Lessons learned from Michigan’s primary — including how “uncommitted” lawmakers acted

However, while there was no question of the presidential nomination race, many eyes were on Michigan for clues about the general election.

There was an effort by Democrats to get Michiganders to vote “no responsibility” in protest of Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza. And on the Republican side, Haley argued that the Republican base’s reluctance to fully embrace Trump will be to blame for Trump in November.

Below are some key points on these and other subjects.

1. What does an “uncommitted” vote mean?

The idea behind the “non-commitment” campaign is to get more people to make their case in states with a disproportionately large number of Arab Americans, perhaps sending a message about how Biden’s Middle East policy is too favorable to Israel. It was to send. It was led by several prominent Democrats, including Palestinian-American Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).

There’s no doubt that Tuesday caught people’s attention. Whether that has truly changed the paradigm for 2024 is another matter.

That option received a significant 15 percent of the vote just hours after polls closed. But context is important.

The raw number of people who voted for this option was significantly higher than in Michigan’s 2012, 2016, and 2020 primaries, when about 20,000 people chose “noncommit” each time.

But the actual percentage was only slightly higher than in the previous Michigan primary in 2012, when the incumbent president was elected. The “uncommitted” camp then gained about 11% against Barack Obama.it is many However, this is a race with low turnout.

Another thing to remember is that the 2012 nomination process featured many substantive performances of “no commitment” or “no hope.” This option received 42% of the vote in Kentucky, 21% in North Carolina, and 11% to 14% in Michigan, as well as Rhode Island, Tennessee, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

The comparison to today’s Michigan State is less than perfect.

First, there were no other real candidates in the 2012 race, so critics of the incumbent essentially had only one other option. (In Michigan, Rep. Dean Phillips and Rep. Marianne Williamson combined for nearly 6% of the vote.)

The other thing is that some of these states, unlike Michigan today, had a lot of conservative Democrats from a time when it was more important. But not everyone did. Rhode Island, Maryland, and Massachusetts were not bastions of marginalized conservative Democrats like Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

It is clear that these non-committal votes signal something very different from the 2012 protest vote, and potentially something more troubling for a sitting president. The real question is whether Biden can muster support in other states and other ways to really make Biden feel like he needs to change his ways and look out for his left.

After an initial false start in New Hampshire, the protest vote was a stepping stone. It is important now to signal that this movement has some staying power.

2. Nikki Haley fades, but never completely disappears.

In recent weeks, Haley has begun to argue that her vote share also reflects the weakness of her party’s front-runner.

After winning 43% in New Hampshire and nearly 40% in South Carolina, she said these numbers confirm that President Trump cannot win the general election given his “de facto” status as the incumbent. criticized.

The Michigan primary confirms that although Haley won’t get anywhere near 40 percent of the vote in future races, she hasn’t hit rock bottom yet.

New Hampshire and South Carolina were always likely to be Haley’s high points. Given the fact that the former has a large number of independent voters and the latter is Haley’s home state. Michigan’s results, and polls from other states ahead of next week’s Super Tuesday, suggest far less appetite for alternatives.

There is no exit polling data to show how many voters are second-guessing Trump in the general election. But his nearly 30 percent of the vote is not entirely absent.

That’s better than polling she did nationally and in many states on Super Tuesday. Additionally, Haley again topped the polls, as she did in New Hampshire and South Carolina, which means these polls may be overestimating Trump’s power (at least in the primaries). It suggests.

This is a state where the national party structure has become very Trump-like in recent years. And Trump’s grip on the Republican nomination is so tight that it has been clear for some time that Haley’s vote was essentially a protest vote.

It appears that the number of such protest votes will continue to increase. However, it is difficult to know what this will be in November.

3. Hayley begins to realize the endgame.

If you look closely at what Haley has said in recent days, it’s clear she’s no longer claiming this race is winnable. Instead, she seems to be making a point about how Trump intends to attack the party.

And Tuesday night brought even more of that. On CNN as the results began to come in, Dana Bash asked Haley if the party had simply moved away from her brand of conservatism and was now “about Donald Trump.” Ta.

“That’s very likely,” Haley responded, adding, “We’re giving them a choice.”

Haley is basically signaling that she’s going to make it through to Super Tuesday. Because that’s what she’s going to do. “Give them a choice” does not mean “I win.”

Her goal now seems to be to get her point across. And perhaps if Trump loses, she might be able to say “I told you so” (perhaps ahead of another campaign).

4. Biden’s actual primary challenger will stall.

It’s not all that surprising that Biden’s actual primary challenger, Phillips (D-Minn.), lost to a “non-committal” figure. The “no commitment” campaign had much more traction.

While Phillips remains a possible alternative to Biden in other states, Michigan suggests he is less likely.

In fact, Phillips was in danger of finishing fourth behind Williamson on Tuesday night. Mr Williamson suspended his campaign three weeks ago.