January 15th, 2008
09:00 PM ET
15 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. Chris from Colorado Springs

    More than anything, I am observing which presidential candiate demonstrates the best leadership skills which will best serve our country. Slamming each demonstrates how they may behave with foreign leaders. Our next president needs to be a true diplomat not a gun slinger.

    January 16, 2008 12:19 am at 12:19 am |
  2. Ed

    They're both in the pockets of big-time special interests–for starters. HRC has the health insurers, Obama has the nuke folks and coal producers. Meanwhile, the recession for the poor and middle class keeps deepening, the environment continues to be trashed, corn ethanol (which they both support) threatens the stability of the international food supply and Bush has managed to obligate U.S. significant security (read "troops") to Iraq for at least the next decade. Plus, Obama–and I assume Hillary, as well–would shift resources to Afghanistan in the crazy hope that the U.S. military would become the first and only invading force in recorded history to pacify that famously tough and cantankerous part of the globe. (Obviously, they ceased to teach world history at tony eastern universities long ago. )
    These are the people we want to run the country during perilous times? Ugh. They're both slick lawyers with essentially no executive or high-level managerial experience. And both have longtime party hacks and power brokers in their respective in their camps. Face it, the party is listing at a time when we ought to be getting set to stomp the GOP. If Romney finds his footing or a reasonably appealing third party candidate appears in the next couple months, the general election is hardly a lock for either of our major candidates. I've seen this all before. My party has always been good at discovering new ways to blow its chances.

    January 16, 2008 12:20 am at 12:20 am |
  3. K. Annan between Rome and London

    Please excuse me if I am being highly ignorant here in my misunderstanding of the way in which the system works but why was Senator Clinton's name even left on the ballot? Was she trying to score some kind of psychological victory over the other Democratic candidates (primarily Senator Obama)....?

    January 16, 2008 12:21 am at 12:21 am |

    Hillary their is a saying that hold well among the African American race "Fool me ONCE then SHAME on YOU; fool me TWICE then SHAME on ME." We African Americans DONT LIKE TO BE PLAYED AS FOOLS!! But don't worry about it cause I can't wait until you get to my state of SOUTH CAROLINA and you'll truly see what happens

    January 16, 2008 12:21 am at 12:21 am |

    prediseser are usually worst loot at senior bush he did a good job for the country everyone thought is son would follow in his foot step but he did worst so we dont want to make the same mistake one clinton is enough if u put a second one in the white house it going to distroy the country didn't you see the flags fall when hillary was on stage that i sign of what to come if she become president.

    January 16, 2008 12:22 am at 12:22 am |
  6. keith Pike

    They lost 60% to 39%, They are really going to be disapointed come super tuesday. Whats that mean, They cant suport The Hillary if she wins.

    January 16, 2008 12:22 am at 12:22 am |
  7. MG

    I am troubled by the subject of this headline. Are we to expect that AA voters are "supposed" to vote for Obama, b/c he is also AA? then should we expect white voters to vote for the white candidates, male voters to vote for the male candidates, and women voters for Clinton? Why are you even evaluating this type of data. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Despite the meaningless Dem primary, it was heartening to see that hundreds of thousands came out, that Clinton won by a landslide over the "uncommitteds", which are both Obama and Edwards put together, and Clinton had more votes than McCain! Don't worry HIllary, america is behind you, the truth will lead you to victory, Obama has absolutely nothing, and Edwards is just riding on the wrong coattails! And you ruled the Nevada debate today, confident, informed, experienced, you will change America!

    January 16, 2008 12:23 am at 12:23 am |
  8. K

    Ok I don't get this reporting. Biased. Uncommitted votes are for Obama and Edwards combined. I don't know who else took their names out. Maybe you could break down % voters of other ethnic groups, too.

    January 16, 2008 12:24 am at 12:24 am |
  9. Travis

    As a 17 yr old, African American male, I support Hillary Clinton. I hate this argument amongst the Dems. First off, she won the primary. She won 55% of the vote compared to 39-40% of "uncommitted" She didn't even win by that much in New Hampshire and there was one candidate extra on the ballot.

    The voters of MI are angry at the Dems for not campaigning there or at least leaving their name on the ballot. That's why Obama nor Edwards even got close to Clinton. She got 312,540 votes to uncommitted's 226,474 votes. She blew them out. Combined Edwards and Obama only got 226,474 votes. That shows that their supporters weren't too happy with them either. Also, while Obama got 70% of the blacks (VOTING) in the primary, it doesn't show how many statewide didn't vote. Also, just because he got 70% doesn't mean black people don't like Hillary. My family( except for me) is supporting Obama because they would like to see a black man in the WH. They LOVE the Clintons!!! They actually feel that Hillary is more qualified. So the black vote is merely support for a black candidate.

    January 16, 2008 12:24 am at 12:24 am |
  10. james

    Uncommited in 08... now that's a bumper sticker... I'm going to make millions

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

    The "Uncommitted" vote doesn't mean that 37% of Michigan's Democratic votes would have gone to not-Hillary... It means that 37% of the vote was from people who came out in the cold to vote against her. Democratic turnout was fairly low from all accounts, and there's no way to tell what the real result might have been.

    It does suggest a fairly strong faction is opposed to Hillary Clinton for president, though.

    January 16, 2008 12:26 am at 12:26 am |
  12. CHRIS NY

    people of america god is giving us a sign did u saw all those flag tumble down when HILLARY was giving a speech on tv that a sign from got that america is going to fall if we all HILLARY to become president

    January 16, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  13. liberal & sick of democrats

    Democrats, you are acting like republicans... no wonder an idiot like Bush won, twice. If Democrats like yourselves continue to name call, continue to be led by a reckless tabloid obssessed media, it will only hurt our chances next November. Republicans must be really enjoying this moment...

    January 16, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  14. Beth

    This doesnt mean anything..Most people stayed home...Why should 70% of African Americans voting for uncommited suprise anyone. Jesse Jackson got %55 when he ran and look where that got him...We wont know anything til after 2-5 unitl then calm down!

    January 16, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  15. kjmatthews

    I would also like to point out that during the debate tonight, Obama himself stated that he regretted his campaign's pushing the race issue and the Congressman from SC, Clyburn, has stated that he can accept both Hillary's and Bill's explanations. So let's not give charisma a pass. And, as others have stated, the exit polls only reflects those who turned out to vote, which was an extremely low number considering MI has around 7 million registered voters, so they aren't informative for any of the dem candidates.

    January 16, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  16. Jason C.

    It amazes me some of the remarks people will make. At the same time, it puts a smile on my face. In this country we have a right to have our voices heard and to what we feel. The fact that people can so blindly and strikingly say Clinton is unelectable amazes me. Unelectable is now serving a second elected term in the Senate.

    Obama is a strong candidate as well. His political savy and his passion speak volumes for him. We talk about his experience or lack thereof quite a bit. Tell me honestly, what kind of experience do you want in a President? What do we need from a President? I want someone to unite and improve our country. I believe anyone with a desire to lead and govern our nation could accomplish this. We elect a president who works in community with the other 2 branches of government. It is isn't as if whomever we elect will be allowed to function independent of the other 2. (It was our government collectively, at least the executive and the legislative, who moved us to war.)

    I do think one statement is remarkable and should be examined. If African Americans are voting for Obama because of the color of his skin then that of course doesn't speak highly of that community. And ask yourself, you read these polls and you hear these pundits, what do you hear in your community? What about your work? Your family? Your friends? What is the true gauge of what is going on in our country. Most African Americans I know are voting for the candidate they feel is better qualified. (Honestly, they are equally split between the Clinton and Obama.) And as for the hispanics I know, oddly enough it's a race between Clinton and Edwards. And the white people I know, if we were to ever talk about the white vote, well many of those people are for Clinton, but an equal number are against her. (The primary reason most people I know give for not supporting Clinton is more of the gender issue, an issue many people will not speak publicly about.)

    Either candidate is extrememly electable. This country is primed for a Democratic victory. Look at voter turnout. The Democrats are showing out in numbers that are quite impressive. If Democrats are this active in the general election as they are in these primaries, Republicans do not stand much of a chance.

    Why don't we just start a new party? I know they start all the time, the Green Party, the Libertarians, and all kinds of parties. Those fail for many reasons. Let's just start the Party. We've been needing a really good party in this country for some time. So bring our troops home, let's party. We'll figure it all out. We'll join together, and we'll reclaim our lives, our successes, our economy. The new party is The Party. Sound fun....

    January 16, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  17. Ken, San Diego, CA

    Of course 70% of black voters voted "uncommitted". I don't blame them, especially if their candidate of choice was Barack Obama. This is no slap to Hillary. The fact of the matter is, she still received 55% of the vote (yes, CNN, that's over half). That ought to be the real story; that not even the COMBINED effect of Obama and Edwards "uncommitted" voters was enough to beat Hillary.

    January 16, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  18. Loyd

    She's so phony it makes me puke. I hope people can see that... and I believe they are starting to.
    I'm not saying my race cause honestly, doesn't matter. I'm a 31 and a Democrat from Tennessee and hope the American people can see that Barack Obama is exactly what this country needs.

    January 16, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  19. if only

    Gee, if Obama's name was on the ballet...gee....he...woulda....coulda...shoulda...

    These polls don't mean anything, that much is clear....and neither do most of these ticker reports from the Obmarama machine at CNN.

    Go Hillary!

    January 16, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  20. Ken, San Diego, CA

    Of course 70% of black voters voted "uncommitted". I don't blame them, especially if their candidate of choice was Barack Obama. This is no slap to Hillary. The fact of the matter is, she still received 55% of the vote (yes, CNN, that's over half). That ought to be the real story; that not even the COMBINED effect of Obama and Edwards "uncommitted" voters was enough to beat Hillary.

    January 16, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  21. CHRIS NY

    people of america thier is sign everywhere did you saw those flags tumble down when HILLARY was giving a speech that a sign that god is not please ;that a sign that america is going to tumble if we allow HILLARY to be comes we want OBAMA GOD WANT'S OBAMA TO BECOME PRESIDENT.

    January 16, 2008 12:30 am at 12:30 am |


    January 16, 2008 12:31 am at 12:31 am |
  23. rw

    I am offended, LBJ worked hard to get the civil rights bill signed into law. I am outraged that his contribution is being minimized by the leaders in the black community, so I am voting for a white candidate.

    January 16, 2008 12:31 am at 12:31 am |
  24. LaWanda,

    I am an African American woman and this years Obama voters are the Nader voters of 2000, black, white or orange.

    My finances were much more stable under the Clinton's and I am willing to take that chance. I'll go to church for the preaching stuff...

    January 16, 2008 12:31 am at 12:31 am |
  25. Dc

    So blacks only vote for there own race?

    January 16, 2008 12:32 am at 12:32 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15