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

[syzito]

All of the democrats in this presidential race are socialist at heart believing the USA would be better if our personal freedoms where limited by the feds.Hillary is the worst of the pack.

[AxelDC]

Clinton is obviously a lousy choice for the Democrats. The primary system is playing Delay's scheme of "the majority of the majority", where a mere majority of 1/3 of the voters is choosing the next president. Hillary is losing badly among independents, people with college degrees, and young people. She is winning heavily among older, white, less educated women who feel sorry for her.

Many of the groups she is losing could vote against her in the fall, causing what should be a Democratic tsunami to turn into a GOP revival, one that is bad for the US. Worse, she is alienating the most solid Democratic base, the black community. It is doubtful they will vote for one of the racists on the GOP, but Clinton's soft racism may keep them on the sidelines, depressing not only her vote, but the votes of other Democratic candidates.

Democrats blew it in 2004 by nominating such a weak candidate to take down a vulnerable and unpopular president. He almost won inspite of himself. Now they have a fantastic candidate to unite the country both racially and politically, and they are flirting with an unpopular, divisive woman who will lose many of her own party's votes and be defeated this fall by independents angry with Republicans, but not at all thrilled with another 4 years of Clinton.

[Terror Cheese]

So, even when Clinton wins, she loses? The contorted logic of this post is mind-boggling. But this is what I've come to expect from the ObamaPost -- enthusiastic trashing of Clinton and over-the-top spin for Chosen One.

You used to be a top political reporter once, Edsall. I know that's damning with faint praise since your profession is in utter disrepute. You could try to hark back to those days, however, when you at least PRETENDED to be an impartial observer of events, rather than a shill for your employer's favored candidate.

[midtown]

The Las Vegas Review Journal backs Obama, but it is one hell of a dishing of all the candidates:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.html

[VivaZapata]

I'm not sure we should trust the polls, but she won't get the majority vote in the national elections. McCain would landslide her.

[ibsteve2u]

The fact that HRC's name was even available to vote upon speaks volumes about her intentions and motivations.

What is the most distinguishing feature of this current Administration? In my opinion, it is their treatment of the law.

To them, all laws that help them in their goals are absolutely necessary even if they conflict with the Constitution, but all laws that hinder them in their goals can be evaded by "executive order" or a "signing statement", or simply ignored.

So what happens when the first real test of "law" - as laid down by the Democratic Party that HRC purports to be a member of - comes before the Democratic candidates?

Edwards and Obama enforce the "law", and HRC totally ignores it.

Not good...will an imperial Clinton be any better than an imperial Bush?

[MadamRoma]

Well I see the rocks in Edsall's head have not gotten any smarter, what a gasbag.

[PolNut]

Didn't I just sign an anti-Pollster Petition for Ms. Huffington? What is the significance of the Petition; polls are out for everyone contesting the Presidential elections except Hillary Clinton? That's wrong.

You know what lay idiots like me saw from the results of the Michigan non-contest? 56% people actually trudged to a polling booth to cast their ballots in her favor, when they didn't need to. The "uncommitted" tally is lower than her committed votes - to me, that indicates that she has many more dedicated supporters than detractors. But then, that's just me; an unsophisticated, regular "Joan", not cognizant of all the hocus-pocus that makes for political victories!

[sky2evan]

I don't see how this is a WIN at all for Clinton. When you can get barely more than 50% of the votes from people in your OWN Party in an uncontested election... how do you think she'll perform in a general election where EVERYBODY can vote?

If Clinton is the nominee in the general, she will get nailed.

[imperfectfilms]

"...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10th, 2002

"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

-- Barack Obama, October 2, 2002

[degjack]

Oh shut up!

[mamacat]

NH proved the worth of polls, have we forgotten so soon?

[SuburbanMalcontent]

Oh yeah, and since when is the independent viewpoint of a blogger automatically the sole opinion of the site's creator? I find it very odd that if anybody on this site criticizes your dear leader, the piranhas go into an Arianna feeding frenzy! The loonies really are taking over.

[SuburbanMalcontent]

Holy Christ, the Clinton Kool-Aiders have infected this entire thread! Take a deep breath people. Sure, reading polls this year is about as reliable as reading tarot cards, but there is something to be said that people under the age of 40 get a bad taste in their mouths when it comes to Hill-Bill. Just out of curiousity, what is it about her that makes all you acolytes so insane for her? I mean, seriously, I've gotten more inspiration from a $0.50 cup of coffee. And contrary to popular belief, she really hasn't done much when it comes to policy. Unless your hell bent on stopping flag burning and violent video games. Oh, and supporting nutjobs like Lieberman. She loves that.

And for all you nutjobs who will automatically assume I'm a crazed Obama fan, you're wrong. Will I vote for him? Probably. Would I like someone else? You bet your a$$. And his name ends in "ore".

[USMC1980]

I love how Hillary won this primary (whether it counts or not) and yet moron's like Edsall are trying to claim that her winning is somehow "bad for her".

Dude, your a loser. She won, and she bested Obama and Edwards tonight. She is going to get the nomination, grow up and deal with reality.