mtutiger

Uncommitted doing decent in Metro Detroit and in Washtenaw, lagging considerably elsewhere. It'll probably land between 10-15% I'd guess?

I look forward to being told how this doesn't matter yet again....

Lowering expectations?

Also, this engagement over a possible ceasefire has been going on for weeks now.... it's not something that came up last week on account of the Michigan Primary. It feels crazy that I even have to say this FFS.

WTF

I'm not sure the media is aware that anything in Michigan exists west of US 23 or north of M-59 lol

Alek Manoah hitting guys left and right.

The state as a whole (mail + early voting) is at around 1M per that umichvoter guy on Twitter, so I suspect a lot of people put it in envelopes and mailed it in. It's hard to parse election day anecdotes because obviously there's a ton of precincts and they aren't all alike, but the idea of an army of national reporters hanging out a random precinct in Dearborn really demonstrates, for a lack of better term, thirstiness on their part.

I imagine that early / mail in voting is part of the issue here and just less people are voting on Election Day than in the past in Michigan. But it's kinda hilarious regardless...

Considering there is an active campaign to get people to vote uncommitted, 20k raw votes seems like a very low baseline to claim success

It's a good point and one to remember when describing any minority group, let alone Arabs. You'd think with the differences between Hispanics in South Florida (mostly Cuban and South Americans fleeing communist regimes) and Arizona or California (mostly Mexican) we would learn not to speak about demographics in purely monolithic terms. But here we are.

All I know is that I'm not looking forward to the media discourse that's going to follow tonight over "uncommitted" and parsing what counts as a success or not. Especially knowing that Haley is probably going to get over 30% and the same people doing the parsing will all say that's NBD and none of it matters and whatnot.

My comment was more about breakdown - would have expected more R votes than D votes, although I'm sure that will change with in person voting today

Not what I would have expected, thought I'm sure more Rs will vote on E Day

This thread is wild...

He objectively looked terrible during his speech last week before the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, at least in the clips I saw.... lots of slurring, bags under his eyes, exhausted looking.

There definitely seems to be a built-in assumption that voter turnout among the Trump base will be as juiced as 2020, at least in the media space, and that's definitely an open-ended question at this point IMO. To be honest, I'd be surprised if turnout wasn't down based on how low-energy this contest seems.

I mean, he did gain voters. (See Miami-Dade Co.) Doesn't really change my point.

To the extent there was discussion of it on Twitter, it seemed to be more explaining it away. For my mind though, a pseudo-incumbent / de facto party leader only drawing 59% is "four siren emoji" material, even in an open primary.

This just isn't true.... there absolutely are voters who voted for him in 2016 and didn't in 2020. The shift of counties around Milwaukee (Waukesha, Ozaukee) and Atlanta (Gwinnett, Cobb, others) toward the left in the suburbs isn't possible if there is zero persuasion.

If they didn't exist, Donald Trump probably would have won in 2020. For sure, he would have won Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin in 2020, three states where the margin was almost entirely covered by these sorts of voters.

Couldn't you say the same about disaffected GOP voters who vote for Haley staying home or voting for Biden over Trump? Or do those people just not exist in your mind? Don't get me wrong, I'm concerned about the margins with all groups too, I just think it's a load of crap to assume that the Democratic Party is the only party that has to worry about coalition building or attrition during elections.

It's worth noting too that the group shifted right in 2022.... even though Gretch and Co won their elections by 10-12, the Arab vote shifted right by something like 15-20 points alone during those same elections. In general, there's a real imbalance in how Trump's negatives or issues get framed in media versus Biden's.... as much as people talk about liberal media bias, the coverage of this race thus far makes Trump seem like a much stronger candidate that he actually is.

I said something similar to Tater recently on a different point, but not everything about the 2024 election has to be cross referenced with or filtered through an election that happened eight years ago. There have been a lot of changes under the hood since then. The results in SC that happened two days ago are more relevant than what happened eight years ago to me, and when you look at those results and what some of the exit polling suggested, it's pretty clear that Donald Trump will likely continue the trend of bleeding support from traditionally GOP areas in the suburbs in 2024. It doesn't guarantee anything about the outcome of this upcoming election, obviously, but the demographic changes on that level are real. And there are places in Michigan (Oakland and Kent Counties probably the best examples) where that's likely to be on full-display.

The share of GOP voters who switched for Biden were, IMO, the single most deciding group of the 2020 election, and everything that we've seen since 2020 suggests that Trump will do worse with this group in 2024. So I don't know if I agree with you here. If you're a voter hanging onto Nikki Haley this late in the ballgame, and a state like Michigan gives her around 30% of the vote, that's a lot of vote to win back compared to something like 10-15% uncommitted.