BREAKING: Carl Levin to Retire

In Michigan, we already have a champion of liberty who is also very popular with the Senate conservatives fund, which is anti-establishment. The party will be focused most heavily on WV, SD, AK, AR, LA, and MT. We can work on 3 seats, Brannon, Amash, and Bright. That doesn't drain us of resources and these are the 3 best candidates who can tap into the grassroots. Everybody hates Lindsey, people will rally around Brannon and Amash is already well-known in conservative and libertarian circles. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for a Republican to win a Michigan Senate seat.
 
To be honest, the pulpit of a Senate seat is worth at least 20 house seats.


It's worth much, much more than that. In the Senate one man with courage really can be a majority. In the House, he's just a gadfly. What Ron showed is that it takes a lifetime of amazing personal achievement and noble acts of principle to make a big impact in the House. What we've seen from Rand is that one man can really shine an infinitely brighter light on the sorry nature of the Washington establishment from the Senate, in a much shorter period of time.

The House is where we build and sustain the movement, the Senate is where we bring about political change.
 
When exactly is a good time to move up the ladder?

If a Democrat takes the seat in 2014 it will be much harder to win later. Are you banking on Sen. Stabenow retiring soon? Are you certain we can give him a few more dozen allies in the house?

A few dozen, so something like 36-60 within two elections cycles. Sounds great but what districts are you talking about and who will run for those seats? How many incumbents will be challenged? It is true that Levin has been winning by large margins. But he is an incumbent with a large political machine behind him. This Senate seat will be open.

As to winning Senate seats elsewhere, can you be specific? Iowa for instance, has a great grassroots base, but as an Iowan I know we do not have a high caliber liberty candidate to win the US Senate, especially if Steve King runs. If Steve King announces then mark Iowa off of you list.

Your advice is supported more by speculation than fact.

When I was referring to moving up the ladder, I meant in terms of seniority and potentially leadership within the House. Read my post #58 for what I believe we should be focusing on when it comes to the US Senate.

I think we essentially, dilute our effectiveness when we move people from the House to the Senate. Granted a Senator has far more power than a House member, but we need to build our coalition in both chambers to achieve success. Ultimately we want to see 26 Liberty Republicans in the Senate and 218 in the House. We need to build on both fronts.

If MI was a red state like SC, I would be far more supportive of a "draft Amash" effort, but looking at the voting trends in the state, I am not confident that the effort would be fruitful. I pick and choose my battles and where my money goes each election cycle. And at this juncture, I cannot see myself writing a $5000 check to Amash should he decide to pursue the Senate seat.
 
I have to say, this has been the most heartening week for me since the polls came out which showed Ron leading in Iowa. I mean this without a hint of hyperbole -- we are winning! The old guard of the Republican party is dying. The hypocrisy of the Left has been put on full display. And this is happening MUCH more rapidly than I ever expected.

If Amash can continue to stand on principle and continue to push issues that really ARE popular, he can wage one helluva battle for Levin's seat in Michigan.
 
I know this has been mentioned before, but its interesting that the people who actually live in Michigan are much more positive about Amash's chances. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they actually live in Michigan. I don't live in Michigan but I would love it if Justin ran for Senate, especially now that McCain has singled him out as one of the top three "wacko birds" along with Rand and Cruz. (Justin should probably send McCain a thank you note for that.)
 
Oh please. MI will never, ever send a small government conservative to the US senate so get over it. You only need to look at who they've elected for the last 50 years to see that and Amash isn't going to magically change the prevailing leftist bent and he has to give up his House seat to give it a shot and which he has worked hard to gain and is SAFE.

It would be the dumbest political move of the century.
First off, let me preface my points by saying that I totally understand our finite resources and if Bright goes up against Graham I think that would be a more worthwhile effort (if we can only pick one) because it's an unquestionable red state and taking out the scumbag would boost moral through the roof as well as send a shocking message in regards to our movement's growing influence and strength. I can't speak on LFA's part as they have hinted their interests in funding both JAmash and the primary opponent to Mitch (which I disagree with).

Regarding MI in 2014, yes the unions will be doing all they can to defeat republicans from top to bottom but it's not as if the republicans will sit idly by and allow their majorities to go up in smoke. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for our current chair, the man can raise absurd amounts of money plus it's rumored that Devos will be dropping some serious coin up here on our behalf. While you constantly hang on to nostalgia by regurgitating your mantra of the past 50 years of Senatorial success (or lack thereof) by republicans, the state has gradually changed over that time especially during my lifetime. Detroit was once a booming metropolis yet now it can be defined as just a big city w/ no where near the staying power it once had in terms of inner city votes or importance. The way that city has been ran into the ground actually entices suburban opinion to defer to the Governor as far as attempting to get the city's budget in order and he knows this. As the city has been depleted in revenue, size and population its affect on the state's political body has diminished by half or more over the last 10-15 years. Now, the state senate has a republican majority 26-11 as does the state house 59-51 despite Obama's reelection efforts and Stabenow's manhandling of Hoekstra.

I will grant that prez years here feature democratic strength over republicans and I'm not sure if that's due to lack of excitement in the republican isle for their statewide candidates or perhaps it's that coupled with the incumbent reelection rates. Although I didn't expound on this as much in my original post I have mentioned the midterm dynamics in other threads about JAmash's chances. My main concern is the likely primary but if there's more than 2 people running JAmash would fare well as his supporters would be uniting and the remaining block would be split. Rogers is strong in the state central area, Miller is fairly well known yet watching her speak is about as exciting as folding socks yet both could raise decent amounts of money. Of course, so could we over and above the PACs. Alone, he raised over a million just for his reelection and that could easily be doubled at least or more. Hoekstra and his people may have spent $5mil against Stabenow but quite frankly no amount of money could rescue him from the conservative/libertarian defection let alone be enough to take on an entrenched incumbent in a presidential year.

As I've stated in other threads, the 2010 gubernatorial election turnout was ~3.25 mil and the 2012 prez election turnout was ~4.7 mil plus whatever Johnson, the Greens, CP, Natural Law got and we'll never know the RP write-ins. No matter the GOTV efforts by either side in 2014, the midterm turnout will most likely mirror the 2010 turnout in a similar fashion with perhaps an extra 100k or so. The dems' problem is that they need to come up with 2 top notch candidates to take on Snyder and retake the open Senate seat yet all I've seen in the rumor mill is back benchers that have a lot of heavy lifting to do to even mount a respectable showing. JAmash is on equal footing if not better than any dem they throw up since he has nationwide donors outside of PACs. Despite the RTW issue and the unions' pumping up their chests, they got their ass handed to them as they spent a fortune pushing the two recent ballot proposals to institutionalize collective bargaining for private and public workers into the state constitution and got waxed even tho Stabenow won big and Obama did well meaning that over 500k dems (~20% of all dem voters) voted against the unions. So, with this in mind, lower midterm turnout, undoubtedly this election favoring republicans nationwide and usually the GOP fares well in recent times in MI in midterms I'd say that this will be a republican grab when you factor in the Governor's reelection efforts. Not to mention, the conservative/libertarian grassroots comprised 48% of the republican party per its recent state convention if we take the state chair race into account and that's with quite a few of our people either sitting out or non-committed for whatever reason. Also regarding this race, it took $300k to produce the 52% turnout for the establishment with a mere $10k turning out the grassroots delegates. Even if we don't take this chair race into account, we went from having 0 on the state central committee to having 16/91 explicitly pro-liberty members with likely double or triple conservative-leaning members meaning that coalitions built in the state central body can be made against the establishment wing in the overall scheme of things thus showcasing a monumental shift in the landscape of the state party apparatus. So, a leaning republican midterm bolstered by a gubernatorial reelection against dem back benchers w/ a much more conservative makeup of the party itself coupled with a general dissatisfaction for establishment types brewing on the right and we have a perfect storm to win an open Senate seat w/ someone who the vast majority of the conservative grassroots could be excited by, unlike a Hoekstra. Plus, if Snyder and team have a brain in their head, they'd realize this excitement factor could only benefit them in their beneficial reelection status in a non-prez election.

I appreciate all the concerns people have about this race but I wanted to provide at least a semi-comprehensive examination of all the dynamics that come to mind in this race be it the midterm status, the inflated impression of what the dems can pull off here in said election, the growing influence of the grassroots in the state party as well as in all district parties across the state and the overall shift of the state from what it was once known overwhelmingly for. Yes, JAmash has a safe House seat but I'd say it would be hard to envision a better opportunity for the likes of one of our own to jump to the Senate under different circumstances. I'd venture to say that even the likes of Rogers or Miller could win this on the heels of the Governor's reelection but then we'll be stuck with the likes of another McCain or Graham here in MI thus minimizing any gains made out of SC. If JAmash doesn't run for this, whether the dem or rep win the seat they'll be entrenched for their reelection down the line and Stabenow ain't going anywhere anytime soon. Therefore, if JAmash sees what I see here on the ground he should go for it.
 
@CaptLouAlbano

I appreciate your opinion. You make a good case. I do not know all the numbers of Michigan in detail but if Amash decides to run then I will support him. I think he is smart enough to know if he can win the seat or not. If I were to make a donation I would evaluate the race before I do so.

It is my opinion that Michigan is moving to the right. Although, it certainly still has the lead in registered Democrats. I see potential of winning this seat.

I am in agreement with you on building leaders in both the House and Senate. To veer off topic, should we as a national movement be recruiting candidates to run for US House seats? I know YAL is doing this to some extent and people like myself in local races. But should we, as an online community, form a working group that identifies the most winnable House seats and then finds a candidate for that race?
 
I actually like Amash in the House. He is leading the anti-establishment charge and you only need probably 20 or so allies to be a pain in their *ss. Some say that the Senate position is more visible but I think what Amash has done on social media is nearly as prominent as what he could gain as being a Senator. Amash has a huge following and every vote explanation gets him more likes and more follows. The House voted 659 times while the Senate only voted 251 times in 2012. People look to Amash's Facebook page to understand what Congress is doing and I think he would lose that prominence by either running and becoming a Senator or running and losing. Also, it's a lot easier to build a consistent voting record while in the House since they vote on so many bills and because most of the Senate's votes are on nominations or procedural stuff like cloture.
 
To veer off topic, should we as a national movement be recruiting candidates to run for US House seats? I know YAL is doing this to some extent and people like myself in local races. But should we, as an online community, form a working group that identifies the most winnable House seats and then finds a candidate for that race?

Historically, to win a House seat one needs to be either involved politically at the local level (county commissioner, state rep, etc) or to be a prominent business/civic leader. Most people do not go from obscurity to winning a House seat. Take Bentivolio for example: he was a teacher in his CD for 15 years, ran for (and lost) a State Senate seat and then won the House seat - there's some experience both politically and civilly there to be considered.

So yes, we do need to identify people, but typically the cream rises to the top and we will see that from those who are already involved in state and local government.

As far as identifying winnable seats that should be something that is done. The easiest seats to win are open seats in a strong GOP district (since all one needs to do is win the primary). Those should be priority one and then followed by open seats in swing CD's, seats where the GOP incumbent is weakened (but it is a strong GOP CD), etc. We need to be smart, and not focus solely on what would be nice, but what would be practical.
 
Last edited:
You can't base it on Levin's numbers. Levin was the incumbent senator. This is an open seat. Compare it with the numbers in the 2010 statewide races, which Republicans won.


We added how many in 2012? 2? 4? Depending who you count. Let's say it's 4 and we repeat that the next two election cycles, that brings his allies in the House up to about 5% of the Republican caucus. He won't be winning a leadership position with that.
Probably not to thrust Amash into a leadership position, but we'd start the dominoes falling around Boehnor. Had we another 5-6 votes during his speakership vote it would've snowballed. A lot of people sat on the sidelines seeing if a creditable challenge would blossom.

Liberty candidate might only be 5%, but sometimes 5% is enough to be the catalyst for an explosive reaction.
 
If Amash decides to run will you naysayers support him or let his failure be a self Fulfilling prophecy?

What's with calling people "naysayers"? Can we not have a friendly debate about the risks/rewards of running for Senate? You do understand that everyone here likes Amash A LOT right?
 
If Amash decides to run will you naysayers support him or let his failure be a self Fulfilling prophecy?

I'd have to see some seriously good polling numbers before I cut a check to him. I referenced the Bills race last year - to me that was a black hole for money that could have been used elsewhere. People are of course free to do whatever they choose with their money, but I'll be damned if I am going to give it to a candidate that is trailing miserably in the polls.
 
You can't base it on Levin's numbers. Levin was the incumbent senator. This is an open seat. Compare it with the numbers in the 2010 statewide races, which Republicans won.


We added how many in 2012? 2? 4? Depending who you count. Let's say it's 4 and we repeat that the next two election cycles, that brings his allies in the House up to about 5% of the Republican caucus. He won't be winning a leadership position with that.

*sigh*

the kind of Republicans who won in 2010 in MI are like chalk and cheese to Amash who is an unabashed small govt conservative.

The kind of Republican that actually wins in MI are big government pandering moderates and Snyder is independently wealthy and was running against a corrupt administration so it was fairly easy.

That doesn't mean they're going to send a libertarian to the U.S Senate. They never have and never will. It's very easy to see this by looking at the history of who they have elected to those Senate seats over the last 60 YEARS. And you think Amash can buck this trend?! WHY?!
 
Last edited:
Spencer Abraham was labeled an extremist, and fought back against Ronna ROMNEY (Mitt's former sister-in-law) in 1994 over abortion for example and won.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=2517,153083&dq=spencer+abraham+1994&hl=en

Also read this article below, Spencer Abraham sure sounds like Justin Amash 20 years ahead of time.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...=1841,1886324&dq=spencer+abraham+romney&hl=en

It's still far too risky. We should stick to electing conservatives in the red states. MI is just too risky when you look at the history of who and what wins there.

Not only would he need millions to campaign statewide but he'd have to fight an organized labor turnout machine in the home of organized labor no less.

Really dumb idea when he has a safe 55/45 seat for at least a decade which he has to give up for this?! He's 32 remember and would be stupid to lose him to a senate bid that some machine Democrat is likely to win.

The machine Democrat running against Amash and all his votes against liberal legislation they will be licking their lips and will bury him. If you think he can win against the torrent of negative ads and a pumped up turnout machine then you obviously have more faith than I do.
 
Last edited:
There's 26 State Senators in MI. Does anyone have info on any of them that would be a decent choice to go for the seat? Possibly someone who would not risk losing their seat if they failed?
 
It's still far too risky. We should stick to electing conservatives in the red states. MI is just too risky when you look at the history of who and what wins there.

Not only would he need millions to campaign statewide but he'd have to fight an organized labor turnout machine in the home of organized labor no less.

Really dumb idea when he has a safe 55/45 seat for at least a decade which he has to give up for this?! He's 32 remember and would be stupid to lose him to a senate bid that some machine Democrat is likely to win.

The machine Democrat running against Amash and all his votes against liberal legislation they will be licking their lips and will bury him. If you think he can win against the torrent of negative ads and a pumped up turnout machine then you obviously have more faith than I do.

Pumped up turnout machine? For whom? There is no Obama this time to get the Detroiters to go vote.
 
Back
Top