Talk:Jennifer Granholm

Video Game Legislation

Why, exactly, is this taking such a prominent stance in Granholm's "bio"? Surely her jobs package or ANY other economic plan would be more noteworthy? Novaya havoc 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

After mulling it over, I've taken out the video game subset. Seems to be irrelevant to her term as a whole, and is just a "candy" topic for dissenters of the legislation. Revert if necessary, but it seems wildly out of place. Novaya havoc 16:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to Lt. Governor John Cherry currently links to an Australian politician. This should probably be changed.

Why does it seem that a different standard exists when compiling and editing Jennifer Granholm's article than the treatment of her opponent Dick DeVos?

IP address User talk:24.3.248.20

This IP address whose posting history can be found here [1] has the chutzpah to complain about a double standard between the Granholm and DeVos article and inserted an anti-abortion external link in the Granholm article. He also tried to delete references to DeVos' father being a billionaire and an external link about a Democratic Party web site critical of DeVos which sticks with the issues and DeVos' activities while avoiding personal attacks in the Dick DeVos article. The anti-abortion page about the Catholic, but pro-choice, Granholm is clearly a personal attack. Granholm is personally opposed to abortion for herself but won't let that affect public policy. The anonymous poster is a Catholic who seems to be like mullahs in the Middle East who want to impose their religious beliefs on others. The IP address is assigned to Comcast. Steelbeard1 10:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try to respond to this as systemically as possible. With all due respect to Steelbeard1, most if not all of his assertions demonstrate bias and are far the most part, ludicrous. Dick DeVos' father being a billionaire is irrelevant and its inclusion seems to want to incite some sort of a class war between the candidates. I merely inserted the link to balance the one critical of DeVos, both of which are bordering on absurdity in their respective extremes. Secondly, Steelbeard1 wrote me a message asking me to explain my interest in Roman Catholicism prior to our most recent exchange. I should not have to explain or apologize for any of my interests, let alone my religion! You do not obviously respect people of a more conservative perspective, using wikipedia to spread your liberal mush and reak of anti- Catholicism. I have absolutely no problem with liberals or conservatives. However, I have a problem when someone uses this forum to promote their personal agenda. You really need get a life.

Successor

Since this is just the talk portion, a little more lighthearted here... can we just change the successor portion of the article to "Dick DeVos"? It's pretty inevitable, for anyone who's living in Michigan, they can see it. Barwick 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign it)

The above statement was uncalled for. Besides, once voters read the Dick DeVos article, most will like DeVos even less because of his background and views. Steelbeard1 09:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Barwick 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Why would most voters dislike him? Because he's successfully ran a multibillion dollar international business and had tremendous success doing it, despite downturns in the economy at that time? Or because he's a billionaire? Oh, lucky him huh? Except they weren't always billionaires, when he was a kid (and no, I don't mean a toddler, I mean "when he wasn't 18 years old yet"), they were still not rich, and sacrificing a lot as a family so they could give more to their business. You see, contrary to your (well, maybe your) beliefs, DeVos isn't the "Bourgeoisie", they earned every cent of what they've got. You see, the only way you make money in this country (unless you're the government or a union) is by doing something beneficial for someone else, and in return, they pay you for that service (or product, etc). And that's what they did. They started a business, and people voted with their dollars.

Much as I would like to contribute my views to this discusion, the partisanship seems wildly inappropriate in this context, even on an article talk page. Maybe we should wait until the election to see who will be governor next year? Kestenbaum 03:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

counties won in 2002

The text that Scrabbleship (talk · contribs) wants to be incorporated is:

Granholm's four point margin of victory was met with some criticism as she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties in the state, Wayne and Washtenaw counties.

The source for election results by county: CNN shows that she won 11 counties of the first twenty five. Of those eleven she won nine unanimously 51% or more of the vote). She got 60% or more of the vote in four counties Genesee, Ingham Wayne and Washtenaw. So first, what does Scrabbleship mean by "she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties "? I'm confused by the criteria used to arrive at this number. Second, this looks a lot like original research. If this is such a well known criticism there should be a quotable article out there somewhere. David D. (Talk) 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Scrabbleship said that, I didn't. I was the one who deleted that statement originally. Check the article history. I also added the CNN source. An apology is due, David D. Steelbeard1 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Steelbeard1 I totally messed up. I must have confused a deletion with addition. So now the question is directed at Scrabbleship and Barwick, who seem in favor of this statement. Why does the data not fit the sentence? What am I missing? David D. (Talk) 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected above statement replacing Steelbeard1 with Scrabbleship. Apology accepted. Steelbeard1 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A few comments on the above:

• My understanding of the word "unanimously" would not include any kind of divided vote whether it be 51% or 99%. If someone won a county "unanimously", that would mean with 100% of the votes. There is surely no such county in America. Maybe the user meant the word "majority"?

I assumed the user meant not just a majority but over 50%. Not sure what the correct term is but the point being that any coalition of the other people in the election would still be in the minority. I agree the use of the term unanimously is very confusing in the context used. David D. (Talk) 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Michigan's 83 counties are generally around the same geographic size, but vary widely in population. A handful of urban counties make up more than half the state's total population.
• In Michigan, Democrats tend to predominate in urban areas, Republicans in rural areas. Typically, in any election where both parties are competitive (regardless who wins), Democrats carry just a few large counties, Republicans carry a lot of small counties. This is geographic reality, and only a partisan would find it grounds to complain. Kestenbaum 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the rural counties will go to reupblican so complaining about not winning the majority is reaaly a moot point when the margin was a four point difference. The partisan nature of the comments are also revealed due to the apparent claim that she 'only' won two counties. This is not born out from the facts at all. David D. (Talk) 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)