January 15th, 2008
09:00 PM ET
6 years ago

Potentially troubling news for Clinton in Michigan 'win'

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton faced a grim statistic in Michigan tonight, despite her primary "win" there: results revealed that she may have reason to worry about her grasp on the African-American vote.

The Michigan primary vote was essentially meaningless: the national party stripped the state of its delegates because it held its contest too early in the election season, and Clinton was the only major Democratic contender whose name appeared on the ballot.

Read full story here

soundoff (373 Responses)
  1. Sweet

    Why don't the news media ever question Hillary on her 35 years of EXPERIENCE.
    Have we overlooked, Hillary is almost 20 years older than Barack. As her own husband stated give me a break.

    January 16, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  2. Michael

    Racism is alive and well in Michigan as it will be in South Carolina. There is little doubt that IF Barack were white instead of black he would be battling hard to stay out of third place in every state.

    As it stands...Barack Obama's color will automatically garner him the majority of black votes anywhere he goes. Too bad...because...yet again (as in President Bush's election wins)...people will vote with their "feelings" instead of with their brains.

    Funny...but if Hillary Clinton were black....Barack would be lucky to finish within 30% of a Hillary win in South Carolina.

    Again...racism is alive and well on both side of the aisle.

    January 16, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  3. Bill

    This is definitely a Hillary Clinton bashing story. She won a percentage that in any election would have won . Now CNN tries to paint it as a loss. The candidates agree to put race behind them and you are still pushing the issue. I am from Louisiana where in many locales the African-American vote is the majority but whites and other races win the elections against African-Americans all the time. If she only received 20%+ of the African-American vote then she received a huge number of the rest of the race spectrum. South Carolina does have other races that participate in large numbers in the Democratic Primary. Somehow the press wants to fuel the racial devide so bad they will put out any story just to race bait the campaign. Clinton was not aloud to campaign in Michigan and still won handily. CNN is trading in integrity for ratings but how should it be any better than any other news organization.

    January 16, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  4. Leah DiMarco

    Hillary did not even 'anything'!

    Let's see – the way that I understand this if I am not mistaken – in order for the uncommitted vote to work it needed to be at least 15% which it was – so now the delegates from Michigan can go to the convention and they will have a 'voice'. So Hillary did not win anything at all by a landslide – she did not even come out of this with 'one' delegate and the delegates can now vote for Obama or Edwards at the convention. YES WE CAN!

    January 16, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  5. sue

    MARYLOU JONES –

    the problem this win presents for Hillary is that in an uncontested election, the "winner" usually wins like 75% to 90% of the vote, so under these circumstances 56% isn't really something to be proud of.

    January 16, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  6. Bill

    America should not be even considering voting along racial lines, but it clearly is.

    It must be a wake up call for a lot of 'white' people.

    CNN's apparent bias away from Clinton is deplorable.

    January 16, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  7. PA Guy

    Why do you idiots keep talking race. Sharpton and Clyburn both state the words spoken by the Clinton's were taken out of text. Leave it go Already! Is this you all have to run with? Use those keyboards and do some factual research instead of typing empty, mindless, thoughtless opinions. Get a backbone and back it up with FACTS.
    After tonight’s debate, I believe that “The Candidate Who Really Can and Will Bring Change,” and truly displayed leadership qualities and experience is Hillary R. Clinton.

    January 16, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  8. mattinhou

    Jason – I agree it is shocking that blacks refuse to vote for anyone other than black candidates. Such nonsense. Be that as it may, I'll bet it pales in comparison to whites historically refusing to vote for anyone other than white candidates. But then again, how much choice have we really had in this country? Your thoughts and/or admissions?

    January 16, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  9. tc

    Hillary 56% vs. uncommitted (that is Edwards' and Obama's combined) 39%. Isn't it a landslide victory for Hillary? Folks, Go figure.

    January 16, 2008 12:10 am at 12:10 am |
  10. Anonymous

    Everyone is overlooking one important point. The fact that Michigan democrats bothered to vote at all tells us something. It tells us that even though their vote doesn't count they still wanted to be heard. This means some people actually get it. Those uncommitted votes would have gone to either Edwards or Obama therefore HILLARY would have won either way. It means that people cared enough to vote for her even though it didn't count. They also cared enough to not vote for her as well. If anyone saw the debate tonight you would have heard Barack admit that over zelist supporters pushed the issue of race intentionally. If you did not see Meet the Press last Sunday I invite you to check it out on youtube and then decide if what she said was racist. Don't just get your news from spoon fed sound bites tailored to fictionalize the issues. There really isn't much seperation between these 2 fine candidates and this was evident in tonights debate. The only think seperating them is experience.

    January 16, 2008 12:11 am at 12:11 am |
  11. Lucky Lakeshore

    Why, then, did the commentator on CNN just a few minutes ago suggest that the large percentage of "uncommitted" voters represented a protest agains the Democratic Party's decision to punish Michigan for going early with its primary? Look at your own map: a majority of Dem. voters in Washtenaw County (home of Ann Arbor and the U. of Michigan) vote uncommitted. It's a very white county. The upshot: many Dems. expressed their disapproval of Clinton, even though she was the only major candidate with her name on the ballot.

    January 16, 2008 12:12 am at 12:12 am |
  12. NOMEDIA

    Why does the media keep playing "the race card". The candidates are trying to rise above this "segmenting" yet the media keeps dishing it up again and again. I'm sick of it.
    And I'm sick of the idiotic bloggers who just spew emotional negative comments. GROW UP. Obama bloggers in particular are showing themselves to be incapable of intelligent comments. Talk about "hate". Nasty.

    January 16, 2008 12:13 am at 12:13 am |
  13. Former Michigan, now TN

    I used to live in Michigan so I'm not terribly surprised by the result. Uncommitted did not just get the black vote in Wayne County. Uncommitted also won Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) outright. Now it's possible that a goodly chunk of Wayne County consisted of Edwards supporters – especially some of the heavily union downriver cities like Wyandotte. But the Washtenaw total comes primarily from young people and from white liberals.

    The three parts to the base of the Democratic Party are white liberals, African Americans, and union voters. In Michigan, Hillary only managed to win union members and probably split liberals (especially white women). Hillary did strongest among white women – and probably working class white women. That's a critical constituency in the Democratic Party as New Hampshire showed. But it isn't the only one.

    More importantly, nobody campaigned there, very few voters actually showed up (7% turnout I believe), and Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot. Regardless of the Edwards/Obama split, that 40% of Michigan Democratic voters actually bothered to show up just to register opposition to Clinton is significant. This wasn't just an Obama vote, which presumably would have been much greater had he actually campaigned in the state. It was a rejection of Hillary. And she better take notice before South Carolina.

    January 16, 2008 12:14 am at 12:14 am |
  14. R Alabama

    I think it is bad politics when the candidates take them self off the ballot to try to influence the vote. I actually think they were were afraid they might lose....Obama and Edwards. Should we then split the uncommitted vote count between Obama and Edwards. If the people that voted uncommitted are actually for Obama or Edwards, then what does that say about their candidates?? I am not a democrat, but this is just wrong. Go Hillary (even though you are not getting my vote....at this time). I am not Democrat, Republican, or Independent. My party is AMERICAN!

    I would love to see a debate with both parties, same questions, and Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck as moderators.

    January 16, 2008 12:14 am at 12:14 am |
  15. chris ny

    white voter please dont get discourage by the amount of racial talk on the tv this few days HILLARY DOING THIS BECAUSE SHE WANT YOU TO TURN AGAINT OBAMA BUT WE CAN ALL SEE OBAMA IS A NICE HONEST HARDWORKING PERSON DONT WE WANT A PRESIDENT THAT GRASS ROOT AND HAS BEEN THROUGH IT ALL THE GUY GREW UP WITH IS MOTHER ONLY AND FACE SOME REALLY HARD TIME WE WANT A PRESIDENT WHO KNOWS HOW IT FEEL TO BE HUNGRY HOW IT FEEL TO GO TO BED HUNGRY HOW IT FEEL TO WANT SOMETHING AND HAVE TO DO WITH OUT BECAUSE WE CANT AFFORD IT SO WE WANT A PRESIDENT WHO'S A GOOD LISTENER WHO WILL LISEN TO IS PEOPLE CLINTON AS BEEN IN IT FOR 35 YEARS NOW 35YEARS DONT U THINK IT TIME TO GIVE SOMEONE NEW A CHANCE WHAT HER HUSBAND WAS PRESIDENT ISN'T THAT ENOUGH WHAT THEY WANT EVERYONE TO TURN PRESIDENT IN THERE FAMILY IF SHE BECOME THE PRESIDENT THEN NEXT IT CHELSEA WE WANT A HONEST, KIND ,HARDWORKING GOOD LISTENER FOR PRESIDENT WE WANT OBAMA.

    January 16, 2008 12:14 am at 12:14 am |
  16. seth vt

    Don't you think that those who vote for one dem candidate will support the nominee in th general election? One way or another we're going to have a democratic president whose first task will be to repair the damage done by bush/cheney. I think we really need to focus on the big prize, returning our country to nation of civil liberty and international respectability, ending the crazy wars and big business hand outs. Both of these candidates are capable, both are respectable, both will make history with there election. Lets not hurt either's chances in the general election with nitpicking and borderline slander. The end result just might be President Romney.

    January 16, 2008 12:15 am at 12:15 am |
  17. keith Pike

    The young, and the blacks back Obama and still lose 60% to 39%, There really are going to be dissapointed come supper duper tuesday

    January 16, 2008 12:15 am at 12:15 am |
  18. sluggo

    Hillary has been toast for several days, the MSM just can't get their mind around it.

    January 16, 2008 12:15 am at 12:15 am |
  19. Eric

    Interesting that Obama and Hillary split the male vote in Michigan...well uncommitted and Hillary did...

    January 16, 2008 12:16 am at 12:16 am |
  20. Chad Galloway

    You Hillary-haters are irrational. You have a woman who has spent decades working for civil rights, for children, for equal rights for gays, for education ... and yet you sit there and belittle her because she's a strong woman who's taken her lumps just as well as, and perhaps better than, her male colleagues. Shame on you for the way you bust on her.

    Sure, let's instead elect someone who hasn't even finished a SINGLE term as U.S. Senator. That makes a ton of sense. Sure, let's entrust the country to someone whose biggest legislative feat is making sure that lobbyists have to stand up while buying their Congressmen's lunches.

    Don't get me wrong. I like Obama. I like him a lot. But would you want a student teacher to suddenly become Secretary of Education? Would you want someone who just learned to swim last week serving as a lifeguard at the pool where your daughter swims? Obama's got a bright future ahead of him. But right now, our country needs someone who not only has a vision, but also knows how to accomplish it.

    January 16, 2008 12:16 am at 12:16 am |
  21. s.positive

    Guys as it is said, the stew you brew today, you'll drink tomorrow, its that simple...

    January 16, 2008 12:16 am at 12:16 am |
  22. Swati

    I don't understand why Obama/Edwards would first send a statement by staying off the ballot and then later send another statement by staying on the ballot as 'uncommitted'.

    If anything, the Obama/Edwards statement :

    a) Oops, I changed my mind about wanting to be on the ballot or
    b) Let's take a gamble and see whether we can beat Hillary numbers.
    c) Let's at least see what numbers we can get to get a pulse on the voters. We can interpret whatever we want into the data anyway.

    In sum, very flip floppy.

    January 16, 2008 12:16 am at 12:16 am |
  23. Anthony, Los Angeles, CA

    I have nothing negative to say of Obama. I simply prefer Clinton to Obama. I have noticed that CNN and much other media seems to be pro-Obama. The way Hillary's NH win was covered was that of Hillary barely squeaking out a win and more coverage went to 'what went wrong in the poll?' rather than Hillary's come from behind (at least in recent polls) victory. I have been a loyal viewer of CNN and reader of CNN.com and I find the coverage to be troubling. I believe they need to keep a balanced view and stop putting their own spins on campaign activities and elections outcomes. I think they may be trying to keep the race close so that their viewership remains high. Just let the candidates debate it out and let the nation decide the winner without bias. Please.

    January 16, 2008 12:17 am at 12:17 am |
  24. Andy

    All this tells me is 70% of the black vote went to uncommitted and she still won.

    This is a win for Hillary!!

    Mayby Oboma will be her VP

    January 16, 2008 12:17 am at 12:17 am |
  25. John Lowrey

    Hillary got 55% that is a clear majority. I listened today to various pundits, the Michigan Democratic Chair, "progressive radio, and Obama supporters pushing uncommitted.
    If another candidate got 100% of the uncommitted that candidate would still have lost.
    If those of you who cheer the uncommitted are elated, how would you have felt if Obama, Edwards or any other candidate of your choice got 55% as opposed to your candidate. Spin on as you spin out.

    January 16, 2008 12:18 am at 12:18 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.