(as of 8 pm)

Exit poll: Granholm headed to victory; Prop 2 a toss-up


Gov. Jennifer Granholm appears on her way to a big re-election victory, overcoming the drag of Michigan's battered economy, according to results from a Detroit News/WXYZ-TV/WWJ exit poll.
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow also looks like a big winner, part of what Democrats were hoping would be a wave of Senate and House wins across the country.
But the News/WXYZ/WWJ exit poll showed a very close race for Proposal 2, a controversial ballot issue to eliminate most government affirmative action programs.
But propositions to allow hunting of mourning doves and to set guaranteed funding levels for schools appeared headed for defeat.
Granholm led Republican Dick DeVos by about 20 points, according to exit-poll interviews with more than 2,200 voters across the state. Stabenow led her Republican challenger, Oakland County Mike Bouchard, by a comparable margin.
As they had throughout the campaign, voters on Tuesday said the state's flagging economy was the most important issue facing the state. Forty-seven percent named the economy as Michigan's most important problem, more than double the No. 2 issue, education.
Republicans did win some victories: Incumbent Attorney General Mike Cox and Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land both held wide leads in exit polls.
The final pre-election polls for The Detroit News and WXYZ-TV showed Granholm with a lead, though re-election was far from assured. The same was true of Stabenow, a Lansing Democrat, over Bouchard.
The 2006 campaign will go down as the most expensive, and perhaps the nastiest, in state history, said political analyst Bill Rustem.
"The most expensive in state history by far," said Rustem, president of Lansing's Public Sector Consultants. "And, I believe, the most negative. This election about who's the worst, not who's the best. And it's just been vicious in some state House and Senate races."
According to the latest financial statements filed by the candidates, Granholm had spent about $11.7 million, about $3 million more than in her 2002 victory. But that was dwarfed by the wealthy DeVos, who has spent $39.3 million, including almost $35 million of his own money.
Despite blanketing the state with millions of dollars worth of advertising, analysts said DeVos failed to give voters a compelling reason to vote for him. "In this uphill battle the last 10 months, he has introduced himself but not defined himself," Sarpolus said. "If Dick DeVos wins this race, it will be an anti-Granholm vote, not a vote for DeVos."
In the Senate race, Stabenow was holding off a challenge from Republicans who saw her from the start of the campaign as one of the nation's few vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Bouchard was personally recruited by Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., who headed up the national party's Senate campaign committee, and GOP officials saw him as a strong candidate with a compelling background and a strong vote base in Oakland County.
But with GOP incumbents across the nation in danger, the national party never was able to send much support. An advertising buy of nearly $1 million in the final week of the campaign was considered too little, too late by most political analysts.
The Senate race was Michigan's only real connection to the Republican Party's national struggle to hold onto control of Congress. The GOP majority in the House appeared in serious jeopardy, though none of Michigan's nine Republican-held House seats was considered in danger -- the result, Rustem said, of congressional districts drawn to protect incumbents rather than foster competitive races. But Reps. John Conyers, D-Detroit, and John Dingell, D-Dearborn, were poised to assume powerful committee chairmanships if their party won the House. And Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, would take a crucial role on the Iraq war and larger war on terrorism as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee if Democrats rule the Senate.
More competitive was the race for party control of the Michigan Legislature. Democrats hoped to win control of one or both chambers in Lansing. Boosted by nearly $5 million in spending by Kalamazoo billionaire Jon Stryker, Democrats looked to gain the three seats they needed to control the state Senate and five to take the House

Republican losses being considered "historic" and better yet, "catastrophic".

LMAO.

A big middle finger to GWB.

The Dems might finally win an election

they've still got themselves in a position to probably lose the senate.

"Probably win" is more like it -- it's not like they -had- the Senate to begin with. Democrats are ahead the truly contested races in Virginia and Montana, with virtually all of the vote counted, under Democratic governors.

It went the same way in 1994 for the Republicans, who won with exceedingly narrow margins.

Former QB Heath Schuler won a US House seat in N. Carolina.

Lynn Swann (R) lost his bid for the Pennsylvania Governorship. (ha ha)

Drew Brees' Mommy lost too.

The Governator won again too.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_senate_races_2006

the dems may tie up the senate. interesting.

The Democratic caucus (including 2 independents that vote Dem) may -win- the Senate.

If Webb -or- Tester wins, it's a tie and Cheney is the tiebreaker.
If Webb -and- Tester win, it's a win.
Both Webb and Tester look like they are winning at this point.
Both are ahead in the vote counts.

Unless you meant "tie up" as "wrap up"... but I read "tie" and I think "tie bad, win good". :)

wow america does the flip flop and bill.....errr i mean hillary clinton takes over? So if you're a repub, how do you spin it?

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman pledged Wednesday to continue the fight for diversity, vowing that the University will “consider every legal option available.”
Here is the text of Coleman's address to the University community on the U-M Diag, one day after Michigan voters approved Proposal 2:


Diversity Matters at Michigan

November 8, 2006

Diversity matters at Michigan, today more than any day in our history.
It matters today, and it will matter tomorrow. It will always matter because it is what makes us the great university we are.
I am deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for all.

But we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus. We will not be deterred.

Universities are models for the civil exchange of ideas, and the debate over Proposal 2 has been no exception. Still, it has been a particularly difficult campaign, and I regret the pain and concern it has caused people on our campus.

But there has been a positive outgrowth of the debate about Proposal 2. It has brought together so many different people to say: diversity matters at the University of Michigan. Many, many people were passionate in delivering this message, and I want to thank them for their hard work.
If November 7th was the day that Proposal 2 passed, then November 8th is the day that we pledge to remain unified in our fight for diversity. Together, we must continue to make this world-class university one that reflects the richness of the world.

I am standing here today to tell you that I will not allow this university to go down the path of mediocrity. That is not Michigan. Diversity makes us strong, and it is too critical to our mission, too critical to our excellence, and too critical to our future to simply abandon.

This applies to our state as much as our university. Michigan’s public universities and our public bodies must be more determined than ever to provide opportunities for women and minorities, who make up the majority of our citizenry.

Last week I received an email from Miranda Garcia, a Michigan graduate who shared my concern about the dangers of Proposal 2, and how it jeopardizes the fiber of our university.

“My four years in Ann Arbor,” she said, “were a life-changing experience. I met students from every area of the country, from all different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.”

She was blunt in saying her life-changing experience would not have been possible without affirmative action.

I should add that Miranda lives in California, a state whose voters banned affirmative action 10 years ago. It has been a horribly failed experiment that has dramatically weakened the diversity of the state’s most selective universities.

It is an experiment that we cannot, and will not, allow to take seed here at Michigan.

I will not stand by while the very heart and soul of this great university is threatened. We are Michigan and we are diversity.

I am joined on these steps by the executive officers and deans of our university. We are united on this. You have my word as president that we will fight for what we believe in, and that is holding open the doors of this university to all people.

Today, I have directed our General Counsel to consider every legal option available to us.

In the short term, we will seek confirmation from the courts to complete this year’s admissions cycle under our current guidelines. We believe we have the right, indeed the obligation, to complete this process using our existing policies. It would be unfair and wrong for us to review students’ applications using two sets of criteria, and we will ask the courts to affirm that we may finish this process using the policies we currently have in place.

This is our first step, but only our first step.

I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education. I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative. But we will not limit our drive for diversity to the courts, because our conviction extends well beyond the legal landscape.

It is a cause that will take our full focus and energy as an institution, and I am ready to begin that work right now. We will find ways to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity.

As Susan B. Anthony said in her crusade for equal rights, “Failure is impossible.”

I know many in our community have been wondering what this election outcome means for you in a directly personal way.

For our current students, I promise that we will honor all financial commitments we have made to you. This is a contract we have with you, and the University of Michigan honors its contracts.

Your scholarships, fellowships and grants will remain just that: yours. The funds we awarded you are available today, and they will be there for you tomorrow, because the University of Michigan embraces diversity.
For University employees who fear that their livelihood is at risk with the passage of this proposal, please know that you have no cause for worry. No one’s job at the University of Michigan will go away because of Proposal 2. We will continue to review all of our programs dedicated to minority affairs and campus diversity to ensure that they comply with the law, as we have done for many years.

Let me be very clear about this: Your work is more important now than ever before. I will do everything I can to support you in this work, because the University of Michigan promotes diversity.

To the hundreds of thousands of Michigan alumni, I ask for your support in recruiting the finest students for your alma mater. You more than anyone know the benefits of an education at this great university.

I urge you to share that enthusiasm with prospective students, because the University of Michigan wants diversity.

To high school principals, counselors and teachers throughout Michigan, please know that our outreach efforts to your schools will continue. We believe this outreach is on firm legal ground, and we will continue these programs because we want your graduates at our university. Our high school partnerships are critically important pipelines for drawing great students to Michigan, and those programs will go on.

Those programs will go on because the University of Michigan believes in diversity.

Finally, to high school students and their families, my message is simple: We want you at the University of Michigan. We want your intellect, we want your energy, and we want your ambition. We have one of the finest universities in the world, and it is remarkable precisely because of our students, faculty and staff. We want you to aspire to be part of this amazing community.

It is amazing because the University of Michigan is diversity.

We know that diversity makes us a better university—better for learning, for teaching, and for conducting research. Affirmative action has been an effective and important tool for creating this rich, invigorating environment.
We believe so strongly in affirmative action that we went before the United States Supreme Court to defend its use, and we prevailed.

Today, I pledge that the University of Michigan will continue that fight.
Look around you. We are standing at the heart of our campus, where all the divergent pathways of the Diag come together.

We still have much to do to bring together all the people of our university. All walks of life must be present and welcome at the University of Michigan.
We should never forget a challenge issued by Henry Tappan, the university’s first president, who said, “We must take the world as full as it is.”

Ours is a university of the leaders and best. We must always be vigilant about recruiting and retaining the best students and staff and the finest faculty—individuals of all backgrounds and experiences—so that they may further enrich the fabric of this university. We simply cannot lose these bright minds.

As the days and weeks unfold, I know you will have questions about what this proposal means—for the University overall and for you personally, as students, faculty and staff. We do not yet have all the answers, but I vow to keep you fully informed as we explore the full effects of this initiative.
Of course the University of Michigan will comply with the laws of the state.
At the same time, I guarantee my complete and unyielding commitment to increasing diversity at our institution.

Let me say that again: I am fully and completely committed to building diversity at Michigan, and I will do whatever it takes.

I will need your help. As individuals and as a University, we absolutely must continue to think creatively about how to elevate Michigan’s role as a national model for diversity in higher education.

In the days and weeks ahead, you will hear from us about specific ways you can help in our cause. Starting today, I am asking all of our students and alumni of this great university to fire up their networks and spread the word. Tell people, “I am what a U-M education looks like—please join us.”
Together, we must always work to make ours a welcoming campus. Always. Let the world know that we are a university that embraces all. No one—no one—should ever forget that every student at Michigan is highly qualified, and has rightfully earned his or her place here.

Martin Luther King Jr. told us: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Let’s stand together to tell the state and the nation that the University of Michigan embraces … promotes … wants … and believes in diversity.
Let’s stand together to say we value all those on our campus who make this such a remarkable institution.

Let’s stand together to say: We are Michigan and we are diversity.

proposal 2 getting passed is really a reflection on how ignorant people are. jmho

Diversity is good. The problem is that while Afirm. Action promotes diversity, it also discriminates against non-diverse groups. I think AA was/is a good thing in that it is a method to right the wrongs of our fore fathers. At some point though, the "ship" will have been righted and there is no longer justification for AA. At what point does that happen? I have no idea. The people of Michigan feel the time is now. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I support eliminating AA, I just have no idea if now is the time or not. The problem is I have no idea what the actual process is (i doubt %90 of Michigan voters do). Does a minority with a 2.0 grade get in while a 2.5 white kid gets shunned? I think that is wrong. Now, if you have two kids with a 2.5 and you "break the tie" by giving it to a minority, that I understand. I also support having scholarships, etc to help the less fortunate people as well. I also wonder how they distinguish between a poor black kid (just an example) vs a rich one. Would the rich one going to Country Day get the same AA help as a poor one from a questionable school system? Or would a rich hispanic get better favor than a poor white kid? These are questions I don't have the answer to. I do think background is more important than simply being a minority though.

This issue isn't so cut and dry, and unfortunately a lot of voters had to make a cut and dry desicion without knowing the full details (including myself).

I couldn't make up my mind one way or the other, so I left 2 blank.

The people lamenting 2's passage were saying that didn't get women's attention on the issue enough.

Here's the poll showing that blacks figured it out and women didn't (or if they did, they still voted in favor of law that hits them):

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/MI/I/01/epolls.0.html

proposal 2 getting passed is really a reflection on how ignorant people are. jmhoBecause a good way to fight racism and sexism is with more racism and sexism. Just in the other direction.

My cynic's theory on prop 2... remember that skit on the man show when they had people, women included, signing a petition to "End women's sufferage" ? I think it was all in the name... people are dumb, didn't read past the title and said "civil rights initiative? I support civil rights, let's mark that a yes"

Because a good way to fight racism and sexism is with more racism and sexism. Just in the other direction.

There's a lot of folks at many ends of ideological spectra who want "justice is blind" government. They want race or gender to be as much of a non-factor as eye color as far as how they are dealt with. They don't understand how women are treated as a minority when they outnumber men these days, and outlive men on average. They don't buy into the idea that we should perform affirmative action to compensate for "past sins" in perpetuity. Many are the younger who grew up in an age where they see considerably more equality than what happened before. They'd prefer a mandate for "diversity" to be about what you've done and gone through in you life in particular, not just genetics or blanket social categorizations.

What does "all men are created equally" really mean, what should it mean, and how should we implement it are issues we struggle with today just as our founding fathers did. There's no simple answers, and it's worth contunuous review, and updating. To cite a fun example from recent reading, male and female brain chemsitry differs, something we know more about now than we did 200+ years ago, but still don't know enough. What does that mean? How do you equalize? Can you? Should you? What about genetic factors that lead to bias that aren't race and gender and are easily measured, like height? If you're 6' tall, you make $150-200k more over your life than if you're 5'6", all other race/gender/other factors being equal.

When our society discourages and stops asking these hard questions, we're doomed.

[AFTER TYPING, Let me preface this that I don't think we don't necessarily still need things like affirmative action or other catalysts toward equality...we wouldn't of gotten this far without such things and that's not the argument I'm trying to make. Maybe we still need them, maybe we've moved past, but I'm not educated well enough on the details to answer that here...]


Many are the younger who grew up in an age where they see considerably more equality than what happened before.

This thought, though, presents a great amount of hope and represents a great amount of progress. By no means do I want to imply that our inequality problems are solved and that affirmative action is no longer necessary, but the fact that there are people like those you speak of (obviously nowhere near everybody), people that have never or rarely seen a world of hate and ignorance, is, in my eyes, a source of great hope for our culture. It's sad that it has taken the sacrifices and fighting of so many to get us to even just this point, but the fact that we have gotten somewhere has to be at least encouraging.

Personally, I grew up in an environment where intolerance wasn't even thought of. My parents, my family, my friends were so accepting of (or involved in) all cultures that any thoughts of prejudice or racism are so far from reality for me that it's difficult for me to understand. I don't mean difficult for me to understand that it exists, but more that I have trouble understanding why anyone could think that way. It's just all so foreign to my mindset and when I hear people saying things along those lines, I'm so shocked that I just don't know how to respond.

I'm not trying to get on some kind of high horse or anything and act like I'm some kind of saint, I just think it's good to keep things in perspective. If I were raised 50 years ago, I would probably have all kinds of racist inclinations. The fact that a good amount (or even any) of our generation has been washed clean of such feelings I think provides a good deal of hope that in another fifty years, maybe we can kick this thing altogether.

The fact that a good amount (or even any) of our generation has been washed clean of such feelings I think provides a good deal of hope that in another fifty years, maybe we can kick this thing altogether.
i respectfully disagree and think that is pretty hippie naive. good for where you're at, but not the overall norm. don't really want to say much more. but yea i disagree.

I took the approach of "convince me that something needs to be changed". I wasn't convinced, I voted to keep things as they are.

Vinny, where is this multicultural wonderland that you grew up in? You never saw an instance of racism?

Mxy, that's not the first time you've brought that height bias up. You aren't the only one I've seen bring it up but I've never actually seen any report on it. Got a link for further reading?

I think the overall goal is to get to a place where Affirmative Action laws seem silly and uneeded. Since we are still recognizing things like "the first woman speaker of the house" as significant, I don't think that time is now.

There's still plenty of racism and sexism out there. Some is rampant. Some is less obvious but leaves obvious trails or bread crumbs. Some of it is truly gone, some of it is buried, some is genetic... yadda yadda yadda. We have brains that can help us factor such bias, but don't often use them, and are sometimes actively discouraged from doing so. There may be no good solutions at the end of the day for some of this. Apples and oranges are equally fruits, but are they equally equal? Will they ever be?

Mxy, that's not the first time you've brought that height bias up. You aren't the only one I've seen bring it up but I've never actually seen any report on it. Got a link for further reading?
I can't find exactly what I was reading at the time, but:

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/heightsalary.htm

is a good starting point. Note their conclusion: Height is more a predictor of financial success than gender! But, height doesn't get nearly as much attention in terms of "issues of the day". Sure, you may see random stories of parents who want to give their kids HGH and break their legs to tall their kids up, but it pales before reports saying "women make x cents for every dollar a man makes" and so on. Like race and gender, height or lack thereof is something you're more-or-less born with and hard to hide. Unlike race and gender, height isn't nearly as politicized, so it's possible to have a rational conversation about it.

Because a good way to fight racism and sexism is with more racism and sexism. Just in the other direction.
LOL, i'm sorry that i even find you believing that thats what it does funny, but i do.. get as cynical as you want and paint the same picture the guy leading this movement has. if you don't like my statement say so(thats fine), you feel the need to dispute it further pm me. otherwise save the cheap shot debate tactics and sarcasm extremes for someone else.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/burnhambirds/CollaredDove0020.jpg


Thank you Michigan!!

You never saw an instance of racism?

By no means, but the thought of judging someone based on their color is very foreign to me. I can't understand WHY someone would think that way, whereas my great grandfather probably thought that way, my grandfather probably at least understood such things, and my father probably grew up at least hearing such things.


Vinny, where is this multicultural wonderland that you grew up in?

I thought I made it clear that we were by no means done but maybe I didn't. The fight is by no means over and will take years before it's over but how can you deny that there's been progress? Sixty years ago black people were being hung openly in the streets in the South. Fourty years ago Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Bush probably would have been impeached on the spot if he had appointed Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell in the early seventies. Much too slow of a progress but progress all the same.

Yes, to a large extent it has just been pushed underground and hidden, but the fact that it has been forced there is, in my opinion, a sign of a dramatic shift in the societal norms of our culture, and with each generation, it will be more and more engrained.

By no means am I trying to trivialize what minorities still have to put up with every day, it's horrible that it still exists. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd just like to think that we're on a path that in another 40-50 years, things will be better. (I'm sure that's a pretty shitty condolence to those who have to deal with it today...)

As for affirmative action, I don't have a huge problem with it, but I'd like to see more time and attention spent attacking the problems at their core rather than making up for them in the aftermath. An African-American student is allowed into Michigan with a lower GPA or test scores because they didn't grow up with the same advantages and resources that white kids do -- let's work on getting them those advantages and resources rather than arguing over wether they should get special treatment.

LOL, i'm sorry that i even find you believing that thats what it does funny, but i do.. get as cynical as you want and paint the same picture the guy leading this movement has. if you don't like my statement say so(thats fine), you feel the need to dispute it further pm me. otherwise save the cheap shot debate tactics and sarcasm extremes for someone else.Find it as funny as you want, it is what it is. It's federally sponsored racism and sexism, try to candy coat it all you want but you know it's true. Your statement is bullshit, and if you really believe AA is going to solve the real core of the issue (that being human nature) then you're living a dream world. If laws really changed how people think we wouldn't have murders and robberies.

Anybody here actually been to college at a place like UofM? Sure, the class base is more diverse. But at the end of the night, we're in different frats, drinking at different bars, and living in different parts of town. It hasn't changed shit. It's over 40-years-old, and at the least it needs a heavy revision.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/burnhambirds/CollaredDove0020.jpg


I'm assuming the Dove hunt in Michigan didn't pass...??? Now the Dove can fly south for other hunts. And if they make it to Mexico, no bag limits! hooray!

Question on Prop 2?

IIRC...UofM was trying to specify which minorities are really minorities (or which minorities they would help). I think it was Hispanics, African Americans and Native Indians. Did the UofM definition of minorities make into Prop 2?

Find it as funny as you want, it is what it is. It's federally sponsored racism and sexism, try to candy coat it all you want but you know it's true. Your statement is bullshit, and if you really believe AA is going to solve the real core of the issue (that being human nature) then you're living a dream world. If laws really changed how people think we wouldn't have murders and robberies.
There's lots of reasons for racism and sexism. Some of it certainly is "human nature" and may be inevitable, especially with sex-based issues. Some of it may be human nature that is, to some large degree, controllable. We don't routinely urinate in public. Some results from socio-economic factors. FWIW, my early years were as poor white trash, in a poor, mostly-black area. To this day, I catch myself to avoid thinking of black people as poor.

There's no perfect solutions. Accepting all bias because it's inevitable leads to factional bullshit. Only by accepting difference and working together will our world not suck, but some differences will always exist.


Anybody here actually been to college at a place like UofM? Sure, the class base is more diverse. But at the end of the night, we're in different frats, drinking at different bars, and living in different parts of town. It hasn't changed shit. It's over 40-years-old, and at the least it needs a heavy revision.
Heh... at a private university with narrow focus, no football team, higher admission standards, and a good deal more homogeneity than U-Michigan, I pledged to a college fraternity. As part of that, I had to choose someone to be my "big brother", help me work through ritualistic hazing, recover from wild sex parties with sorority chicks, etc. I picked a black guy that I'd bonded with, violating some unspoken thing that only black pledges would pick black big brothers. Some thought it was a stunt, but it wasn't. Others thought I was just odd, looked at me funny. While I liked the people in the fraternity, this was the start toward deciding that fraternity life (and that particular university) just wasn't for me. I found I wanted less "groupthink" in my life.

I'm not sure if I'd have been happier at U-Michigan with its cliques, but were I at U-Michigan, I wouldn't have had to leave to "explore strange new worlds". Is that worthwhile? Do people take advantage of it? Is the product of the university "better" for it? Do you enjoy the diversity on your TV or radio dial, even if most of the stations aren't for you?