Michigan/Detroit election parallels

Last year about this time, the Detroit electorate faced a choice:

--Reelect a mayor they had severe reservations about (but who seemed to be doing a little better lately).

--Start over with an untried candidate who would very well might have gotten off to a slow start.

The issue came down to: 1) how mad was the electorate? and 2) which candidate had the best forward-looking agenda?

In the end, the big donors in the corporate world – and later, the electorate – decided to back Kilpatrick.

It’s not a decision I agreed with. I voted for Freeman Hendrix.

But that said, the thinking of most people seemed to come down to this: whatever Kilpatrick did or did not do in 2002- 2004, the Kilpatrick of 2005 had a better vision for the city than the Hendrix of 2005. Furthermore, the electorate was betting that the Kilpatrick of 2006-2009 would be one who had learned from past mistakes and, thus, would be more effective than the Hendrix of 2006-2009 would be.

I see a lot of parallels in the governor’s race. The past is the past. The issue is what has Granholm been doing lately and – most important – which candidate has the best forward-looking vision.

Furthermore, the electorate needs to decide whether a slightly older, wiser Granholm has a better chance of being effective than DeVos, who would be starting from scratch.

If the voters think DeVos is prepared with a realistic, detailed plan, and a positive vision for Michigan’s future, then he might win. But if they think that his major attribute is that he is NOT Granholm, then DeVos will become another Freeman Hendrix.

Most voters are too smart to vote entirely out of a vindictive desire to punish Granholm for failing to perform miracles during the toughest period in Michigan’s history since the Great Depression.