Michigan "undeclared" votes (0.00 / 0)

Chris,
A small point/question.  Is it reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of Michigan primary voters will vote for "undeclared" (or whatever the alternative to Clinton is), which would mean that Clinton will only get the remaining percentage of delegates, not 100%?  And does anyone know if there's any effort in that state to encourage Dems to vote that way?

Also, do you or anyone else have any thoughts on how "Super Delegates" would be inclined to vote if the delegate count remains close up to the convention, while Edwards gains a significant delegate count and then throws his support to Obama?  I know that's a pretty hypothetical question, but it seems possible that things could end up more or less that way.

---

by: mitchipd @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 19:17:02 PM UTC

Conyers is taking out radio ads (0.00 / 0)

And considering TV ads to get people to go "uncommitted" (Conyers has endorsed Obama).

I would imagine David Bonior will make a similar effort--at least to get his allies in the state to push uncommitted.

I've heard some inklings that the unions are encouraging an "uncommitted" vote.

I don't think anyone has any clue what will happen in MI--I know I don't. Yes, Hillary will win, but beyond that, I have no clue and no one else does either. I do think it's possible that the low information voters will vote in the Republican primary--where even Huck is apparently gaining some energy and where McCain did great with cross-over voters in 2000. Which would leave the high information voters--the party activists who know what "uncommitted" means--to vote in the Democratic primary.

---

by: emptywheel @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 22:12:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unpledged Delegates (0.00 / 0)

Could you put the TOTAL delegate #'s for delegates, esp. for unpledged Dem delegates?  I understand that most of them remain on the fence, and it would be helpful to know what proportion of them have committed to who. (To whom?)

Also, don't the Republicans have a winner-take-all system in many Feb 5 states, at least CA?  Doesn't this at least make it more likely that they'll have a prohibitive front runner at least after that day, where Democrats might still have an open race?

Great to see the at-a-glance charts again!

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 19:25:45 PM UTC

Chris, you are obsessed with Michigan (4.00 / 1)

It is not going to make one bit of difference.  Especially with Clinton as the only one on the ballot.  Hell, look how the media treated Romney's win in Wyoming, and that was actually a real contest...

---

by: moreaxe @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 19:40:04 PM UTC

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

Clinton can only lose in Michigan. Even if she receives every single ballot cast the media will ignore it. But if there is an embarrassing number of undeclared votes she'll have a night of bad press.

---

by: Jack @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 19:56:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good point! (0.00 / 0)

Any significant number of "undeclared" will be spun as a rejection of Clinton...

---

by: moreaxe @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:36:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny thing.... (0.00 / 0)

I believe it was MSNBC the other day - they did some graphic thing where they flashed each of their icons for the primaries - Iowa, NH, Nevada, SC, Florida - but no Wyoming or Michigan.

But Michigan is important on the Republican side - which may lead to more frequent mention of it re: the Dems.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:18:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

But after yesterday, I'm not ruling anything out.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:31:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um, yes you are (4.00 / 2)

You're ruling out the possibility that a significant number of delegates will go uncommitted.

You're ruling out the possibility that Hillary will not count these delegates, even to claim victory after Super Tuesday, because to do so would really set off a clusterfuck in the party (her own campaign is not now talking about it).

And you're ruling out the by far most likely possibility--that everyone will ignore these numbers and all MI's delegates will go to the eventual nominee.

---

by: emptywheel @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 22:05:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nevada (4.00 / 1)

I would bet - if betting on political outcomes weren't completely stupid (see last night)- that Romney wins Nevada. It has similarities to Wyoming, his only win thus far: Western state, Mormons, and it's a caucus, where Republican activists, who obviously like Romney way more than regular voters, will dominate. Michigan and South Carolina are better states for McCain, if simply because they're open primaries.

---

by: Shawn @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 19:53:05 PM UTC

Nevada Debate (4.00 / 1)

If I understand correctly the MSNBC Democratic debate will be held at the same time that voters would be watching the Michigan results come in. Additionally, all of the media is already saying that Michigan doesn't matter a bit. Michigan will not affect the nomination.

---

by: StrawMan @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 19:57:12 PM UTC

Haven't we learned any lessons here? (0.00 / 0)

Name one poll that was right?
Maybe some actual issues debate? Enough of the arm chair politics

---

by: wrensis @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:00:49 PM UTC

How about every poll ever (0.00 / 0)

Except for NH in 2008.
Ok, not every poll ever... but how often are they this wrong? Almost never.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:21:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It sounds like an Obama win is now pretty far fetched? (4.00 / 1)

Am I interpreting that right?
(and progressivesouls, please don't jump in here with some cliche pointless yay-clinton statement per usual)

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:10:51 PM UTC

no (0.00 / 0)

Clinton is favored again, but Obama has a very real chance. After Iowa a lot of people are taking a very serious look at him. I think he would have to substantively flesh out what he means by change to win. I don't see how he can do it given little time and it is tough to get a substantive message out going forward, but I didn't think he could get the kids out to vote in Iowa and he did. He has money, he has a lot of support, he could break through.

---

by: souvarine @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:21:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I woulnd't count him out yet (0.00 / 0)

This was not a devastating defeat for Obama - just a mild, but very unexpected defeat. Nevada is hard to call, mainly because there is no polling. But he does have the endorsement of the two biggest unions in the state.
He is still ahead in SC, and the impression I get from most folks is that this lead will hold even with a Nevada loss.

Florida will be a big deal, but if Edwards sticks around (he swears he will) then he will remain a wildcard into and perhaps beyond Feb 5. At any point he chooses, he can endorse Obama and, in theory, push him up beyond Clinton in most states. If he does this between Florida and Feb 5, this could keep Obama in the game indefinitely - as it is unlikely either Obama or Clinton would have a insurmountable lead in delegates after Feb 5.

If Obama somehow wins Florida and/or gets an Edwards endorsement before Feb 5, then he will stand a damn good chance of getting the nomination. His chances will only improve with a Nevada win, and a SC win is likely and porbably necessary.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:28:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It looks like Edwards is going to have a very interesting choice after Florida and before Feb 5th. (4.00 / 1)

Because if he doesn't endorse before Feb 5th, and Obama takes say 40% of the vote/delegates on that day to Clinton's 60%, it becomes too late to help Obama, by endorsing, by pledging delegates, whatever.

If there is a clear winner on Feb 5th, and that person is Clinton, then no machinations by Edwards will be permitted to take it away from her.  The press and establishment don't care for Edwards, and any deal that he makes with Obama (which would include, almost of necessity, some payoff for him explicit or implicit) will be portrayed in the very most negative light possible, so as to deprive him of the power associated with the kingmaker role.  The press and establishment are not going to let someone of Edwards' profile take a win away from someone of Clinton's profile, so if he makes a deal that can be portrayed in any way as "overriding the will of the voters (as expressed on Feb 5th)," that deal will be portrayed as stinking to high heaven and will be used to smash Obama as well as Edwards.

Now, a deal made before that fateful day doesn't override the will of the voters, it just influences the will of the voters.  That's different.  That would just be reported as news.

Now, Edwards' role is actually more powerful if Clinton and Obama both take say 45% on Feb 5th, and he gets to literally be the kingmaker without it being portrayable as illegitimate.  But if he waits and lets the voting proceed, he runs the risk of an outcome where he has zero power, instead of maximum power.

High reward but very very high risk for waiting.

And he'll probably rely on the polls heading out of Florida and into Feb 5th, which we can only hope are more accurate than the NH polls.

This is presuming, of course, that the campaign looks on Feb 5th like we mostly expect it will now.  Who knows though?

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 22:39:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not that my predictions have been worth anything yet... (0.00 / 0)

...but I can't see anything other than a Huckabee win in South Carolina with all those evangelicals. It probably comes down to McCain versus Romney in Michigan and NV then the winner versus Huckabee in Florida. The winner there probably takes the nomination.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:48:16 PM UTC

Thoughts from Michigan (4.00 / 1)

Michigan's impact on the Democratic race is tough to predict, and I don't claim any special knowledge (besides living there). But here are my thoughts.

- Clinton will win Michigan. That much is obvious.

- "Uncommitted" may get a significant number of votes. I'd love to see 40%+, I'm afraid that it'll be something pitiful like 5%, and I'm expecting somewhere in the range of 15-25%. Again, no special knowledge, just a gut feeling.

- CNN and MSNBC, from what I've seen, have been very good at pointing out that Michigan and Florida's delegates will not be seated, following the DNC's decision. (They haven't been good at mentioning the reality that eventually, when the delegates don't matter anymore, they will be seated, but that's not important.)

- If people know that Michigan doesn't really matter, then they won't be counting those 128 delegates, but they will be listening to media spin.

- Clinton's spin will be that Michigan is another victory, and she's ready to lead, etc. and that the enormous margin is just evidence of that. They'll claim that "Uncommitted" is Obama+Edwards+Richardson, and she still claimed a majority.

- Obama's spin will be that Michigan is a beauty contest, Clinton is the only serious candidate on the ballot, and X percent of Michigan Democrats voted the equivalent of "None of the Above." They'll ask, "How can she expect to win in November if X percent of Michigan Democrats won't support her when she's the only one on the ballot?"

So which of those narratives wins? If Obama had won NH, I would have said that, because the media likes to stick to their "X is winning!" story. But Clinton's victory makes it very clearly a two-person race, which means it comes down to whose spin is stronger. My guess? Clinton gets a tiny boost from it.

Will that really matter much in the end? Not really. But it's something that'll be talked about for five minutes every day on CNN for a few days, and will be one (minor) factor toward momentum for Nevada and South Carolina. I think it'll be mostly overshadowed by the GOP primary, but it'll matter a little bit.

Of course, I also don't think the Nevada Democratic caucuses will matter much. No one's going to talk about it when there's an exciting South Carolina GOP primary the same night. South Carolina, I think, will be everything for McCain, Huckabee, and (to a lesser extent) Romney.

That's my take, for whatever it's worth.

---

by: Fitzy @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 20:51:59 PM UTC

Are Nevada and South Carolina the same night? (0.00 / 0)

Did I miss something?

Nevada is the 19th I think... when is SC?  Florida is the 29th.

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 22:41:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

SC is the 26th. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 22:41:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOP vs. Dem (0.00 / 0)

The Democratic primary in South Carolina is on the 26th, but the Republican primary in South Carolina is on the 19th, same as both D and R Nevada caucuses.

http://en.wikipedia....
http://en.wikipedia....

---

by: Fitzy @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:08:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uhhh, the Louisiana primary for both parties is Feb 9th (0.00 / 0)

Don't know where you're getting your information from, Chris.  But you might want to check out this compilation from Wikipedia. 

---

by: Ryan @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:31:52 AM UTC

Couple of erros in the tables (0.00 / 0)

I think you have Richardson and Kucinich in the wrong order - Kucinich doesn't have that many superdelegates. Not that it matters much with Richardson dropping out, of course.

I'd also argue that Paul has a better shot at success than Thompson. Thompson was beaten by write-ins in NH. Frequent mention of this by campaign strategists on TV could probably kill his numbers, to the extent that they aren't already dead.

And won't FL count for some delegates on the Republican side? I thought they only threatened to take half of them away.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM UTC