The story of the Democratic primary in Michigan was supposed to be how a beleaguered Joe Biden was staggered by a wave of angry Arab/Muslim/Palestinian Democrats who chose to vote “Uncommitted” as a show of their displeasure with the president.
This is going to shock you but . . . the media got the story it wanted!
That sounds pretty bad! Like Biden has been faced with a challenge and Democratic voters are expressing their reservations with him!
Remember the Obama 2012 campaign? Quick: Name one of his primary challengers. Now tell me how much money his challengers spent—collectively—against Obama in the primaries. And tell me what the big anti-Obama movement in the 2012 Democratic primaries was about.
So Biden 2024 is running—New Hampshire excepted—fairly close to Obama 2012.
But let’s talk about that New Hampshire result: Biden didn’t spend any time in the state. Dean Phillips dropped close to $5 million into the primary. And Biden’s name wasn’t on the ballot.
That’s right: Biden got to 63.8 percent as a write-in.
In Michigan there was a concerted, organized effort to get Democrats to vote “uncommitted” as a protest against Biden. This effort resulted in 13.3 percent of the vote for “uncommitted.”
In 2012, with no organized movement and no dissatisfaction with Obama, 10.69 percent of Michigan Democrats voted for “uncommitted.”
So a jump from 10.69 percent uncommitted to 13.3 percent uncommitted is a “notable showing”?
People think these results are somehow indicative of weakness?
Let me tell you what electoral weakness looks like: