 6484 was passed by representatives on Nov. 10. It authorizes up to $100 million of state construction bonds to cover the $37 million federal match requirement, which would allow Michigan to receive a $161 million federal high-speed rail grant awarded to the Detroit-to-Chicago passenger rail corridor project.

The funding would go to acquire and upgrade lines between Dearborn and Kalamazoo. The legislation also would make money available for other state passenger rail infrastructure projects including the establishment of a commuter rail between Detroit, Dearborn, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. Southeast Michigan is the only major metropolitan area in the U.S. without light or commuter rail.

"This is a clear benefit for Michigan's cities and towns," said Tim Fischer, deputy policy director with the Michigan Environmental Council. "It will spur economic activity, improve the environment, establish affordable connections between communities and smooth the commutes between home and work."

Senators whose districts stand to benefit include Valde Garcia of Marion Township, Ron Jelinek of Three Oaks, Tom George of Kalamazoo, Mike Nofs of Battle Creek, Randy Richardville of Monroe and John Pappageorge of Troy.

"Michigan is being asked to provide a 20-percent match for this federal grant," Wozniak added.

"Our state senators need to get on board with this plan, which will offer a great payback to the state and region."

To find your senator, see this link: senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm.

It's also important to contact Senate Majority Leader Bishop, who is responsible for calling the bill to the Senate floor for a vote.

For more information, see www.michiganbyrail.org.

Perhaps the biggest surprise on late hours of November 2 was the enormity of the Democratic defeat in the Michigan State House. While many had predicted that the Democrats' margin of 67 to 43 would be reduced, few predicted that they would lose control of the lower chamber (myself included) and end up with 47 seats, a humiliating 20 seat loss. Indeed, Democratic numbers in the State House and Senate have not been this low since 1954, a time when Michigan's legislature in the legislature was malapportioned prior to the 1964 Constitution. Just for reference, Table 1 below shows partisan control of the Michigan State House and Senate from 1955 to the present.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Table 1: Michigan Legislative Control, 1948-2012
What caused this twenty seat loss for the Democrats? Commentators have noted that Democratic turnout crashed on the rocks this cycle, with turnout in key Democratic precincts lower than even in 1998 or 1994 (or even 1966 for that matter). I think that the 2010 disaster can be explained largely by region, statistics, and redistricting.

Consider regionalism first. The map below shows partisan control of State House statewide.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Map 1: Michigan State House Partisan Control

One can see the 20 seats gained by the GOP on November 2 are largely concentrated in three regions of the state: Northern Michigan, downriver/eastern Michigan, and Macomb County. Of these 20 seats, 14 were open, while 6 were lost by Democratic incumbents. Maps 2-5 shows these areas in greater detail.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Map 2: Northern Michigan

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Map 3: The Thumb/Macomb County

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Map 4: Downriver and Eastern Michigan

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Map 5: Western Michigan

Democrats lost six districts in Northern Michigan, two in West Michigan, eight seats in the downriver/rural eastern Michigan, two seats in the Thumb, and two in Macomb County. The loss of seats on a regional basis is significant to explaining the GOP's success in 2010. The Upper Peninsula has long been a Democratic stronghold, although the Democratic Baseline (which is the average Democratic share of the vote cast for State Board of Education races) for the districts in northern Michigan (101, 103, 106, and 107) are much more Republican-leaning. The decline of the Democratic brand over the past two years is due in part to the retirement of Bart Stupak, who had long provided a strong conservative Democratic presence on the top of the ticket for Democratic voters in the north, and also the antipathy of voters to the first two years of the Obama Administration. This suspicion of the Obama Administration has cultural and economic roots, but is also due to the steady drumbeat of the GOP noise machine that has played on the fear and malaise of many voters.

The six seats lost in West Michigan, Macomb County, and the Thumb are swing (Districts 24, 32, and 91) or Republican leaning Districts (Districts 70, 83, 84). However, the eight seats lost in Monroe, Jackson, Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties are in many was due to Rick Snyder being on the top of the Republican ticket. Snyder almost carried his home county (Washtenaw), a county that Democratic candidates generally carry by a two to one margin. The fact that Snyder almost carried this county doomed the Democratic State House candidates in the two Washtenaw County districts (52nd and 55th). Similarly, Jackson, Lenawee, and Monroe Counties, which have generally had a slight Democratic lean over the past four election cycles, swung decisively towards the Republican column, costing Democrats four seats. In Wayne County, Democratic incumbent Deb Kennedy was caught napping in the 23rd District, while Republicans picked up the 19th State House seat, which has historically been a Republican seat.

Thus regionalism partly explains the 2010 results. Table 2 below attempts to explain the results based on demographic and economic statistical data for each seat. I pulled data on any race that was 1) a Republican pickup, 2) where the winning candidate won with less than 55% of the vote, or 3) was identified as a Weak Republican, Weak Democratic or Swing seat in my previous analysis. The categories in Table 2 are pretty self-explanatory, although a few deserve further explanation. Dem 2010% is the percentage received the Democratic State House candidate in 2010, while DB Avg% is the Democratic Baseline average from the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. %Black, %Min, %White is based on ethnic data from the 2000 Census, as is Pov% (poverty rate), Bach% (percentage of residents who hold a Bachelor's Degree), Prof% (percentage of residents who work in professional sector), and Med House Income (Median Household Income). While this data is ten years old, it serves as a reference point for analyzing the data. Once the 2010 Census data is released next month, I'll try to update some of this information.

In the 55 races, Democrats won 18 seats in 2010 (or 37%). In comparison, after the 2008 election they held 38 seats (69%). Some Democratic incumbents who won in 2010 performed slightly better than the 2004-08 Democratic baseline average, and only two Democratic incumbents (Terry Brown in the 84th and Dan Scripps in the 101st) who ran better than the baseline lost. Every other Democratic candidate (incumbent or challenger) performed worse than the baseline.

http://i303.photobucket.com/al...
Table 2: District Analysis

Is there a silver bullet from the data that explains the Democratic disaster in these 55 districts? Besides the fact that Republican incumbents were invulnerable, and that every open GOP seat was held, a few trends appear when you do some preliminary regression analysis. With correlation coefficient.78, the 2004-2008 Democratic baseline average is the strongest predictor of Democratic State House performance in 2010. Which, in my opinion, is not all too surprising.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Table 3: Baseline Regression

The other variables have a much weaker predictive value and are not statistically significant. The only other significant variable is race, and there is a -.42 correlation coefficient with the white population percentage, which has a t score of 3.369. Essentially, Democrats won any district where the white percentage of the population was under 90%. Personally, I think that the financial data, which should be available relatively soon from the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, will also show that a large financial edge for the winner will be statistically significant.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IM4e5b7O...
Table 4: White% Regression

Finally, how does redistricting explain regionalism and statistics? In 2001 the Republican Party controlled all three parties in the redistricting equation (the State House, Senate, and Michigan Supreme Court). The map drawn for the State House sought to maximize the Republican gains in the 2000 election, and as a result the number of seats controlled by the GOP increased from 58 in 2000 to 61 in 2002. However, the map cut too close to the margins, and Democratic wave years in 2006 and 2008 resulted in the GOP caucus being reduced to 52 and 43 seats, respectively. Perhaps a wiser map would treat 2010 as an aberration, and a new map would seek to draw 56 to 58 safe Republican seats. Given that there are 63 members of the Republican House caucus, I suspect that every incumbent will want a seat that protects his or her interests. For the Democrats looking for a strategy in 2012, I'd look really hard at trying to knock off the GOP in metropolitan Detroit (Districts 23, 24, 52, 55, and 56) as well as reclaiming districts 108 and 110 in the Upper Peninsula and Districts 101 and 103 in Northern Michigan. This would bring the party back to a narrow majority. However, given that a new map will be created in late 2011, closer targeting will need to wait until then.

So, I am definitely still an amateur in this field.  I would still like to think that I have acquired some useful knowledge since May.  I decided it may be fun to list some of the things I have learned.

*If you wish to run for office one day, you need to open up a bakery.

*If you take initiative to make coffee in the morning you will gain respect with peers and supervisors.

*Furthermore, there is also never enough coffee.  I repeat, NEVER enough coffee.

*When you are tall your job at conventions are to hold signs, so own it.

*Republicans suck.

*Make sure that you aim the bar scanner REALLY well when entering in data.

*You may have an issue not having an issues page.

*You can tell the campaign manager something, but you won't get the message across until you leave a post-it note.

*You know you have made it somewhere when you are allowed to have your own VAN password.

*You know the campaign has taken over your life when your VAN password makes fun of the opponent. (Phil!)

*Use a clunky Mini Van for a campaign mobile.  You will trash it anyway so you may already want it in that condition.

*Jolly Ranchers are terrible pieces of candy but they are damn addictive, and union made!

*Kids are goats, not children. (Alex)

*The Speaker should  never run for Governor, snub kids in wheelchairs, or be member of the opposing party.

*Leaving literature in the door for someone who is not home is an art.

*Planting yard-signs is an ART

*You are always walking with the candidate, even if the candidate is walking in the other side of town.

*Republicans suck.

*Hot n' Ready pizza is the greatest gift you can give to a campaign staff.

*Photos with politicians are great, but fist pumps from Mark Schauer are better.

In all seriousness, I wrote this for a reason.  We can't deny that we lost this last election.  I am so proud of what we all did and I had way too much fun to stop though.  As long as we have great people like David LaGrand, Jocelyn Benson, and Bob Synk in the battle, I'm willing to serve in the ranks.  It's going to be a tough fight, but let's go back to basics and start kicking some tail.  Oh, and Republicans suck.

Steve