Clinton May Lose Michigan to Uncommtted

According to this Detroit paper the Michigan's uncommitted vote is a threat to Clinton:

There are growing signs that Michigan Democrats could turn out in larger numbers than expected for the Jan. 15 presidential primary -- and that may raise the stakes for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, the only top contender whose name will be on the Michigan Democratic ballot, has been widely expected to win the state by an overwhelming margin. Privately, Clinton supporters acknowledged Friday that she could be embarrassed if a significant percentage of Michiganians vote "uncommitted" -- one of the ballot choices.

No recent polls have been taken pointing in that direction. But Detroit News pollster Ed Sarpolus said Friday that anything less than 60 percent in Michigan would be a black eye for Clinton.

So first of all if she doesn't win big then it really isn't a win after all.....

Iowa's first- and second-place winners, Barack Obama and John Edwards, removed their names from the Michigan ballot because the state jumped ahead of others in scheduling its primary, in violation of national Democratic Party rules. They declined by Friday's 4 p.m. deadline to register as write-in candidates, meaning any write-in votes they get won't be counted.

There are informal efforts by some Edwards and Obama supporters in the state to encourage uncommitted votes, but Clinton backers said they saw no evidence of a coordinated campaign to embarrass the New York senator and former first lady.

Former Gov. James Blanchard, one of several leading Michigan Democrats who are backing Clinton, said Friday that he believed Edwards and Obama made a mistake by failing to register as write-in candidates.

"Even today they could register," Blanchard said before the 4 p.m. deadline. He also said he would discourage uncommitted voters: "Those candidates are good candidates, but I see no logic in rewarding candidates who won't put their name on the ballot."

State Democratic officials, including party Chairman Mark Brewer, have encouraged Democrats to vote, even if their candidate isn't on the ballot. Supporters of Obama, Edwards and others can vote "uncommitted." If 15 percent of Democrats statewide or in any congressional district do so, the state would send some delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer free to support any candidate.

Despite the missing names, and vows by Clinton and the other top contenders not to campaign here, it appeared at least possible that Democrats will rival the turnout in the hotly contested Republican primary. Election officials in several heavily Republican areas of Michigan said that among the early absentee ballots coming into their offices, Democratic ballots are nearly as numerous as Republican ballots.

"I'm finding out there are some Democrats in Holland," said Anne Perales, the Ottawa County community's acting deputy clerk. The area is among Michigan's most conservative; in 2006, losing Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos got 65 percent of the vote in Ottawa County, his best showing in the state. But Perales said Democratic absentee ballots are coming in at nearly the same rate as Republican ballots.

In the Wayne County GOP stronghold of Livonia, Clerk Linda Grimsby said roughly half of the 600-plus absentee ballots returned so far were Democratic. And in Republican-heavy Livingston County, Hamburg Township Clerk Joanna Hardesty said she was seeing more Republican ballots, but not by the overwhelming number she had expected.

"Some of the comments I'm hearing are that it's just going to be a bigger Democratic turnout," Hardesty said.

Political officials caution that early absentee returns are not necessarily a perfect indicator of total turnout on election day. And even if Democrats do turn up in surprising numbers, it's not clear why. Nationally, polls show Democrats are much more excited about their field of candidates than Republicans, and it's possible that enthusiasm has carried over into Michigan, despite the candidate boycott.

Another deadline comes today, the end of a 30-day period during which national Democratic officials had hoped Michigan would reverse its decision to hold the January primary. With expiration of that deadline, the national party will formally penalize Michigan by barring the state's delegation from the national convention in August.

Brewer repeated Friday that the state party will not back down -- and that he, like other Democratic leaders, expects the state delegation to eventually be seated, despite the ban.

Sounds like nobody knows what will happen but essentially it wouldn't be that hard to turn a Clinton 'win' into a Clinton 'loss.'
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art icle?AID=2008801050344



Display:


Re: Clinton May Lose Michigan to Uncommtted (none / 0)

Thanks, I learned a lot from that.  I can't help thinking that the pollster Sarpolus is putting the bar a little  high  for Sen. Clinton.  I wonder haw he came  up with that number.


by Satya on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:53:11 PM EST

Re: Clinton May Lose Michigan to Uncommtted (none / 0)

Where do you think the bar should be in this situation?

BTW, how easy is it for Dems and independents to vote the GOP primary? In the past organized labor pushed members to vote in the GOP primary to mess with GWB.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton May Lose Michigan to Uncommtted (none / 0)

I have no idea where the bar should be and I'm not familiar with Michigan voting.

But I'm guessing that anyone thinking about voting in the primary and favoring a candidate other than Sen. Clinton, knows they should vote uncommitted.   And based on the organizational abilities of the Obama campaign and the devotion of Edwards supporters, I would think there is 50% at least uncommitted right there.

So I confess to my ignorance.  I am also happy with the pollster's number because I am an Obama supporter, have the feeling Sen. Clinton will get less than 50% and wouldn't mind if that is perceived for whatever reason as a horrific loss for her campaign.


by Satya on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not seating delegates (none / 0)

If there was a platform issue that had special importance for Michigan, like CAFE standards, would it be right to hold a vote if Michigan got no delegates?

Part of me says the Michigan Dems decided to violate the rules knowing the consequences, but part of me says the rules were intrinsically unfair and arbitrary.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST

Re: Clinton May Lose Michigan to Uncommtted (none / 0)

There is absolutely no rule that says the candidates shouldn't be on the ballot.  They haven't even tried to take their names off the Florida ballot, which is the exact same situation.

Michigan may not get any delegates, but the Democratic voters of that state have done nothing wrong and at least deserve a chance to express their preference.


"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 Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:09:46 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.