Hillary Wins Michigan!

by Beltway Dem, Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:11:23 AM EST

I think there is a seriously important thing to keep in mind about Michigan.  Even though the Democratic race was not contested (and might not even count), the number of Democrats who voted was not so far behind the number of Republicans who voted a seriously contested event that does indeed count.

Now, let me suggest why I believe this is really, really important, Hillary received almost as many votes in her non-contest (328,151) as Mitt received in his real contest (337,847).  That is good news for Democrats.  We don't even have to throw a "real event," and people are showing up in numbers on a par with the Republicans.

The polls turned out to be absolutely correct.  The final numbers for the Democratic un-contest in Michigan were these:

Hillary 55.4
Uncommitted 39.9
Kucinich 3.7
Dodd 0.6
Gravel 0.4

Hillary's win in this beauty contest truly has gravity because Uncommitted obviously was an option that many people in Michigan not only considered but also opted to choose.  

I would like to suggest that not participating was a serious tactical blunder by Obama and Edwards.  The New York Times observes:

The Democratic National Committee plans to penalize Michigan Democrats for holding an early primary by stripping the state party of all its delegates to the national convention. If the penalty is lifted, the state party will have 128 pledged and 28 unpledged delegates.

Yeah, baby.  Close to 128 prospective delegates are apparently on the table for Hillary to pick up in Denver.  




Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 elections, president, Michigan, Democrats, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment


It was a great win (none / 0)

Highly contested - shows Hillary's great courage.


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:23:19 AM EST

Haha... Do I smell sour grapes on your breath? (2.00 / 1)

Yes, that's right... HILLARY BEAT UNCOMMITTED BY DOUBLE DIGITS! Despite the Edwards and Obama people telling everyone to vote "uncommitted", Hillary still won with 56%. Sorry, but Michigan Democrats prefer someone who's ready to deliver the change we need. :-)


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary rises to the challenge (none / 0)

 and has a magnificent victory over uncommitted.
fantastic!
Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:33:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

too bad john conyers... (2.00 / 1)

..ran his mouth and made it a contested election. bad move on his part. i bet the obama campaign wishes he hadn't done that.


by campskunk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, (2.00 / 2)

Hillary did NOTHING, and she trounced the only viable alternative.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama and Edwards campaigned (none / 0)

in MI through surrogates, Clinton didn't campaign and she won big.  Had the other names been on the ballot she would have gotten 46 percent according to exit polls.  That is still a huge win.  
The big loser there was Edwards, the guy with the populist message that is supposed to be turning on people who are in financial and job trouble.
Obama couldn't beat her even with Conyers campaigning for him.

The is an indication of how these big states are going to go and it is good news for Clinton.  Unless something major happens she is going to clean up in the rust belt as well as the north east.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and Edwards campaigned (none / 0)

Former Governor Jim Blanchard was doing a bit of campaigning for Hillary as well.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And wins a debate in the same night (2.00 / 3)

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan 16/clinton-clear-winner

I think it is great that Hillary didn't pander to Iowa like the rest.  She fought to win Iowa but didn't cave in like Obama and Edwards and deny Michigan its chance to make a choice.  

She kept her name on the ballot, kept her promise to the DNC, but gave Michigan a choice.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST

Yep, Hillary did the right thing... (2.00 / 2)

She gave Michigan Democrats a choice. And certainly, 56% of them really appreciated this choice. Hillary is giving Democrats in ALL 50 STATES a choice, and I'm sure voters in all these states will appreciate being able to make the best choice!

It seems like Nevada Dems are after that great debate last night. ;-)


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You Hillary people (none / 0)

are laughable.  Hillary snubs the party and you think its a triumph.  Then you complain the Obama isn't a loyal Democrat.  


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:36:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Hillary people (2.00 / 4)

I would challenge you to produce one piece of evidence that the party told the candidates to take their names off the ballot.  Just one piece of evidence will do.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:37:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Hillary people (2.00 / 3)

SNUBS the party?  That is nonsense.   So, are you saying here that by remaining on the Florida ballot Edwards and Obama are snubbing the party as well?   You can't have it both ways here.  


by georgep on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't give (none / 0)

a rats ass about party loyalty.  Maybe Obama and Edwards are snubbing the party.  Thats fine with me.
Its fine that Hillary did it too.  
My complaint is that many on this site complain
about Obama not be loyal enough to the party.
That is hypocritical.  And then to claim so big victory because of it - is pure bs.

Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't give (none / 0)

I responded to your slam that Hillary snubbed the party by remaining on the Michigan ballot.  That was simply an untrue statement.  The DNC did not stipulate removing one's name off the ballots, their draconian punishment of removing all delegates when the rules called for a maximum of HALF the delegates to be removed, thus the DNC imposed punishment well in excess of THEIR OWN RULES, was certainly more than enough, even in their own minds.   ALL candidates have since made statements that they would certainly seat MI and FL delegates, anyway.  

The other issue I had with your post that you seem to be uneven in your handling of the candidates.  If remaining on the ballot is a SNUB, then ALL candidates snub the party by remaining on the FL ballot.   That fact alone should tell you that you are way off.  It was probably just an attempt at slamming Hillary, rather than crafting a reasonable post, which is understandable, coming from a major Hillary-"disliker."   But there still needs to be logic attached to tilted partisan posts, and when you talk about an actual snub, it needs to be pointed out that there is none, thus no protests from the DNC, all players are present on the FL ballot, etc.  


by georgep on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (none / 0)

I came away from last night with three main messages:

1) McCain is quite possibly toast.  I think he'd be a good (although conservative) president, but he represented, I think, the greatest challenge to the Dems.  I take this as qualified good news.

2) As Beltway Dem points out, the Democratic turnout was shockingly high considering that there wasn't really a race there.  A first glance at the vote totals seems to show that the Repubs had about 750,000 voters to the Dems' 550,000 voters.  That seems like a lot of people voting on no race to me.

3) More than 200,000 people turned out to vote specifically against Clinton.  That also seems like a very large number to me.  I mean, you have to get somebody to vote purely in protest.  The delegates supposedly won't count and Obama and Edwards kind of gave Michigan the shaft.  Nonetheless, a lot of people showed up almost as if out of spite.  That can't be good news for Clinton.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:33:34 AM EST

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (2.00 / 2)

I don't see how you can have any idea which of the uncommitted voters were voting against Clinton, and which of them were voting for Edwards or Obama.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:38:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (none / 0)

Look at it this way.  As it stands now, the delegates won't count.  So by voting "uncommitted" you don't necessarily do any good for either Edwards or Obama.  So why bother voting?  

I understand that the delegates could end up counting at some point, but that's really inside baseball and I find it hard to believe that so many people pay close enough attention to politics to think that way.

But let's just say people think the delegates will count.  Again, there's really just no way "uncommitted" is going to beat Clinton.  So why bother voting?  Yet >200,000 people did.

Am I way off on this line of reasoning? (That's a real question).


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:47:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (2.00 / 2)

There was a serious campaign to encourage people to vote "uncommitted" if they liked Clinton or Obama.  Even the Michigan Democratic Party was saying that.  John Conyers lobbied hard for Obama supporters to vote "uncommitted," and I'm told there was advertising on African-American radio and in the communities.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (none / 0)

It still seems like a hard sell to me to tell people to show up and vote for nobody.  Or to vote implicitly for somebody that removed his name from the ballot voluntarily.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (2.00 / 1)

Steve is right.  There was nothing, absolutely nothing, organized for Clinton.  Whoever wanted to come out and take the time could, but there was nothing in the way of encouraging it.  On the other hand, there was a strong organized effort, mostly by Obama backers, to get people to come out to vote uncommitted.  Money was poured into radio ads.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&pid=0&a mp;sid=1235691&page=2


On the Democratic side, the steam went out of the Michigan primary a long time ago. The closest thing to excitement is the effort by supporters of Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson to muddle a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton victory.

Michigan has been stripped of its 156 national convention delegates by the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee because it broke party rules by moving up its primary to Jan. 15, challenging Iowa and New Hampshire on the nomination calendar. All of the Democratic candidates except Dennis Kucinich are sticking to pledges not to campaign or run ads in Michigan.

Obama, Edwards and Richardson took the extra step of withdrawing their names from the ballot. Some backers of the three _ including the United Steelworkers, which backs Edwards _ are urging supporters to vote for "uncommitted" as a way of embarrassing Clinton and possibly gaining some national convention delegates.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODB iZTZmMTZmZjkyOTg4NzNiODYzMmQ1OWU4ZjlkZDg =


The candidates have pledged to honor the DNC's ruling, and are not campaigning in Michigan. But the Obama campaign is touting grassroots efforts to "Get Out the Uncommitted Vote."


by georgep on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mollusk- Stop the SPIN! (none / 0)

I see your point, but I still think firing people up to vote for "nobody" is a difficult task.  Especially when that "nobody" specifically dissed your state by taking their name off of the ballot.

I understand the points made about a "concerted effort" by the Obama campaign to get people to vote uncommitted.  I'm not in Michigan so it's difficult for me to gauge the coverage of these ads etc., but it still seems like if all you had to do was to get a few key folks to tell their supporters to vote specifically against somebody else, without any real campaigning, it would not require in excess of $200 million to run for President.

In other words, the motivation is/was there to vote specifically against Clinton.  I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm not sure I would've voted "uncommitted" yesterday in Michigan.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One other thing (none / 0)

I seem to have touched a nerve by suggesting that 40% was a lot of votes to be cast for "nobody" in a primary.

But so far, no one has touched my other observation that the Democrats got >500,000 votes without there really being any organized campaigning and no real race there.

I think these two observations are closely related because it shows the enthusiasm on the Democratic side.  Enough enthusiasm that Clinton, Obama and Edwards supporters will vote with practically no prompting and virtually nothing at stake.

This is a good sign to me for the Democrats.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (none / 0)

My sense was that Edwards and Obama had virtually no ground presence in Michigan.  It seems remarkable to me that so many people would turn out with basically no organization.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree that the uncommited vote (none / 0)

was spiteful.  But 56 percent turned out to vote FOR her.  56 percent beats 40 percent.  Most of that protest vote was for Obama.  Edwards is toast.  Clinton will get those delegates if the party gives the delegates back and most of the uncommitted will go her way too if she continues to be the front runner.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MI Turnout (none / 0)

Was the MI primary only for President? Because if it was only for President then, yes, the turnout is a good sign for Clinton.

On the other hand, if there were also primaries for other races on the ballot, it's entirely possible that people came out to vote for those races, and, seeing only Clinton, Kucinich, and Gravel on the ballot, just voted for Clinton as an afterthought.


by craverguy on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:53:51 AM EST

Re: MI Turnout (none / 0)

yeah, I think we give people way too much credit for being informed about these things.  i wonder how many people showed up and were confused by the fact that Edwards and Obama weren't on the ballot.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI Turnout (none / 0)

look at the exit polls.  She won about 46 percent of the vote if the other candidates were on the ballot.
That is huge considering she did not campaign but Edwards and Obama did through their surrogates.

When are the other two campaigns going to realize that piling on and being petty is causing them to lose?


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (none / 0)

Concerned Clinton backers plan get-out-the-vote effort

Monday, January 14, 2008
Pollsters say N.Y. senator may face embarrassment if she falls below 60% against 'uncommitted' on Dems' ballot.
Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign will appeal to supporters over the next two days to show up at the polls Tuesday, even though her only major rival in the muddled Democratic primary is "uncommitted."

Campaign workers will knock on doors in Metro Detroit and elsewhere, as well as make phone calls and send e-mails to identified supporters in a get-out-the-vote effort for the New York senator, said Chris DeWitt, a Clinton volunteer in Michigan.

Clinton is the only leading Democratic candidate on the ballot in Michigan. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards withdrew from the race because Michigan violated national party rules by scheduling an early primary. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only other active candidate on the ballot.

While Clinton is virtually assured a win, supporters worry that getting many "uncommitted" votes would embarrass her. Some pollsters have suggested she will look bad if she draws less than 60 percent in a race against practically no one.

The Obama and Edwards campaigns are urging voters to opt for "uncommitted." If 15 percent or more of Democratic voters do so, the state will send some delegates to the National Convention that could vote for any candidate.

A Detroit News/WXYZ Action News poll shows Clinton drawing 56 percent of the vote to 33 percent for "uncommitted" and 3 percent for Kucinich.

[...]


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:45:22 AM EST

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan but loses the AA vote (none / 0)

According to the Fox exit polls, in the Democratic primary tonight, Clinton took 25% of the African-American vote and "uncommitted" is getting 69% of the African-American vote. Now remember, Hillary is only major candidate on the ballot.
If he can trounce Clinton among African-Americans without even being on the ballot, it seems that Obama has solidified African-Americans behind him nationwide. If, as Matt suggested yesterday, he can secure the white liberal vote, that would be a winning coalition in the Democratic primary nationwide. It would also be a repetition of his coalition in the Illinois Senate primary four years ago.

By Chris Bower


by BDM on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:53:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan but loses the AA vote (none / 0)

Even so, roughly 70 percent of Michigan's African-American voters -- a group that makes up a quarter of Michigan's Democratic electorate -- did not cast their votes for Clinton, choosing the "uncommitted" option instead. Yet these voters weren't uncommitted at all: in fact, according to CNN exit polls, they overwhelmingly favored Barack Obama, whose name did not appear on the ballot.

Had Obama's name been on the Michigan ballot, CNN exit polls show that he would have won an overwhelming 73 percent of the African-American vote, in contrast to 22 percent who say they would have voted for Clinton under those circumstances. If South Carolina's large African-American community votes as Michigan's, Hillary may not be feeling much `southern hospitality' in that state.


by BDM on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan but loses the AA vote (1.00 / 0)

Yes. By establishing himself as the "race" candidate in the mold of Jesse Jackson, Obama has certainly solidified the African American vote.

Unfortunately, that is both a blessing and a problem for his campaign. While the Obama/Edwards uncommitted ticket got 69% of the African American vote in Michigan, Clinton got 61% of the white vote.

That math may be favorable for the "race" candidate in South Carolina. To the extent that it drives white voters away, it hurts him badly nationally and in the majority of the Feb 5th states.


by hwc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan but loses the AA vote (none / 0)

On the other hand, Jesse Jackson won SC with 64%  (total vote, not just AA)

So Obama has to get those kind of numbers for it to be a "win".   If it is anywhere reasonably close, Hillary "wins" it.

Obama now has to landslide SC, or it's no good.


by WMCB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I voted for Jackson (2.00 / 1)

He ran a campaign based partly on equality of all people, but there was no race baiting, no accusing other candidates of racism based on imaginary evidence.  If there was any of that it escaped the average voter which is what I was at the time.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I voted for Jackson (2.00 / 1)

You can still find some of Jesse's speeches during that primary online.  He was astounding.  


by WMCB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan but loses the AA vote (2.00 / 1)

african americans will come back to her when they realize they have been had by Obama race baiting.  If she is the nominee they will vote for her.  That is my prediction.  And furthermore Obama has a lot more to lose in the long run than Clinton.  He lost 61 percent of the white vote.
Obama may win in SC in the short run, but there are a lot more white people than black people.  If this becomes a battle of black and white, whitey wins every time.   It is to Obama's advantage to stop this battle and I suggest his supporters try to be as smart as he is.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan but loses the AA vote (none / 0)

The MSM is playing up a negative narative for HillaRY IN MI especially with AA voter's


by BDM on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:40:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan but loses the AA vote (none / 0)

The media's hate of people like Hillary and Gore is just more reason for me to like them.  
I was thinking today that "journalists" should be separated at events and not allowed to see or talk to each other until they have turned in their report  or editorial.  They are so completely incapable of thinking for themselves. And God forbid anyone should be unlike them, perhaps superior mentally or spiritually, they have to destroy what they do not understand.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and the gutless wonder Ge0rge (none / 0)

troll rates me again.  He never bother to comment, just passes out the zero's. LOL


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is what dissing MLK gets you (none / 0)

From politicalwire:

Exit Polls Show Black Voters Rejected Clinton
The Detroit Free Press notes an interesting finding from the Michigan exit polls: Sen. Hillary Clinton's support among black voters was just 30%, with 68% going to "uncommitted."

Since the contest was non-binding and several major candidates were not on the ballot, the exit polls may not actually be indicative of Michigan Democrats who would come out in a contested primary. However, they do indicate that Clinton's recent sparring over race with Sen. Barack Obama may have hurt her among black voters.
------
Watch out Hilary, play fair or get punished.


Demeric
by Demeric on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:56:32 PM EST

Re: This is what dissing MLK gets you (none / 0)

Recent National Polls:
Zogby today:
Clinton 39
Obama 38
Edwards 13

Diego Hotline poll(released today)
Clinton 38
Obama 35
Edwards 13

This tells me that Obama HAS ABOUT A 2/3RD'S MARGIN WITH AA VOTERS.

These voter's make up 25% OF THE DEMOCRATIC BASE


by BDM on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Wins Michigan! (none / 0)

Just to be clear, she will at most get 73 pledged delegates from the Michigan delegation if they are seated, not 128.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:53:29 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: