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.

Susan J. Demas: Trump Shows True Colors after Detroit Speech

PORT CAMPBELL, Australia –– It was midnight Australian Eastern Standard Time, but my body still thought it was 10 a.m. back in Michigan.

So instead of sleeping, I was watching Australia’s fascinating coverage of our presidential election. A Chinese factory worker kept gushing about Donald Trump to the interviewer (of course, his company was manufacturing Trump tchotchkes). But I was struck when he was asked about the GOP nominee’s vow to end trade agreements and force manufacturing jobs back from overseas.

The worker said everyone knew Trump was joking –– and flashed a giant grin.

For the rest of my 11-day trip through Tasmania, Melbourne and the Great Barrier Reef, I’d struggle to find anyone with anything pleasant (or printable) to say about Trump. “Universal horror” would be the best way to describe Aussies’ reaction.

But I thought about the Australian TV interview as I listened to Republicans and business leaders tie themselves into knots to find positive things to say about Trump’s speech on Monday to the Detroit Economic Club.

It’s true that he gave a mainline Republican economic speech –– dump the estate tax (which would allow his family to pocket millions) and institute U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s tax rates, which would primarily benefit the wealthy.

Not surprisingly, the conservative Detroit News editorial board, which has taken repeated shots at Trump (mainly for being unelectable), was impressed by the plan. That’s a fair barometer for the DEC crowd of fiscally conservative business leaders, many of whom will hold their nose and vote for Trump for economic reasons.

“I just hope he’ll hire good people,” one anonymous Republican dejectedly told the Detroit Free Press’ Nancy Kaffer before Trump took the stage.

The Republican nominee was avidly courting this audience in both tone and substance. He didn’t promise to compel Ford to bring auto jobs back from Mexico or to block Muslims from entering the country, as he did during Michigan’s primary.

He knew this wasn’t one of his frenzied crowds where people would shout, “Build a wall!” or “Lock her up!” –– Hillary Clinton, that is. Trump repeatedly bit his tongue as 14 protesters interrupted, which was taken as a sign that he had really, truly changed this time.

Trump’s charm offensive to Michigan’s political and business class seemed to work, as he received positive reviews from attendees –– for a few hours.

National conservatives also swooned at the speech, with Steve Forbes writing Trump an overly optimistic love letter in his publication, titled, “Watch Out, Hillary: After His Speech In Detroit, Donald Trump Is Back.”

But then the Donald Trump everyone knows (and a majority of voters loathe) was back. The one who attacked a Gold Star family, John McCain’s military service and Fox News host Megyn Kelly for having “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

He warmed up by tweeting later that day the blatantly false claim that Clinton’s emails caused an Iranian scientist to be executed.

And then on Tuesday, Trump unleashed this tirade about Clinton at a Wilmington, Del., rally: “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people –– maybe there is, I don’t know.”

There are only two interpretations of that statement. Either Trump was inciting violence against Clinton or Supreme Court nominees. Both prospects are extremely disturbing. Later, Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson attempted to clean up the mess by saying a Clinton assassination “could” happen –– not that it “should” happen.

That’s comforting.

By now, Trump defenders are used to defending the indefensible, and acted accordingly. I’m not one to blanch easily at rough rhetoric –– politics ain’t beanbag –– but calls for violence from candidates with a huge national and international megaphone deeply concern me.

This isn’t the world I want for my children, and it can’t become the norm.

At this point, if you’re a fiscal conservative who’s boarded the Trump train just for the tax break, I imagine you just turn off the news whenever his orangey visage appears.

It’s safer that way.

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: Two Mavericks, Two Different Choices: Why John McCain Is No Joe Schwarz

Dave Tumpie/Dome Magazine

“Make up your mind, listen to your conscience, use your experience and never pander.” –– Former Congressman Joe Schwarz, 2006

John McCain is on the verge of losing the U.S. Senate seat he’s had custody over for three decades.

If the former Republican presidential nominee is defeated, it will ironically be after he’s sold out the last shred of his maverick brand by embracing Donald Trump.

McCain ran an outsider Republican presidential campaign in 2000, scoring a surprise win in Michigan, thanks to his friend and fellow Vietnam veteran Joe Schwarz. After his defeat, the senator solidified his reputation for heterodoxy by pushing campaign finance reform and opposing President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich.

One of the dirty little secrets of political reporting is that journalists, myself included, love maverick politicians who flirt with bipartisanship. It’s not your imagination. We give them disproportionate coverage.

Why? It’s boring covering legislators who always rattle off caucus-approved talking points and vote the party line. Mavericks talk off the cuff and sometimes vote their own conscience (OK, sometimes, they’re just settling personal scores). But their prickliness itself is entertaining.

And these pols hearken back to a time when speeches could change votes, deals could be cut and people would reach across the aisle. Sure, the past always seems more idealized than it was. But jaundiced reporters will tell you politics was definitely more fun to cover before the days of ideological purity tests and term limits (at the state level).

On top of his bluntness, McCain also is a bona fide war hero. The man survived torture at the Hanoi Hilton for five long years. Naturally, reporters, myself included, like talking to him.

So it was disheartening to see him jettison so much of what made him great during his 2008 presidential campaign. In Michigan, he shunted Schwarz aside for Republican rabble-rouser (and sometimes political consultant) John Yob, who helped McCain lose by a jaw-dropping 16 points.

McCain started lashing out at the media and keeping them at arm’s length. And then he picked the queen of the Know Nothings, Sarah Palin, as his running mate. At least he had the decency to defend his opponent, Barack Obama, against attacks that he was a secret Muslim (even while Palin was fanning the racist flames).

Now it’s 2016 and McCain is fighting for his political life. He’s been mercilessly scorned by Trump as a “dummy,” and even had his war record spat upon. “I like people who weren’t captured,” Trump shrugged.

Pundits were convinced that draft-dodging Trump would be finished after taking on McCain, but they were wrong. The GOP base ate it up. And after Trump survived that flap while smugly refusing to apologize, it helped insulate him from future controversies, like retweeting neo-Nazis and calling for a ban on Muslims.

To add insult to injury, Palin endorsed Trump early on. She’d probably be judging pigs at the Alaska State Fair today if McCain hasn’t plucked her out of obscurity, but loyalty is for suckers. Not even Fox News wanted to keep a has-been like Palin on air (especially with so many nubile twentysomething talking heads out there), so joining Team Trump at least helps keep her money train going.

Meanwhile, McCain is trying to stave off a tough GOP primary challenge from Tea Partier Kelli Ward, a physician and former state senator.

He faced a similar situation in 2010 from U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (D-Ariz.). McCain veered right on immigration to win, leaving behind a famous TV ad in which he bellowed, “Complete that danged fence!”

This year, McCain has made the calculation that endorsing Trump is the way to keep his job.

“You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party,” he explained lamely. “I think it would be foolish to ignore them.”

McCain may well survive the primary, thanks to three other candidates in the field. But he’s facing his toughest general election matchup ever from U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), who’s looking to exploit McCain’s rightward turn in a browning state where Trump isn’t a lock.

McCain has made the choice that he wants to stay in office at any cost. We’ll see if it works.

But if you’d like to see the counterpoint, you have to go back a decade to when his compatriot Joe Schwarz was trying to hang onto his congressional seat. The $3 million GOP primary was a harbinger for the Tea Party and eventually Trump.

Tim Walberg, a slick preacher (who actually compared himself to Elmer Gantry), ran hard to Schwarz’s right on abortion, guns and immigration. He found some powerful benefactors in Minutemen leaders and the anti-tax group Club for Growth.

Schwarz’s impressive legislative record was lampooned as “embarrassingly liberal” in a series of TV ads. The congressman could have taken easy votes against gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. That may have been enough to save his bacon.

That’s not who Joe Schwarz is, though. This is a man who volunteered as a medical student to serve in Vietnam –– and later traversed Southeast Asia as a spy for the CIA (delivering a baby or two in the jungle along the way). This is a man who taught Indonesian leader Suharto how to speak English. This is a man who trained at Harvard but decided to set up his medical practice in his sleepy hometown of Battle Creek.

So, no, he wasn’t going to take votes he didn’t believe in –– even if the price was the seat in Congress he’d waited decades to win.

Joe Schwarz did, indeed, lose. But his integrity remained intact. Instead of being hailed as a statesman, however, he’s considered a cautionary tale for ambitious Republicans. Most politicians can’t bear the thought of relinquishing power –– even if it means they’ll never accomplish what they set out to do.

That’s the straightjacket John McCain finds himself in today. I wish he’d give Schwarz a call, but he’s made his choice. And we all have to live with it.

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: Where is Bernie Sanders’ Revolution in Michigan?

This column ran in Dome Magazine.

Hillary Clinton is now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, something that’s devastating to at least a sizable minority of Bernie Sanders supporters.

For months, the Sanders campaign and some of his overzealous voters have used faulty numbers and logic to claim that the former independent was, indeed, winning. Some of them doxxed or harassed superdelegates, like U.S. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Southfield).

These are Tea Party tactics, befitting for folks who have peddled in conspiracy theories. (For years, Tea Partiers have insisted chemtrails are poisonous, Clinton planned the Benghazi attack and more).

As someone who believes the scientific research that vaccines, genetically modified food and fluoride in the water are not just safe, but have helped millions of people, I’m not terribly sympathetic.

But there’s been talk of Sanders sparking a Tea Party on the left. Of course, we all heard that Occupy Wall Street was going to fill that role, and that fizzled fast.

I felt sick to my stomach watching Tea Partiers shout down and threaten then-87-year-old U.S. Rep. John Dingell, a veteran and a patriot, back at a 2009 town hall on Obamacare. That’s not a style of politics I think the left should embrace.

One test will be the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next month. Several pro-Sanders protests are scheduled. Will they be peaceful? Will most Sanders voters come home and vote Democratic, especially with race-baiting authoritarian Donald Trump as the GOP nominee? We’ll see.

But what I’ve been looking for, and have seen absolutely no sign of, is Sanders’ revolution in Michigan.

This was a huge state for him. Now that the primary season is almost over, his shocking March 8 victory here still remains his most impressive. He did it with zero institutional support, albeit with a hefty advertising campaign.

Sanders inspired thousands at rallies at Eastern Michigan University, Michigan State University and more.

Where are those diehard Sanderistas now? I don’t see too many running for the Legislature or Congress. Are they seeking local office below the radar? That’s a logical place to start if you want a revolution. Most people’s lives are far more impacted by local government than presidential platforms.

There’s so much to be done in Michigan, even if you don’t want to put your name on a ballot, however.

You could work on a campaign for much-needed redistricting reform so that Democrats don’t end up taking roughly 49 percent of the statewide vote, but only 11 of 38 state Senate seats, as they did in 2014. People dismiss this as inside baseball. They’re wrong. This is the real game in town.

You could work to ensure that LGBT people can’t get fired at work –– yes, it’s still legal in Michigan –– or that transgender children can use the bathroom of their choice without Republicans weirdly policing them.

You could work to make it easier for women to exercise their right to choose. In the last five years, laws have been enacted closing clinics and barring insurance companies from covering abortion unless it’s via a special rider (i.e. rape insurance).

And there are dozens, even hundreds, of other worthy causes to start working on if you want fundamental progressive change. It starts at home.

Sanders only raised about $1.7 million in Michigan, which is pocket change for ballot initiatives that typically require a $10 to $20 million investment. But he’s banked over $200 million overall, mostly from small donors. Imagine harnessing some of that small-donor financial potential for ballot initiatives in the Mitten State and across the nation.

It’s easy to get fired up for a single, inspiring politician. It’s also almost impossible for one person, however charismatic, to make real change in this country. (And it’s remarkably easy to be let down by that leader, who, in the end, is flawed like everyone else).

It’s fun to cheer at rallies and post memes on Facebook. But that’s being a fan, not making social change.

The real work of politics is hard. It’s knocking on doors and calling donors. It’s making compromise after compromise to try and win something that will make people’s lives better, like Obamacare, even if it’s not ideal.

It’s grinding and demoralizing, but completely necessary.

Is that the kind of work Sanders supporters are willing to do? I don’t know. Some will use the excuse that Clinton is so distasteful that they’re through with politics, (although they were never going to stick around anyway if their kindly grandpa hero didn’t win). Some will find the incrementalism of social change too hard to bear.

I sympathize.

But that’s our system. And I’ll take that kind of order over a radical like Trump, who’s threatened to mess with the First Amendment and the principle of an independent judiciary. Revolutions aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

Sanders’ millions of supporters hold tremendous power right now. Do they want to use it smartly by running for office and helming grassroots campaigns? Or do they want to squander it with ineffectual DNC protests and checking out of the political process?

I’m pretty sure I know which path a young, idealistic Bernie Sanders would have encouraged.

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 cried when Hillary Clinton clinched the nomination

When Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday, I cried. I’m not afraid to admit that.

Eight years ago, I cried when Barack Obama did the same thing (yes, by defeating Clinton). It’s nothing short of remarkable that an African-American could be the Democrats’ standard-bearer after this country was founded on slavery, on blacks being legally being three-fifths of a person in the Constitution. And not that many decades have passed since Jim Crow and KKK lynchings.

And it’s pretty damn important that a woman will now be the nominee for a major political party in America. Women haven’t even had the right to vote for 100 years. For centuries, most of us couldn’t own property or go to school. This final barrier must be broken.

I say this as a mother of a teenage girl who couldn’t fathom why there were no presidents who looked like her on her old placemat. I say this as a mother of a tween boy who has never asked if a woman is up to the job of running the free world. He knows we are.

But I realized that I was crying mainly as a soon-to-be 40-year-old woman. I’ve been raped and abused. As a journalist and businesswoman, I’ve been stalked, sexually harassed and constantly belittled (one of my favorites is the legislator who suggested I shouldn’t cover abortion legislation as I was a “Vagina-American.”)

One of the advantages of being middle-aged and self-employed is that you’re far better equipped to deal with crass chauvinism and lame attempts to hurt your bottom line. No one’s gotten me to shut up yet, and I wouldn’t hold my breath, boys.

But I thought back to when I was roughly my daughter’s age during Bill Clinton’s first presidential bid in 1992. I remember being annoyed that Hillary wasn’t running then. Sure, he had the charisma, but she was so damn smart. Why do so many women wait their turn? Why did she have to backtrack from her crack that she could have stayed home and “baked cookies and had teas” instead of being a badass children’s rights lawyer? Why couldn’t she have declared, “That’s me, take it or leave it”?

That’s the kind of woman I wanted to be. That’s the kind of woman my friends wanted to be. We didn’t want to be married to men running the world. We wanted to run it.

Hillary made a political calculation to wait, though. It was probably the right one. She was coming up in a world that frowned upon her keeping her own name, even though she’d accomplished so much as Hillary Rodham. She faced blowback after promising the American people they’d be getting “two for the price of one” in the White House, even though Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan and Edith Wilson all filled that role behind the scenes.

The conventional wisdom was always that the first female president would be a Republican, our own Margaret Thatcher –– tough on national defense, with the uniquely American twist of an unwavering devotion to God to soften her edges in all the right ways.

Clinton decided to become the Iron Lady herself, first in her outward persona in the face of her husband’s infidelity and impeachment and then in her carefully crafted defense hawk stance and moderate U.S. Senate platform. And finally, she rose above petty partisanship when Obama appointed her Secretary of State, giving her a powerful voice on the world stage.

But she almost derailed herself along the way, emotionally lashing out at the media over her marriage. Her failed 2008 presidential campaign was marred by entitlement and fits of race-baiting by surrogates. Clinton had waited so long and was furious that her chance was being thwarted by an upstart. It showed.

It was a turnoff to me and millions of women. Obama was inspiring and stubbornly immune to tawdry controversies which have plagued the Clintons since their days in Arkansas. My anti-Clinton columns in 2008 (I once declared that she failed feminism) still get me dirty looks from some liberal women to this day.

So what changed for me? The first was covering her on the stump for Obama after their bitter primary. Clinton was utterly gracious and never made it about her, however personally devastated she almost certainly still was. Then there was her partnership with the president for four years. His “Team of Rivals” play worked and she was a far better asset in his cabinet than in the Senate.

And a lot has happened to me from ages 31 to 39. I’m now the mother of a boy.  I’ve seen firsthand how insidious sexism can be, from casual remarks about who should do the dishes to rape jokes he hears in school. I worked my way up as a reporter only to hit the glass ceiling and get fired. I run two businesses now and still encounter men trying to put me in my place –– and even allegedly feminist women who still insist I must have a male partner running the show (I don’t).

I have learned that if you are a woman who values herself, who wants to be heard, who wants to change the world, you need to take ownership of something. You can’t settle for being your boss’ work wife –– he’ll almost certainly take you for granted. You’ll be in the office working late so he can enjoy his daughter’s softball game. You’ll think you’re building something together, but in the end, it’s not your company. And you are always disposable.

You need to be the boss. And that’s something Clinton realized, too.

The truth is that it is exhausting being a woman. You are always judged differently, from your tone to your relationships to your shoes. And you can see that all over Hillary Clinton’s face. Few people have taken as many blows as she has. And yet, she’s still here. She’s still fighting.

That’s all any of us can do.

But the real game-changer for me was this revelation. When I was a teenager in 1992, the political climate was better for women than it is for my daughter today.

It was far easier to obtain an abortion than it is now with an explosion of anti-choice laws across the states. Equal pay was a bipartisan issue, with many Republicans as the (no-brainer) issue’s biggest champions. Even birth control –– something 90 percent of Americans support –– is under attack from Congress.

What the hell? The promise of America is progress. And women today are being left behind.

Electing a woman president isn’t a panacea. We have a record 20 women in the U.S. Senate right now and women’s rights are still being rolled back.

But it’s a strong message –– the strongest one possible –– that our rights matter and we deserve a seat at the table. What better way to convey that than having a woman –– and an immensely tough and qualified one at that –– behind the desk in the Oval Office?

It’s about damned time.

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 GOP devil’s bargain: Endorse Trump or risk your political future

This column ran in Dome Magazine.

“With such extremists rising to positions of leadership in the Republican Party, we cannot recapture the respect of the nation and lead it to its necessary spiritual, moral, and political rebirth if we hide our heads in the sand and decline to even recognize in our platform that the nation is again beset by modern ‘know nothings.’” –– Michigan Gov. George Romney, 1964

More than a half-century ago, Michigan Gov. George Romney famously refused to back the GOP’s far-right presidential nominee.

The former American Motors CEO believed that libertarian-leaning Barry Goldwater would destroy the Republican Party as he knew it. So Romney tried valiantly to persuade his GOP brethren to reject Goldwater in 1964.

They didn’t –– and Republicans lost by a landslide.

Today, the presumptive GOP nominee isn’t an Ayn Rand disciple (the man named in the Empress of Objectivism’s honor, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), dropped out early on). And ironically, another Rand fan, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has been floated as a third-party alternative.

That’s because Goldwater’s “extremism” looks quaint in today’s GOP. You could make a compelling case that even the “moderate” Republican presidential hopeful, John Kasich, lands further right than Goldwater, especially on social issues.

For decades, the Republican base has been egged on, first by talk radio, and later by FOX News and online players like The Daily Caller and Breitbart. They sell a rage-infused cocktail of racial resentment and jingoistic militarism. In their world, enemies are all around us: African-American criminals, illegal immigrant drug dealers, uppity feminists, gays using our bathrooms, snooty left-wing professors and more.

Why, it’s enough to make you paranoid.

And so, it’s not terribly surprising that Republicans have picked a presidential nominee who promises to “Make America Great Again.” But Donald Trump’s seemingly cheery Reaganesque slogan sells much darker policies, from banning Muslims from entering the country to building a wall to shield us from murderous immigrants.

Trump’s need to constantly belittle women (they’re “pigs” and “dogs”) and sexualize them (he even called his then-teenage daughter “hot”) tears a page from Men’s Rights Activist playbook. And he’s oddly fond of retweeting neo-Nazis.

He’s made no bones about his contempt for the Constitution and democratic process, with promises to gut the First Amendment. And he wants to meddle in private business, like ordering companies like Ford not to build plants overseas.

It’s nothing short of amazing that one of our major political parties is on the brink of nominating a man who seeks to rule as a thuggish dictator.

Not all Republicans have fallen in line, of course. The last GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney –– George Romney’s son –– refuses to vote for Trump. Both Presidents Bush have said the same, after watching the bombastic businessman beat up on fellow contender Jeb Bush for the better part of a year.

And there are the #NeverTrump forces, which launched a laughably ineffective campaign long after the alleged billionaire started racking up victories.

You can hear echoes of George Romney’s warnings of a Goldwater-era bloodbath in their plaintive anti-Trump pleas.

Of course, the most powerful way for sane Republicans to torpedo Trump is to endorse the likely Democratic nominee. Some would have held their nose and done so if it wasn’t Hillary Clinton, who conservative media has demonized as a feminist shrew for decades. Old habits die hard –– and she’s just too fun to hate (just ask far-left Bernie Sanders supporters).

In the end, almost all Republicans who are on a ballot this year –– or yearn to be in the future –– will make the same calculation as Richard Nixon did with Goldwater in ‘64. They’ll endorse Trump, just as Lt. Gov. Brian Calley did in a resigned late-night tweet this week.

Some will stump for Trump with the manufactured gusto that Nixon did for Goldwater, like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

But many Republicans will do their best to deflect questions about Trump’s racist policies and sexist remarks. They’ll stay on message that it’s important to support the Republican nominee (apparently, no matter who it shall be). And they’ll continue to pray that Trump doesn’t wipe the party out down-ballot.

You can see this crass calculation even within the Romney clan. Mitt will probably never run for anything again, so he can take a principled anti-Trump stance. His niece, Ronna Romney McDaniel, however, is a highly ambitious former GOP national committeewoman and the current chair of the Michigan Republican Party.

And so, even before Trump wrapped up the nomination, McDaniel announced she would serve as one of his delegates. Her grandfather went to the GOP convention in 1964 on a long-shot crusade to save the party from an extreme nominee. Now she’ll be in Cleveland to cheer on another.

But if McDaniel eventually becomes the first Republican to hold a Michigan U.S. Senate seat since 2000, it will all be worth it.

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: What Rick Snyder Could Learn from Obama on Flint

This column appeared in Dome Magazine.

Gov. Snyder has lost the people of Flint, and there’s no getting them back.

He’s pointedly avoided public events in the city since acknowledging the water crisis roughly eight months ago, choosing instead to hold tightly controlled news conferences.

If Snyder was hoping Flint residents’ anger would dissipate with time, he was proved dead wrong last week during President Obama’s visit.

The governor did what he should have done back in September 2015. He apologized to the people of Flint –– in Flint.

“You didn’t create this problem ––” Snyder started to tell the crowd of 1,000 at Northwestern High School.

But students cut him off, shouting, “You did!”

No one in the gym heard the second part of Snyder’s sentence: “Government failed you.”

It was all too little, too late. Snyder didn’t bother speaking much longer. No one was listening.

When Obama took the stage to cheers and applause, he acknowledged the governor, as he should have. But the crowd booed again and the president threw him a lifeline, asking people not to.

Obama then announced Democratic officials in attendance: U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Lansing) and U.S. Reps. Sandy Levin (D-Royal Oak), John Conyers (D-Detroit), Debbie Dingell (D-Ann Arbor), Dan Kildee (D-Flint) and Brenda Lawrence (D-Southfield). None of them were jeered.

And there you have it –– the credibility gap on the Flint water crisis in action.

Republicans, led by Michigan GOP Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, have valiantly tried to pin the issue on the Environmental Protection Agency, and thus Obama.

Of course, the facts say otherwise. The EPA failed, for sure, but the Flint water crisis was a state-created problem. Even the governor’s special task force found in its 116-page report that state-appointed emergency managers made the crucial decision to switch to the corrosive Flint River. The move was made to save money, which led to lead and legionella poisoning.

While Snyder and Republicans have been spinning and obfuscating about what they knew, Democrats like Kildee and Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich (D-Flint) have kept their doors open to Flint residents. And they’ve pushed for answers and aid.

Even Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders came to Flint, which prompted a round of “Democrats are politicizing the crisis” stories fed by Republicans.

But while that criticism had cachet with a cynical press corps, few people in Flint cared. They just wanted help. They just wanted people to listen. And if politicians had their own agenda, well, that’s what politicians do.

It beat the response from the governor, who’s still blaming “career bureaucrats” and hasn’t met with Flint families clamoring for his attention.

It’s not hard to see why Obama is more trusted, even though he certainly could have come to Flint sooner. From the early days of his presidency, he was mercilessly mocked by conservatives for stressing the value of empathy and its role in public service.

But people in that gym believed that the president cares. They clearly don’t think that of our CPA governor, who’s chosen balance sheets over people, time and time again.

Snyder’s allies fervently believe he’s gotten a raw deal and is being scapegoated. And partisans will always think that.

But consider how Snyder handled the president’s visit. It was a public relations disaster for the governor, from start to finish. And he’s had eight months to come up with a decent strategy. Although Snyder has cycled through key staff and high-priced PR firms, he’s still blowing it.

Last month, Snyder pledged to drink Flint water for 30 days to prove it was safe. A few days into the stunt, he announced he was heading to Europe on a trade mission and suspending his water pledge. What a fantastic PR move: The governor ditches Flint water for Perrier.

Then Obama announced he would be coming to Flint, crediting a heartfelt letter from 8-year-old Mari Copley, known as “Little Miss Flint” (because that’s how you do a PR stunt right).

Snyder was overseas and was like, “Oh, man, I’m really busy right now. Don’t think I can make it.”

When that went over like a lead balloon, the governor arrogantly demanded a meeting with the president in Flint –– as if the protocol is that governors get to call the shots with presidents. And Snyder went even further, challenging Obama to drink Flint water to deflect from his failures.

Of course, Obama has had seven years of dealing with petulant Republicans, like U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouting, “You lie!” in the middle of his first State of the Union. So the president indulged Snyder on both counts and the governor said he’d come to the public event.

Perhaps Snyder’s media consultants were high-fiving one another over their apparent PR coup.

But when Snyder walked on stage, nothing could save him from the raw anger of the people of Flint. The president showed an incredible amount of empathy that he would even try after Snyder’s crass one-upmanship.

And therein lies the difference between the two men.

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.