Why Did Hillary Clinton perform so strongly in the MI primary, just to lose them 8 years later?

[perpetual_cynic]

Why Did Hillary Clinton perform so strongly in the MI primary, just to lose them 8 years later?

[TML]

In 2016, Hillary was seen as the establishment candidate, and both Trump and Sanders tailed against free trade, which resonated among MI voters (the Clintons were pro-free trade). This wasn’t that big of an issue back in 2008.

[TDAS04]

The 2008 Michigan Primary wasn't really supposed to relevant.  Michigan was supposed to be stripped of delegates, and Obama wasn't on the ballot, so Clinton beat "uncommitted."

[un]

Back in 2008, she was seen as the candidate on the Democratic side that appealed more to blue collar workers as well as having the edge with Hispanic voters, as opposed to Obama, who had a larger appeal amongst people of color and the youth. Michigan leaned more working class, so Hillary ended up doing quite well there, though much of her large margin is also due to Obama just not being on the ballot.

Fast forward to 2016, and a lot has changed. Obama is president, and Hillary is tied to him in many ways. However, Obama did have some appeal in Michigan, he won it twice, both by big margins. So much of it was just the perceiving that Hillary was an elite, and many in Michigan turned out for Sanders, whether it be due to his strength amongst the youth and working class, or just an anti-Hillary sentiment. Hillary kept it close due to her strength with people of color, a gain from 2008, but Sanders ended up pulling it out, a big upset at the time.

TL;DR: Hilary was perceived as a pro working class candidate in 2008 vs Obama, whereas she was viewed as more of an elite in 2016 vs Sanders.

[Jim Crow]

Trump's position on trade helped him in the rust belt states among older Democrats.  He turned out the vote better than his predecessors did.

[TDAS04]

Guys, if Michigan actually had a legitimate, respected primary in 2008, Obama might have won it.

A better question would be why John McCain went from winning the Michigan primary in 2000 to losing it 8 years later. (Of course, it’s Mitt Romney’s native state. Still a better question nonetheless).

[Jim Crow]

Trump's position on trade helped him in the rust belt states among older Democrats.  He turned out the vote better than his predecessors did.

Hillary lost the 2016 primary in Michigan, nothing to do with Trump.

She was polling ahead of Bernie by a wide margin in Michigan, and the state wasn’t even considered or talked about at all by the public. Then Bernie won it

I understand that.  It was the same in the general election and really in every national election she's been in.  She led Obama by 30 points and lost.  Her margin was 2-1 over Sanders and it became a single digit race.  Then we all saw what happened in the 2016 general after the polls favored her.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

The 2008 Michigan Primary wasn't really supposed to relevant.  Michigan was supposed to be stripped of delegates, and Obama wasn't on the ballot, so Clinton beat "uncommitted."

Guys, if Michigan actually had a legitimate, respected primary in 2008, Obama might have won it.

I think you are safe in posting the next set of winning lottery numbers or the meaning of life in this thread. Evidently such a significant fact would be ignored.