Susan J. Demas: Can Gov. Snyder Save Part of Obamacare?

Gov. Rick Snyder is jetting off to Washington, D.C., this week on a dual mission. The Republican governor, who was a vocal critic of Donald Trump during the presidential campaign and refused to endorsement, will make nice by attending the inauguration.

But he’ll also be pushing back against part of one of the new president’s biggest priorities: repealing Obamacare. Snyder is also set to attend a GOP roundtable on Medicaid, which was expanded under Obamacare.

During his first term, Snyder dueled with many conservative members of his party to shepherd the Medicaid expansion through the Legislature. He doesn’t want Congress to scrap it. He will, no doubt, sell the reform aspects of the “Healthy Michigan” plan as a conservative alternative to how Medicaid operates in other states.

Now 640,000 Michiganders have Medicaid coverage under Obamacare, which shattered all expectations. And Rick Snyder is their best hope for keeping their health care.

There are roughly 240,000 Michigan residents on top of that who gained health insurance under Obamacare, according to ACASignups.net, the nationally acclaimed site tracking data run by Bloomfield Hills web designer Charles Gaba. That’s thanks to measures like health care exchanges aimed at those without employer-based plans, the ban on insurance companies refusing coverage due to preexisting condition, and the provision allowing those up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ health plans.

In total, about 885,000 Michiganders gained health insurance under Obamacare. So roughly 9 percent of Michigan’s population could lose their coverage if the law is repealed.

If Snyder can help sell Trump and Republicans in Congress on keeping the Medicaid expansion, that would make a huge difference for Michigan. But it still isn’t clear what will happen to the more than a quarter-million people who obtained insurance outside Medicaid, many of whom are small business owners who have long struggled to find affordable coverage. It will be interesting to see if Snyder and other Republicans advocate for them, as well.

Snyder spent much of his seventh State of the State address this week touting the state’s economic comeback, his favorite theme.

But the governor clearly recognizes that state’s recovery could be jeopardized if 9 percent of Michiganders suddenly lose coverage under the GOP Obamacare repeal. No doubt he and other governors on the front lines will forcefully make that case, both at the roundtable and behind closed doors.

We’ll have to see if President Trump and the Republican Congress ultimately decide to listen.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: For Local Media, It’s Death by a Thousand Cuts

Just in time for the New Year, the newly profitable Washington Post announced it would be adding dozens of newsroom jobs.

That was greeted with universal delight from journalists, including some who recently became unemployed. Most observations were a variation on this theme: Maybe this is the sign that our industry is finally turning around.  

I hope so, too, but I sincerely doubt it. The safest places to work in journalism have long been New York and D.C., but even that’s not a failsafe plan. After all, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and USA Today all announced layoffs not too long ago.

The picture in Michigan remains grim. MLive, which includes eight publications, did some major downsizing a year ago. Both Detroit papers (the News and the Free Press) offered buyouts for two straight years and laid off staff this time around. Smaller papers like the Lansing State Journal and Battle Creek Enquirer have, too. The Michigan Radio Network closed shop. And it goes on and on.

Most presses have been mothballed in the name of consolidation. Grand downtown newspaper buildings have been shuttered due to expense. Many papers (including some I’ve worked for) are operating with a quarter of the news staffs they had even a half-dozen years ago. It’s death by a thousand cuts. And it’s somewhat amazing they still put out papers at all.

As a result, lots of reporters and editors are doubling as sales staff –– at least on their personal social media accounts –– urging folks to buy the Thanksgiving edition or gift subscriptions for the holidays. Any breach of the wall between news and sales used to be verboten, but desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose.

Journalists tend to be a self-analyzing bunch (although there are plenty of elite reporters who muck it up for the rest of us by insisting they can do no wrong). So there’s rarely a shortage of hand-wringing, especially in election years, over errors, tone, bias and missed stories.

Reporters have never been popular and they shouldn’t be. Those who go into the business looking to make friends are in the wrong industry. But there’s no doubt that there is a profound lack of trust in the media, particularly when it comes to covering politics. Most of this is a proxy war for warring ideologies. More and more, people are only looking for stories that confirm their own ideas and biases (and folks get rather snippy in their absence).

But I think that our withering (and dying) local media institutions have contributed more to this mistrust than we realize. It wasn’t that long ago that local papers and radio and TV stations employed far more people than today — and it wasn’t just writers and on-air talent. There were a lot more employees on the technical and sales sides, too: press operators, sound engineers, grips, classified sales associates, etc.

These were people who you saw at the grocery store or on the bike path. Many companies had explicit policies that you had to live in the community you served. So even if you hated the media, you may not have hated your local paper (at least as much) because you knew people who worked there. And if you had a problem with a story, you knew who to call.

That’s one reason why people trust local government more than state or federal government in surveys. (Although, ironically, far fewer people vote in local elections than in state or federal ones).

Social media is now how millions get their news, which has allowed fake stories to flourish. Convenience is one reason for this. But I would also posit that trust is a big issue. You trust your friends and family. So if they’re sharing a story, you’re probably more likely to presume it’s true.

Rebuilding our local media institutions could help rebuild some trust with readers. There would be many other benefits, including boosting local economies and better informing people about what’s happening in their neighborhoods, schools, township boards, etc.

But newspapers and radio and TV stations aren’t charities. They’re businesses. And so far, no one has come up with a business model that currently works at the local level. While Amazon saw an opportunity in acquiring the Washington Post, it’s unlikely that conglomerates will see purchasing the Escanaba Daily Press in the same light.

We’re all poorer for this, even those who hate the mainstream media with a passion.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Warren Mayor Fouts Goes Too Far

In politics, it’s usually the coverup that gets you, not the crime.

In the case of Warren Mayor Jim Fouts, I’ll take either one.

At this point, you’ve probably heard the disturbing audio recording from which independent forensic experts have said is the mayor:

“Fridays past, I would be going to meet some women. Tonight I’m going to meet a group of retards. Tonight is retard night. … It’s a prelude to the Special Olympics for the retards in the area. You see these people like, I don’t know, what good are they? They’re dysfunctional human beings. They’re not even human beings and I don’t want to be around them. I wish them well in a cage.”

Fouts is still insisting that it’s not him on the tape, but you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone, besides his stable of sycophants, who believes him.

It’s not just the degradation of disabled adults, but the casual cruelty displayed here that’s stunning. Even in an era of endless insults from our president-elect, I suppose we can take some comfort in the fact that Fouts’ alleged remarks have been condemned by so many, from the Michigan Democratic Party to the Down Syndrome Guild of Michigan.

“The comments represent a total lack of regard for our fellow citizens,” the guild said in a statement. “People with special needs are valued members of the community. They are not a punchline, or in the case of this recording, a nuisance.”

Interestingly enough, Fouts defended Donald Trump back in October over the “Access Hollywood” tape in which the Republican bragged about sexually assaulting women with the “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment.

“Should everyone’s private conversation be a public issue?” Fouts sniffed, according to Politics Central.

That’s probably because another tape surfaced in 2013 in which Fouts berated a city employee in a foul-mouthed tirade:

“If I had a baseball bat, I’d beat the f----- down to the f------ ground. I mean, it would take me just a little bit to get a f------ gun and blow his f------ head out. That’s how pissed off I am.”

In spite of his well-documented checkered past, Fouts has managed to push some fanciful stories in the media. He got reporters to bite that he was almost thrown out of the March presidential debate in Flint due to his Bernie Sanders love. And most recently, Fouts been feuding with Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel, alleging he’s covering up an environmental disaster at a landfill. Panicking residents was the inevitable side effect.

Fouts even went to court back in 2011 to fight a Freedom of Information Act request to reveal his age. A Washington Post profile cited in the case (creepily) said the mayor “doesn't like to give his age because he says he tends to date younger women.” (For what it’s worth, Wikipedia says Fouts in 74).

If there’s one thing Fouts seems to crave, it’s attention.

It’s pretty amazing that the mayor of the third-largest city in Michigan has had so many scandals and during his three terms. Warren isn’t a sleepy little hamlet, like Twin Peaks, Washington, where everyone is just delightfully zany. It’s a major economic engine in our state and it deserves a serious, dedicated public servant at the helm.

Warren deserves far better than Jim Fouts. He’s long been considered an institution there, as he’s known for always picking up his phone and attending every senior citizen function.

But his alleged comments on disabled people –– which seem pretty in keeping with his past diatribes –– are beyond the pale. It’s not enough that Fouts was fired from his 910 AM radio show. Station owner Kevin Adell said Fouts’ alleged remarks were “so despicable, repulsive and deplorable that after thinking about it, the only right thing to do was to fire him.”

The only thing Fouts has ever seemed to care about is running Warren. But he clearly doesn’t deserve to mayor. If he has any respect for the people he serves, he’ll apologize and resign as a Christmas gift to all.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: The Michigan Legislature’s War on Voting Continues

Susan J. Demas

Fourteen years ago, I was a new mom. My life consisted of doing round-the-clock feedings and trying to catch a few minutes of sleep in between. Walking to the grocery store two blocks away seemed like an exotic adventure, especially as the fall weather had taken a quick icy turn.

So when a canvasser showed up at my door that October and asked me if I’d like an absentee ballot, I had to restrain myself from hugging her. The idea that I wouldn’t have to frantically search for clothes without spit-up, bundle up a colicky infant and then stand in line for an hour to vote sounded like heaven at that moment.

That was possible because I lived in Iowa, which still has no-reason absentee voting, like 27 other states. There was also zero controversy about the policy. Maybe that’s because Iowa still has a large rural population and trekking down to your polling place can sure take awhile when you own a small family farm in the country. Why wouldn’t you want to vote absentee?

There’s no logical reason why we couldn’t do this in Michigan. Lines in big cities like Detroit and Flint are notoriously long. But you can only vote absentee for select reasons –– if you’re over 60, out of town on Election Day, etc.

No-reason absentee voting is something that bipartisan good government types have supported over the years, like the League of Women Voters. Republican Secretary of State Ruth Johnson also champions the change, as did her two GOP predecessors, Terri Lynn Land and Candice Miller.

But savvy politicos scoff at the idea because it’s widely assumed that it would help Democrats. That’s why the Republican-controlled Legislature last December dumped the latest iteration, which was tie-barred to legislation dumping straight-party voting.

As we all know, the straight-ticket voting ban became law and was quickly challenged in court. Republicans lost their bid to enact the law for this election –– and boy, are they thrilled that they did.

The presidential election was determined by roughly 10,000 votes. In an election that close, anything could make a difference, so it stands to reason that Donald Trump benefitted from straight-party voting. Just take a look at how Republicans performed up and down the ballot in northern Michigan and Macomb County –– where deeply flawed Republicans won state House races and even unknown candidates were swept into local office.

So Republicans could definitely benefit from no-reason absentee voting. The surge of rural voters who carried Trump to victory would undoubtedly appreciate it.

That’s the thing about playing partisan inside baseball. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Not everything goes according to plan.

That’s a clear case for just going with the best policy. And making it easier for people to vote is just good policy.

But right now in Michigan, the only bills the Legislature is taking up would make voting harder. The new strict voter ID bills, which Republicans introduced after the Nov. 8 election, are part of a new national push to clamp down on voting rights. There’s also a $10 million appropriation tucked in there, which means voters can’t seek a referendum to overturn the law.

We’re told this legislation is necessary to prevent voter fraud. But I’m not aware of one case of voter fraud in Michigan this election. Indeed, the Washington Post has only found four cases in the entire country. And 135 million ballots were cast.

Now perhaps you’ve heard the president-elect claim, without evidence, that millions voted illegally. But here’s the fascinating twist. In their filing to stop the recount in Michigan, Trump’s lawyers argue –– wait for it — that “all available evidence suggests the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.”

So these voter restriction bills are the classic case of a solution in search of a problem. But we can expect they’ll become law, because Republicans hold big majorities in both legislative houses and Gov. Rick Snyder has proved eager to sign just about anything they slide across his desk.

Meanwhile, there are real problems with voting in Michigan that the Legislature could tackle. In addition to absurdly long lines, we know that 87 optical scan machines broke in Detroit on Election Day. The $10 million blithely crammed into the voter suppression bills could buy a lot of much-needed updated voting equipment.

But we’d only do that if the Legislature was truly dedicated to protecting voting rights in Michigan — and not just wringing out any partisan advantage out of the system.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: A Plea for Rick Snyder

Opposing Trump Can Be Your Legacy

Susan J. Demas

Governor Snyder, your country needs you now more than ever.

As the Republican governor of a Rust Belt state, you have the moral authority to be a beacon of opposition to Donald Trump, who’s busy melding your party in his populist, nationalist and authoritarian image.

This is not conservatism. This is not Republicanism. This is not who you are. You’re a truly self-made businessman, not a firebrand or demagogue. You didn’t endorse Trump in the primary or general election. You have said you’re not running for office again. Time and time again, you have called for civility in our public discourse.

You may not have liked what President Hillary Clinton may have wrought in terms of taxes and regulation, but I believe you stay up at night wondering what President Trump will do with the nuclear codes.

Warning signs abound. The president-elect’s chief White House adviser is Steve Bannon, who runs the white nationalist website, Breitbart.com (which is primed to become some sort of state-run media a la Pravda). Trump refuses to set up a blind trust for his far-reaching business interests, instead saying he’ll turn them over to his children (who may have access to state secrets). And he’s playing footsie with Vladimir Putin on the national stage already.

None of these are partisan issues. These are all red flags about how our republic will function.

You can be Gov. George Romney, not Ronna Romney McDaniel. Her path is easier. As the Michigan Republican Party chair this cycle, she was a loyal soldier and may just end up as Republican National Committee chair. Her grandfather took the path of most resistance in criticizing civil rights opponent/libertarian Barry Goldwater in 1964, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

Right now, there are many principled conservatives who continue to oppose Trump. Writers and commentators, including David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, Ana Navarro and James Pethokoukis, were firmly #NeverTrump before and after Nov. 8.

But elected officials must lead the charge. Attention must be paid when Republicans who are governing decide to lead the fight for the heart and soul of the party. Not very many did before the election, with U.S. Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) as notable exceptions. You stayed away from the fray, as is your style.

So it’s even more difficult to stand up now that Trump has won. Victory is the magical elixir to suture intraparty wounds. But at what cost to party and country?

You could use your second-to-last State of the State address to set out your vision for this country and rebuke Trump’s excesses. I have no doubt you’ll say something about civility, but what’s needed is a full-throated defense of what conservatism really is and what our country stands for. It would certainly overshadow your last address at the height of fury over Flint, which earned you rebukes from national and international observers.

Of course, I’m not the right person to ask this of you. It should be the Detroit News’ Nolan Finley or better yet, a Republican colleague. I’ve been one of your fiercest critics over Right to Work and the Flint Water crisis. I’m probably about as popular in your inner circle as I was with that of your predecessor, Jennifer Granholm.

And even if you were to vocally oppose Trump, I wouldn’t stop holding your feet to the fire over your policies in Michigan. Neither will my colleagues. It doesn’t work that way. So this is all probably sounding like a terrific proposition for you.

I can also guarantee you that opposing Trump will cause you grief, personally and professionally. You’ll find it difficult to get any controversial parts of your agenda through the GOP-controlled Legislature (on the upside, you don’t have much left). You and your family will be subjected to insults and threats.

You’ve said you want to retreat to a quiet life in academia after your term is up. Your life will not be quiet for quite some time. But you would leave an impressive legacy.

Kids across Michigan are hurting right now. You’ve seen the video of Royal Oak students tormenting Latino kids in the cafeteria, yelling, “Build a wall!” My 14-year-old daughter was carrying a sign urging peace while walking through her school in Okemos. A group of older boys surrounded her, screaming, “Lock her up!”

This isn’t the Michigan you or I love. This isn’t the kind of country we are.

Doing the right thing is always hard. But in times of crisis, it’s absolutely necessary. Be a beacon, Governor Snyder.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Election 2016: Morning After Sickness

In the three hours since I’ve arrived home from babbling about the election on a Detroit TV station, I’ve had to roll out of bed four times to pee.

I feel like I’m pregnant — the familiar cinching on my bladder, the uncontrollable creep of morning sickness. It all briefly reminds me that my husband and I had spent months anxiously debating whether to have a late-in-life baby — one that would be ours after bringing one child apiece into our blended family. I was pushing 40; he was already there. In the end, we opted to be practical and put more money in our kids’ college funds. So I know there most certainly is no baby. There is only a dull dread in my belly. And it all feels like a lifetime ago as election results tauntingly flash through my head.

I am a political analyst. I do this for a living. This is my fifth presidential rodeo. I thought Donald Trump could very well end up being the GOP nominee back in September 2015 (and I have the posts to prove it). I also thought the Republican Party would coalesce around him, which it did.

But no, I did not think he would win the presidency. And neither did most of my colleagues (and even a majority of voters, if you look at the polls). As an analyst, you learn to game out electoral possibilities by sliding states around in the 3-D map in your head. I wasn’t alone in thinking Trump’s path was extraordinarily narrow. It was. But I was wrong like so many on Election Day. I didn’t expect Wisconsin to fall or Michigan to be agonizingly close.

There will be many pieces and books written about this election. Thousands of stories are already in the ether. I’ve barely had time to touch any of them. There will be recriminations from Democrats about picking a weak and unpopular candidate whose campaign’s grasp on analytics was vastly overblown. There will be angry columns about those who cast vanity votes for third-party candidates when it was all on the line. There will be political science analyses of negative partisanship, the breakdown of social norms and institutions, and the signaling Republican elites sent to voters by embracing Trump — or staying silent due to fear. There will be rapturous stories about the unsung heroes of the Trump operation who pulled off the biggest upset in modern American political history. There will be (even more) homespun yarns about poor Trump voters long ignored by coastal elites.

I don’t really care at the moment. I suppose I will at some point.

Elections are personal. It was personal to millions when America elected the first African-American president in 2008 after a history marred by slavery. It was nothing short of amazing. We all thought it was the ultimate symbol of progress. But it’s undeniable that racial resentment has been at the core of Trump’s message just eight years later — and it probably put him over the top.

This is personal because I’m a woman. A major party finally tapped a female presidential nominee for the first time in our 240-year history. Women haven’t even had the franchise for a century. I was raised in a traditional household where my Greek father never told me I could be anything (but my homemaker mother did). A female president is something I’ve been waiting my whole life for. I wanted my teenage daughter and especially my teenage son to witness and be part of this history. So when I’ve heard some variation from people of, “Yes, yes, of course, but not this woman,” it has made me want to scream. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most qualified person to run for president in decades. To say that she was more qualified than Donald Trump borders on black comedy. So when is it ever the right person? When is it ever the right time? Clearly, we don’t know.

This is personal because I’m a member of the media. At Trump rallies, journalists have been assaulted by attendees and staffers. Reporters have endured sexist, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, most recently including “Jew-S-A! Jew-S-A!” and “Luegenpresse,” which was, of course, what Nazis called lowly reporters. Trump has vowed to gut the First Amendment. Now we’ll see if it he makes good on that promise as the most powerful man in the world. We journalists have much to be ashamed of in this election, especially the circus-like cable news racket. Ratings and clicks superseded journalistic judgment too much of the time. And we careened through the looking glass and found ourselves in a race where truth and facts didn’t matter. Fake news sites, Twitter bots and conspiracy theorists clogged social media with garbage, some of which filtered into the mainstream media. All of it made voters angrier and less-informed.

This is personal because Trump’s bigoted campaign was on display for all to see. He is the alt-right’s darling and has been endorsed by the KKK. He won the GOP primary by promising to build a wall with Mexico, picking fights with Black Lives Matter and proposing to ban Muslims from the country. His closing argument ad was full of anti-Semitic tropes, blaming Jewish powerbrokers like Fed Secretary Janet Yellen for rigging the system against good working-class folks.

This is personal because I have a gay, half-Jewish daughter. She’s 14. She was raised to believe she could do anything. She came of age when marriage equality became legal. Last night when I hugged her before bed, she started sobbing. “Will I still be able to get married?” she asked and I assured her she would. But no, I don’t know for certain. I don’t control elections. I don’t control the Supreme Court. But I will move heaven and earth to make sure that she has the same right to happiness as anyone else in this country.

This is personal because we are not the country I thought we were. Trump, however, is exactly who he said he was. There are all sorts of reasons to have voted for him: tax cuts, Obamacare, terrorism, trade, jobs, etc. But you don’t get a pass on what he is. He is sexist. He is a bigot. He is a bully. He is an authoritarian. Your vote is an endorsement of his character, no matter what you told exit pollsters. Your vote will allow him to have the nuclear codes. Your vote will allow him to seek revenge against his enemies. Your vote will allow him to enrich himself in the Oval Office, as we don’t know his business dealings and he’s refused to commit to setting up a blind trust. Your vote will allow him to discriminate against groups of people. Your vote will allow him to hurt the least among us.

This is a shameful chapter in our history and it’s just beginning. It has made me physically ill, but sadly, not with the hope of bringing new life into the world. I’m not sure when I will sleep through the night again.

But I will never give up. My children — and all children — deserve better. The promise of America is progress. Donald Trump doesn’t share that view. He wants to take us backward. I don’t believe he shares our collective values. But he won the election and will now lead our country. For those of us with a conscience, now is the time to rise up for liberty, equality, kindness and compassion — because they are more fragile than we ever imagined. This is gut-check time. This is when you find out who you are. This is when we fight.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: The Top 5 Cliché Election Stories

With 11 days to go before Election Day, the days are getting shorter and news stories are becoming cringier.

Now every reporter, myself included, has pounded out articles s/he isn’t particularly proud of, especially toward the close of a grueling campaign like this one. At this point, journalists are sleep-deprived and slap-happy. They’ve churned out hundreds –– if not thousands –– of stories, and pretty much everything has been written already.

It’s also the time of year that less experienced reporters are given a crack at election stories, given the glut of races. Many of them don’t the basics of political reporting, like how polling works and what the partisan base of districts and states is. As a result, green reporters are more easily spun and end up contributing some pretty clichéd coverage.

To avoid this late-term election trap, I’ve come up with a handy list of hackneyed stories to avoid writing (or reading):

1. Stolen Yard Signs.  This is a staple of every small paper in the country. As sure as the leaves start turning, somebody (ideally a senior or a veteran) will call up the local editor to complain about his/her signs being swiped or vandalized. The other political campaign is promptly blamed, preferably with some variation of this anguished statement: “No one will ever silence me! This just shows how immoral and evil Candidate X truly is.” Then Candidate X disavows the scofflaw's dastardly deed. And sure enough, a Candidate X supporter calls a few days later to report his/her sign being stolen, too. Rinse and repeat. Nobody has ever really learned anything from these stories, but editors will keep catering to disaffected readers.

2. Outlier Polls. Polling is expensive, so much so that only a few news organizations pop for it nowadays. But there are always a few polls released more to net headlines than follow industry standards. It’s really tempting to report on these bigly. You know that your “Clinton Leads Trump in the 26th Straight Poll” headline will induce yawns. But your “Trump Within Striking Distance in New Poll” clickbait is gold. Maybe you’ll hit the jackpot and get that Drudge Report link. And besides, when Clinton wins by 7 points on Election Day, no one will remember your story, right?

3. Crazy Man on the Street. Interviewing actual voters is important, but a lot of reporters hate it. Why? Because you’re a magnet for people who will say anything just to get on camera or in the paper. Don’t give undue time to people who rail against Candidate X for poisoning us with fluoride in the water. It’s actually kind of mean to do so. And it doesn’t add anything to the public discourse. Of course, we have a major party presidential nominee who’s also a conspiracy theorist (the election is rigged, climate change is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese,” vaccines are linked to autism, etc.). So that definitely complicates things this election.

4. Candidate Wives as Appendages. It’s 2016 and we’re on the cusp of electing our first woman president. But the old chestnut of gooey candidate wife profiles (preferably with photo spreads of them glamorously slaving away in their gourmet kitchens) hasn’t died. Even though more women are running for office, that hasn’t translated into a glut of supportive candidate husband stories. Part of that comes from the campaigns themselves. Many of them aren’t exactly focused on whether they’re setting back gender relations for years to come; they wholeheartedly push these gauzy stories to soften a candidate’s image and distract from missteps. But the media don’t have to buy into these sexist tropes, especially when many candidates’ wives are frankly more accomplished and impressive than their husbands.

5. Bland Debate Analysis. I never read yard sign stories unless I want to snicker. But “Candidates Trade Barbs at Forum” headlines are a close second. Most local newspapers and newscasts assiduously avoid telling you who won a debate –– even if one candidate broke down and started speaking in tongues –– to skirt charges of bias. But few of these colorless stories give you a sense about what really went on for 90 minutes. Not surprisingly, many national publications, including The New York Times, have started running analysis pieces, many of which are delightfully droll. Meanwhile, cable news has solved its “bias” perception problem by pitting screaming campaign hacks against each other for 10 minutes at a time –– which makes “Candidates Clash on Ideas” stories look brilliant by comparison.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Why I Don’t Attend Trump Rallies

I’ve been covering presidential candidate spectacles since I was a student at the University of Iowa in 1999.

One of the benefits of living in the cornfields was that every four years, you practically tripped over wannabe leaders of the free world. I saw Al Gore actually get fired up at the UI field house, interviewed John Edwards at a backyard barbecue, and sat in the same booth as conservative firebrand Tucker Carlson at a local greasy spoon for a Howard Dean event.

Since moving to Michigan, I’ve continued to cover candidate stops, from Barack Obama in Toledo to John McCain in Battle Creek to Mitt Romney in Commerce Township. At this point, I’ve lost count how many events I’ve been to. (I look forward to leaving my kids a box full of lanyards and press badges that they can promptly donate to Goodwill –– or the dumpster).

The pageantry can’t be beat. And it’s always interesting to see candidates up close and personal, ask them questions and see how they interact with voters.

I’ve particularly enjoyed interviewing die-hard supporters at rallies and coffee klatches. Who cares enough to come out to a smoothie shop at noon on a Wednesday to see Dennis Kucinich? That’s a more fascinating story to me than listening to a hopeful’s stump speech for the 20th time.

Susan J. Demas/February 2012

Many times, I dragged my daughter to events, especially as a single mom. I regarded it as a unique opportunity for civic engagement. She considered it a good opportunity to play on her iPad (most of the time).

This cycle has been different. I’m no longer a daily news reporter working for various outlets. As the owner of Inside Michigan Politics, it’s difficult to take a day off to traverse the state. It’s far easier to keep up by streaming events while I edit the newsletter, pay vendors or write columns.

I’ve attended a few campaign events and debates this year, and the same thing has happened every time. I spend most of my answering calls and emails from reporters who want my take on said event –– leaving little time to actually talk with voters there. And I’ve come to really appreciate chatting with voters who never attend candidate stops to see what’s motivating their electoral leanings.

But I’ve never covered a Donald Trump affair, making him the first nominee in four cycles who I haven’t seen in person. And there’s a very good reason for this.

The violence at many Trump rallies deeply worries me, with several protesters and journalists being assaulted. Most reporters are routinely subjected to verbal abuse –– replete with anti-Semitic slurs you’d like to believe were a thing of the past. Some TV networks are now providing security for their staff.

It’s the unfortunate, but logical conclusion, of a far-right movement hostile to any media that is outside its Breitbart, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh bubble. And it reflects Trump’s own vitriol for journalists –– many of whom he inveighs against by name at his rallies –– and gleeful declaration that he would alter the First Amendment once in office.

That’s why the Committee to Protect Journalists just made the unprecedented move to condemn Trump.

I admire all the reporters who cover Trump and have provided fair and insightful reports, even as their personal safety was threatened. Because it’s not necessary for my job to attend these events, I have exercised my choice not to.

Over the years, I’ve covered KKK rallies and Tea Party protests where I was heckled, insulted and occasionally shoved. I’ve interviewed folks with AR rifles slung over their shoulders who told me they weren’t big fans of the First Amendment (you can imagine which one was their favorite). It came with the job.

Naturally, I’ve never taken my daughter or stepson to those kinds of events.

But in 2012, I did bring my daughter to an Americans for Prosperity forum in Troy where Andrew Breitbart and Rick Santorum brought the house down. Reporters were penned up in the back and we had to wade our way through a rather dour crowd. I was absolutely aghast when someone pushed my 9-year-old –– quite purposely –– and thrust a “Don’t Believe the Liberal Media” button into her hand.

There was a real ugliness there. It’s something on full display with Trump’s frenzied crowds. So no, I’m not about to take my kids there. And I don’t see that there’s enough of an upside for me to go, either.

I truly hope that these tensions ebb after the election. It’s been fashionable for 40 years for conservatives to bash the media, but physical abuse and verbal harassment have taken things to a whole new –– and disturbing –– level.

As a country, we’re better than this.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: Michael Moore Hearts Donald Trump

The GOP Nominee is Good for the Michigan Liberal’s Business  

If there’s one thing Michael Moore knows, it’s that Donald Trump is going to be president. In fact, the only person who seems more confident of that prospect is Trump himself.

At first blush, it may seem odd that the lefty filmmaker best known for eviscerating GM for downsizing in his 1989 film, “Roger & Me,” would be grabbing pro-Trump headlines.

But given Moore’s poor track record of predicting elections and his insatiable need for media attention, this actually makes a lot of sense.

The Michigan native (unsurprisingly) endorsed Bernie Sanders for president, but not before reminding us on MSNBC of a creepy chapter he wrote in his 1996 book, “Downsize This,” on his “forbidden love for Hillary Clinton” (yes, he called her “one hot shitkickin’ feminist babe.”)

In July, he released his rambling letter to fans, titled, “5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win,” which sounded awfully similar to his pronouncement that Mitt Romney would triumph in 2012 (spoiler alert: he didn’t). The letter is chock full of the sort unsophisticated observations that pass for political analysis on cable TV, replete with a fairly insulting depiction of Trump supporters (the “last stand of the angry white men”) and a reminder that pro-wrestler-turned-governor Jesse Ventura was a thing a couple decades ago.

Moore’s biggest point is that Trump will ride the wave of a “Rust Belt Brexit” in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. He never really explains how a British referendum on the European Union is a good predictor of the American presidential election, but he does know TPP is evil. Plus, those states have had GOP governors (federal election voting patterns are different, especially in Michigan, but no matter). It’s also somewhat amusing that polls have only been promising for Trump in the Buckeye State.

Then came Moore’s follow-up column, “5 Reasons Why Trump Will Lose,” which started out declaring that Clinton will continue lead in polls but “IT DOESN’T MATTER” (his emphasis) because polls are wrong (“Stop the early celebrating and the gloating over Trump’s Bad Week,” he admonishes Democrats). Only then did he launch into some mundane GOTV tips.

Moore hasn’t let up, declaring Trump won the first debate on Sept. 28: “It’s over. Trump, the egoist, the racist, the narcissist, the liar, ‘won.’ We all lost. His numbers will go up. She told the truth. So what.” Fun fact: Clinton’s poll numbers have jumped since then. But, of course, Moore warned us that the polls are skewed (the man has an answer for everything).

Undeterred, Moore swung for the fences in a “Meet the Press” interview this week, declaring Trump to be a “human Molotov cocktail” who will, of course, win.

The interesting thing is that both Trump and Moore are selling pessimism to the American public to boost their brands. If you listen to either of them, you wouldn’t know the unemployment rate is 5.1 percent or that we’re living in the most peaceful time in human history.

Consider this doozy from Moore:

“From Green Bay to Pittsburgh, this, my friends, is the middle of England –– broken, depressed, struggling, the smokestacks strewn across the countryside with the carcass of what we use to call the Middle Class. Angry, embittered working (and nonworking) people who were lied to by the trickle-down of Reagan and abandoned by Democrats who still try to talk a good line but are really just looking forward to rub one out with a lobbyist from Goldman Sachs who’ll write them nice big check before leaving the room.”

I suspect Trump’s knock on our dystopian hellscape is more appealing, because at least he’s promising to make it all great again. All Moore is promising to do is write more overwrought columns.

Moore still has has diehard liberal followers, but he’s slipped in relevance and his image has taken a beating with a messy divorce (one of the flashpoints was his tony mansion on Torch Lake). Let’s face it, most of his natural audience of young Sanders supporters were born after “Roger & Me” and probably have no idea who Moore is. So he has to keep upping the ante with over-the-top antics.

Moore’s frequent pro-Trump declarations have made a splash in the conservative media, particularly in the far right/alt-right haven of Breitbart News, whose publisher, Steve Bannon, just happens to be on loan to the Trump campaign.

But that’s the point, right? One of the surefire ways of nabbing media attention is for liberals to break with Democrats (and conservatives to bash the GOP). And Moore does it with his trademark bombast, unloading cringeworthy zingers made for TV.

We saw this with the Flint water crisis. Moore has been a loud and frequent critic of President Obama –– even irresponsibly suggesting in April that the city would “riot” soon (it didn’t) and he should “arrest” Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette (he can’t). Moore actually wrote a column, “Don’t Send Bottled Water to Flint” and told people to “revolt.”

When you’re dealing with the unspeakable human tragedy of children being poisoned by the water supply, Moore’s clown act suddenly isn’t funny anymore. It’s wrong-headed and deeply irresponsible.

It’s a stark reminder that those of us in Michigan deserve better.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.

Susan J. Demas: William Milliken: The Stubborn Conscience of the GOP

Dome Magazine

Northbrook, Ill., is the sort of idyllic North Shore suburb featured in scores of generic movies and sitcoms –– indeed it’s where the late director John Hughes grew up and set many of his films.

My parents moved our family there when I was 11 in 1988 and they remain there today. I’ve watched Northbrook transform from a country-club Republican haven into a key congressional swing district. There are many factors: increasing diversity, especially with Asians moving in; college-educated voters moving away from the GOP; and voters becoming more socially liberal, even as they remain economically conservative.

Now internal Democratic polling shows Hillary Clinton thumping Donald Trump by 31 points in the district.

But here’s the thing. If Republicans were ever to nominate a candidate for any office –– governor, senator or dogcatcher –– like William Milliken, he’d probably still win Northbrook voters in a walk.

And these are the voters you want to win to build a long-term coalition: affluent, educated, increasingly diverse and informed.

I’m sure many suburban Chicagoans have barely heard of Michigan’s longest-serving governor. But his unwaveringly moderate politics and ability to work across the aisle would be appealing, as well as his World War II service (he won a Purple Heart) and experience as a small business owner. They also would respond well to his record of supporting reproductive rights, increasing the minimum wage, saving Lake Erie and shepherding Michigan’s “bottle bill” into law.

Milliken is back in the headlines for supporting Clinton for president, something that was entirely predictable. Trump’s vulgar braggart style is a 180 from Milliken’s quiet thoughtfulness. And the former governor never would have endorsed Trump’s platform of banning Muslims or building a wall with Mexico.

But it’s sparked a backlash –– and not just from the far right.

Not surprisingly, Right Michigan blogger Jason Gillman won his fight to excommunicate Milliken from the Grand Traverse County GOP. Yes, Gillman, who just embarrassingly lost his primary challenge to state Rep. Larry Inman (R-Traverse City) by 20 points, decided that Milliken –– who knew a little something about winning elections after being governor for 14 years –– should be persona non grata in his own party. And Gillman even publicly clashed with his father, Michael Gillman, a Milliken friend and former appointee.

But several Republicans on Team Never Trump have sniffed that Milliken should have left the GOP years ago, given his penchant for endorsing Democrats.

It’s worth noting that Milliken has continued to support Republicans for office at various levels, with decisive endorsements of Gov. Rick Snyder in 2010 and 2014. (Indeed, Snyder garnered crossover votes in ‘10 by campaigning as the second coming of Milliken).

But Milliken has always been crystal clear about why he hasn’t left the Republican Party. He still wants to change it from within and bring it back to what it was before the religious right gained a foothold in the 1980s and the and Ayn Rand aficionados conquered economic policy in recent years.

U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Southfield), who twice lost to Milliken for governor in the 1970s, told me last week that he wishes more Republicans would listen to him. The congressman said the Clinton endorsement is “a reflection of the human decency and willingness of Bill Milliken to work together.”

Milliken’s Republican Party is the one I grew up with in Northbrook: supporting a strong national defense and realpolitik; fiscal conservatism without shredding the safety net; funding and improving public education; and supporting civil rights and abortion rights.

Many Republicans, even those in office, still subscribe to that vision of conservatism, but they know they’ll be swiftly primaried if they dare speak their conscience.

Meanwhile, many voters who do have moved to the Democratic Party. Clinton’s coalition currently spans everyone from former Bush National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to independent socialist Bernie Sanders –– which is to say, it’s quite the big tent.

If the modern-day GOP moved more in the Milliken direction, however, it wouldn’t have to rely on depressed turnout in off-year elections to win states and majorities in Congress. There would be a broad-based appeal for voters.

But as The New York Times’ David Leonhardt observed after poring over 2016 polling data, what’s popular among Republicans today “is unpopular with most Americans.” Let’s not forget that calls to outlaw abortion completely, privatize Social Security and even scrap the Civil Rights Act were routine in GOP politics long before Trump marched onto the stage.

Republicans prize ideological purity far more than Democrats do. They’d rather roll the dice with far-right candidates than return to Milliken’s politics, even if it means losing. And yes, they’ve had some victories in ‘10 and ‘14 to convince them that it’s a decent strategy.

But their coalition of downwardly mobile white men and seniors isn’t one that’s built to last.

William Milliken is 94. He’s lost his wife and daughter. He probably won’t live to see his party reclaim its center-right status. It’s enough to break your heart. But he’s still out there fighting to make a difference –– even in a party that no longer wishes to claim him.

Susan J. Demas is Publisher and Editor of Inside Michigan Politics, a nationally acclaimed, biweekly political newsletter. Her political columns can be found at SusanJDemas.com. Follow her on Twitter here.