Yeah....I've read that in several threads below...

That's fine until you look into the facts a bit:

There have been a grand total of TEN presidential primaries held in MI. The years were:

1916; 1920; 1924; 1928 (let's not count them, shall we), and

1972; 1976; 1980; 1996; 2000; 2008

So, a more RELEVANT representation is: "Michigan turnouts in 2008 were AVERAGE over the period of the last 36 years--the modern period of primary history in Michigan.

Reference

Anyone cam play with the numbers to say whatever they want to say.

The bottom line is, many MI democrats were denied the right to vote for the candidate of their choice and could only choose from Hillary or Uncommitted. How can anyone argue that this was an accurate representation of their preferences?

I agree. It's also true that it was the state party officials who disenfranchised their own voters by breaking party rules, when they knew they would be disenfranchised by doing so.

Rules begin to look much more flexible when you realize that you are losing.

Yes, HRC and her supporters have shown that rules mean NOTHING when you're losing and EVERYTHING when you're winning.

The simplest of all facts is that this nomination is (and has been for quite awhile) totally in the hands of the supers. At this date I can't imagine what's holding them back from stepping in a making the final decision--unless it's terror of the Clintons.

I suspect that Obama has requested that they not end the process prematurely. He is working toward party unity. It will be over on Tuesday. He will probably have enough SD's come out on Monday so that the elected delegates put him over the top on Tuesday. This will remove any doubt of legitimacy in his nomination.

It may have been the third largest in Michigan history, but by comparison, it was nothing compared to the other states this year.

I'm in Texas, and the primaries and caucuses here blew every other primary out of the water, and this state won't mean much of anything come November. It'll most likely go to McCain. So for Michigan to have the third largest primary in its history means that most people were staying home.

It seems my OP was confusing to everyone. It was meant to DISMISS comments I'd been seeing in other threads about how MANY people came out to vote in MI (by stating that it was the third best turnout--meaning to imply that it was WAY UP THERE among MI primaries). I laid out how it was NOT way up there....that it was "average" at best.

Greatbear452

Good Points.

Plus which the REASON Michigan's turnout was as high as it was is because the Republican race counted. The vote count was just under 600,000 in the Democratic race and about 850,000 in the Republican race. Since at that time both parties had wide open races going, it's obvious that Democrats didn't consider their primary to count, or else they would have voted in numbers similar to those of the Republicans.

Every state EXCEPT Michigan reported larger turnouts in the Democratic primaries than for the Republicans -- often a LOT larger. The closeness of the race is, of course, the reason for that. But the race was just as close in January as it has been since, so why did Michigan's Democrats stay home? There is only one logical answer -- they didn't think the primary counted. And when Clinton, who SAID it didn't count until she realized she'd need the votes, says that it was a real race, she disgraces herself.