And somewhere in between, there was a Michigan primary

Can anyone explain to me why Clinton was the only Dem running here, moving itself from super tuesday just doesnt seem like a good reason to boycott at least not a good reason for people with gigantic campaign funds.

Other then that not surprisingly the republican promising greater government intervention into the economy won here; round 2.5 goes to Romney.


Romney takes his first win in Michigan primary

So long as Ron Paul doesn´t win a state, I´m happy.

They don't get any delegates. It doesn't matter.

Is the risk of a mental disorder from non stop euphoria worth it?

That hasnt stripped the people of Michigan from the ballot box, Boycotting the state to help in their personal primaries could very well bite a presidential bid in the ass come election time.

You mean because they didn't go there to campaign? To be frank, that'll probably be one of the first places they visit post nomination. Right now it doesn't matter. The primaries are so fierce this year the violation and subsequent denial of delegates allows them to use the rest of their remaining time more effectively (which is ironic stating it that way since it's only January, but that's what the presidential campaign has become--like it or not). They will not be ignoring MI. I can guarantee you that. There have way too many EC votes to just blow them off.

I think he's right, actually. I suspect the Democrats have lost Michigan in the general because of that dumbshit decision to strip them of their delegates.

I didn't vote yesterday because I wasn't sure what the hell was going on.
Apparently 40% of people voted uncommitted.

When the DNC announced it was stripping Michigan's delegates, they made vague threats of penalizing candidates that campaigned in Michigan.

Obama and Edwards (along with Biden and Richardson) bowed to the wishes of the DNC and withdrew their names from the ballot.

At the time, Clinton was still the "inevitable" front runner, so she didn't think anything as feeble as a DNC wristslap could derail her campaign. So while she didn't campaign in Michigan, she remained on the ballot.

Chris Dodd kept his name on the ballot to protest the DNC's decision.

Hilariously, Dennis Kucinich tried to remove his name from the ballot but fucked up the paperwork required to do so. He then decided to campaign in Michigan anyway.

The Clinton campaign should be concerned, the CNN exit poll does not look good for her.

Gender_________Clinton________Uncommitted
Male (43%)______51%___________43%
Female (57%)____60%___________36%

Age___________Clinton________Uncommitted
18 - 29 (17%) ____43%_________48%
30 - 44 (26%)____49%_________47%
45 - 59 (32%)____59%_________34%
60 +__ (26%)_ ___68%_________31%

Income_________Clinton________Uncommitted
<100,000 (83%)___58%__________38%
>100,000 (17%)___44%__________50%

Party ID_________Clinton________Uncommitted
Democrat (79%)___60%________36%
Independent (18%)_37%________51%
Republican (0%)___0%_________0%

Have I got it right, that in Michigan a voter can vote in either party caucus regardless of their declared affiliation?

Either way, that's a lot of people choosing to vote non-Clinton.

You honestly think Democrats and Independents are going to vote Republican just to get back at the party for not letting their delegates sit? I think you're giving the average voter way too much credit not to mention dialing up the pettiness factor a bit. Moreover, anyone actually paying attention realizes this is a fight between the party and the state, and is not an attempt to prevent them from voting, so it's not clear why exactly they would retaliate against the party. Being an ex-voter from Michigan, I can guarantee you I would not be cutting of my nose to spite my face, if I was voting there in the next election. I just don't get where either of you are coming from, perhaps elaborate?

Keep in mind the last presidential election that MI gave electoral votes to a Republican candidate was in 1988. They've been solidly Democratic since.

[side note: as I went back and looked up all the electoral college votes since 1960's, I noticed that Clinton was the first real Democratic contender since 1964. That's kinda sad.]

I wouldn't put it past some voters. For one thing, it was an enormous and entirely unnecessary insult. For another, the winner of the primary there was Mitt "Your-Auto-Worker-Jobs-Are-Coming-Back-Because-I'll-Be-Deregulating-the-Industry" Romney. That doesn't bespeak of a lot of political maturity.

You wouldn't. Many, probably most people wouldn't. That doesn't mean that the minority of people who would won't prove large enough to swing the state to the Republicans.

How solidly Democratic is the question.

Dude, everything was so fucking confusing. Everyone would tell you something completely different. Local news had different info than CNN. None of my friends or co-workers really knew what was going on.
Just about the only thing I understood was that Obama wasn't on the ballot and I sure as shit wasn't voting for Clinton, so I didn't vote at all. I didn't know about the whole uncommitted thing. And as I was told, none of it matters anyway since our delegates won't be sent out.
I think the whole thing was needlessly complicated and screwed up a lot of people.

I don't disagree. The main thing is, I'm pissed at the DNC for barring Michigan's delegates from the Convention, and I live in Washington. I can't even imagine the circumstances under which I personally would be pissed enough to vote for a Republican, but if I were a moderate instead of a radical, I might be tempted.

If you are told, repeatedly not to do something, and you go ahead and do it, there are repercussions. Michigan were warned and went ahead anyway. It was foolish.

On the other hand, Michigan and other states have been demanding that the DNC change the primary process, because the very white states of Iowa and NH have been leading the way for so long, without good reason. Michigan threatened to make a change in 2000 and 2004 and both times were told by the DNC that the issue would be addressed. It was not.

This time around, Michigan agreed not to change their date as long as Iowa and NH did not move theirs up. When those two states did, Michigan reacted. It was a poor decisions for Michigan, but should have a net positive effect in the long run. The Democratic convention will be a nightmare and hopefully this problem will lead to some sort of rotation policy.

But this is just not a black and white situation. Both sides erred.

UK press commentary.

Notably:

(my emphasis) (Edit: I cannot add emphasis here. I though it was to do with replying, for a long time. Evidently not. Meh.

What I wanted to emphasise was this quote:
"... [Romney] drew most support from "country-club" Republicans who still feel favourably about President George Bush ...")

(my emphasis)

2004: Kerry won by 165,437 votes with Nader taking ~24,000 out of 4,839,252 (that's with over 60% voter turnout).

2000: Gore won by 217,279 votes out of 4,232,711.

1996: Clinton by 508,441 votes with Perot taking ~300,000 out of 3,848,844.

1992: Clinton by 316,242 votes with Perot taking ~824,000 out of 4,274,643.

The percentages the Democratic candidates won by would be 3.4%, 5.1%, 13%, and 7% respectively.

I don't know if that counts as significant. Certainly, Clinton's two elections do. But the lower 3.4% can be chalked up to a Wartime President vote and a very uncharismatic Kerry. I think the 5.1% for Gore is pretty significant.

Anyway, you know I hate making predictions but I'm just not convinced this is going to make that big of a deal. The biggest factor is whether or not Michiganders will attribute their current very shitty economy to Bush or not, and whether or not the believe a Democratic candidate can alleviate it. I really don't see the denial of delegates playing that big of a factor or really a factor at all. But hey, I've been known to be wrong.

Dude, WE GOT 8%!

Next stop...White House.

But really, where have all these Ronpalumpas gone now that reality has set in?

I think the impact of the delegate-stripping on the General Election will be negligible, but for what it's worth, Florida is in the same situation, and that state most definitely will be in play.

I think the delegate stripping will not go down as promised.

People (Democrats at least) aren't campaigning in Florida - they agreed to boycott the race.

Or at least that was the original pledge; the Obama camp charges that Clinton shows signs of violating the agreement by inquiring about holding a rally.

The same people who voted for Romney are the same people that voted for Dick DeVos for governor. That didn't work either.

It will hurt the underdogs though. Otherwise, Hilary "No Scruples" Clinton could possibly get ~250 "freebie" delegates. I mean hell, we minus as well just give her the nomination now.

It will, indeed. But the talk coming out of the DNC is not as rigid as you would think. The Michigan and Florida delegates will be there, on the floor, making noise. It's not like they are paper in a box, they are living, breathing people. It is going to be messy, as the heavy hitters from Michigan are already saying they will be counted.

Right, but the question is who should/do they represent if not all names were on the ballots? Do they just get to choose regardless of the inadequate outcome who they're going to "make noise" for? I mean...either they get their representation or they don't, and at this point it'd be unfair to give them their representation since it'd only penalize those who played by the rules--assuming their role makes any type of logical since if they do in fact have any type of official role.