Question 1): President Joe Biden easily won the Democrats’ side of the Feb. 27 Michigan Presidential Primary with roughly 81% of the vote. Former President Donald Trump romped to a lopsided victory over former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley in the Republican contest. Total turnout statewide was about 23%, meaning three voters out of every four didn’t even bother to cast a ballot.
With a slim field consisting of author Marianne Williamson (3%) and U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips (2.7%) challenging Biden, the incumbent’s victory was never in doubt. The only question was the degree to which progressives and Arab-Americans in parts of Metro Detroit were going to vote “Uncommitted” as a protest against Biden’s reluctance to support a ceasefire in Gaza. The answer? Yes, “Uncommitted” did well in Dearborn and environs, but got barely more than 13% of the vote statewide, compared with nearly 40% who voted ‘Uncommitted” in 2008 as a vehicle to support Barack Obama in his fight for the Democratic nomination with Hillary Clinton, who got 53%.
In Dearborn, the site of the country’s highest concentration of Arab-Americans, “Uncommitted” won 56.7% to 39.9% for Biden. Turnout in Dearborn was at 25.1%, just above the state average. This year’s organizers of the “Vote Uncommitted” movement set a low bar of 10,000 votes statewide as a barometer of success. Yes, they far exceeded that, with just over 100,000, and they carried not only Dearborn but also the cities of nearby Dearborn Heights and Hamtramck. However, assuming a cease fire comes to Gaza before November, which it will, it’s hard to imagine Biden’s temporizing now will cost him votes from Palestine sympathizers in the general election.
Overall, Wayne County, where Dearborn is located, recorded 73.1% support for Biden, with Uncommitted getting 21.3%. Statewide, Democrats saw more than 715,000 voters casting ballots in their primary.
Turnout in the Republican primary was far higher at 1.1 million+, but that number was undoubtedly padded by a hefty number of “crossover” Democrats and Independents who voted for Nikki Haley, the last remaining major candidate in the field. Nevertheless, Trump earned 68.2% statewide while Haley clocked in at 26.5%, with a scattering of votes in low single digits for five other candidates on the GOP ballot.
By comparison, 996,499 Michigan Republicans voted in the Mitt ROMNEY-Rick SANTORUM primary of 2012. The more competitive Trump-Ted CRUZ-John KASICH primary of 2016 drew 1.3 million voters. The John McCAIN-George W. BUSH primary of 2000 also drew 1.3 million voters, but Democrats didn’t have a contest that year. The Romney-McCain primary of 2008 drew 869,169 voters.
So, what about all this? Was the 2024 Michigan Presidential Primary a success, or a dud? Did the results tell us anything we didn’t already know, or point the way to what lies ahead for both of the major parties and their prospective nominees? How do we answer naive pundits who, before the primary, asked questions like “Will the Republican vote for Nikki Haley be more or less than the vote on the Democratic side for Uncommitted?”
Answer 1): The answer to the last question is MORE, far more. And the primary itself was a dud, just as almost all the Michigan primaries for the past half-century have been duds. The Feb. 27 results didn’t change the trajectory of the race on either the Democratic or the Republican side — Biden and Trump are foreordained to be their parties’ nominees, barring some surprise turn of events. But that’s been true of all the primary results beginning in 1972. Yes, there have been shocking upsets, like George Wallace winning Michigan’s Democratic primary in 1972 or Jesse Jackson winning the Democratic caucuses in 1988 or John McCain winning the 2000 Republican primary or Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. But none of those Michigan primary winners came close to winning their party’s nomination. Strangely, the only two primaries where the results made some difference were the Republican primaries of 1976 and 1980. In the former, incumbent President Gerald Ford had to go all out in his native Michigan to edge out a hard-charging Ronald Reagan. If Ford had lost, it’s very possible Reagan could have gotten the nomination and ended up facing Jimmy Carter four years earlier than he wound up doing. In 1980, George H.W. Bush pulled a massive upset over Reagan in Michigan’s GOP presidential primary, although it was too late to deny “The Gipper” the nomination. Nevertheless, many believe Bush’s Michigan showing prompted Reagan to pick Bush as his vice presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention in Detroit a few months later.
The Michigan presidential primary was revived more than a half-century ago, in 1972, after a four-decade+ hiatus. Few know that Michigan “experimented” with a primary in the second and third decades of the 20th century, but it, too, proved to be an irrelevant clunker. For example, virtually nobody knows who won the 1920 DEMOCRATIC prez primary in Michigan. Would you believe Herbert Hoover? — who was later the REPUBLICAN 31st president of the United States? How could that be? Because Hoover, who had been a successful millionaire business executive of no known partisan affiliation, had been appointed by President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, to be the architect of European Relief efforts in the wake of World War I. Michigan Democrats were desperate for someone, anyone!, who could be a credible presidential nominee in 1920, in an election they knew they were likely to lose. Thus Hoover’s name was placed on the ballot without his consent, and he won. Just as has happened in all the primary upsets since, he didn’t get the nomination, if he even wanted it. The nominee proved to be James Cox, an Ohio newspaper mogul. Predictably, he was crushed by Republican Warren G. Harding. Harding didn’t win the Michigan GOP primary, either. Michigan’s Henry Ford won presidential primaries twice — once as a Republican (1916) and once as a Democrat (1924). He didn’t come close to winning either party’s nod. Finally, after 1928, the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature wisely decided, “This isn’t working,” and scrapped the primary in favor of a return to the convention system, which had given the GOP presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, the likes of whom don’t exist today.
Perhaps it’s time for Michigan to scrap its current primary, subsidized to the tune of nearly $10 million by taxpayers, most of whom don’t show up to vote in what they are paying for. Maybe Kristina Karamo got at least one thing right — Michigan Republicans picked most of their delegates to this year’s GOP national convention in mini-conventions held this past Saturday …
At no expense to the taxpayers.
**********************************************************
Tim Sullivan says
Nice article, Bill. Thanks for the history lesson. I believe you’re right on the Gaza issue for Joe Biden. In his March 2, 2024 “Silver Bulletin” column, Nate Silver noted that Biden’s problem is not with his base, but with “independent” voters. If his response to the Israel-Hamas war costs him, it will be with “independent” voters, not Democrats.
Killing the primary is probably a good idea. Maybe it is time for the taxpayers to stop subsidizing the major political parties. Moving our primary up was an idea from Whitmer and Debbie Dingell, I believe, to make Michigan more “relevant”. We have just seen how well that worked out. The same could be done with an earlier caucus and let the Democrats and Republicans – those who pay their dues – select their respective parties candidates. And the rest of us don’t have to pay for it.
I know we use a primary to select candidates for other federal, state and local offices. I propose a change for that as well. It requires borrowing and modifying an idea from Louisiana. In Louisiana, they have no primaries. Everyone who wants to run for office, let’s say US Senator, runs in the general election. Here in Michigan, the current candidates as of this writing (from Ballotpedia) are as follows: DEMOCRATS Nasser Beydoun, Hill Harper and Elissa Slotkin; GREEN PARTY candidate Doug Marsh; REPUBLICANS Justin Amash, Rebekah Curran, Michael Hoover, Peter Meijer, Sherry O’Donnell, Sandy Pensler, Mike Rogers, Bensson Samuel, Sharon Savage, Alexandria Turner, J D Wilson and Nikki Snyder; and INDEPENDENT James Frizzell. All of these candidates run in the general election November 5th. This means that we get all spring and summer, and most of the fall to hear each of these candidates explain why they deserve our vote. This way when we go to the polls, we have MORE information to make our decision, not less. Back to our election, if any candidate, regardless of party, gets a majority of votes cast, that candidate wins the election outright. If no one wins an outright majority, the top two candidates – regardless of party – run in a runoff election. I personally would have the runoff occur the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, so you have the best chance of having those who voted in the general election voting again. It could be held at a later date like Louisiana does, but I feel the sooner the better. TV stations and other forms of media may prefer a later day for more ad revenue, but I suspect we would get carpet bombed with ads even with an earlier date. The media will still make their money.
One thing I would like to note, is that I still get commercials on YouTube for Nikki Haley. Our primary is over. Maybe the PAC running her ads might want to pay attention to dates and shift those ads to a “Super Tuesday” state. Just saying.
Leanne says
The primary election is NOT over for Nikki Haley in other states as she and her supporters are banking on Donald Trump obtaining a felony conviction which will effectively knock him out of the running. i assume her YouTube ads are being broadcast in areas having upcoming primary elections.
Trump has been seen as a disaster for establishment Republicans as his behavior cost him re-election in 2020 to a lackluster Democrat – and he is likely to lose if he somehow receives another GOP nomination.
The presumptive nominees for the U.S. Senate seat from the G.O.P. and Dems are Mike Rogers and Elissa Slotkin. The only way Slotkin could possibly lose the nomination if Nasser Beydoun or Hill Harper withdraw – which is unlikely to happen. Progressives will be split between Harper and Beydoun – and Beydoun can be expected to largely siphon off the Arab-American and Muslim vote from both Slotkin and Harper.
You are MISSING GLENN WILSON for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate. I saw Wilson about 10 days ago speak at a conservative GOP event in Redford Township proclaiming his undying love of the State of Israel and supporting its military adventure in Gaza. I thought of the irony that a few miles away in Dearborn and Dearborn Heights his pro-Israel message would likely have gone over like a lead balloon.
Tim Sullivan says
Leanne, I live in suburban Detroit. Nikki Haley ads have been rather frequent before and AFTER the primary. I am not the most technologically savvy person, but given the ads that usually pop up for me on YouTube, I assume they try to make them geographical. At least they do for car dealers and restaurants.
Sorry for missing Glenn. I rechecked Ballotpedia and I missed him. Mea culpa.
I don’t disagree on the likely nominees, but I think the modified Louisiana system I propose would give all the other candidates more time to make their case.
Leanne says
Here is Glenn Wilson’s campaign website:
http://www.voteglennwilson.com
I was rather impressed with his candidacy until I realized he was NOT the rifle-armed rightfielder who played for the Detroit Tigers in the early 1980s.
If Steve Garvey can run in the Golden State, i figured more power to Glenn Wilson.
Manuela Garza says
The Michigan system is flawed. The question is what the remedial system shall be.
Matt Crehan says
It’s been way past time to scrap primaries, which the general public (yawns) doesn’t really pay particular attention to, and return to the convention method of choosing presidential candidates. Party activists take MUCH more interest and exhibit far more enthusiasm in selecting their preferred nominees.
When primaries are held, the opposing party can easily interfere in making the selection, and they always choose the candidate easier to beat in November.
It is highly doubtful and more than mildly suspicious that Nikki Whats-Her-Name really garnered the degree of support she did in those states with an open primary. Watching her squirm, crash, and burn is delightful; however it’s an unnecessary spectacle that consumes too much media play.
Far more productive to concentrate on those who have a realistic shot at becoming the contender before the conventions are held.
Leanne says
I suspect that Nikki Haley’s “victory” in the District of Columbia GOP primary had far more to do with crossover voting by Democrats rather than by Republican grassroots admiration of Ms. Haley over Trump.
The party caucus system of awarding delegates to candidates is far superior and largely eradicates the problem of crossover voting.
10x25mm says
The D.C. presidential primary was restricted to registered Republicans. It does show that D.C. Republicans are a bit different from Michigan Republicans, even those from Traverse City!
Manuela Garza says
We had to declare a party preference in Michigan before we voted!
I am sure some independents showed up who had no party predilection and voted. Is that proper?
I could have been a Democrat and requested a GOP ballot from the City Clerk and voted for Nikki Haley. Certainly would have been morally questionable – but still clearly legal.
Leanne says
While the fact that the Democratic Party voters in the presidential primary cast 100,000 “Uncommitted” ballots made national news – what was not widely reported upon is the 33,000 Uncommitted” ballots in the Republican presidential primary.
The pro-Gaza vote was credited with those 100,000″Uncommitted” Democratic ballots – what were the GOP “Uncommitted” ballots attributable to?
10x25mm says
Open primaries are not real exercises in bipartisan democracy. They cater to the egotism of ‘independent’ voters who exult at being above the partisan fray. Those ‘independent’ voters get to manipulate political parties’ choices without having to participate in those parties’ exertions to any real degree. This guts the political parties, drives off all but the most partisan (or corrupt) and further inflames the parties’ reputations.
You end up with candidates on the general election ballot with poorly defined differences, and/or candidates who get to the general ballot through subterfuge.
Ultimately, we get the government Michigan deserves.
David L Richards says
I am old enough to remember when candidates were typically chosen at a convention, and then watched as complaints about the convention system not being democratic led to primaries and caucuses. After watching the primary and caucuses for years, I think both parties, and the nation, would be better served going back to the “smoke-filled room” method of picking candidates at a convention. Our current system benefits a candidate who is popular in their own party, while party leadership is more likely to pick a candidate attractive to the public at large.
Manuela Garza says
Largely agreed. However the 2016 nomination of Hillary Clinton via the controversial “super-delegate” convention process tends to refute that argument. She was the darling of Democratic Party insiders – but lost to the populist GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Would a Bernie Sanders nomination have given the 2016 presidential race to the Dems? The jury’s out on that one.
Overall, however, the party of convention process is used in the State of Michigan to choose the Republican and Democratic nominees to Michigan Secretary of State and Attorney General as well as the offices for the major university boards – and in my opinion this system works quite well. Should we extend it to other offices? The jury’s out.
Royal says
Hey Bill, thanks for this week’s TBR, excellent as always,
Pardon me for taking a slightly different tack concerning primaries. Clearly, you struck close to home for me,
Primaries are better than caucuses:
A) As I recall, primaries were instituted due to lack of transparency of the caucus process. I suspect we would be reinventing the wheel to go back. But the current primary process is certainly not ideal . . .
A1) I am sure one of the main benefits of primaries over caucuses, and what makes them worth the cost, is to provide a snap-shot poll of where voter opinions are. Caucuses do not. Also, caucuses by “dues paying” attendees smacks of early constitutional “land owner” voting that was removed.
A2) I personally like the idea of moving the primaries forward in time to make them ALL more “relevant”. Potentially a point of bipartisanship. This forces the typical voter to keep the political process more conscious. It also allows more time for the general race and for the voters to “vet” the final candidates much better.
A3) I suggest all primaries, nationally, should be moved earlier and have them closer together. Perhaps 3, or 4, “super” primary dates, early in the election year. Or, how about a yearly, or near continuous, primary process?
Primaries should be paid for by the political parties:
B) Although ownership of the primary process does not lack for wanna-be owners, I believe the primary mover should be the respective political parties . . . refereed, er regulated, by the state and, where necessary, at the federal level. The primaries should be paid for by the candidates from their campaign war-chests. Call it a franchise fee. This should be one of only a few sources for political party funding. Dark money should be strictly excluded.
Primaries should be closed:
C) The open primary process is “open” to manipulation by opposing parties. This should not be. It defeats the idea of an individual party primary. Therefore, I suggest that the primaries be closed. The question is, how to close them.
C1) Once a primary ballot is submitted, each individual voter should be locked into that political party for the general election unless their party does not garner 5% of the total vote. In that case those voters should be swept into one of the two leading parties, of their preference. That should put a damper on cross-over voting.
C2) We all want more knowledgeable and educated voters. Putting some clarity and structure into the process should facilitate this ideal.
Manuela Garza says
One excellent point you have made is that the primary process is open to manipulation by opposing parties.
In 2012, Ron Paul was the top vote-getter in the GOP presidential primary with respect to City of Detroit citizens casting ballots in that primary. It can be reasonably assumed that Democrats crossed over to vote for Ron Paul in that race as they viewed him as the weaker candidate than Mitt Romney or others. The fact that Barack Obama was unopposed in the Democratic Party that election cycle undoubtedly aided Ron Paul’s vote totals via crossover Democrats.
There was a suspicion by some that the 1984 presidential candidacy of Democrat Jesse Jackson caused cross-over voting that aided his vote totals in certain states – especially Michigan. It is, however, debatable that such crossover voting by Republicans played a significant impact in that primary election.
In 2016, the vast majority of GOP insiders in Michigan considered Donald Trump as a distasteful and unappealing candidates whose populist offensive views of immigrants and others was a source of embarrassment. Nevertheless, Trump won Michigan in the 2016 primary and went on to capture the presidential nomination despite the disgust and non-support of many key Republican leaders.
Trump’s 2016 primary election victories and his nomination would likely have not occurred if Michigan and all other states had employed a caucus system that left the nominating process in the hands of the state political party leadership and elected precinct delegates.
The delegate system is governed by Michigan law and the by-laws of the respective political parties.
The Democrats in 2016 used a “super-delegate” system that practically guaranteed that the “insider” candidate Hillary Clinton would receive the nomination. She of course lost in the general election and it is arguable whether Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump if nominated.
Leanne says
I have served a number of terms as an elected precinct delegate and agree that the precinct delegates are the ones with more political knowledge than the average voter.
It is the registered voter that elects the precinct delegate to conventions, so there is a clear democratic component to the process.
The primary system has become unwieldy and subject to outside manipulation. There is little doubt about that point. The financial cost borne by taxpayers of a primary can be avoided by having the political parties engage in nominating conventions..
Royal says
I see I have an error of logic in section C1, above. Voters should not be locked in to their declared party till the general election . . . that would limit their voting choices. I should have said they would be locked in to their designated political party (and exempted from that limitation for the general election) till the next primary election where they would need to declare their party affiliation once again . . .
Leanne says
The flaw I see with that situation is that “split-ticket” voting is something that would be curtailed under your scenario.
For instance, if I wished to vote Republican, Libertarian and U.S. Taxpayers Party in the same general election cycle I should be able to.
Many GOP activists have ties or sympathies to Libertarian or anti-tax causes and should be permitted that freedom.