We've seen the narrative take shape on the Republican side of the Michigan contest. What about the Dems? Skeptics of the "Dems for Mitt" maneuver insisted that if the crossover voters had picked up Dem ballots and voted "uncommitted," the state would deliver a stinging rebuke to Clinton that would echo across the country.
Truth be told, if the crossover voters had done just that, they'd have reduced Clinton's "margin of victory" from 15 points to 12. Not much chance of changing the narrative.
And what is that narrative? It's a mixed bag at best.
On the one hand...
Arizona Daily Star: Clinton's Michigan win virtually uncontested
Detroit News: Clinton coasts to Democratic victory
Boston Globe: Clinton wins largely uncontested Michigan primary
FOX News: Hillary Wins Uncontested Michigan Primary
UPI: Clinton, Romney take Michigan primaries
Port Huron (MI) Times Herald: Clinton wins on short ballot
And on the other...
Grand Rapids Press: 40 percent of Democrats vote 'uncommitted'
Washington Post: 44 Percent Vote Against Clinton
The Nation: Michigan's Ominous Message for Hillary Clinton
Detroit Free Press: Clinton fends off Uncommitted
Detroit Free Press: Confusion wins in Democratic vote
But sometimes you had to dig deep into the paper to get these messages. DFM skeptics also assured us that while the national press might not all necessarily echo the "Clinton's hollow victory" line, surely the Michigan press would lead the way, and some would take their cues from the locals. That just doesn't appear to be the case, for the most part.
Was the Michigan media's message on Clinton just not clear enough to be heard? Or was there no penetrating message at all?
You tell me: