The "uncommitted" option got a LOT of publicity, particularly in Detroit where John Conyers worked hard to get the word out.

Literally every single person I spoke to in Michigan, when I suggested that it wasn't much of an election since only Hillary was on the ballot, responded, "Oh, but you're supposed to vote uncommitted if you like Obama or Edwards."  People knew.

Every poll since Iowa has shown Obama doing very well with the AA vote and I doubt anyone is surprised.  But this just reinforces what a mistake it was for him to pull his name off the ballot in a state with a large AA population.

Plus, there are a lot of Muslims in Michigan, and maybe some of them would have gotten that email and voted for him. ;)

As an AA, I understand what's going on. AA's are a little mad at Hillary. BO did what he set out to do-cause a divide between the Clintons and AAs. However, BO is underestimating Hill's charm. She will win them.  Not Bill, she will. Stay tuned!

The headlines I've seen on the Michigan Democratic primary have been

"Clinton Wins Meaningless Michigan Primary"

"Clinton Wins Michigan Beauty Pageant"

"Clinton Edges 'Uncommitted' in Michigan"

Uncommitted votes are votes for either Edwards or Obama.  Clinton won big here.

If you remember, Clinton was always in the high 40's (and passed 50!) throughout most of the 2007, until the polling stopped when the DNC ruled against the state.  Her strong numbers were one of the reasons why Obama pulled his behind the scene's deal with Biden, Richardson, Edwards, etc to force Clinton to pull out.

This is an unfair assessment of the vote; primarily because we don't know if it is because of that, there is NO evidence to suggest that. Rep. Conyers campaigned heavily for Obama and ran ads to urge voting for uncommitted.

So that assessment is unfair.

However, this shows that the black vote is a lock for Obama.

That still didn't help him win the primary. But, in SC, it will.

Give us a break with the "they are mad at her" stuff. She made one dumb comment, that wasn't that bad to begin with, it was taken way out of context by the belt way blowhards and that allowed the "uncommitted" African-Americans an excuse to switch to BO. The candidate they were always going to support.

I don't have any problems with that supporting one favorite son, he is a great campaigner he and gives the African-American community its best chance to win a presidential nomination ever. But don't use one dumb comment as an excuse to dump on the Clinton's. People who have been working for minority causes for 3 decades. It is very transparent, IMO.

I read on Open Left that turnout was 7%. Wasn't there some sort of threshold of 15% that Democrats had to reach in order for the DNC to even consider seating Michigan's delegates? Correct me if I'm wrong here...

How does it make one feel to know that "uncommitted" beat out Hillary 46% to 43% in the most liberal country in the state, Washtenaw county, site of Ann Arbor and the U of Michigan. This is especially true since the media were repeating the notion that the election would not count on the Democratic side.

Obama breaks 40% as Hillary falls to 55%. It is truly amazing that Clinton couldn't beat Uncommitted by more than 15%.

thats the whole reason they played the race card to begi with!  Duh!

Now the press has ignored this of course.  The only place today that even had Rep. John Lewis quoted saying the Obamas campaign falsely schemed with a list of race baiting charges to the media.  They used the race card this week to gain votes ad the only place this was reported was here a mydd in my diary!  Though he said this last night on PBS News Hour, no media outlet reported his words.  it didnt fit their agenda and theyre all terrified of discussing race in any way except in a way that makes obama look innocent and the clintons guilty.

I saw how kumbaya Obama and Hillary were tonight, but the false foul act has already been done.
So now through his party splitting actions,obama has 70 % of the black vote.

Chicago Style indeed.

Happy MLK's birthday.
Obam slandered good dems, divided our Party and picked up  slw of angry commmited black voers.

New politics indeed!

The final numbers will be:

Clinton 54%, Uncommitted 41%.

Doesn't strike me as very impressive for HRC.

Can anyone find any media source that has the actual Michigan delegate results out of tonights primary?

LEAP FROGGING GONE WILD --- Tonight's event in Michigan was not an election---it was an indictment of the current nominating process.   DNC chair Howard Dean and Michigan senator Carl Levin and New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner and the rest of the powers that be should be ashamed at what took place tonight...

     Shame on them all for strong-arming OBAMA and EDWARDS to have them take de facto "LOYALTY OATHS" to New Hampshire and Iowa and request their names be taken off the ballot in Michigan lest they suffer the WRATH of the FIEFDOM-PROTECTORS in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests.  Shame on all of them for forcing the candidates to obide by a "no campaigning in the state" pledge.  How is it that CLINTON had her name on the ballot and KUCINICH and GRAVEL had their name on the ballot but EDWARDS and OBAMA did not?  It gives the appearance that CLINTON will not be bulldozed by the powerplay manueverings of New Hampshire and Iowa and that EDWARDS and OBAMA will.   I blame HOWARD DEAN for that faux pax and CARL LEVIN.  What kind of bullcrap is that?

     As I see it, the Democratic Party surrendered MICHIGAN tonight to the Republicans.   The Grand Old Party of Gerald Ford and Guy Vanderjagt got plenty of FREE MEDIA this week and it could prove pivotal in a tightly contested general election next November.   Now that would be the ultimate WAKEUP CALL and REALITY CHECK for the bickering Democratic powers that be if the Republicans won the general election by the narrowest of margins with MICHIGAN flipping to Republican RED from Democratic BLUE.  What is so sad is to see people living in "one state recession" misery disenfranchised --- to be rendered voiceless --- thereby amplifying the "POWER" and "MAGNITUDE" of Iowa and New Hampshire even more.  This madness has got to STOP.

     It is my understanding that the Democratic Party is seeking to PUNISH Florida for its LEAP-FROGGING behavior in a few weeks as well.

     The current nominating process is a sham and needs to be trashed after this cycle.  An under-reported FACT of NEW HAMPSHIRE protecting its "FIEFDOM" and first-in-the nation STATUS is that regional candidates from the Northeast are given an artificial boost --- from Tsongas to Dean to Kerry.  Candidates from non-northeast name recognition enter at a competitive disadvantage.  Factor in that northeast-based candidates are easily able to have volunteers make a short commute to New Hampshire to help their cause and it is plain to see that the deck is unfairly stacked.   If the preciousness of retail politicking is to be preserved (New Hampshire's well-known refrain gto protecting its status) it should be evenly spread --- have same-day voting at 2 or 3 other early primary states of equally small states on the same day...say New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina and Iowa all on the same day....Then, three weeks later, have three more contests such as Washington and Florida and Michigan...Spread it out so candidates from one region can't be given an artificial boost.

    Iowa and New Hampshire together represent 1 percent of the electorate and are 95% white.  The Age of 24/7 cable has primed the pump to transform these electoral events into 500 million dollars of tourism money into their state's economies.   It is a never-ending cycle.  As soon as this curtain closes on 2008 there will be a whole new cycle of politicians making plans to line up speaking engagements at Jefferson-Jackson dinners in 2008 and county fundraising dinners in Hawkeye and Granite State land and the milking of the CASH COW will begin again.  Stop the madness.

No one got anything. The turn-out was less then 10% of Democrats in the state.

Hillary lost the youth vote also... she beat no one by 55%, way to go

Bingo.

I think anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the census data would rather have 61% of the white vote than 68% of the black vote.

Here are the other important demographics:

Married Men (25% of the voters):
Clinton: 54%
Obama/Edwards: 41%

Single Men (18% of the voters):
Clinton: 44%
Obama/Edwards: 48%

Married Women (31% of the voters):
Clinton: 61%
Obama/Edwards: 35%

Single Women (26% of the voters):
Clinton: 60%
Obama/Edwards: 37%

The single women numbers (both as a percentage of turnout and margin for Clinton) are breathtaking. This echos what we saw in the New Hampshire primary voting.

Obama has a real demographic problem. His strongest group is single men, who are the least likely voters in the United States.

From CNN's exit poll out of Michigan:

   Vote if All Candidates Were On Ballot

   Clinton 46
    Obama 35
    Edwards 12
    Kucinich 2

Maybe somebody's got it the other way around. People who were willing to go out and vote Uncommitted, were mostly Obama and Edwards supporters. Big surprise.

Actually in some caucus states, old-timers always vote "uncommitted" so later they can sell their favors in smoky rooms. Maybe they're being Bradley about that? What happened with Uncommitteds in previous MI primaries?

Chris Bowers frames these results as a win for Barack Obama, and I can't say that I think he's too far off.

Bowers was wrong, and so are you.  Anyone who extrapolates from last night's outcome does so at their peril.  

Obama won IA, lost NH, and wasn't on the ballot in MI.  You can't a) call that a win for Obama and b) extrapolate it to the rest of the country as Bowers did:

If he can trounce Clinton among African-Americans without even being on the ballot, it seems that Obama has solidified African-Americans behind him nationwide.

Rep. Conyers (D) is an Obama supporter and he pushed for the state's African-American community to vote "uncommitted."

Both Conyers and his wife pushed that option in radio and tv ads so last night's outcome isn't much of a surprise.  Josh Marshall is right about not reading too much into last night's results.