Posted on 03/14/2016 10:42:00 AM PDT by Starman417
Back in 2008 Rush Limbaugh had a bit called “Operation Chaos” where he suggested Republicans in Ohio and elsewhere cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary. The goal was to keep Clinton in the race to blunt the lead of Barack Obama and cause more chaos on the Democrat side. Well, Operation Chaos was pretty much a failure as Obama steamrolled Clinton.
While Limbaugh is not calling for an “Operation Chaos” this year, something along those lines is definitely happening… but it doesn’t have anything to do with Hillary Clinton this time, but rather, Donald Trump.
The turnout for this year’s primary contests is surging with record numbers of voters participating on the GOP side. No doubt there are Republicans who sat out in 2012 and 2008 who are now participating. But that’s not the driver of the numbers. The driver is… Democrats. In Massachusetts as example, according to the Boston Herald 20,000 Democrats switched to the Republican Party before the primary. That works out to fully 5% of the GOP ballots cast. Interestingly, Trump’s 31% margin of victory in Massachusetts was the largest he’s has had.
In Pennsylvania the same thing is happening. According to CBS 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have already switched to the GOP to vote for Trump. If the participation in the Pennsylvania primary exhibits the same kind of increase Massachusetts did (up 12% over 2008, the last year with a lame duck president in office) then those 46,000 Democrats will make up 5% of the 900,000 GOP voters.
But of course that’s not the only way Democrats are influencing the GOP primary. In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania they switched because both are closed states in that registrants of party can’t vote in the primaries of another party. Massachusetts is officially open however as unaffiliated voters can vote in any party’s primary. That means that the only way Democrats in those two states can vote in the GOP primary is by changing parties.
But in a large number of states you don’t even have to do that. Those states have “Open” primaries or caucuses where voters can vote in either party’s primary, regardless of which party they are registered in. That makes a HUUGGGGEEEE difference. (And for course, Ohio is an "Open" primary.) To give you an idea of how big, consider the following:
There have been a total of 14 open primaries and caucuses where Democrats are able to vote in the GOP contest. Donald Trump has won 12 of them. At the same time, there have been a total of 9 primaries and caucuses in closed states… and Ted Cruz has won 6 of them, while Donald Trump has won only 3 of them.So in the states where only Republicans can vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses Ted Cruz has won 66% of the contests while Donald Trump has won 34%... and those are states where data shows that tens of thousands of Democrats are switching party affiliation for the specific purpose of voting for Trump in the GOP contest. At the same time however, in states where Democrats are free to vote in the GOP contest Donald Trump has won 85% of the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
I'd be delighted to have none - but no Pub is running on that platform. (Not sure about Bernie ...)
Amen! The lion can’t be tamed :-)) A calm, cool General working his way across the battlefield.
Maybe not - but we know Reagan held on to his crossovers while McLame didn't ... so being Reagan is a sufficient condition.
It’s goofy to think “patterns” in politics mean much when societal times change and the people involved are different (those running and those voting)
You seem to agree patterns don't mean nothing - and I certainly haven't implied and don't think they mean everything - so it's an empirical question as to how much they mean. To facilely assume that Trump will hold onto his crossovers is to ignore recent history.
Argument by imagination - very persuasive.
No, that's you propping up a straw man.
That's about it - Reagan's Dums stuck but McLame's didn't.
Well, you maybe right that I did go too far.
Well, you maybe right that I did go too far.
Manfully conceded. This primary season has FR wound up to a degree never seen ... since last primary season.
| BTW, I stated this incorrectly. I didn't mean to imply that 460,000 would switch parties. What I meant is that 460,000 Pennsylvania voters might vote Republican this time if 10% of that number actually switched parties. This recognizing that making the move to switch parties requires a lot more effort than merely voting for a new party. Stated that way, don't you think the numbers are a little more possible? In any case, the absolute number of new voters coming into the election cycle might be the biggest factor at all. |
| BTW, I stated this incorrectly. I didn't mean to imply that 460,000 would switch parties. What I meant to say (but didn't) is that 460,000 Pennsylvania voters might vote Republican this time if 10% of that number actually switched parties. This recognizing that making the move to switch parties requires a lot more effort than merely voting for a new party. Stated that way, don't you think the numbers are a little more plausible? Or is it still too far a stretch? In any case, the absolute number of new voters coming into the election cycle might be the biggest factor of all. |
Might happen, might not - McLame's crossover votes returned home in the general election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.