Turnout Reportedly Low Across Michigan

Comments (45)

Desider wrote on January 15, 2008 2:16 PM:

As goes Michigan, so goes the nation... ;-)

kjoe wrote on January 15, 2008 2:17 PM:

Does this mean Romney's money prevails and he beats McCain by 5 points?

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:19 PM:

Would you go out to vote between Insane McCain and Which-Way-Is-the-Wind-Blowing Romney?

CT Voter wrote on January 15, 2008 2:20 PM:

and also on account of the snowy weather.

That, and the craptacular slate of Republican candidates...

Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 2:21 PM:

Dems blow them out in the general with high turnout. BTW.....Calif. absentee voting has begun and word says HRC is tearing BO a new one. HRC/BO in 08.

D wrote on January 15, 2008 2:24 PM:

It would be funny if more Democrats turn out to vote in the Republican primary than Republicans.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:24 PM:

No Kefa. HRC can down in flames with some other schmuck.

grover_rover wrote on January 15, 2008 2:25 PM:

California elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor. Enough said.

awrbb wrote on January 15, 2008 2:31 PM:

Kefa, "word says" you are a troll.

Stay on topic.

Shelly wrote on January 15, 2008 2:32 PM:

Kefa -

Where are you getting this info? Link?

Me thinks you are pulling it out of your arse...

Jeremy wrote on January 15, 2008 2:36 PM:

Hillary's mailer smearing "undeclared" with lies about its position on choice must not have worked.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 15, 2008 2:39 PM:

I didn't think it was standard operating procedure to start tallying and publishing absentee ballots before the election. That would be an interesting development. Source please?

It would make sense for HRC to try to set her CA votes in concrete before she loses her ass in NV and SC, or before the NH recount results come in and possibly (I say possibly) take that win away and raise questions of voter fraud. Unnecessary voting in advance is a stupid thing, because you can't take that back, no matter what stupid things your candidate says or does.

RobbyLove wrote on January 15, 2008 2:48 PM:

If turnout is light that is bad for McCain. Disinterested Dems and Indys will stay home rather than go to vote for him. Romney is way up among Michigan Republicans.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:50 PM:

No worries folks, there are absolutely no results available for CA primary voting. Now, I said that with no negative remarks of any candidate, see how easy it is?

CT Voter wrote on January 15, 2008 2:56 PM:

Now, I said that with no negative remarks of any candidate, see how easy it is?

If you're being civil about something, you're probably got something to hide, right? I mean, why make a point without pointing fingers at someone, or slamming a candidate, or impugning the intelligence of others? Where's the fun in that?????

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 3:10 PM:

Anyone have any timing on when the results begin to come in tonight?

dcshungu wrote on January 15, 2008 3:14 PM:

Turnout Reportedly Low Across Michigan

Yup! Compare that with the record turnouts that the first two Dem contests have attracted and you'll begin to see why we should not be making 'electability' an important criterion for selecting our nominee: The Repubs are depressed with Bush, their party and their candidates and would 'sit one out' in record numbers, which would make it easy for any Dem nominee, including Obama, to win comfortably. Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 3:16 PM:

awrbb ...are you the topic police????

I guess you have no idea what the def. of what a troll is.

dcshungu wrote on January 15, 2008 3:18 PM:

....'sit this one out'....

Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 3:29 PM:

Shelly.....no link....I know someone.

Maybe you don't like the info. Let's say it's out my arse until later. Then we'll talk. :)

ARR wrote on January 15, 2008 3:32 PM:

Kefa,

According to PC Magazine, the definition of trolling is "Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding."

So I guess, technically, you are not a troll because your message is not derogatory--it is just FALSE. Maybe we need to come up with a different term for what you are doing.

I don't think anyone awrbb or anyone else is acting as the topic police. We would just like you to provide some proof when you make outrageous statements like the one about the California ballots.

Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 3:36 PM:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-poll15jan15,0,1056634.story?coll=la-home-center

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14ballot.html?scp=1&sq=california+absentee

Since I can't kiss and tell.....this will have to do. ;)

Just some reading.

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 3:36 PM:

Kefa knock it off with the obama running mate nonsense. There is no way that obama agrees to be clinton's running mate. No way. First of all she would never in a million years want him as her running mate. She wants a sycophant, not someone with integrity and honesty. Second, he won't want to go down in flames with her. He'll go after mccain in 2012 if she winds up with the nomination.

nrglaw wrote on January 15, 2008 3:37 PM:

The turnout is symptomatic of the stupidity of the MI Democratic Party in pushing for the early primary date. Dems would have turned out in droves if Hillary and Obama were both on the ballot.

With regard to D's post, there is likely to be a significant crossover of Dems to vote for McCain, not for Romney. Some people I spoke to are voting for Romney per the Kos argument. But McCain is better known in MI than is Romney (Romney name or not) and a lot of MI Dems crossed over in 2000 to vote for McCain in the primary, in which he beat Bush.

nrglaw

awrbb wrote on January 15, 2008 3:41 PM:

Kefa, I would define a troll as someone who intentionally debases the conversation.

In other news, I reckon kjoe is right--we're looking at a Romney victory.

Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 3:42 PM:

The word I am getting.......it is my personal word from people I know say HRC is winning in CAL. If you don't like it....too bad. I do not have to reveal anything. Take it for what it is worth to you. 100% or 0%
If the word was BO was up..so be it. Thats not what I am hearing. I believe my people.

Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 3:45 PM:

Michael A.....so when it's clinton/obama 08
you will kiss arse?

My opinion and I'm sticking with it.

larry smith wrote on January 15, 2008 3:50 PM:

Ever notice Chip Saltsman, Huckabee's campaign manager look just like Quagmire on family guy?(Alll Right" "Giggidy-giggidy-gig gidy.")

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 3:51 PM:

The turnout is symptomatic of the stupidity of the MI Democratic Party in pushing for the early primary date. Dems would have turned out in droves if Hillary and Obama were both on the ballot.

Really, you think so? I went to grad school at the Univ of MI and I have been saying to my friends who are still there how impressed I am with Gov Granholm's strategy on this point. Even if MI has no delegates (at least at present) in the DNC, I cannot imagine that so much attention would have been paid to the staggering unemployment rates up there if MI had waited until Feb 5 or after. I tip my hat to her and to the MI legislature for the savvy move.

Meanwhile, for whatever little my opinion is worth, I agree with Michael A that there is 0% chance of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Sen Clinton would never make such an offer and more to the point, Sen Obama would never accept such an offer.

CT Voter wrote on January 15, 2008 4:02 PM:

larry smith: have you ever noticed that Huckabee, himself, looks like the doofus on the Campbell soup commercials?

(The "chef" who has sea gulls, lighthouses, the ocean, etc all whispering into his ear "sea salt" before he gets the inspiration to use sea salt in Campbell's soups?)

Frog Leg wrote on January 15, 2008 4:11 PM:

I voted here in Michigan this morning, and from what I have heard talking to people around here, low turnout = advantage for Huckabee. Romney and McCain supporters are lukewarm. The Huckabee supporters are fierce. Could be very interesting tonight.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 15, 2008 4:20 PM:

I think a poor showing for Rudy will result in his FL operation collapsing and GOP voters having the field down to three:

McCain, Romney, and Huckabee who I think will do consistent with evangelical votes.

JMHO, it might start the closure on Huckabee unless he seconds in SC.

Fred who???

storm wrote on January 15, 2008 4:27 PM:

oh so exciting to be a proud supporter of Uncommitted. My Hippocratic vote: Do no harm.

Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 4:33 PM:

Here's the deal....HRC would offer it because it would heal the party...a unity ticket. He would take it because he would no longer have to be in the Senate. In the Senate one has to vote, The longer the longer the odds of having a shot. What the people of BO don't like about it is....it makes him a political person and not a god. This is politics, always was. Grow up people.

clinton/obama 08

It's about beating the Repubs in 08.

CT Voter wrote on January 15, 2008 4:50 PM:

Kefa:

As appealing as clinton/obama08 might seem, why on earth should she offer it to him? So she can be overshadowed by both her husband and running mate? She's not going to offer the VP position (if she's even in the position to do so at that point) to anyone who's going to take attention away from her. And Obama would most certainly take attention away from her. It's not going to happen.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 5:02 PM:

I personally wouldn't rule out her offering it to him, though that part I think is more debatable. But this part I think is not: his accepting, he would have to. Now, this is a lot of speculative banter on a what may very well prove to be a moot point. I haven't ruled anybody out yet as the nominee so no need to speculate strictly on Hillary. Who will Obama pick? Who will Edwards pick? Each other? Let's diversify the speculation based on the realistic chance that someone else is actually the nominee.

Kefa, since your link is to polls not results, am I to assume you have some inside information you cannot share thus the "kiss and tell" comment? If so, you probably shouldn't know it and if you do, you shouldn't share, you kind of already kissed and told if so.

dr. luba wrote on January 15, 2008 5:22 PM:

I actually went out, planning to vote in the Republican primary, as per the directive of the Great Orange Satan. Although I was thinking of voting for Ron Paul, just to help him get competitive.

But when I got there, my polling station (which I can walk to) had been changed. In the past, when this happened, they would send out new voter registration cards, but the new Republican SoS can't be bothered, I guess. I'm not sure that I want to mess with the Republicans enough to have to drive several miles away to do. Not an uncommon sentient, as the polling station was fairly empty. Usually we have good turn out.

All I can say is screw Iowa and New Hampshire--why do they get a say, and not the rest of us. They can jump the queue without consequence, but Michigan gets disenfranchised. I can't remember the last time the Michigan primary really meant something.

And the weather sucks today as well--it's not snowing, but cold and windy. Not the sort of weather that beckons people to go out. I expect record low turnout.

BTW, Republican candidates have been inviting Democrats to vote in their primary, in fliers and other ads. Worst of all, I had a message on my machine from that turncoat Lieberman, urging me to go out an vote for his best buddy John McCain....there might have been more to the message, but it was all I could stomach.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 5:24 PM:

I personally wouldn't rule out her offering it to him, though that part I think is more debatable. But this part I think is not: his accepting, he would have to.

I cannot imagine what you mean. Why would he have to accept if offered? Plenty of people decline job offers every day.

dcshungu wrote on January 15, 2008 5:34 PM:

Meanwhile, for whatever little my opinion is worth, I agree with Michael A that there is 0% chance of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Sen Clinton would never make such an offer and more to the point, Sen Obama would never accept such an offer.

Besides, such a ticket, made of two "firsts", would be quite risky, as we're not even sure how each of the "firsts" would fare alone...Would folks in Dixie vote for a black man or would the macho American man vote for a woman? The latter can be overcome by a large female turnout, whereas the former cannot be compensated for simply with a large black turnout, which is why Obama made the political calculation to woo independents and Republicans [it is not by chance that he has been sounding more and more like a real Repub, as opposed to a centrist Dem who is considered a Repub by the far left; Obama seems to have crossed the line to the other side.]

Bat Guano wrote on January 15, 2008 5:37 PM:

Lieberman called me twice today... bastard.

Michiganders laugh at cold, scoff at snow. I voted with about three others. It was late afternoon, so maybe more will be voting after work hours.

blackstar wrote on January 15, 2008 5:38 PM:

which is why Obama made the political calculation to woo independents and Republicans [it is not by chance that he has been sounding more and more like a real Repub, as opposed to a centrist Dem who is considered a Repub by the far left; Obama seems to have crossed the line to the other side.]

-------------

your leaps of reasoning never cease to disappoint.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 5:42 PM:

Would folks in Dixie vote for a black man...

Almost certainly not. On the other hand, neither will they vote for Hillary Clinton. Both candidates will face the same challenge that the Republicans used to face - the south is off the table, so one must win by taking every northern swing state.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 5:43 PM:

Greg DeLassus:

getting stripped of what ought to be my right to have some say in who will be the presidential nominee doesn't put me in any mood to give kudos to those responsible or crediting them with having anything approaching 'savvy'. they have turned the process into a mockery and just given hillary a free headline. michigan wins nothing but lipservice and empty, forgotten-even-as-it's-being-uttered pandering.

dcshungu wrote on January 15, 2008 5:45 PM:

your leaps of reasoning never cease to disappoint.

Of course...Too far above your head, out of your reach.

dr. luba wrote on January 15, 2008 8:59 PM:

Michiganders laugh at cold, scoff at snow.

And bears. Don't forget the bear at the UP precinct in 2000. Held up the vote a bit, but didn't cancel it.

Still, this Republican slate may do what bad weather and bears can't--keep Michiganders home on election day.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)