The difference from 2012 was less than 2.6 points, and back then, Obama went on to win the state by ten points.
There was a lot of hype going into the Michigan primary over the campaign led by Arab and Muslim leaders to get Democratic voters to cast ballots for “uncommitted” in an effort to pressure President Biden to abandon support for Israel by raising the prospect of losing the crucial swing state in November. While the media, already obsessed with this narrative, were quick last night to declare the Michigan results a message sent to Biden to change course in the Middle East in a more anti-Israel direction, as more results came in, it was clear that the performance of “uncommitted” had been overstated.
With nearly all votes now in, it turns out that “uncommitted” garnered 13.3 percent of the vote, while Biden received 81 percent (the balance went to other Democratic candidates). To put this in context, in 2012, when Barack Obama was running for reelection and unopposed in the Michigan primary, “uncommitted” received 10.7 percent of the vote. The difference between the two was thus less than 2.6 points, and back then, Obama went on to win the state by ten points in the general.
It’s true that the raw vote totals were more significant this time, with “uncommitted” topping 100,000 votes, compared to just under 21,000 against Obama. However, turnout was much higher, so looking at raw votes cuts both ways. Biden received 618,000 votes compared to Obama’s 174,000.
It would be ignorant to say that the heavily publicized campaign by local organizers to get Arab and Muslim voters to cast votes for “uncommitted” had no effect on the results. It was noticeable in Dearborn, home to one of the largest Arab populations in the U.S., where “uncommitted” received 56 percent of the vote.
However, if you look at the 10.6 percent “uncommitted” vote against Obama as a bit of a baseline anti-incumbent vote, and add to it the fact that Biden is less popular than Obama and more people might be voting against him for reasons other than Middle East policy (such as his old age), the mobilization of the anti-Israel vote looks relatively tepid.
It is also worth considering two additional factors. One is that casting a meaningless protest vote in a primary to send a message is a lot different from Muslim voters voting against Biden in the general or staying home, when the alternative is Donald Trump (who, in addition to taking a harder line on Muslim immigration, would be significantly more pro-Israel). The other thing to recognize is that nobody considers how Biden could lose votes elsewhere if his policy toward the conflict would be tailored to satisfy the “From the River to the Sea” crowd. A recent Harvard-Harris poll showed that 82 percent of American voters support Israel over Hamas, and two-thirds of voters said they would only support a cease-fire if Hamas is removed from power and all hostages are released.
Having said all that, it’s clear that Biden is already spooked at the prospect of losing Michigan over support of Israel. That’s why in recent weeks he has been aggressively pressuring Israel to agree to a cease-fire, trying to block them from finishing the job against Hamas in Rafah, and making statements such as that their response to October 7 has been “over the top.” So even if the results are less than impressive, the “uncommitted” campaign could have its intended effect of making Biden even more reluctant to stick with Israel until it wins.