But Greg, Hillary supporters don't read polls. I mean, if we all read polls, then we might actually have to believe Obama is up 10 points, turning Texas into a swing state, and is running an almost equal shot of beating McCain in all the "big" states that Clinton supporters keep toutin. But we don't believe that. Therefore the polls must be wrong.

Didn't you know?

I was a-wishin' and a-hopin' for revotes in both FL and GA, whether by primary or by caucus. I think he might win MI by a hair and come within a few points of Clinton in FL. Obama's pattern is to start to overcome low poll numbers as soon as he starts to campaign. Even when he loses it's by a far smaller margin than the pre-campaign numbers indicate.

The only bad result would be seating Clinton's delegates in both states as selected in their illegal primaries. As much as I distrust the party-machine superdelegates, it's hard to believe that the credentials committee can get away with that unless Obama has some unimaginable meltdown between now and the election. Frankly, at this point it looks like Clinton who's crumbling; the more she says the sillier she looks.

If Obama is the nominee, I don't see any reason to think that there will be any backlash by Democratic voters against the party in November.

If any of voters in Michigan should be upset about being disenfranchised, it's Obama supporters, since their candidate wasn't even on the ballot.

At the risk of falling into the trap of racial oversimplification, does anybody really think that Detroit's large African-American community, which is the backbone of the Democratic party in the state, is going to stay away from the polls in November, thus forfeiting the opportunity to cast ballots for an African-American presidential candidate, just because the DNC refused to seat the Michigan delegation at the convention in August? I somehow doubt this.

Now if Senator Clinton somehow wins the nomination in a way that does not involve Michigan's delegation being seated (which, yes, is a virtual impossibility, but we'll let that go for a second), I could see there being some anti-Democratic backlash in the general, but I think even that is a bit overstated. At the end of the day, the state party leaders will have their noses out of joint, but by November I just can't see Michigan voters carrying that kind of a grudge to the polls with them.

Another Michigan resident here. While it's solely anecdotal, I can assure you that not a single Democrat I've met or know attributes the primary screw-up to Obama. I, for one, didn't even bother to show up to vote (!) knowing full well that (a) my candidate of choice wasn't on the ballot and (b) everyone and anyone affiliated with the party [at that time] assured all of us that our votes wouldn't count and our delegates wouldn't be seated as a result of the state party's short-sighted decision to buck the rules. Clinton's faux concern for my enfranchisement seems to be striking most Michiganders (again, anecdotally) as the hot air it really is. If she gave a damn about us, then maybe she should've spoken up when, you know, it was an actual issue. Instead, she showed her true colors (yet again) by leaving her name on the ballot whilst claiming for all to hear that Michigan's primary was essentially meaningless. Meaningless, that is, until she realized her chances at winning the nomination were tanked by an ineffectual primary campaign driven by paid political hacks posing as "advisors." If she cares so much about the democratic process, then how in the world do you explain away her campaign's efforts to thwart the caucus process (see, e.g., Nevada and Texas for starters?). This woman is a sham and a shell and the Michianders I know have seen through her since "Day One."

If anything, the members of my (again, admittedly anecdotal and limited) social circle see through this nonsense for what it is: a crass and clumsy-handed attempt to rewrite the rules midgame to her advantage now that her "take everything on Super Tuesday" gameplan blew up in her face. Our governor (Jennifer Granholm) is a Clinton supporter and if anything the coverage of this situation locally has tended to underscore the fact that Clinton's latest machinations have everything to do with rewarding her for her fealty (there's talk of a quid pro quo for a cabinet-level position, likely Sec of Ed) and nothing to do with concern for the voting rights of us Michiganders. Again, if Clinton gave a shit of enfranchisement, then she should've taken her name off the ballot like the credible candidates (i.e., Edwards and Obama) did when apprised of the situation.

That said, none of this freaking matters because even if Clinton's political machine manages to massage a favorable settlement out of the political insiders (here and/or in Florida) then it'll simply be one more nail in the political coffin of the "inevitable" appointed one.

I feel so proud finally to have made it into the recommended category. It was bound to happen if I wrote enough of these posts, finally one of them would hit.

That's a good point. But why should it? It was not Obama's campaign that killed the revote in Michigan, no matter what the Bullet-Dodger campaign says.

There would be no reason for a Michigan backlash, because Obama hasn't done anything to stop revotes in Florida or Michigan, indeed according to the Huffington Post just a few days ago OBAMA is the one trying to make something happen in Florida, and he has absolutely no reason to fight a revote in Michigan because A) polls show he would probably win, and B) getting the revote out of the way would deprive Hillary of a reason to complain and keep false hope.

His campaign raised a few very important and very correct concerns about making sure every voter can vote, and vote securely. That DOES NOT equal trying to derail the process, any revote would have to address these issues, he is just smart enough to be raising them. Plus, it wasn't him that made the court in Michigan rule their primary law unconstitutional. Time and budget constraints, and problems between the DNC and the state officials and legislators is the real problem. Blaming Obama is just a dirty tactic from the Clintons, and I'm sad that so many people are internalizing that bullshit.

I can't see a serious backlash happening in Michigan. 40% went out of their way to vote anybody but Hillary in January weather. That's motivation...

The backlash idea never made sense. Who would be concerned about the Michigan results being counted? Not Obama or Edwards supporters who bothered to vote uncommitted. Not the Democrats who stayed home. And not the Democrats who decided to create trouble in the Republican primary. The only people who really cared were Hillary supporters. (And the people who really bought into the whole disenfranchisement spiel are probably the exact same 28 percent of Hillary supporters who are saying they won’t vote for Obama in the general anyway.) Everyone else in the state had already been disenfranchised by the process.

Hillary did NOT WIN MICHIGAN for God's Sake. There was no credible candidate on the ballot competing against her.

You Cintonistas can spin ANYTHING!

Hey guys.... I am running to be QUEEN OF FRANCE.

Whoops! No one is running against me!

I WIN! I WIN ! I WIN!

You may now refer to me as Your Royal Highness!

Jeeeeeze!