40
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Tonight is the Michigan primary and unlike previous primaries where we were specifically paying attention to the REPUBLICAN side, this one has an interest on the DEMOCRATIC side as well!

Michigan has a significant population of people with Middle Eastern or North African heritage:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/palestinian-advocates-michigan-voters-pick-uncommitted-biden/story?id=107547068

"Biden narrowly won Michigan in 2020 by some 150,000 votes -- less than half of the amount of people in the state who cited Middle Eastern or North African ancestry in the 2020 census."

Going into this primary, there is a movement to convince these folks to vote "Uncommitted" rather than for Biden in order to send a message over his policies for Gaza and Israel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68409546

Of course, the last time we saw a similar move was in the Nevada Republican primary where Nikki Haley was running effectively unopposed. Trump supporters, voting in the caucus rather than the primary, were encouraged to vote "None of these candidates" in the primary.

That result?

None of These Candidates - 50,763 - 63.3%
Nikki Haley - 24,583 - 30.6%
Mike Pence - 3,091 - 3.9%
Tim Scott - 1,081 - 1.4%
John Castro - 270 - 0.3%

Will the "Uncommitted" push in Michigan be as successful as the 2:1 showing for "None of the Above" in Nevada?

Stay tuned!

Edit 99% Democrats reporting, Biden and Trump projected as the winners, no surprise.

Uncommitted Democrats - 101,100 - 13.3%

99% Republican ballots counted.

Uncommitted - 33,404 votes - 3%

So across both parties, around 134,000 or so "uncommitted".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Not sure where you're getting that idea. Both the numbers and the percentage is (so far) significantly higher than 2020 and 2016.

[-] Atyno@dmv.social -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The percentage is more important, and it's basically the same size as 2012 which is the appropriate comparison (2016 and 2020 had other, viable candidates to vote for).

Numbers are higher... But that's the issue isn't it? Seems to me an even larger portion of voters came out to "anti-protest" the protest voters too.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The percentage is also significantly higher than 2012, but again, it's not more important.

Here are the numbers for 2012:

Uncommitted - 20,833 - 10.69%

The point being that election after election the number of uncommitted Democrats hovers around 20,000... Until this year...

100,960 - 13.3%
(95% counted)

5x the number of votes, +3% at the poll.

You have to go back to 2008 to see a similar result, which was another protest vote due to DNC shenanigans removing just about anyone not Hillary from the ballot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Michigan_Democratic_presidential_primary

2000 - 0 - 0% (Caucus, not primary)
2004 - 497 - 0.30% (Caucus, not primary)
2008 - 238,168 - 39.61%
2012 - 20,833 - 10.69%
2016 - 21,601 - 1.79%
2020 - 19,106 - 1.20%
2024 - 100,960 - 13.3%

[-] Atyno@dmv.social 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You can't honestly tell me 39% is closer to 13% than 10%. 3% is not significant, it's an error margin on a poll.

The significant part is the absolute numbers, but that comes with caveat that the Biden vote was 3x Obama's in 2012 (and is 80% of the vote, which is a little less because of unviable candidates so unfortunately there's a little muddying).

Honestly, the whole thing is kinda proving to me the pro-palestine movement still isn't really big in the US despite the optics. Or, at the very least, there's still a large pro-Israel contingent that dwarfs them. And probably why Biden's been ignoring them.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

We aren't talking about 2008 because that's an anomaly due to DNC asshattery.

From 2012 forward, the numbers are consistent... until this year.

[-] Atyno@dmv.social 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

But you did say 2008, you said it was a "similar" result. I'm not going to contest the anomalous nature, but the result itself is not similar at all!

My point is that I don't agree, the numbers are only consistent for 2016/2020 (because turns out most people won't waste time with an uncommitted vote when there's a viable opposition candidate: Bernie). 2012 is a deviation and in the same way this primary did. The only thing different is the absolute number of votes altogether (in a state that has had insignificant population growth mind).

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Similar in that the electorate was driven to protest, but for different reasons.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
40 points (88.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3230 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS