So you're saying that Edwards... (0.00 / 0)

...got zero African American votes?

---

by: trillian @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:00:12 AM UTC

No (0.00 / 0)

But I have no doubt he got less than Clinton.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:03:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then... (4.00 / 2)

that 69% is split between Obama and Edwards....not all for Obama

---

by: trillian @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:10:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um, got a calculator handy? (0.00 / 0)

Let's see, if Edwards got less than Hillary's 25%, then that means that at most he got 24%. 69% - 24% = 45%, right? I assume that the remaining 6% (100% - 25% - 69%) is split among supporters of Kucinich, the candidates who dropped out, and perhaps Mickey Mouse. If these assumptions are correct, then Obama got 45% or more of the vote, to Hillary's 25%. I'd call that a trouncing. And I suspect that the effects of the recent race-baiting brouhaha, which can't possibly favor Clinton,  have yet to fully play out and become apparent in the polls.

No one's counting Edwards out, but it seems clear to me that Obama did best tonight, by far.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:56:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama got almost 75% of all uncommitteds (0.00 / 0)

According to CNN (their ticker said it last night. The way their website showed the exit poll data it was hard to confirm). I would guess that percentage would be even higher among African Americans who voted uncommitted. So Edwards probably got some African Americans, but probably not that many. The way the CNN breaks down the exit poll on the website, it's impossible to tell, but I think it's fair to say that if Obama got almost 3/4 of the total uncommitted vote, he probably got the lion's share of African Americans who voted uncommitted.

---

by: democrattotheend @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 14:18:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you (0.00 / 0)

really surprised about Obama getting the black vote?  Why?  If you think that's amazing, wait until you count the white vote in lots of the south.

---

by: RalphB @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:20:15 AM UTC

What a ridiculous statement (0.00 / 0)

If he can trounce Clinton among African-Americans without even being on the ballot, it seems that Obama has solidified African-Americans behind him nationwide.

You can't possibly generalize what happened in Michigan to the rest of the country.  Get a hold of yourself.

---

by: corinne @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:24:06 AM UTC

Au contraire (0.00 / 0)

What we are likely seeing is the most active and knowledgeable voters of all demographics, since the vote was not really contested.  In other words, the folks who always vote because they always vote.  What is most likely is that these spreads hold in more actively contested areas, because of word of mouth among family, friends and coworkers and active canvassing.

I think it's fair to say two things.  One, Black people tend to have many personal experiences with white insincerity in their lives and are pretty good at detecting same (not so much from Hillary personally but from her surrogates) and they were reluctant at first to get behind Obama because of fear that he couldn't win. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:23:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Come on (0.00 / 0)

You can also reasonably argue that many African Americans who are Clinton supporters did not turn out to vote. seriously chris?

---

by: thechairman66 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:54:57 AM UTC

no, you come on (0.00 / 0)

you could also reasonably argue many African Americans who are Obama suppoters did not turn out to vote.

---

by: the new @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:58:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

You could argue that and under Chris' logic you could be right or I could be right. But either way is highly speculative which is why this post is ridiculous.

---

by: thechairman66 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:35:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And you could argue that Martians invaded the earth (4.00 / 1)

Come on, what plausible scenario would cause supporters of one of the two front-runners to not vote, and the others to vote? Sure, it COULD happen, but that's really grasping absent hard evidence that it did happen.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:58:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's plenty of reasons voters might not vote (0.00 / 0)

- If you think that the MI primary is irrelevant because of the DNC sanction you might not vote

- If you now that Clinton is going to win you might stay home.

Not everyone is a committed political activist like you, me , or other people who regularly read political blogs. I'm amazed that you find this surprising.

---

by: thechairman66 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:01:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well... (0.00 / 0)

What did happen was that Hillary got burned in one particular category, in all likelihood by Obama, unless Edwards outperformed among AAs in Michigan without ever setting foot in the state

---

by: Max Fletcher @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:26:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scoreboard (0.00 / 0)

You know what else happened. Barack Obama and John Edwards got burned in the most important section...total votes.

---

by: thechairman66 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:03:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And Chris, he campaigned! (4.00 / 1)

His campaign mounted a fairly serious effort for uncomitted - that has to be taken into consideration.

---

by: tomwatson @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:58:28 AM UTC

The more interesting story here is that "uncommitted"... (0.00 / 0)

won one county and held Clinton below sixty in a SLEW of other counties in the state.  Michigan is a huge state:  there are rural areas in the UP and the upper part of the lower peninsula where "uncommitted" is giving Clinton a run for her money.  "Uncommitted" held Clinton to below fifty in a tiny rural county in Northwest lower Michigan.  I left the state over 25 years ago -- the economy has been bad for a LONG time -- but I visit every summer and move around the lower peninsula.  I was fairly dispirited after New Hampshire, but I'm thrilled to scroll to the county results tonight for the Dem prez primary and see how well my candidate, "uncommitted," is doing ALL over the state, not just in Detroit and  on the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus!

---

by: BEmama @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:23:16 AM UTC

7% (0.00 / 0)

Only 7% voting turn out.

---

by: trillian @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:32:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Spin it any way you want (4.00 / 1)

Spin it anyway you want but Clinton cleaned up tonight with nearly 60 percent of the vote. Facts are facts no matter what silver lining you look for.

Besides I don't buy this "uncommitted held her to" argument. Uncommitted didn't hold her to anything. If a person likes Obama then they're not going to vote for Clinton just because her name is on the ballot. Besides mydd has the CNN exit polls and Clinton STILL wins against all other candidates:

Clinton 46
Obama 35
Edwards 12
Kucinich 2

http://mydd.com/stor...

---

by: thechairman66 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:41:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

From that data you posted, (4.00 / 1)

you just killed your argument that if someone didn't support her they wouldn't vote for her. Obviously, some people who supported other candidates voted for her. I would venture to guess that Obama and Edwards would have done significantly better if all the choices were on the ballot.

---

by: StrawMan @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:48:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're discussing her share of the African-American vote (0.00 / 0)

not Democrats in general.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:00:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read the original post (0.00 / 0)

The post I'm responding to talked about uncommitted's share of the vote. Come on guy, it's not that hard to scroll up.

---

by: thechairman66 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:04:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And for those 7% (0.00 / 0)

on a cold and snowy day, but motivated by civic duty, they didn't pull the lever for only candidates with names.....

---

by: BEmama @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:34:27 AM UTC

Clinton also lost youth vote (4.00 / 1)

Clinton also lost the youth vote, both the 18 - 24 and 25 - 29 demographics to "uncommitted."

Youth To Power: How Today's Young Voters Are Building Tomorrow's Progressive Majority

---

by: Michael Connery @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:54:54 AM UTC

Non-white women. (0.00 / 0)

Clinton lost Non-white women to uncommitted by 30%. That will be huge in South Carolina.

---

by: StrawMan @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:20:58 AM UTC

Turnout (4.00 / 1)

I think folks extrapolate from these results at their peril.  The turnout was incredibly low.  Given the circumstances, you'd have to be an incredibly committed voter to bother going out into the snow to vote for Clinton over uncommitted?  Or uncommitted over Clinton?  And there were no GOTV efforts by the candidates (unless you count Conyers and other Obama/Edwards supporters pushing uncommitted).  As for African Americans, I fully expect Obama to carry them, but it also seems to me that those most angry at Clinton might have more of a reason to show up than other African American voters.  Or maybe not.  Who knows?

Which is my point.

If we've learned nothing else from Iowa and NH, it's that turnout matters.  Who shows up is what is determining this race and we've been getting huge turnouts in contested states.  Trying to take a state where almost no one voted and extrapolating that to states with advertising, mailings, GOTV efforts, and campaign stops seems dicey at best. 

Honestly, I think the only thing this primary means is that if Michigan gets delegates, Clinton is going to get the majority of them but the remainder will be up for grabs since uncommitted got more than 15%.

---

by: BDB @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:57:29 AM UTC

Or, what Digby said (0.00 / 0)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-shoot-me-by-digby-jesus-jump-up.html

---

by: BDB @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:15:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Liberals.... GENERAL ELECTION! (0.00 / 0)

Once again Chris declares that Obama needs the "liberal" vote to complete his "identity coalition." (maybe not exact words)

Problem is the same as its been and I've been telling you guys for weeks. Obama is running a GENERAL ELECTION campaign. This is why he is not paying much lip service to the liberals or the blogosphere. He is hoping that the liberals will just take for granted that he is on their side and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Quite frankly I wish they would :/

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:05:48 AM UTC

LOL (4.00 / 2)

Chris you could find a ray of sunshine in a rainstorm if it meant good news for Obama.

How you can come to these conclusions without noting Conyers was running ads telling AA to vote uncommitted is hysterical.

This is the headline Conyers wanted.  Thankfully the only people who push it and believe such simplistic drivel are the Obamafans like Bowers.

Very sad how your allegiances have screwed with your analytical abilities.

---

by: GregNYC @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:57:48 AM UTC

Got some smoke to go with that flame? (0.00 / 0)

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

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:54:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama will sweep black vote (4.00 / 2)

I am a little confused why this is a problem for so many people here? This is the first state to vote that had any black people. They like Obama. No big surprise. This should be expected at this point: Obama will sweep black vote.

http://www.openleft....

---

by: aiko @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 13:19:58 PM UTC