Michigan Results Reveal Some Dangerous Trends For Clinton

The Michigan Democratic primary was on the surface a non-event. The national party has ruled the state's delegation will not be seated. Of the major candidates, only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot, pitted against "uncommitted" in a seemingly meaningless race (she won by 15 percent).

Yet the exit poll results from this strange contest reveal some troubling trends for the New York Senator.

Among men, for example, the battle was neck and neck. Clinton got 47 percent and the anonymous/non-existent opposition got 43 percent. (Clinton did substantially better among women, winning 58-37.)

The opposition was not, however, altogether ethereal. For the most part, voting "uncommitted" was a substitute for casting a ballot for Barack Obama, or for some voters, John Edwards.

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.

Clinton continued to do well among the least well-educated voters and those with lower incomes. She carried voters without college degrees by 55-37, but tied among those with college degrees, 46-45. Clinton also won voters making $50,000 or less by 60-34, but tied among those making more, 46-45.

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.

(To see exit poll data for the Republican race, click here.)

Comments

[nynick]

I know Huffpo is enamored of the Big O but let's not read too much into the results of Michigan. First of all, any idea what the turnout was? My guess? Very low. So what does it tell us? My guess? Not much.

[dr4Will]

another ali-bama publicist spreads his crap--sick huff post bloggers who are so politically correct--go Hillary-beat the cowards--

[buckbuck11]

The Michigan Primary WAS a non-event. Period. Any attempt to read your wishful into these results is pure tomfoolery, with, perhaps, a dash of wishful thinking.

[tcbwriter]

This is one of the dumbest articles I've read yet. Thomas Edsal's logic (or lack thereof) isn't much different than that of Chris Matthews and other so-called pundits before & after the NH Primary.

How 'bout we just vote and when it's all over you tell us who won?

Please?

[jeffwtux]

The dangerous trend is for the DEMs in Michigan not just Hillary. They have alienated and disenfranchised the poorest state, the state they should be WANTING to campaign in not making excuses(all of which are bogus) to avoid it.
If you care about the poor, you campaign where they are, NO MATTER WHAT. If the primary process agreements say you can't, then you BREAK THE AGREEMENTS. They primary process is already broken beyond repair. I've RUTHLESSLY HARASSED both the DNC and the Obama campaign about this and they are proud that they screwed Michigan. I hope they are still proud when Mitt Romney wins the election because he wins Michigan.

[tkk]

I never realized how misleading liberal blogs are until this campaign started. On Raw Story the headline is "44% of Democrats Vote Against Hillary Clinton."

Now, if Obama had won, they would have said "Obama wins by 56%!"

She won didn't she, and as one person mentioned she didn't even go to MI to campaign.

Obama is a bad man.

[mikal214]

There is no story here. Nobody even ran in that state. Nobody was on the ballot but Clinton. There was a minor effort to have people vote Undecided to embarrass her, that didn't fly. Get a life man.

"Grasping at straws to make Hillary look bad." That's the Huffpo way!

[raptor]

The last time my wife (a newspaper editor) and I complained to a journalism professor about the poor quality of reporters being produced by journalism colleges, he replied that the facilty's main task was to get the students from the entrance to the exit with a degree as fast as possible and with the minimum fuss. If this post were a lesson plan, I see no end to that trend.

[Dandy12]

Even though the primaries serve as a testing ground, one should also look at them as somewhat of an anomoly and put them in the correct context, or as somewhat premature isolated events, with factors in conjunction with them that would not correspond to a general election.

[criscokid]

Rather than just looking at the percentages, why not look at the actual number of votes cast?

Romney -- 337,847
Clinton -- 328,151
Uncommitted Democrats -- 236,723
Exit polls -- 997 (since you are basing your comparisons on CNN's exit polls)

Clinton did well considering she didn't spend time or money in MI. She received more votes than the other Republican candidates, and we've all heard how much time and money the Republicans have spent campaigning in MI.

[shinybear]

The reaction from Clinton supporters to the Michigan primary results reminds me of Saddam Hussein's last election in Iraq. Remember? All of his people enthusiastically pointing to their unopposed ruler's "win" as a sign that their "democray" loved him!

Most of the Michigan Dems voted Romney in the Republican race or voted uncommited if they bothered to vote at all.

I knew the Clinton's would try to spin this idiocy into a "victory". Why isn't Clinton being punished by the party for allowing her name to be on what is essentially an illegal primary to begin with?

Whatever happens, the DNC should not allow these votes to be allowed into the convention- Clinton had a clear and unfair advantage and she broke the rules to get it.

Why am I not surprised?

[ConcernAmerican]

This header for the news is misleading to the nth degree like CNN. 55% voted for Hillary, 41% were uncommitted. If lets say 75% of the uncommitted voted for Obama, Hillary still win the election.

Hillary made the right decision not abandoning the voters in Michigan, they MATTER; even if the said vote don't mean anything when it comes to delegation for the convention. Obama and Edwards shouldn't have withdrawn their name from the ballot, they should have stand up WITH THE PEPOPLE of Michigan.

To the pundits, this is bad for Hillary Clinton but to a lot of people it shows her willingness to go against the DNC and stand up WITH the people of Michigan. I applaud her for doing that. At the end of the day, it is the PEOPLE that MATTERS not your political party.

[CookieWrites]

What a silly analysis. A lot of those non-Hillary votes may have been a protest by Democrats because everyone was not given a choice of candidates. Did anyone poll for that bit of data?

[desertdweller]

Whoa Nelly! Let's not be so quick to presume the intentions of African American voters nationwide based on the Michigan numbers.

[Openeyes]

Good post. One minor technical point. California does not have true open primaries, it has a "modified" open primary system. The parties must agree to allow "decline to state" voters to vote in their primary. The Democratic Party and the American Independent Party have done so, the Republican Party has not. So for the Dems, independents will be able to vote for Democratic Party candidates in the primary, but that is not true for Republican candidates, and Republican voters cannot vote for Demcratic candidates, because they are not "decline to state" voters. See the Calif. Secretary of State webpage for more info at www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm