The Michigan results

Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:16 AM by Domenico Montanaro

The headline from the Detroit News: "Romney blasts GOP race wide open." Subhead: "Michigan native's victory re-energizes campaign."

The Washington Post: "Romney's triumph in the state where he was born and where his father served as governor further scrambles a GOP field in which no candidate has been able to win more than one major contest." More: "The surprisingly easy win in Michigan by a candidate whom many had written off vaults Romney back into contention and reaffirms the sharpened campaign message that he debuted several days ago: an attack on Washington and an emphasis on the need for dramatic change in the way politics is practiced."

So now what? The New York Times' Nagourney asks: "Can anyone bring the Republicans together again?" He writes, "The convincing victory by Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary on Tuesday means three very different states - with dissimilar electorates driven by distinctive sets of priorities - have embraced three separate candidates in search of someone who can lead the party into a tough election and beyond President Bush." Also; "Even in victory, Mr. Romney stood as evidence of the trouble the party finds itself in. He won, but only after a major effort in a state he once expected to win in a walk. That was before he lost Iowa and New Hampshire, two other states where he had campaigned all out.

Nagourney concludes with the scenario we're all starting to ponder: Thompson wins South Carolina and Giuliani wins Florida, meaning: "The way things are going for the Republican Party this year, there may be five Republicans who can claim a victory by the time the votes are counted in Florida on Jan. 29."

The Boston Globe's banner headline: "Romney bounces back in Mich.: "Easily beats McCain to cloud GOP picture heading into S.C."

The New York Daily News: "With Romney, McCain and Mike Huckabee each tallying an early state win, the Republican field remains open. The next GOP primary battle comes Saturday in South Carolina."

Looking ahead to Saturday’s contest in South Carolina, the Columbia State front-pages the AP's write up of the Michigan primary and sums it up with this headline: "Romney triumphs; race is wide open." "Three different GOP candidates now have won in the first four states to vote in the 2008 primary season, roiling a nomination fight that lacks a clear favorite as the race moves south for the first time."

How much should we read into the 40%-plus of the Michigan vote that voted against Clinton (she was the only major Dem on the ballot)? The total was just high enough to give Obama and Edwards some talking points against her. But they ought to be careful getting too worked up over it; she still got over 50% and that's really the game. And her opponents can't have it both ways -- they can't say Michigan didn't count and then also say the uncommitted total does.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Why didn't Hillary follow the rules like everyone else and take her name off the ballot ? If Edwards and Obama had their names on the ballot the turnout would have been greater and her percent smaller.

Obama_08 (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:37 AM)

Why would anybody vote democrat in Michigan after what Howard Dean and his bird brained idiots did to the state? This should go to the GOP in the general election.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:46 AM)

Come join this Blog if you belive that Mitt Romney is a Flip Flopper please come on over and post your thoughts, this Blog is Only for comments on Mitt Romney being a Flip Flopper.

http://www.mittromneyflipflopper.blogspot.com/

Come Join Us! (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:57 AM)

I agree with the Post; this isn't looking very god for the GOP, whose voers seem to have multiple personality disorder. What one ego can bring these disparate personalities and their needs, concerns and angers together has so far been far from clear.The Dems can only profit from this kind of dissolution of a common vision.

class Warrior, D.C. (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:58 AM)

Interesting...40% of the people came out just to register a no vote for Hillary. Mark Penn should be concerned when he looks at the internals..over 68% of the AA vote was just to register against her. She won't get that vote back...I really believe its too late. If Hillary wins the primary the Democrats will lose in November because no Democrat can win without that bloc of votes...she sure doesn't have independants

Martin (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:30 AM)

The primary election is a sad but fitting comment for the State of Michigan. The Democrats had no voice - voting on an incomplete ballot with the potential of having no representation at the national convention led to serious voter apathy. Just from comments of people in my own office "what's the point of voting".
The Republicans proved they don't have a clue. They vote for the guy whose name they recognize because his dad was the former governor and promises the rank & file he will restore their jobs. They interviewed a senior citizen on the radio this morning who said "she voted for Romney because she once met his dad when he was governor and his dad seemed like a nice man so I sure his son is too". Then she proceeded to say she "does not believe he can do what he says he will do - they all just say what they want you to hear to get elected". Great win Mitt - you won beacuse of name reocognition and promising people without jobs you will get their jobs back. These same people who voted for you are the same desperate people who are supporting one of the only industries in our state making a profit - the casinos. They are desperate people placing down their last dollar on the word of a desperate candidate.

Bill, Macomb MI (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:39 AM)

The Democrat turn out in Michigan is a little interesting. There were few options on the Michigan ballot: Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and "Undecided".

It was cold outside which typically deters Democrat voters. Many non-Hillary voters chose a Republican candidate so their vote would count for something. Many didn't show up at all because it really didn't matter. No delegates would be delivered to any Democrat candidate.

And despite having only one genuine candidate on the ballot (sorry Kucinich), it's interesting how Clinton(s) only got 55% of the vote.

sg, michigan (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:04 AM)

Has anyone noticed out there? NOBODY says "stay the course" anymore.

sg, michigan (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:06 AM)

"And her opponents can't have it both ways -- they can't say Michigan didn't count and then also say the uncommitted total does."
--Were the Democratic ballots a hot commodity in MI as in IA and NH, or did a lot of Democratic voters simply stay home?
--F-R, I agree with your statement.

"First, Republicans turned out in big numbers: 68% of the electorate in the primary identified themselves as Republican, while only 25% identified themselves as independents and 7% as crossover Democrats."
--These statistics imply that they didn't switch to vote Republican as much as I might have suspected.

--NSMsnbc (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:19 AM)

P.S. Stay the Course!!!

There, I said it, you happy?

--NSMsnbc (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:20 AM)

Don't worry about the Republicans. I guarantee they will have only one nominee coming out of the convention.

By the way, who is the "breakout" Dem candidate? Besides "uncommitted", I mean.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:42 AM)

The lies and distortions that are coming from the Obama and Edwards camp are disgusting. There were no rules that said that candidates had to withdraw from Michigan. That is what Obama and Edawards did in order to pander to Iowa and their precious little status as first in line. They had to do this because they had to win Iowa in order to undercut Hillary'[s status of frontrunner. In order to pander to Iowans in hopes of using a victory there to make their name in the race, the Edwards and Obama camps fully embraced the disenfranchisment of the people of Michigan and Florida. This type of politics is disgusting and just shows Edwards and Obama will do anything to win.

JT (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:49 AM)

Uncommitted was the only, "candidate", allowed to campaign, led by Obama supporters Mr. & Mrs. Conyers.
Hillary beat the combined Edwards/Obama axis by 15 points.

"Asked who they'd choose if all candidates were on the ballot, voters still preferred Clinton over Obama, 45% to 37%. Edwards was third with 12%, and Dennis Kucinich was fourth with 2%. The National Election Pool Poll, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky of New Jersey, surveyed 949 Democratic voters at 40 polling places in Michigan.

Obama backers in Michigan had urged Democratic voters to choose Uncommitted as an indirect show of support.

Former Gov. James Blanchard, a cochairman of Clinton's Michigan campaign, called the results a strong showing for Clinton, despite a concerted campaign against her by some Democrats.

"Anything over 50%, we're ecstatic," Blanchard said. "A win is a win is a win, given what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire." Obama won Iowa; Clinton took New Hampshire."

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/NEWS15/80115132/1035/ENT

She beat Obama's surrogates who were allowed to campaign by a good margin. The reason why Obama ands Edwards were so quick to leave the ballot was because Hillary was ahead by 30 points. She would have given them both the same drubbing that they'll get in Florida.

Both the Michigan and Florida delegations will reach some kind of compromise with the DNC before the convention, as disenfranchising two of the largest states and states the democrats must win to take the general election would be political suicide, so the Clinton win in Michigan is a WIN and it's a win over Obama's surrogates and race-baiting in the aftermath of his loss in NH.

Smarterthanyou (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:52 AM)

None of the Repub candidates except for Ron Paul is suitable. They all are exactly like Bush. McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, Guiliani, Hunter, etc. all won't admit that the Bush administration purposely mislead everyone about getting us into Iraq and the progress of the war. That the Bush administration lies and covers up. Instead they all cover for them, applaud Bush and praise him. Therefore, it shows me that they would do the same exact thing when they are in office. They need to denounce Bush and tell the truth and admit all the past mistakes and vow to be different. Romney says that he is the agent of change, but he supports Bush and his policies. Therefore, it shows that he will be secretive, lie, and cover things up. McCain acts like Bush is the best thing to hit the Repub party and he supports him totally. Besides all McCain talks about is Iraq, he really doesn't have anything else to run on. Forget it. Paul is the only republican worth anything. And isn't it interesting that he got more votes in Michigan than either Thompson or Guiliani.

Treena, NJ (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:53 AM)

Obama_08, There was no rule in MI saying that the dems had to pull their name from the ballot. Obama and Edwards probably made a wise move- they new it wouldn't count if they won, and they decided not to waste the money there trying to beat Hillary. Once they pulled out, Hillary probably figured it didn't matter if her name was on the ballot or not. She also did not spend any money campaigning there. So really, no rules were broken by any of the candidates.

Bill- Look at the exit polls. Romney won in MI for numerous reasons, not just because of his name recognition/dad. That may have been one old lady's reason, but actually only 41% of the GOP voters said that even remotely mattered to them. He won in nearly every category- most important issue, various age groups, gender, race, religion (even among evangelicals), etc.

Three days ago, McCain said that Romney didn't really have hometown advantage because he hadn't lived in MI in 40 years. Now he's saying that's why he won. Huckabee thought he'd sweep the evangelicals in MI like in IA, but that didn't happen either (he didn't even get the majority). Perhaps the reason Mitt won was because his message actually resonated with people in MI. Gee, what a thought... a positive guy with experience in business who is a Washinton outsider.

He won by over 80,000 votes... the biggest victory yet. You can't seriously think that was all because of name recognition.

Kira, Utah (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:55 AM)

As for the Dems, if you breakdown the exit polling of the 'uncommited' voters, the vote would've broken down like this:

Clinton 55%
Obama 30%
Edwards 10%
Kucinich 4%
Dodd 1%

Regardless of the youth and A-A vote, Clinton won by 25 points!

Chris, Portland, OR (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:55 AM)

I'm a democrat and am backing Clinton (though I would be happy with Obama as well). I voted in the MI republican primary for Romney yesterday since there was nothing and stake in the democratic primary with the idea that a Romney victory would be bad for McCain and that McCain is the only "electable" candidate on the Republican side. I don't know how many other democrats did this but it seems to me that the democratic party is the big winner in the Romney victory. I haven't heard any speculation in the media about whether anything like this was widespread but it would be interesting to know how the voting went in traditionally liberal areas like Ann Arbor.

Jonathan, Ann Arbor, MI (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:00 PM)

The coming together of Mitt Romney winning the state and the democratic voters being shunned puts Michigan in play for the Republicans for the first time in 20 years. If Mitt is the nominee it will be very difficult for a democrat to carry the state in November. Good job DNC, shot yourself again!

A.P., Michigan (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:05 PM)

Mitt gets 39% of the vote. Does this mean a 61% repudiation of him? Hillary wins when there are no delegates at stake. Is this a win? Let's head on down to Tobacco Road for the next foray...

Phred, NH (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:09 PM)

By slowing the McCain "surge" and throwing the Republican race back into question, Mitt Romney's surprise win in Michigan may also impact the Democratic race in favor of Barack Obama. The persistent McCain has been a source of growing concern for Democrats since his "comeback" began with Joe Lieberman's endorsement in New Hampshire last month, and with that concern has come a growing sense at least among some Democrats that Hillary Clinton might be a safer choice against such a supposedly formidable opponent. Had McCain won in Michigan as widely expected, increased fear of the "McCain Factor" among Democrats might have driven many would-be Obama voters into the Clinton camp. Having lost to Romney by a significant margin, however, McCain suddenly doesn't seem quite so formidable after all. The more divided Republicans remain, the more confident Democrats will feel regarding their chances in November. This confidence seems likely to work in Obama's favor.

Mark C. Eades, Oakland, California (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:14 PM)

to obama08, Obama and Edwards chose not to be on the MI ballot not once but twice. They chose NOT to accept write-ins. They both are on FL ballot. No one has asked that question in the media. I guess only MI doesn't count.

Dayle Muskegon MI (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:19 PM)

When it all comes down to Hillary and ANY Gop candidate, she'll win easily. She can have 8 yrs and Obama can then have 8 more, when he has more experience and the country is ready for him.

j fl (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:33 PM)

I am proud of Michigan voters and proud of Michigan for moving up its presidential primary. National parties, you are the losers in this--you were unable to convince us we do not matter. See you in November when anything can happen.

Leigh B, Ann Arbor, MI (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:37 PM)

Mitt Romney has not lived in Michigan since 1965! How in the world did my fellow citizens fall for his BS? My only hope is that the win can be credited to those trying to screw up the results by choosing a republican ballot and voting for the one who can't win the general. Interestingly he did not win Western Michigan or the UP but neither of these regions are big population centers so don't affect the overall results.

SW GR,MI (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:37 PM)

Please point out the Dem results First Read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/16/michigan-results-reveal-s_n_81713.html
Still think Hillary can win a general? A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of back peddling.

M@ - Chicago (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:54 PM)

I think we all need to remember that no candidate can claim what Mitt has- Two Silvers and Two golds. (Wyoming). You're just shooting blanks to claim that Mitt only won because of name recognition. Isn't that why candidates campaign in the first place?(Not to mention that has been one of Clinton's main platforms-if you will accept my submission that experience begets recognition.) It is fair to say that it would be an uphill battle to accomplish all that Mitt claims to be able to do- but he is the only candidate with a real plan and I believe is the only Republican who could beat Obama in November. Since "change" has turned out to be the only platform of '08, why not elect the only candidate with an actual plan to do what he promises? (Listen to the debates). Furthermore, why not elect the man who will represent the electorate? You can call him a flip flopper or an opportunist but please note that his past "switches" have not been for lack of character but to represent the majority of the electorate in which he intended to lead. That is politics, not weakness of character. That is expected within a democracy.
I think the real battle for Mitt is not whether he can fulfill his promises, (I believe the majority of the GOP can sense that he will.) Case in point look at who the truly Red voters are voting for. I think the real question is how to seal the deal with the independents and party hoppers.

Kristi, San Antonio (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:05 PM)

Obama '08: Senator Clinton did follow the rules. Per the agreement with the DNC, the candidates pledged not to campaign in any state sanctioned for moving its primary too early. And that was the ONLY thing that they pledged to do.

Senators Biden, Edwards, and Obama; and Governor Richardson made a (probably correct) political calculation that in a primary in which nobody could campaign, Senator Clinton would likely win on name recognition alone, and VOLUNTARILY took their names off of the ballot.

jared, providence (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:43 PM)

GLAD HUCKABEE LOST...HOPE HE LOSES S.C TOO...

GE~pa' (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:15 PM)

Where are the results for Ron Paul? No mention of him in article and he beat Rudy. Is the liberal press scared of him? They maybe should be as he is the only true conservative running.

Mike (Sent Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:03 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=581951