I've come to the conclusion that the Michigan primary DOES matter

[SoCalDem]

Calm down, Hillary people.. The reason I think it matters, is not for the reason you think..

It was a cold day, the weather was an issue for Lake Michigan shore communities (where most of the populated areas are).

The media had been ALL OVER the primary, and the fact that it would NOT count.

Party faithful are usually the ones who show up for primaries

Not many people really knew all that much about Obama yet, and the "attack season" had not yet started...

Hillary had "found her voice", after coming in THIRD in Iowa. The press praised her brilliant come-back, and razzed the pollsters for getting it so wrong...

She was riding the wave..

in spite of all that, 265,762 people showed up to vote against her...237,762(uncommitted)...21,798(Kucinich)... 3,853(Dodd)... 2,363 )Gravel)

The uncommitted people stood in line, in inclement weather JUST to vote AGAINST her.. They KNEW their votes would not/could not "count" for anything BUT an Anti-Hillary vote..

This was BEFORE South Carolina, when there was still support from the African American community for Hillary, so certainly some of those votes were from them..(the ugliness would not start until S.C.) ..(apparently she DID get 30% of the African American vote in Michigan..see below)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002389.html?tid=informbox
and this ( not from a favorite source, but it's worth reading because he "knows" the Clintons well... what what he predicted is exactly what happened ..like he read their minds..)

___________________________________
(warning.. this is from a right wing site ...BUT the numbers & links are to CNN & other polls)..and the GOP is our REAL adversary here, so..I do NOT like sites like these, BUT it;s helpful to evaluate what they are plotting..)

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016646.php

snip....

Most disturbing for Hillary is the softness of support for her among black voters. Sixty-eight percent of them voted for Uncommitted and only 30% for Hillary. Among urban voters, Uncommitted won a majority of 54%, while Hillary only garnered 40%.

It's a minor debacle. Running practically unopposed, Hillary should have rolled to an easy and large victory. Beating None of the Above by only fifteen points doesn't create a picture of a juggernaut.

UPDATE: CNN's Political Ticker notes the problem:

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.
________________________________________________

and this contemporaneous CNN blog from election day:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/15/potentially-troubling-news-for-clinton-in-michigan-win/


This was a VERY poor showing for the primo-candidate (at that time)..

This is why Michigan matters.. It was an open window into the soul of her candidacy

[msongs]

1. translation: you love right wing sites that bolster your opinions nt

[grantcart]

2. washington post and cnn lol you know he actually is using facts

[SoCalDem]

4. I'm a she

Thanks :hi:..

[grantcart]

17. sorry - thanks for the heads up

[goclark]

6. Right you are grantcart!

:hi:

[SoCalDem]

3. Math is math is math is math...facts are facts are facts

The links are to CNN & other polls..
and the play-by-play their campaign has used, was SPELLED out in January..:hi:

[malta blue]

8. easy killer....jeez.

She used the disclaimer that it had the numbers from CNN and other sources - good grief people :eyes:

[Zuiderelle]

5. I believe that republicans in Michigan can vote in the democratic primary.

That would certainly account for a lot of those votes against her. And of course, Obama supporters casting uncommitted votes would also add to that tally. I'm surprised there weren't more, frankly.

Yes, a rerun of the Michigan primary is a great idea. It would be a close race and worth it to give them a voice.

[SoCalDem]

9. I'm guessing that not many repubes voted for her.. THEIR votes DID count

and that's when it was all or nothing for Romney.. I don;t think ske got many R votes.

[Zuiderelle]

11. You're guessing. Well ok then.

[SoCalDem]

13. I'm just saying that at that point in time, republicans had a full slate of candidates

and a pretty hot race going..why would they vote in the democratic primary when their own races were so important..and their delegates counted..

Why stand in line to vote democratic, and have NO delegates..when you could have your vote count for a candidate of your own party.. The "Rush" effect was not happening back then..

I just don't see them crossing over :)

[Zuiderelle]

14. Then you and I disagree on that. I think there are plenty who would cross over.

[jgraz]

7. I completely agree. The New York primary was another pyrrhic victory for her

Even with the reported shenanigans in NYC, the junior senator only managed a 17-point win in her "home" state.

Contrast that with Arkansas, which Obama left virtually uncontested. Here, she won 70% of the vote. If she had managed that same outcome in NY, she'd have netted an additional 47 delegates (approximately).

That additional 47 delegates would cut Obama's lead to double-digits and would have given Hillary's "this race is virtually tied" spin a whiff of credibility.

[SoCalDem]

20. Makes you wonder what the margin would have been if those Harlem votes had counted

doesn't it??

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/voting/20080321/17/2469

[LisaM]

10. That's nonsense. There were Hillary people who voted uncommitted.

Please note that any Republican site is dearly hoping Michigan and Florida won't find a way to seat delegates based on a vote, because that will result in Democratic Michigan and Florida voters being pissed off and more likely to stay home in the GE, if not vote for someone else (I think the first is more likely).

The fact that most of the Democratic party and even many DUers are willing to completely throw Michiganders and Floridians under the bus is mystifying to me. Those states matter. So Obama won Wyoming and Idaho caucuses, and those states have more input than Michigan and Florida. No offense to the Democrats there and I'm sure they enjoyed participating in the process (the fact that many states have gotten to participate is a real plus, IMO). But it's fantasy to think that either of those states will go blue in the GE.

[SoCalDem]

12. Why would Hillary people vote uncommitted?

She was on the ballot..That's an odd strategy to be sure:)

[LisaM]

15. First, let me apologize for using the word "nonsense". That was unconstructive.

But the reason they did (and I know some of them) was that the voters were told that the only chance of having the Michigan slate count at the convention was if "uncommitted" won, and they were then free to cast actual votes at the convention.

The names on the ballot, and anything written in, wouldn't count.

[TheWraith]

16. Nonsense.

First off, the assumption that Democratic voters are going to stay home and not try to elect a president due to shenanigans by the state party is childish. The vast majority of people in MI and FL who are going to vote for the Dem either don't know or don't give a damn whether or not the primary delegates got seated.

Second, I can't imagine why you think Hillary voters would go "uncommitted" when she was on the ballot.

Third, as to turnout, people should remember the push Daily Kos and some others went on to get Dems to vote in the Repub primary, which may have siphoned off a not insubstantial portion of votes from the progressive wing of the party.

[SoCalDem]

18. I'd bet that if you stopped 50 people at Costco or Walmart and asked them how they voted

probably a LOT of them would tell you how they voted in 2004 or 2006..

Most people just don't get all that involved until October of the election year..

[TheWraith]

19. Primary voters are ultra-loyalists.

The sort of people who post on DU, who are going to turn out in November regardless.