Yesterday, I posted a poll asking Michigan voters what impact the Great Candidate Pull-Out might have on their votes and/or activities for the general election. I know how I feel, but I wondered if I was representative of the "general" feeling among Democrats in Michigan. (If you're a Michigan voter, and haven't voted in the poll, you can find it
here. Go ahead, I'll wait for you...)
Thirty people voted, and I think the results are interesting enough to call attention to in a separate diary. (Of course, part of the reason for doing it this way is to try to get more Michganders (or Michiganians, if you prefer) to weigh in on the issue. If the numbers change appreciably, I'll update this diary to reflect the changes.)
More results are after the jump, but here's the headline number: 52% of the respondents either won't work for/donate to, or worse, won't even vote for a GE candidate who pulled their names off the ballot. That number concerns me greatly. Michigan is a closely divided state--Kerry only got 51% in 2004, and even getting that much took a lot of work--and the activists who hang out here are the sort of people who did that work.
The poll question was:
If the eventual Democratic nominee is one of the candidates who pulled their name off the ballot, will you:
The results were:
10 (33%)
Vote for, donate to, and volunteer for him
1 (3%)
Vote for and donate to, but not volunteer for him
0
Vote for and volunteer for, but not donate to him
11 (36%)
Only vote for him
5 (16%)
Not vote for him
3 (10%)
Don't know
I also asked those who voted to comment, so that we could get a sense of what the numbers meant. There were only 19 different posters (one being me), so clearly not every one who voted left a comment. I have to note, though, of the 18 different posters commenting (not counting myself), a quick review of their diaries shows that only 10 are clearly from Michigan. Five specified that they're not from Michigan. I can't tell where three of them are from. So out of the thirty votes, only 11 (counting me) can be identified as from Michigan.
The other votes in the poll may be from Michiganders who didn't feel moved to comment, of course. But I also have to note that almost all of the identified Michigan commentors were angry about the pullout, and several of them indicated that those candidates had lost their vote in the general, too. So I have to question why none of the 10 people who voted that they would "vote for, donate to, and volunteer for" a pull-out candidate made their sentiments known in the comments. If you guys are out there, please speak up! (ER, "type up"?)
Even though this is an unscientific, self-selected, and unverifiable poll, I think that it's fair to say that it indicates that the candidates' pull-out could be a problem in the general election, if one of them happens to be the nominee. Things are much worse here now than they were in 2004, and the state Republicans are doing their best to pin the bad economy on our Democratic governor. (Side-snark: Isn't that just like republicons? Make a mess then skedaddle out of town before the bill comes due.) Add the fact that if Romney ends up with the R nomination, there are a lot of older Michiganders who greatly respect the Romney name. The fact that George Romney was of an entirely different breed than his boy Mitt may escape their notice.
I know tempers may cool down between now and then, but there will still be resentment and a distinct lack of enthusiasm to work hard for a candidate who slapped us in the face. It's definitely something to worry about, and the worst thing is that it didn't have to happen. The "official" DNC sanctions (not seating the delegates, not letting candidates campaign there) were quite enough to "spank" Michigan for its rogue primary.
The candidates who pulled out did it as a political pander to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. In doing so, they proved our point--that those two states have too much power in our nominating process--far better than Michigan's (or Florida's) rogue primary ever could.
Updated results
We've got 13 more votes, and the split is now essentially even:
Now, 43% would both vote for a candidate who pulled out AND either donate or volunteer for them (or both), and 43% would either only vote for him or not vote for him at all (at 16%, the "not vote for him" vote is a lot higher than I thought it would be). Eleven percent don't know what they'd do.
I'm still concerned. Losing half the activists in the general election is not a good thing for Michigan's electoral votes.