January 16th, 2008
10:51 AM ET
12 years ago

Potentially troubling news for Clinton in Michigan 'win'

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/15/art.clintonmichigan.ap.jpg caption=" Clinton won less than a quarter of support from black voters."](CNN) - Hillary Clinton faced a grim statistic in Michigan Tuesday night, 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.

Even so, roughly 70 percent of Michigan’s African-American voters - a group that makes up a quarter of Michigan’s Democratic electorate - did not cast their votes for Clinton, choosing the “uncommitted” option instead. Yet these voters weren’t uncommitted at all: in fact, according to CNN exit polls, they overwhelmingly favored Barack Obama, whose name did not appear on the ballot.

Had Obama’s name been on the Michigan ballot, CNN exit polls show that he would have won an overwhelming 73 percent of the African-American vote, in contrast to 22 percent who say they would have voted for Clinton under those circumstances. If South Carolina’s large African-American community votes as Michigan’s, Hillary may not be feeling much ‘southern hospitality’ in that state.

Related: Blacks, youngest voters choose 'uncommitted' over Clinton

- CNN Political Producer Alan Isenberg

Filed under: Hillary Clinton
soundoff (738 Responses)
  1. jason smith

    I have lived in other countries where there are both women pres/vp...nobody even mentions it (what a shock!!!) because there are MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES such as actually getting the job done....

    I don't like Hillary because she reminds me of Bush with her behaviors, attitudes, and because I think her flip-flopping will leave her vulnerable to GOP attacks....I think she is a polarizing figure, and will lead to more intransigence in our govt. and no change....which is what we have now with Bush vetoing every single thing sent to him from Congress.....if you can't get along with everybody, you will get nothing done.....you don't have to compromise your values, but you have to be able to see others' perspective and be able to work with others, which she has not proven she has the ability to do here in NY as a senator......

    January 16, 2008 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  2. Allison, NH

    I watched the debates last night, and it just made up my mind even moreso that I will not be voting for Billary Clinton. Besides all of the reasons I dislike her (hypocrite, liar, lobbiests best friend)...I find her smugness disgusting. She said nothing more last night than any other night when she's whipped out her talking points. She always mentions that she has this connection to the "American people"...hello – I do not get my makeup professionally painted on every day. I am not a multi-millionaire who can do whatever, whenver I want. When has she ever had to work like I've worked or done the things I've done to get ahead – NEVER.

    She came to my state (NH) and cried like a baby over being overwhelmed....PLEASE. Grow up Hillary. Want to feel overwhelmed? Try living on one income working a 50+ hr. work week while putting your husband through school (bachelor's and master's), having a 3.5 year old plus being pregnant. Dont come bawling to me that you feel overwhelmed....you do not see any other candidtates crying because they feel overwhelmed.

    There were two candidates that stood out last night and they were Edwards and Obama. Either of them would make a fine candidate. Hillary – well, she'll have me voting for whatever Independent candidate comes out should she become the Democratic nominee.

    January 16, 2008 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  3. L. Jacob


    Nevada is beginning to pan out as more of an "Iowa" state. A state that is a battleground Red/Blue State but tends to lean more Red. Throughout the primaries we will see more of the red states lean towards Obama. I think that this is partly due to the lack of support for Hillary Clinton among men and women in the less liberal areas of the country. They view her as a polarizing figure–a lightning rod. Many voters that fit into this category are simply unable to be convinced to vote for Hillary. Hillary's only hope is to count on the bluest of the states: California, Northeast, etc. It will be an interesting battle. Recent polls suggest that men and African Americans are breaking for Obama. This is also important information. Because a large percentage of whites in the South will vote for Republican candidates, This means that Blacks will make up nearly 50% or more of the total votes cast in the primary in most Southern States. This means that Hillary losing South Carolina is a sign of things to come in terms of her performance in MOST Southern States. My predictions are that Obama will carry most of the midwestern states, southern states, most western states, except California. A microcosm of this exists in the endorsements given to Obama in the red/battleground states. He is overwhelmingly receiving these endorsements because he is seen as the lead candidate for uniting the country. This is Hillary's weakness since she is such a polarizing figure. Hillary will likely claim California, and the Northeastern States. This will be much different than the primaries of 2004. In short, I'd say that an Obama nomination is most likely at this point. If it seems unlikely, its because everyone is focused on nationwide polls and not the battle for delegates. States will be won one at a time, and the results will be somewhat similar to the past election with Bush and Kerry, except Obama will likely take the "red" states.

    January 16, 2008 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  4. Amused, Las Vegas


    God bless you and keep you safe.

    January 16, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  5. Joe Boyer

    As an independent, I see the way to go for is any Republican nominee. This time they do not have any polarizing figures and they have to deal with the mess they created in the economy! Democrats are constantly hitting each other hard which only served to increase the tension among Americans. Because of the way they run their campaign now, they will never be empowered to get the job done. They are about to loose the White House even after a disastrous 8-year reign of GWBush and the crew. It is ironic, funny and is showing how inept Democrats are. I know I am not alone on this.

    January 16, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  6. NJ Guy

    Another Exit Poll!!!! You media will never learn from your pathetic NH poll mistakes....

    Unfortunately, this type of false story does influence the public...another pathetic outcome as a result of a pathetic media...

    January 16, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  7. Jeff

    When will people learn to stop paying attention to these stupid exit polls, or polls in general? Haven't we learned that they suck?

    January 16, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  8. David, Brooklyn New York

    President Obama will be sworn into office!!!

    Hillary Campaign must be VERY DESPARATE, because they have all come to this site talking garbage, about "go to a website to see obama's church"
    Everyone knows anyone can create a BS website
    Clintonians disguising themselves as regular people from all over the country. Have some integrity clintonians!!!!!

    WE KNOW ALL YOUR DIRTY TRICKS hILLARY cLINTON. People are tired of your lies.

    Moreover, Most women will vote for OBAMA

    January 16, 2008 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  9. george


    I feel CNN broadcasting is biased towards Obama and want to see only negatives on Clinton side. So called "opinion polls" made a terrible mistake in New Hampshire but they will never learn. What I see from Michigan Poll is that majority (60%) wanted Ms.Clinton as the presdential nominee and few (30%) voted for uncommitted, which may include Obama, Edwards and Ms.Clinton herself. So i feel other two candidates who even did not try to be a participants in the election and ignored people of Michigan completely should not be supported.

    We always hear news against Hiliary but always praises about obama. It does not make sense why channel like CNN is so biased and supporting Obama. This raises questions about the authenticity of the channel and looks like Obama is the CNN guy or some pacts behind the scenes.

    News is supposed to be fair and unbiased which no longer exists in this world and are being used by political parties as a campaign and attacking tools. Its a great shame that CNN is also coming to these categories. CNN is not equals to Politics but CNN = Obama media. Sorry buts the truth. With this kind of media bias you have CNN as lost support of many fans like me. But CNN care about this?

    January 16, 2008 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  10. Susan Texas

    It is a sad day in Ameican whent he media we turn to for information, is more interested in talking about who said what, and could it be viewed as racist, in it was put under a microscope. This is a giant waste of time. The Clinton'a are in no way racist, and CNN needs to quit trying to spin every little thing that happens as a statement for Obama. CNN, report the news and quit suckling at Obama's teet.

    January 16, 2008 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  11. Liz Mollica

    If the tally show that Senator Clinton received 55% of the vote with 100% of the precincts reported, then no matter how much of a particular race or gender percentage is inclined to vote for Barack Obama tends to be, she would have still won this primary with a "landslide" 55%. Right? or Wrong?

    January 16, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  12. Katrina

    This is a pretty ridiculous article as anyone with half a brain at this point will be voting for who ever the Democratic nominee is. The worst candidate on the Democratic side is thousand times better then the “more of the same” Republicans. And I am a Libertarian saying this! Use your common sense America if you have any left!
    In 2000, we in the state of Texas knew Bush was an idiot and a bad governor but you still had to see for yourself. Let’s not make the same mistake. We need to get out of the Iraq invasion and support our troops with are smarts not our stupidity.

    January 16, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  13. bc Indiana

    Re: Hilary's lawsuit against the caucuses in Nevada.

    Every time I try to give her campaign a fair look all I come up with is "the end justifies the means"

    January 16, 2008 10:16 am at 10:16 am |
  14. wrensis

    exit polls lie, people being polled lie and we should start figuring out.....they do not accomplish anything. In this day of instant gratification we seek anything to assure our position. Does anyone hear a "fat lady" singing??? I don't

    January 16, 2008 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  15. jp/michigan

    Obama's team did sent e-mails to the media to set off the race card. According to FACTCHECK.ORG he also writes his own reviews Obama stated in the debate 1/15/2008 he doesn't take money from PAC member but its a known fact he takes money from their spouses, their children and business associates, Just in small amounts at a time. (FACTCHECK>ORG Democratic debate 4/27/2007) Obama stated he be a bad CEO as president (THE HUFFINGTON POST 1/15/2008) then in the debate 1/15/08 stated that, that's not what he meant. So why say it if you didn't mean it. He said that about many of the quotes in various newspaper articles. Underneath it all Obama's candidacy is going to be about race. Aferican-Americans see him as a superstar. Would you want Micheal Jackson as president?

    January 16, 2008 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  16. Wayne

    Watching this process from the sidelines in Canada I find it fascinating. I wonder though, if by the end of the primaries you are going to find such a fractured and weakened Democratic party that the Republicans will indeed make it to a third term.

    I can see no rallying point to unite the party after all the bad blood being stirred up by the media and the candidates.

    January 16, 2008 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  17. Mark

    I don't get it... Hillary "won" Michigan with 55%. Then all these people are saying she would have won anyway becuase if you do the math with these numbers Obama still would have only had 30%. But what isn't said is how many people chose NOT to vote, vote for Hillary becuase she was the best on the ballot, voted against hillary for someone else becuase they disliked her, OR voted republican. Believe it or not there were independents that wanted to vot for Obama and said "screw this I at least want my vote to count." So either way, CNN is right, this win doesn't count for anything becuase no one gets delegats and there is no way to find out who would have won becuase there are too many variables.

    January 16, 2008 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  18. Dave NY

    What purpose does this 'news' blurb have? If....would've...blah, blah, blah. Nothing matters until the votes are counted. And because Michigan doesn't follow the rules, we'll never know who the real winner would have been. Without a doubt, people will realize that Obama is not the candidate to get the job done – from day one... Hillary has enough African American voter support to win the race. Yes I do support her, yes I do have my own issues with her, but overall, she is the best candidate on the Democratic ticket and she will make the best president of all candidates.

    January 16, 2008 10:18 am at 10:18 am |

    I have nothing against Obama. He seems like a nice enough person with good intentions, however I don't know if he has what it takes...right now... to be our president. I am not sure if he has enough experience.

    I am from the Detroit area. All I have to say is just because 70+% of the African Americans may want Obama...they are not the ONLY vote in Michigan. So truly the numbers are not AS significant as CNN is trying to make it seem. They are important, but it is not a guarantee for anyone right now. CNN is the one promoting race in the election. Clinton has a lot of othe supprters in MIchigan of all races. Not to mention Obama has support in Michigan from all the races too. So, why focus on that one aspect other then to stir up trouble?

    Either way, I like both Clinton and Obama. I just think Clinton has more experience and would be the better choice right now. Hey...maybe they can be running mates (Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton anyone?)

    January 16, 2008 10:19 am at 10:19 am |
  20. Susan Texas


    I understand what you are saying. You should vote for the canidate that you feel will do the best job. I am 45 year old white woman, this is the first time in my life I will have a chance to vote for a female canidiate. I am tired of women being treated like lessor beings. Women make only 70 cents to the male dollar. I don't believe any male is going to make that a priorty. There are so many children that live in poverty because their mother's can't earn enough money due the the sex bias. To me, white man, black man, it makes no difference. They are still a man. For over 200 years they have ruled this country, and have proven that issues that matter to women, just are not important to them. The only man I can vote for is a WOman, for all the children that are growing up in poverty, as I did.

    January 16, 2008 10:19 am at 10:19 am |
  21. Sally

    And if Democrats had a real primary in Michigan where people got a change to hear from and see the candidates, Clinton may have had even more votes. No one knows. To categorize people across the country and assume they will vote, like robots whom you can look at and make absolute judgements about based on race, gender and age is to ignor the complexities of each person you pretend to be counting. It's also very demeaning to each voter to assume they vote as a group and not as a thinking individual.

    January 16, 2008 10:20 am at 10:20 am |
  22. Bob

    During the debate Hillary would not distance herself from Bob Johnson of BET and his comments!!!

    I wonder why?

    No matter how I try and ignore what he [Bob Johnson] said I hope they come back to bite him and his endorsed candidate in the butt!

    Bob Johnson played right into the hands of every racist in the world with his stereotypical tap dancing! Both his smirk and reference to Sydney Poitier to attack Barack Obama are unacceptable and no amount of holding hands will make up for this!

    John Edwards did well in the last debate provided he finishes no less then 2nd in South Carolina Edwards will certainly be back in the full race.

    Yes we can!

    The voice of he people is the strength of America!

    January 16, 2008 10:21 am at 10:21 am |
  23. Calvin Marion

    What is going on here. I am reading these comments and I am almost ashamed to be an American. Obama has not and will not ever play the race card. Why are we making this a black and white issue. People aren't voting for Obama because he is black they; actually think he will bring the refreshing change and end the bickering that has become comonplace in Washington. People aren't voting for Hillary because she s a women; they think that she has the experience to begin working the process the first day that she enters the job. I personally need a refreshing change and have researched Obama and believe that if he can stand the pressure of Harvard Law School and the enourmous task of being the first black president of the Harvard Law review. Then after being successful at that he was able to humble himself and work for poor finding opportunities and housing for them. Then mantain his commitment to the disenfrachised and work as a civil rights lawyer then I think he can stand to the pressure of sitting in the oval office making decision that affect all Americans without forgetting any.

    January 16, 2008 10:22 am at 10:22 am |
  24. steve

    Why are people so ill-informed? Barack has never played the race card, this is some media fabrication. Media outlets have been questioning whether Barack is black enough ever since he entered the campaign. Hillary's people have constantly said negative things about Obama and she openly says being the first female will be a change(Obama has never said being the first black president will be a change). Vote for the person you support and not against the other candidates.

    I think Obama has a great message and vision for our nation and people should focus on that versus listening to media outlets accusing Barack Obama of playing the race card when he has done no such thing.

    I believe Hillary definitely knows her way around Washington and will be a good President but she and her surrogates need to focus on what she has to offer and not turn Obama into Jesse Jackson in order to scare white voters away from him.

    January 16, 2008 10:24 am at 10:24 am |
  25. Dawna

    Ironically black people are voting against themselves. The Clintons have done more for black people in America and around the world than Barrack Obama. That is a fact. Don't vote for a candidate based on the color of her/his skin. Vote for the best person for the job.

    And for all the black women out there who may read this, why do you identify with a black man and not another woman, another mother, a person who has spent her entire career working for all of our children? Aren't America's daughters looking at this election as a realization of their equality, that women are equal to men? Why is less important than race? Women in this county had to fight for equality too, and yet we are still not getting equal pay or healthcare. We are still suffering at the hands of men, some of us even raising our children without a father for financial or emotional suppport. Put your kids first. That is what I do everyday and that is what Hillary has done for 35 years.

    January 16, 2008 10:24 am at 10:24 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30