the loss of Michigan

[hfojvt]

Listening to Shields on PBS it seemed kinda clear to me. Edwards might have won Michigan. Is there any place where his message would resonate more?

Probably someone has a state poll, but losing Michigan seems like another loss for Edwards, unless Kucinich or undecided wins there.

The media is not talking about Democrats in Michigan, even as they talk about the Republican primary in Michigan. New Hampshire Republicans lost HALF of their delegates because they moved up their primary. Not seeing alot of mention about that.

Now they are all talking about the polls in New Hampshire and expressing disbelief that they could all be wrong, and also the anecdotal evidence on the ground is wrong. But nobody says anything about machine counting. One person said "something happened on Monday" but then David Brooks said other polls do not show a big Hillary surge among people who say they decided on the last day.

If they did a poll in New Hampshire now, what would it show?

[LisaM]

1. Yes, Edwards is the kind of person Michiganders need

His message would have resonated there, but the national party doesn't seem to care about Michigan, despite the fact that it's hard the worst economy in the nation for a while.

[skipos]

2. If Edwards can't win SC like he did in 2004, Edwards wouldn't have won MI

And Edwards won't win SC.

[hfojvt]

4. SC does not have the economic losses that Michigan does

In 2004, he was the only southerner in the running. This time black voters, a majority in SC, have two black people they can vote for. They have Obama, and they have Hillary, wife of the "first black President". How does South Carolina compare to Michigan?

[skipos]

6. SC was the only state he won and he is polling in the teens there and everywhere

There are other states that have economic problems, and I am very certain Edwards will come in 3rd in all of them.
There have been three polls in MI in the last few months (Nov was the most recent) and Edwards ranged from 10-15%. Third place.

It is obvious that he went all out on Iowa and it didn't work out. He has no plan be and no safety states.
I would love to see Edwards get the nomination, but it is not going to happen.

[hfojvt]

10. sigh. Apparently you are right about the polls

http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=26

Some of that may be the media too. After the New Hampshire debate their polling said they wanted the candidates to talk more about the economy. But of course, the candidates couldn't because the debate moderators kept asking about nuclear attacks, Pakistan, Iraq, etc., and even some questions (again!) about the campaign itself.

[skipos]

7. .

.

[shaniqua6392]

3. I would have voted for him here in Michigan.

Now I don't know what to do. They sure screwed us here.

[hfojvt]

5. Who decided to move the primary?

Was it the legislature or was it the local party bigshots? Now they essentially have a primary with only Hillary on the ballot. Maybe it really is a golden opportunity for a two person race. In New Hampshire, Hillary got 39%. Not-Hillary got 61%. In a two person race, maybe Hillary will lose again.

[skipos]

8. Vote uncommitted, and tell everyone you know

who wants a candidate that isn't on the bill to do the same. Read the link below.

[whatdoyouthink]

9. Well someone? helped move them out of play???

Makes you wonder - also moving most all of them up? and Big Media is loving it!!!