Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Michigan Congressional District 3

Post Reply
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

Michigan Congressional District 3

#1

Post by Dr. Ken »

Didn't know where to put this since I don't think we have a general primary election thread or michigan thread.
 ! Message from: Foggy
(I turned it into a new thread)


Peter Meijer whose name Trump can't pronounce lost his primary after voting for impeachment. This loss puts the seat into a lean D from a tossup

ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Michigan: Governor's race 2022

#2

Post by northland10 »

Dr. Ken wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:45 am Didn't know where to put this since I don't think we have a general primary election thread or michigan thread. Peter Meijer whose name Trump can't pronounce lost his primary after voting for impeachment. This loss puts the seat into a lean D from a tossup

The third district lean D? Wouldn't that be lead R to tossup? I would have called it safe R, at least until the election. The redistricted district is the heartland of Dutch West Michigan and has not elected a Democratic candidate in either the 3rd or former 2nd along the lakeshore (Holland and Grand Haven). I suppose the addition of parts of Ottawa county won't make up for the loss of northern Kent and Ioania (not to mention Berry County), but I just don't see it. I'm willing to be wrong.

I could see Huizenga having some trouble in the 4th. He had the old 2nd, which ran along the shore from Ottawa County to Mason county. He is now in the 4th, which only has Holland from his old 2nd, and picked up Allegan, the northern part of Kalamazoo, Van Buren, and the towns of St. Joe and Benton Harbor in Berrian. This area had very centrist Fred Upton for years, and I think they have moved left over that time, especially Kalamazoo.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Michigan: Governor's race 2022

#3

Post by bob »

"For completeness," 538 presently has MI-3 as a tossup (that's leaning D).
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Michigan 2022

#4

Post by Dr. Ken »

I think this thread needs a title change
 ! Message from: Foggy
Done, and moved to the correct subforum.
ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: Michigan Congressional District 3

#5

Post by RTH10260 »

Trump-Backed House Candidate Argued Against Women's Right To Vote
John Gibbs, the GOP nominee for a House seat in Michigan, said women should take care of children, and leave governing and voting to men.

Josephine Harvey
Sep 22, 2022, 07:55 AM EDT

A Michigan GOP congressional nominee supported by former President Donald Trump once said the country would be better if women could not govern or vote, and argued that patriarchy “is the best model for the continued success of a society.”

John Gibbs made the sexist arguments online in the early 2000s while he was a student at Stanford University, according to CNN’s KFile, which unearthed pages from his site via internet archive services.

Gibbs, who worked in the Trump administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development, won Michigan’s GOP primary against incumbent Rep. Peter Meijer, one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump over the Capitol riot. He faces Democrat Hillary Scholten in the November election.

Gibbs founded what he called a “think tank” named the Society for the Critique of Feminism, which was hosted on his personal page at Stanford in 2000 and 2001. On that forum, he argued that the country would be better off if women could not vote or govern, asserted that women are not as capable as men at thinking logically “without relying upon emotional reasoning,” and contended it’s not a father’s “primary task” to raise children, “whereas it is the mother’s.”

“Some argue that in a democratic society, it is hypocritical or unjust for women, who are 50% of the population, not to have the vote,” Gibbs argued. “This is obviously not true, since the founding fathers, who understood liberty and democracy better than anyone, did not believe so. In addition, all people under age 18 cannot vote, although they too comprise a significant portion of the population. So we cannot say that women should be able to vote simply because they are a large part of the population.”

At the end of that argument, he wrote: “Thus, we conclude that increasing the size and scope of government is unequivocally bad. And since women’s suffrage has caused this to occur on a larger scale than any other cause in history, we conclude that the United States has suffered as a result of women’s suffrage.”

In another section, he wrote that “The Bible clearly articulates the idea that women should not teach or maintain positions of power.”

“Although the reason is not expressly mentioned, it must be due to the nature of women (i.e. their differing mental characteristics), since every other command for living in the Bible is based on the condition of man,” he wrote. “In other words, because women do not posess the characteristics necessary to govern, and since women have a more important task to do, which is to prepare the next generation, they are commanded not to rule.”

Another argument was titled: “Why is it that women should be the ones to take care of the children?” It’s clear, he wrote, that “the female species, were the ones selected by nature to rear children.”

“Be aware, however, that we are not advocating that men have no part whatsoever in raising their children,” he wrote. “On the contrary we believe that fathers should be an integral part of the upbringing of their children. We simply believe that this is not the father’s primary task, whereas it is the mother’s.”




https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-gib ... 3f244da138
User avatar
sad-cafe
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Kansas aka Red State Hell

Re: Michigan Congressional District 3

#6

Post by sad-cafe »

scumbag
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

Re: Michigan Congressional District 3

#7

Post by Phoenix520 »

I have an idea. Let’s do an experiment. For 10 years, no males can be elected to national office. Incumbents will finish their terms. Only women can run and serve. Or is 10 years not enough time to reverse the damage that toxic masculinity continues to do to our citizenry?
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: Michigan Congressional District 3

#8

Post by AndyinPA »

Phoenix520 wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:09 pm I have an idea. Let’s do an experiment. For 10 years, no males can be elected to national office. Incumbents will finish their terms. Only women can run and serve. Or is 10 years not enough time to reverse the damage that toxic masculinity continues to do to our citizenry?
Yes, ten years is not enough.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Michigan Congressional District 3

#9

Post by northland10 »

We would have some better reps, but the far right would just replace them with folks like BooBoo and MTG.
101010 :towel:
Post Reply

Return to “U.S. House of Representatives”