DeVos' track in the polls

[Nym90]

If they do debates in Michigan, than I think that could be DeVos' main problem. He isn't a very strong speaker when he is on his on the clock and under pressure. I think that both DeVos and Granholm will hover around 49% with 1% going to other candidates. I will go out on a limb and say that DeVos will pull it off by a very slim amount of votes, slim enough for Michigan Democrats to challenge the vote.

Yes, there are generally debates, at least in close races. Engler declined to debate Fieger in 1998, but that was because he had no reason to do so given his large lead, plus Fieger would have probably done decently well given the fact that he was a successful attorney.

Granholm and Posthumus debated in 2002; Granholm is generally regarded as a very charismatic figure, so I would guess she would have the edge over Devos, who is fairly boring. It's hard to say how much effect that would have on the election, though.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If they do debates in Michigan, than I think that could be DeVos' main problem. He isn't a very strong speaker when he is on his on the clock and under pressure. I think that both DeVos and Granholm will hover around 49% with 1% going to other candidates. I will go out on a limb and say that DeVos will pull it off by a very slim amount of votes, slim enough for Michigan Democrats to challenge the vote.

If they challenge--that will only hurt them again.  That would only further a voting fraud debate like is going on in Wayne Co. right now (see my other post in U.S. General Discussion).
And if they push like Gore did in 2000--it would make Granholm look desperate and eliminate her chances for a comeback in 2010.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In reference to the lower pay--I still say that I wouldn't want my pay cut, but if it helps the economy/companies--then cut it (especially the overpaid unions--but we won't debate that here again).

Ken Lay thanks you.

who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Lay

Still not following your point.

[Q]

In reference to the lower pay--I still say that I wouldn't want my pay cut, but if it helps the economy/companies--then cut it

"You should ask yourself, for every decision you make, is this good for the company?"

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In reference to the lower pay--I still say that I wouldn't want my pay cut, but if it helps the economy/companies--then cut it

"You should ask yourself, for every decision you make, is this good for the company?"

Are you being sarcastic, or agreeing w/ me?

[Q]

In reference to the lower pay--I still say that I wouldn't want my pay cut, but if it helps the economy/companies--then cut it

"You should ask yourself, for every decision you make, is this good for the company?"

Are you being sarcastic, or agreeing w/ me?

Merely supplying a relevant quote from Office Space.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In reference to the lower pay--I still say that I wouldn't want my pay cut, but if it helps the economy/companies--then cut it (especially the overpaid unions--but we won't debate that here again).

I find it hilarious that conservatives think a union employee making $17 an hour is overpaid, while a CEO making a million a year is not. Tells you exactly where their priorities "lay"! (pun intended)

If you can find where I said that CEOs should make lots of $$--you can have all of mine.  I think CEOs should be giving back to their company.  I'm not saying that shouldn't make more, but they shouldn't be making millions, when their workers get minimum wage (this is not applying to unions--they make much more than min. wage).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In reference to the lower pay--I still say that I wouldn't want my pay cut, but if it helps the economy/companies--then cut it

"You should ask yourself, for every decision you make, is this good for the company?"

Are you being sarcastic, or agreeing w/ me?

Merely supplying a relevant quote from Office Space.

But what's you're opinion?