WTF Happened to Hillary Clinton in Michigan, Explained

[mitty14u2]

Overcoming a consensus 21-point deficit in the polls, and odds against winning pegged at 99:1, Bernie Sanders stormed to victory over Hillary Clinton in the Michigan primary Tuesday night. Sanders' stunning upset win has altered the momentum of the Democratic race. Will it be enough to change the delegate math?

Here's what you need to know.

”MICHIGAN HAS A OPEN PRIMARY”,
meaning that independents can vote – and on either party's ballot. That makes the final composition of the electorate impossible to predict, and can make pollsters look foolish when the returns come in.

As far as Democratic Party voters go, the polls had it about right: Clinton won among self-described Democrats by a margin of 16 points (57-41), according to the exit poll.
What was unforeseen was Sander's strength among independents, who made up 28 percent of the electorate. The socialist won this cohort in a landslide, 71-28.

http://www.rollingstone.com/search?q=wtf%20michigan

”MICHIGAN HAS A OPEN PRIMARY”, Independents and Republicans can Vote in the Primary in many states making Hillary look weak, the dirty tricks have just begun!

[revbones]

1. Not really dirty tricks

And you think independents don't vote in the general or something?

But if you want dirty tricks, try the calls of sexism, racism, etc... that they heap on Bernie and his supporters.

[Buzz Clik]

2. I don't thinks it's dirty tricks because MI made the rules. But this:

And you think independents don't vote in the general or something?

This is the Democratic Primary, not the general. Your comment is just odd.

[Kalidurga]

4. Most Independents do not caucus with Independents.

You can see this in my town. The Democratic caucus is huge. The Republican one is not as big, but it's not much smaller. Five people show up to the Independent caucus.

[revbones]

5. Meh

more team-based politics ignoring positions and principles.

[Buzz Clik]

12. You don't like primaries?

[revbones]

13. Did I say that?

No, I said that your comments were just more team-based.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Pffft

Sorry I asked.

[beedle]

11. Independents won't vote for you

then the Democratic Primary means exactly what?

[Buzz Clik]

14. That was not the point.

[beedle]

22. What was the point then?

As long as we only allow the small subset of people most likely to vote for Hillary to vote in a primary, Hillary will win the primary?

First Bernie was ignored; then when he started getting noticed because his policies were popular with the people the argument was 'Bernie is not electable' ... then when we have a situation where the 'unelectable' meme gets tested and Bernie proves he can beat Hillary with a electorate that isn't hand picked to favor Hillary, now the argument is that Hillary only lost because this wasn't the hand picked Democratic crowd so it's not representative .... I'm not sure what the heck Hillary supporters want? A candidate that can win, or a candidate that supports the policies the people want?

[Buzz Clik]

25. What you are saying is that you don't like primaries.

[revbones]

15. It shouldn't mean exclusion

The way the system is set up, there are only 2 parties. Yeah, team identity based people will say start your own, but that's not realistic given how our government is structured

Independents have no way to help choose a nominee. We know the nominees come fromt he two parties, but where are independents supposed to participate? No, they get stuck with whoever the party chooses and then their choice is only between 2 candidates. Why should they have to affiliate to help choose nominees for the president?

Yeah, I know I'll hear a bunch of crap about party this and party that. It still doesn't explain what independents are supposed to do. And it still won't change that open primaries are more fair to the state's residents than closed ones are.

[Garrett78]

8. But not necessarily the same independents who vote in the primary.

Open primaries are ripe for manipulation. It's in people's interest to increase the likelihood of rancor or a drawn-out primary for the opposition. There's no telling how much of the crossover in a primary is genuine and how much is disingenuous. It's best not to make an assumption about either, but we can be fairly certain that both types exist. In a race separated by 1.5%, is it possible that gamesmanship was the difference between Clinton winning and Clinton losing? Yes.

[revbones]

9. That's some real logical parsing there....

Wow. Now they aren't legit because they might not be the same independents that vote later? Sheesh.

[Garrett78]

10. It's not logic parsing at all.

In the general, people are going to vote for who they truly support. In a primary, there's gamesmanship involved. It stands to reason that not everyone voting in the primary (and this can impact every candidate) is being genuine. As I said, we don't know to what extent or precisely what the impact is in any given primary, but it's foolish to suggest there isn't gamesmanship, that there aren't people trying to manipulate the opposition's results. That would be the height of naivete.

[revbones]

16. It's also possible

Independents just hated her.

[Garrett78]

18. As I said...

...there are those who are genuinely participating in a primary and voting for who they support. And there are those who are disingenuous. We don't know how many of each, but it's safe to say both exist. In a really close race, manipulation by those who are disingenuous can certainly be the difference between winning and losing. We simply don't know for sure if that was the case in Michigan.

[revbones]

19. By that logic

We also simply don't know if Hillary cheated at the Nevada caucuses by winning the casino held ones that Reid had a finger in...

We also simply don't know anything.

[Garrett78]

23. Political corruption is also a reality, but a separate topic.

When Clinton wins among Democrats 57-41 but loses by 1.5%, it's fair to suggest that open primary manipulation was a factor. To dismiss that possibility is naive. That's all I'm saying.

[Number23]

29. Great posts. And I think it's so odd that people here howl about superdelegates who are actually Dem

but seem to have no problem whatsoever with people who are clearly NOT Dems voting in the Democratic primaries.

[Garrett78]

30. Inconsistency seems to be par for the course around here.

Like when Sanders wins in "red" states (the reddest of the red), it's cause for celebration. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I do support reality-based and reasoned thinking.

[Aerows]

27. Oh my.

[SheilaT]

3. And of course Michigan was the only open primary

state that Bernie has won so far, right? What about those states that don't even register a party affiliation? How DARE they hold a primary?

As long as those pesky Independents stay home in the general election, Hillary will win in a landslide.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Yes. Sanders can win in November.

Suggesting that tens of thousands of Republicans voted in a Democratic Primary to set up Sanders as the Democratic nominee to oppose flies in the face of both logic and human nature. Maybe, just maybe, hundreds of regular rank and file Republican voters would take the time to engage in their idea of a dirty trick and vote Democratic, but I doubt even that. Not in a year when there is a contested Republican race going on also. Voters turn out, take the time out of their day and show up some where to vote, in order to support someone who they want, to make their own choice known. Viewership of the Republican debates this year has been huge - Republicans are engaged on their own side.

Meanwhile there is a flood of polling data that shows Independent voters are breaking to Sanders at least three to one over Clinton - that Bernie is positively motivating that constituency WHICH IS LARGER THAN EITHER THE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN ELECTORATES.

[onecaliberal]

7. Dirty tricks are telling lies and standing on them about Bernies voting record.

Clinton Is owned, will start more wars and will do NOTHING for those who are suffering.

[noamnety]

17. I am one of those independents

I've never voted for a republican. I've only voted for dems in down ticket races and in primaries.

Sometimes I vote for dems for president, sometimes green party because there are some issues that are nonnegotiable for me. I'm sure we all have those - like if a democrat were to vote for, for example, genocide, we'd all oppose that, right?

Anyway, if we had to register to vote in the primaries, I would register dem - and it wouldn't have changed a single vote of mine, ever - not in a primary, not in a general election. It might have made the polls more accurate, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of my votes at all.

I don't consider it a "dirty trick" that I voted in a state where I have a legal right to vote.

[reformist2]

21. 'Impossible' to predict??? Nonsense. Funny how they never told us that before. Credibility. Lost.

[SheenaR]

26. 2004 and 2008 polled very well

Though it was a caucus. Impossible? Hardly

[SheenaR]

24. Here's what happened

She lost

November is wide open too. Will we lean on this excuse when she costs us the White House?

[BernieforPres2016]

28. Unfortunately for you and Hillary

the number of self described Democrats keeps shrinking and the number of self described Independents keeps growing. If you think any Democrat can be competitive in the general election without attracting a significant number of independent votes you're delusional.

But I applaud you for just now finding out about this strange phenomenon of voters who classify themselves as Independents.