Is there anything to be learned from the Michigan Democratic primary?

Last year, the DNC was not at all pleased when Michigan blew off the agreed-upon rules and moved its presidential primary to January 15. As part of its drive to maintain the integrity of its calendar, the DNC punished the state by stripping it of its delegates.

In keeping with their commitment to play by the rules, John Edwards and Barack Obama had their names removed from the Michigan ballot, rendering the contest effectively meaningless. Hillary Clinton, for reasons that are unclear, kept her name on the ballot, but she did not campaign or advertise in the state.

Given all of this, the results of the Democratic primary in Michigan just don’t tell us much. Clinton won easily, but she wasn’t trying, and her toughest competition came from “uncommitted.” (Edwards and Obama supporters couldn’t even write in their names if they wanted to.) While Republicans were battling it out in a competitive contest, Dems in the state weren’t even encouraged to turn out. As primaries go, this one simply didn’t matter.

Or did it? Tom Edsall noted some interesting results from Michigan exit polls.

Among black voters, Clinton was crushed by “uncommitted,” 26-70. If that kind of margin among African Americans continues into future primaries, she faces major problems in the heavily black January 26 South Carolina primary and in the states with large black populations going to the polls on February 5 — so-called Tsunami Tuesday. Clinton carried whites in Michigan by a 61-30.

Clinton ran poorly among young voters of all races, losing those under the age of 30 by 39-48 percent; splitting voters from 30 to 44 by 46-48 percent; solidly carrying the 45 to 56 age group by 54-34 percent; and winning voters 60 and older by a landslide 67-31 percent.

Given that Clinton was the only credible candidate on the ballot, these probably weren’t the results the campaign was hoping for.

To be sure, it’s best not to over-interpret exit polls in a race in which Dems weren’t even encouraged to participate. For that matter, the news for Clinton wasn’t all bad.

In a warning signal if she becomes the Democratic nominee, Clinton did much better among committed Democrats, winning them 57-37, than among independents, losing them 32-51.

Looking toward the future, the Michigan exit poll demonstrates the viability of the Clinton campaign strategy of winning solid majorities in states that, unlike Michigan and South Carolina, do not allow participation of either Republicans or independents in their “closed” primaries, like the February 5 contests in New York, Connecticut, Colorado and Arizona. Many very large February 5 states, however, including California, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia, have open primaries that will give Obama a chance to pull in independent voters.

But I’m a little surprised anyway. I didn’t expect much of anyone to turn out for this contest, and it appears that the anti-Clinton sentiment was strong enough to propel “uncommitted” to a strong second place showing, with 40%.

Maybe this was a meaningless blip on the political radar, maybe not. Time will tell.

“so-called Tsunami Tuesday”

Who’s so-calling it that? I thought we agreed to call it Super Duper Tuesday.

  • I see that Uncommitted beat Clinton in Washtenaw County, the southeastern Michigan county that includes the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

  • To be sure, it’s best not to over-interpret exit polls in a race in which Dems weren’t even encouraged to participate.

    I whole-heartedly agree. As a scientist who works with statistics, I have learned to beware of samples that may not be representative. As you say, Dems were not encouraged to participate in the Michigan primary, except those who were encouraged by Kos to vote for Romney to keep the Repub race going and the anti-Clinton people who urged a vote for uncommitted to embarrass Clinton. No one was encouraging Clinton supporters to vote. Could these exit polls indicate a problem for Clinton? Perhaps. Could they be totally meaningless? Also, perhaps. It does seem to me, however, that using these highly questionable results to contend there is a Clinton problem is an effort at a self-fullfilling prophesy.

  • Sigh!

    So for every contested primary, the votes for Obama and Edwards (et al) are Anti-Hillary votes, and you claim the Anti-Hillary vote is two-thirds of the Democratic electorate.

    Yet here the primary is between Hillary and “Uncommitted” and Uncommitted gets only 40% of the vote. So at worse the Anti-Hillary vote is 40%. (Which must be a great comfort to John and Barack knowing that they are getting maybe 10-20% votes FOR them.)

    Yet, as you note, Hillary won a majority of Democrats. She wins one third of the independents. And she’s not even running against a Republican’t yet!

    She’s been hurt about the Black vote and it may make her stumble on the way. But come November I think she should be able to get their vote. As long as she asks for it now.

  • “Yet here the primary is between Hillary and “Uncommitted” and Uncommitted gets only 40% of the vote. So at worse the Anti-Hillary vote is 40%. (Which must be a great comfort to John and Barack knowing that they are getting maybe 10-20% votes FOR them.)”

    I think it’s pretty significant that 40% of voters were willing to spend their timeshowing up to the polls to cast a vote for a non-candidate in a meaningless primary in which nothing was at stake. I probably wouldn’t have bothered to vote at all, so the fact that so many people turned out to cast a purely symbolic vote against Clinton seems to indicate a pretty strong anti-Clinton senitiment. Or, as MW points out, at least it could indicate that. Or not.

  • MW @ 3…

    I agree. Numbers don’t matter.
    It is the skinny that is going down in places like barber shops… around the country.
    And if you think the one-two sucker punch from Johnson and Rangel is getting good play…
    You haven’t had your hair cut in a long long time.

    I think Andrew Sullivan’s quote of the day sums it up:
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/quote-for-th-21.html

    PS:
    Anybody know if Charlie R’s apologized because he didn’t get the memo in time?
    Note to Charlie: I’d have been more convinced if you had teared up….

  • James Dillon @ 5

    I think it’s pretty significant that 40% of voters were willing to spend their timeshowing up to the polls to cast a vote for a non-candidate in a meaningless primary in which nothing was at stake. I probably wouldn’t have bothered to vote at all, …

    It was not “40% of voters … willing to spend their time showing up at the polls to cast a vote for a non-candidate”. By all the news reports I have seen, it was a very light turnout. Apparently, most voters did just what you say you probably would have done and didn’t bother to vote in “a meaningless primary”. That is why it is probably meaningless to draw any conclusions based on an exit poll of those who did vote. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they are a representative sample. And we all know how well the polsters have been doing of late with what they consider their representative samples.

  • I also wonder how many ballots were discarded due to having write ins for other candidates.

    The absentee ballots did have a write in line. My wife and I wrote in Obama right after Dodd dropped out (as he was the only acceptable choice actually on the ballot). It wasn’t until later on that the newspapers started reporting that votes with write ins for people not on the ballot would be discarded. I suspect that we weren’t the only ones with write in votes, and most likely there were also people who didn’t see the newspaper reports on this even after they started appearing.

  • Can we really say anything meaningful about the Michigan vote? All told, 328,151 votes were cast in the Democratic primary (per CNN). That’s lower than the votes cast in the Republican primary–337,847 (again, per CNN). This was not the Iowa caucus nor the New Hampshire primary. It just didn’t generate the intense interest and turn-out and this is likely due to the absence of a full slate of Democratic candidates. Thus, I just can’t see Michigan as a barometer of anybody’s candidacy on the Dem’s side.

  • “It was not “40% of voters … willing to spend their time showing up at the polls to cast a vote for a non-candidate”.”

    True. I should have said 40% of the voters who showed up to vote, which is obviously far less than 40% of all voters in Michigan.

  • I have to concur that for so many people to come out for a meaningless contest just to cast a symbolic “not-Hilary” vote, it must mean for something. True, these results are not scientific, but I find it interesting. But it is also true that quite possibly many Hilary supporters stayed home.

    I am curious to see how this plays out in places like South Carolina.

  • I think reading much into the 40% uncommitted is hazardous at best. One thing no one has mentioned is that Edwards and Obama supporters could have been motivated to make a statement about the party vacating their delegates, or hoping that when push comes to shove in Denver the party will seat the delegates — in which case the uncommitted become Obama or Edwards delegates. In short, they had good reason to show up, and their numbers were much lower than Obama and Edwards have been elsewhere.

    The other caution I would give: in the Iowa caucuses, “Uncommitted” beat Jimmy Carter in 1976. That would be President Carter. While losing so many votes to “uncommitted” surely isn’t good news for HRC, it is not clear that it is bad news, either.

  • On the positive side for Dems,in the other primaries where Democrats were full participants voting was frenetic and turnout was at record levels. When the primary only becomes about Republicans,as it was in Michigan, county clerks reported interest in voting was dismal and pathetic. If many voters do not vote in primaries and yet the primaries where selecting the Democratic candidate are full of enthusiasm, I think the Democratic Party is where the action will be in November’s polls.

  • Short answer: probably not.

    If anything is relevant here, it’s probably the results from African-Americans. But even there we can’t be talking about a particularly big sample.

  • Hillary Clinton did what she had to do in Michigan by getting 55% of the vote. There was no upside for her and she managed to avoid the downside. It’s not exactly a surprise that supporters of Edwards and Obama voted Uncommitted to try and embarrass Clinton, and the only disappointment is how the Michigan Democratic Party disenfranchised their primary voters by bucking the national party, thus depriving Michigan Democrats a fair chance to vote for either Edwards or Obama on the primary ballot.

  • i don’t think there’s much that can really be taken from the dems’ results. most clinton supporters already knew she would win the primary since she was the only major candidate, so why go and vote in an uncontested and meaningless election? it seems like the people most motivated by a true purpose were those who are decidedly AGAINST hillary or, like the results indicate, african americans who may have had a point to prove to her and her campaign: they weren’t happy with the direction she was headed. she’s always been a little behind with the younger voters, so that’s nothing new.

    if anything, it might show that hillary was still able to garner enough support, in a superfluous primary, against those who had a deliberate beef with her. i think that’s just as valid an analysis as any other.

  • I never cared about being old before (65), but those demographics showing my age group giving Hillary Clinton landslide support really upset me. I was under three years old when FDR died, but he was a huge shadow, a benevolent one, over my childhood and youth. Then as a young adult there were the Kennedy brothers, civil rights, and the Vietnam protest. What’s the matter with my coevals? Don’t they remember any of this? The Clintons do not represent the progressive Democratic Party I grew up with. They represent the corporations and the corporate media and special interest groups and now voter suppression.

  • just a couple of thoughts… one of hillary’s main cheerleaders in michigan is governor granholm and granholm isn’t exactly liked in michigan right now… by anyone. also some of the folks in michigan weren’t pleased with the state dem leaders (granholm being one) mucking up the primary process. perhaps some of the votes that went to uncommitted were from the anti-granholm and the anti-mi-dem-leader folks… not necessarily the anti-hillary crowd. and then there’s the aftermath of the mlk/lbj comment and brouhaha which may have played a role in urban votes. i live in michigan and i know some hillary supporters who just stayed home (edwards and obama supporters too) because they thought the primary had become a joke. perhaps the only true representation of who was supported was kucinich.

  • You’re right michigan is meaningless, South Carolina is the one to watch. I wonder if Edwards will drop out after losing big again?

  • Is there any exit polling on the “blog effect” (those blogs that encouraged their readers to be republicans for a day for Romney) or of the people who voted “uncommitted” to stick their fingers in the eye of the DNC or Michigan DC?

  • Naschkatze (#17): at least you’re a “war baby” not a “boomer.” When it comes to the boomers, we should remember that only 15% of the generation was ever actively involved to any degree in what gets called “the Sixties.” Most of them were like the Clintons: hiding out and “maintaining their options.” I remember a former high school classmate of my then-wife coming by for a visit in 1969 and going on and on about life in her sorority, how she was so glad she had a boyfriend from the right fraternity, etc. And this was someone who was going to school at UC-Berkeley! In 1969!!!

    The boomer generation is far less of a legend in reality than it is in its own mind. That they’d support the Candidate of Yesterday is no surprise.

  • Tom Cleaver wrote: “The boomer generation is far less of a legend in reality than it is in its own mind. That they’d support the Candidate of Yesterday is no surprise.”

    The Greatest Generation got 32 years in power (1960 to 1992).
    The Boomers get only 16?

    We’re all living longer you know. Can’t they have a little more?

  • The Boomers get only 16?
    We’re all living longer you know. Can’t they have a little more?

    Particularly since the second 8 didn’t work properly. We should get a free replacement under the lemon laws.

  • I understood that if these delegates were later allowed to be included in the national count it was important to have a larger number of uncommitted delegates that could then be decided to be given to candidates not on the ballot.

  • Jensen,

    I was thinking the same thing. Edwards certainly has the money to stay for a fight until Super Duper Tuesday, but I think that is where his campaign will end. The question I think is, wether bad results for Clinton and Edwards in South Carolina will promp talks of the formation of an Obama/Edwards ticket. Such a ticket could really add another momentum surge for the Obama campaign, and may just be enough to make up for expected losses in New York, Conneticut and Arizona, where the closed primary’s will hurt Obama.

    Will we see a ticket before Feb 5? If so, will it be the Next President and Vice President of the United States of America?

    I hope so. An Obama/Edwards ticket will be the only thing that can beat the Republican’s best possbile ticket:

    John McCain and Condoleezza Rice

  • Comments are closed.