I think you are still mis-understanding the polling results, and mis-interpreting them. Posting more of your own writings on the subject as “news” won’t change the criticisms that have been levied and not answered in all the other threads you and others post about this.
In this case, you have several difficulties. First, your premise is based on numbers that are within the margin of error of the exit poll. In other words, there is NO difference between the exit poll and the official registration numbers, when viewed with the margin of error. IN fact, given the margin of error, it is equally possible that democrat turnout outperformed the registration number.
Second, registration numbers are lagging indicators of trends. Yes, new people get signed up, but a lot of already registered people simply won’t bother to change their registration. And since there was no democrat primary, we can’t use the comparative turnouts to see if there was a shift in demographics. So we have no way of knowing if the current “registration numbers” are accurately reflecting the will of the voters.
Third, turnout rarely matches registration. And in this year, across the country republicans were energised and enthusiastic, while democrats were demoralized and ambivalent. So, in most states, we see republicans outperform registrations, while democrats underperform. There are only a few states where that did NOT happen.
For example, in Nevada, The registration is 42% D vs 37% R, but turnout was 41-41.
IN other states, like Oklahoma, Democrats have a voter registration advantage of 49% to 40%, but comparing primary turnout shows republicans had a record high turnout, and democrats a record low turnout.
SO you really have to explain why Delaware bucked the trend — why did the democrats show up in the same proportion as republicans, when in other states republicans out-performed their registrations? The information we have doesn’t provide the direct answer, but it is MUCH more likely that this is because O’Donnell rather than Castle was the nominee; to suggest that O’Donnell had NO EFFECT on the turnout of the democrats is ludicrous.
Because of O’Donnell, democrats thought they could win a race they expected to lose. They then got millions of dollars to spend. Because O’Donnell was deemed to be a GOOD boogey-man for the national prospects, the democrats sent their power-hitters to the state, elevating it to a national prominence, again likely to crank up the democratic turnout.
And meanwhile, we are told that the republican establishment did nothing for O’Donnell — if that is TRUE, then how could you argue that the republican turnout was better than expected? If it was better than expected, what possible difference could it make what the republican establishment did. And if you think the RE made a difference, then you can’t argue that having THEIR candidate would NOT have made a difference, since that would have brought the RE into the race.
The problem with your argument is that it defies logic, it is internally contradictory, and is built on a faulty premise.