Dennis Darnoi
The real lesson of Mike Duggan’s independent gubernatorial bid isn’t about Mike Duggan. It’s about the continued failure of the independent movement to understand power.
After 533 days on the campaign trail, Mike Duggan brought his independent bid to be Michigan’s next governor to a close. While his supporters dreamed of what might have been, defenders of the two-party system treated the campaign's collapse as further proof that the status quo is both inevitable and immutable.
The political press was quick to return to their horse race coverage pitting Republican-versus-Democrat, seemingly forgetting the months it had spent promoting the possibility of an independent breakthrough. Missing from the post-mortems was any serious examination of how political change actually occurs and why so many people continue to look for it in the wrong places.
Almost every independent campaign for governor begins with the belief that voters are finally ready to break free from the two-party system. Yet since 1990, only six independent or third-party candidates have won governor's races nationwide, while the overwhelming majority have finished third or worse.
The historical record is clear and consistent: independent gubernatorial campaigns almost always generate more excitement than success.
This isn't to say that Duggan's message didn't resonate with Michiganders. His campaign gave voice to those in both parties who feel like Lansing no longer works for them. The truth of the matter is that Michigan is fertile ground for a legitimate third-party or independent-oriented movement.
Large portions of the electorate are culturally moderate, economically anxious and exhausted by performative partisanship. Michigan has earned its reputation as a “purple battleground state” due in part to the fact that there is no shortage of people willing to vote for the person, not the party.
Politics, like baseball, isn't always about hitting home runs. Sometimes it's about finding a way to get on base and keeping the inning alive. Not surprisingly, too many people frustrated by Lansing's dysfunction swung for the fences, hoping one candidate could fix what years of neglect had created. In so doing, they overlooked the simple reality that every rally begins with getting runners on base.
If one were inclined to be uncharitable, one might wonder whether some of the money that flowed into the Duggan campaign was less about breaking the system than about keeping a familiar steward of it close to the levers of power.
In Michigan, where one seat can alter control of the state Senate and three seats can change the balance of power in the state House, real leverage over the future of the state’s direction was there for those willing to invest in a movement rather than a moment.
Instead, the entire independent bet in Michigan was on one man, in one race. When that race became unwinnable, the bet was over.
This is the real missed opportunity for those truly committed to reforming the system. At a time when Michigan voters are plainly fed up with the two-party system, this was the cycle to build an independent legislative beachhead, not just bankroll a single gubernatorial bid.
In any serious accounting, there are roughly 18 state legislative seats where an independent could at least have made the race honest, with maybe three or four in the Senate and roughly fourteen or fifteen in the House. Instead, nearly all the money, energy and attention went into Mike Duggan’s campaign. That may have felt like a bold bet on change, but it left voters without independent contenders in the places where leverage is actually created.
That matters because the cost of missing this window is real. In 2028, only the state House will be back on the ballot while the state Senate will be set for another four years. So, the people warning us about the future damage a dysfunctional system will do to our state not only failed to make any impact this cycle, but their swing for the fences approach also ensured we were left with the status quo for the foreseeable future.
As Duggan himself pointed out, of the $5 million his campaign raised, well over ninety percent of his contributions came from Michigan residents. Imagine for a moment that instead of placing all the eggs in one basket, there had been a coordinated effort to support candidates in each of the state House and Senate districts where a well-funded, well-organized independent candidate could credibly compete.
Had just a couple of those candidates succeeded they could have changed the legislative math in a good way. They would have forced Republicans and Democrats to stop relying on party line votes and required conversations across party lines.
Just as important, no single independent lawmaker would be able to hold the entire system hostage. If they became more interested in making a point than making progress, Republicans and Democrats would always have other ways to build majorities to move legislation forward.
More importantly, this outcome would reflect what Michigan voters have been asking for all along and which went to the heart of Duggan’s initial appeal as an independent candidate. Poll after poll shows that voters are tired of partisan gridlock and want elected officials to work together to solve problems. A recent Detroit Regional Chamber survey found overwhelming support for the belief that Republicans and Democrats should find common ground and govern through compromise.
As we heard all throughout Duggan’s run, Michigan has no shortage of problems requiring that kind of cooperation. Whether it’s the shambolic state of our education system, an unemployment rate that ranks in the bottom ten, or a per person income rate that, over the past 25 years, has fallen faster and further than any other state, voters want the Legislature to engage in less partisan warfare and more problem-solving.
In the end, voters aren't frustrated with American politics because we haven't found the right individual. They're frustrated because the existing system continues to produce bad outcomes.
Mike Duggan was gracious in his exit, saying that he hoped his campaign would have "a real long-term impact." But the truth of the matter is that Michigan is likely to get more of the same. Not because voters prefer the status quo but because the people who claimed to want something different never built a real alternative where it counted the most.