Former Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan ended his independent candidacy for governor of Michigan last Thursday in an unexpected announcement.
Duggan, who served as mayor of the state’s largest city from 2014 until Jan. 1 of this year, launched his bid when his term as mayor ended, hoping to bridge the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats.
Duggan’s withdraw leaves seven candidates still in the running to replace current Gov. Gretchen Whitmer – Republicans John James, Mike Cox, Aric Nesbitt, Perry Johnson and Ralph Rebandt, and Democrats Jocelyn Benson and Chris Swanson.
The following is a message Duggan wrote to his supporters that appeared on his campaign website:
Dear Friends,
I am so disappointed to have to write you this letter.
For the last 18 months I’ve worked every day to try to change Michigan’s toxic party politics. I’ve been supported by hundreds of volunteers who believe deeply that years of constant Democratic-Republican conflict in Lansing have led to our schools declining, our housing costs rising, and our young people moving out of Michigan in record numbers.
We knew the Independent route was filled with challenge. Even against those odds, the excitement for real change carried this campaign upward for more than a year. In every one of the 5-10 town halls a week I was holding across Michigan, we hosted Democrat, Republican, and Independent neighbors all mixed together in lively and positive discussions. It was a remarkable experience.
But by April, the mood of the country had shifted suddenly and dramatically. Democrats (and many Independents) were unified in anger as Trump’s war in Iran dragged on and gas prices rose above $5 a gallon. On May 5, the Democratic State Senate candidate in Saginaw won 60% of the vote in a seat Republicans thought would be very competitive.
Against the Democratic headwinds, we worked twice as hard. We continued to pile up huge numbers of union endorsements, once the unions learned that Michigan election law allowed voters to vote both straight ticket Democrat and also vote Duggan as an Independent.
But for the public in general, our internal polling showed the intense anger over gas prices and Iran was boosting Democrats in every office nationally. The Chamber poll last week showing we’d fallen 11 points behind the Democratic candidate reflects that reality.
Being down 11 points in May wouldn’t discourage me – I’ve been down worse than that in the past. But this time it’s compounded by our inability to build serious national fundraising support.
Michigan donors have been extraordinarily generous in supporting this campaign – 94% of my donors come from Michigan. We raised more instate than any other candidate.
But Governor’s campaigns are today funded overwhelmingly from well-established networks of national party money, which is why I’ve been all across America meeting with national groups to try to build a competitive fundraising network for Independents. There is much interest, but we’ve finally concluded the national fundraising for these groups is too much in its infancy to be of great help to our race in 2026. As generous as our Michigan donors have been, we will be strongly outspent by the national Republican and Democratic parties this fall.
If we were even in the polls and behind in fundraising, we have a path to winning. If we were behind in the polls and even in fundraising, we have a path. But we’re behind in both. It’s just not right to ask our volunteers, faith leaders, unions, elected officials and donors to continue in a campaign that, in my heart, I no longer feel good about our chances to win.
I got into this race to try to change our politics, not to be a spoiler. I’m still hopeful our campaign will prove to have a real long-term impact. 23% support in the last poll means more than 1.6 million Michigan voters are today looking for a Governor candidate serious about reducing the toxic partisan politics. If the candidates on the ballot this year take that message to heart and truly reach out to those voters, we will have accomplished something important.
I will never be able to express the gratitude I feel for all your support and encouragement. I wish I could have done better for you.
Mike
Duggan, who served as mayor of the state’s largest city from 2014 until Jan. 1 of this year, launched his bid when his term as mayor ended, hoping to bridge the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats.
Duggan’s withdraw leaves seven candidates still in the running to replace current Gov. Gretchen Whitmer – Republicans John James, Mike Cox, Aric Nesbitt, Perry Johnson and Ralph Rebandt, and Democrats Jocelyn Benson and Chris Swanson.
The following is a message Duggan wrote to his supporters that appeared on his campaign website:
Dear Friends,
I am so disappointed to have to write you this letter.
For the last 18 months I’ve worked every day to try to change Michigan’s toxic party politics. I’ve been supported by hundreds of volunteers who believe deeply that years of constant Democratic-Republican conflict in Lansing have led to our schools declining, our housing costs rising, and our young people moving out of Michigan in record numbers.
We knew the Independent route was filled with challenge. Even against those odds, the excitement for real change carried this campaign upward for more than a year. In every one of the 5-10 town halls a week I was holding across Michigan, we hosted Democrat, Republican, and Independent neighbors all mixed together in lively and positive discussions. It was a remarkable experience.
But by April, the mood of the country had shifted suddenly and dramatically. Democrats (and many Independents) were unified in anger as Trump’s war in Iran dragged on and gas prices rose above $5 a gallon. On May 5, the Democratic State Senate candidate in Saginaw won 60% of the vote in a seat Republicans thought would be very competitive.
Against the Democratic headwinds, we worked twice as hard. We continued to pile up huge numbers of union endorsements, once the unions learned that Michigan election law allowed voters to vote both straight ticket Democrat and also vote Duggan as an Independent.
But for the public in general, our internal polling showed the intense anger over gas prices and Iran was boosting Democrats in every office nationally. The Chamber poll last week showing we’d fallen 11 points behind the Democratic candidate reflects that reality.
Being down 11 points in May wouldn’t discourage me – I’ve been down worse than that in the past. But this time it’s compounded by our inability to build serious national fundraising support.
Michigan donors have been extraordinarily generous in supporting this campaign – 94% of my donors come from Michigan. We raised more instate than any other candidate.
But Governor’s campaigns are today funded overwhelmingly from well-established networks of national party money, which is why I’ve been all across America meeting with national groups to try to build a competitive fundraising network for Independents. There is much interest, but we’ve finally concluded the national fundraising for these groups is too much in its infancy to be of great help to our race in 2026. As generous as our Michigan donors have been, we will be strongly outspent by the national Republican and Democratic parties this fall.
If we were even in the polls and behind in fundraising, we have a path to winning. If we were behind in the polls and even in fundraising, we have a path. But we’re behind in both. It’s just not right to ask our volunteers, faith leaders, unions, elected officials and donors to continue in a campaign that, in my heart, I no longer feel good about our chances to win.
I got into this race to try to change our politics, not to be a spoiler. I’m still hopeful our campaign will prove to have a real long-term impact. 23% support in the last poll means more than 1.6 million Michigan voters are today looking for a Governor candidate serious about reducing the toxic partisan politics. If the candidates on the ballot this year take that message to heart and truly reach out to those voters, we will have accomplished something important.
I will never be able to express the gratitude I feel for all your support and encouragement. I wish I could have done better for you.
Mike
Opinion: Sit Down and Have a Real Conversation
(The following editorial was originally published in The Cadillac News.)
There is a quiet but consequential shift happening in how we communicate with one another. Increasingly, our disagreements play out through screens — reduced to comments, posts, and quick reactions.
While these tools make it easier than ever to share opinions, they often make it harder to truly understand one another. If we care about the strength of our communities – and the quality of our public discourse – we need to make a conscious effort to return to something more human: real conversations.
That means sitting down face-to-face or picking up the phone, especially with people we disagree with.
Two-way conversation is fundamentally different from one-way expression. When we talk in person or by voice, we hear tone, hesitation, sincerity and emotion – things that text simply cannot carry.
We are less likely to assume the worst and more likely to recognize the person behind the opinion. Disagreement, in that setting, becomes less about “winning” and more about understanding.
Research supports what many of us already sense. A 2025 report in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication found that in-person discussions tend to have stronger back-and-forth flow, faster clarification, and deeper engagement. In contrast, text-based communication – especially quick, reactive exchanges – often leads to more misunderstandings and less productive dialogue.
And understanding matters.
A 2014 Kent State University study examining communication among K-12 students in Ohio found that participants believed their ideas were better heard in face-to-face discussions than online.
Comments in digital settings were more likely to be overlooked, while in-person conversations led to higher participation, greater attention, and a stronger sense of fairness and engagement.
That doesn’t mean we will, or should, always change our minds. Healthy communities are built on a diversity of thought. But there is a difference between disagreement that builds and disagreement that divides. The difference is conversation – and a genuine effort to understand the other person’s point of view.
Too often, people feel their voices are not being heard. Speaking up on social media can be intimidating, especially when a few loud voices resort to insults or dismissive comments to shut down perspectives they don’t agree with. That environment discourages thoughtful participation and pushes people further apart.
We can do better.
Listening – truly listening – to another person’s perspective goes a long way toward understanding their beliefs. It doesn’t guarantee agreement, but it creates the conditions for more productive disagreement. And if we share a common goal of doing what is best for our community, then debating how to get there becomes far more constructive.
Real dialogue requires patience. It requires asking questions instead of making accusations. It requires a willingness to hear something uncomfortable without immediately dismissing it. And perhaps most importantly, it requires respect and the recognition that the person across from us is not an enemy, but a neighbor, a colleague, or a fellow citizen.
There is also a practical reality: most complex problems cannot be solved in isolation. They require collaboration, compromise and shared understanding. Those things are nearly impossible to achieve if our only interactions are brief, impersonal and often performative exchanges online.
In-person and voice conversations slow us down. They make it harder to interrupt, easier to reflect, and more natural to find common ground. Even when agreement isn’t reached, mutual respect often is – and that alone is a meaningful outcome.
If we want a stronger community, we have to be willing to do the harder work of real conversation. That might mean inviting someone for coffee whose opinion frustrates you. It might mean making a phone call instead of firing off another message. It might simply mean listening a little longer than you normally would.
These are small actions, but their impact is not small.
Disagreement is inevitable. Division is not.
The path forward isn’t found in louder arguments or sharper posts – it’s found in conversations. Real ones.
There is a quiet but consequential shift happening in how we communicate with one another. Increasingly, our disagreements play out through screens — reduced to comments, posts, and quick reactions.
While these tools make it easier than ever to share opinions, they often make it harder to truly understand one another. If we care about the strength of our communities – and the quality of our public discourse – we need to make a conscious effort to return to something more human: real conversations.
That means sitting down face-to-face or picking up the phone, especially with people we disagree with.
Two-way conversation is fundamentally different from one-way expression. When we talk in person or by voice, we hear tone, hesitation, sincerity and emotion – things that text simply cannot carry.
We are less likely to assume the worst and more likely to recognize the person behind the opinion. Disagreement, in that setting, becomes less about “winning” and more about understanding.
Research supports what many of us already sense. A 2025 report in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication found that in-person discussions tend to have stronger back-and-forth flow, faster clarification, and deeper engagement. In contrast, text-based communication – especially quick, reactive exchanges – often leads to more misunderstandings and less productive dialogue.
And understanding matters.
A 2014 Kent State University study examining communication among K-12 students in Ohio found that participants believed their ideas were better heard in face-to-face discussions than online.
Comments in digital settings were more likely to be overlooked, while in-person conversations led to higher participation, greater attention, and a stronger sense of fairness and engagement.
That doesn’t mean we will, or should, always change our minds. Healthy communities are built on a diversity of thought. But there is a difference between disagreement that builds and disagreement that divides. The difference is conversation – and a genuine effort to understand the other person’s point of view.
Too often, people feel their voices are not being heard. Speaking up on social media can be intimidating, especially when a few loud voices resort to insults or dismissive comments to shut down perspectives they don’t agree with. That environment discourages thoughtful participation and pushes people further apart.
We can do better.
Listening – truly listening – to another person’s perspective goes a long way toward understanding their beliefs. It doesn’t guarantee agreement, but it creates the conditions for more productive disagreement. And if we share a common goal of doing what is best for our community, then debating how to get there becomes far more constructive.
Real dialogue requires patience. It requires asking questions instead of making accusations. It requires a willingness to hear something uncomfortable without immediately dismissing it. And perhaps most importantly, it requires respect and the recognition that the person across from us is not an enemy, but a neighbor, a colleague, or a fellow citizen.
There is also a practical reality: most complex problems cannot be solved in isolation. They require collaboration, compromise and shared understanding. Those things are nearly impossible to achieve if our only interactions are brief, impersonal and often performative exchanges online.
In-person and voice conversations slow us down. They make it harder to interrupt, easier to reflect, and more natural to find common ground. Even when agreement isn’t reached, mutual respect often is – and that alone is a meaningful outcome.
If we want a stronger community, we have to be willing to do the harder work of real conversation. That might mean inviting someone for coffee whose opinion frustrates you. It might mean making a phone call instead of firing off another message. It might simply mean listening a little longer than you normally would.
These are small actions, but their impact is not small.
Disagreement is inevitable. Division is not.
The path forward isn’t found in louder arguments or sharper posts – it’s found in conversations. Real ones.
Survey Helping Create More Accurate Groundwater Models
It’s a bird. It’s a plane. No, it's … airborne electromagnetic surveying!
Over the next few weeks, if you see a helicopter flying relatively low with a large, hexagonal-shaped hoop hanging below it, don’t be alarmed.
It is all part of a special survey being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey with support from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. This effort is collecting geophysical measurements to create high-resolution, three-dimensional models of the region's aquifers and geology. The data will improve groundwater management efforts.
The joint EGLE-USGS effort is scanning portions of 15 counties across southwest Michigan. However, Ottawa County’s Department of Strategic Impact requested USGS conduct denser and more detailed scans of the central portion of the county – areas where residents and businesses are facing major groundwater issues.
—————
How it Works
This scanning system will catch people's attention – a helicopter flies approximately 200 feet overhead with a 60-foot-wide Airborne Electromagnetic transmitter hoop suspended by cables horizontally about 100 feet below the aircraft.
As the chopper passes over an area, a weak magnetic field penetrates the ground, measuring how well the ground conducts electricity. The resulting scans provides high-resolution data used to create three-dimensional models of the earth's subsurface to a depth of more than 1,000 feet.
—————
Is it Safe?
The USGS says the AEM hoop does not pose health or safety risks. The low level of magnetic field exposure given off by the transmitter is less than one-one hundredth (1/100th) of the accepted general exposure level, or about the same as standing a foot from a toaster in operation.
During data collection, the helicopter pilot will not fly within 500 feet of buildings, and will make every effort to avoid people, livestock, or large equipment. It’s important to note the helicopter is flying a pre-determined grid based on study locations, so it will pass through the same area several times.
Over the next few weeks, if you see a helicopter flying relatively low with a large, hexagonal-shaped hoop hanging below it, don’t be alarmed.
It is all part of a special survey being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey with support from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. This effort is collecting geophysical measurements to create high-resolution, three-dimensional models of the region's aquifers and geology. The data will improve groundwater management efforts.
The joint EGLE-USGS effort is scanning portions of 15 counties across southwest Michigan. However, Ottawa County’s Department of Strategic Impact requested USGS conduct denser and more detailed scans of the central portion of the county – areas where residents and businesses are facing major groundwater issues.
—————
How it Works
This scanning system will catch people's attention – a helicopter flies approximately 200 feet overhead with a 60-foot-wide Airborne Electromagnetic transmitter hoop suspended by cables horizontally about 100 feet below the aircraft.
As the chopper passes over an area, a weak magnetic field penetrates the ground, measuring how well the ground conducts electricity. The resulting scans provides high-resolution data used to create three-dimensional models of the earth's subsurface to a depth of more than 1,000 feet.
—————
Is it Safe?
The USGS says the AEM hoop does not pose health or safety risks. The low level of magnetic field exposure given off by the transmitter is less than one-one hundredth (1/100th) of the accepted general exposure level, or about the same as standing a foot from a toaster in operation.
During data collection, the helicopter pilot will not fly within 500 feet of buildings, and will make every effort to avoid people, livestock, or large equipment. It’s important to note the helicopter is flying a pre-determined grid based on study locations, so it will pass through the same area several times.
