[logician2u]

Everybody has a pet theory, but who can prove it?

According to some of the posters here on FreeRepublic, Ron Paul's support came mostly from Democrats (or George Soros).

I have trouble believing the Democrats are a)that numerous; b)that powerful; c)that concerned about another political party when their own is in such disarray.

Let's place the blame where it belongs where McCain is concerned. It was the Republican leadership, such as it is, and not the Republican grass-roots activists, who dropped the ball and let this RINO get the idea that he had vast support in the party when he clearly did not, until the others had dropped out.

It's too late now. Regardless of whom the Democrats nominate, McCain is bound for an embarassing defeat come November. The question is how many incumbent Republicans will be pulled down with him.

[Mariebl]

I have trouble believing the Democrats are a)that numerous; b)that powerful; c)that concerned about another political party when their own is in such disarray.

I have the same trouble. I can see why people in Florida and Michigan, knowing far in advance that their votes would not count, re-registering as Republicans, in order to have some sort of say in a primary. But New Hampshire? A hot race starting in their own party, and they'd rather play games with the Republicans. Not believable.

However, I've come to a different conclusion. Personally, I think we need to face facts. This time, there wasn't any viable conservative candidate. The alternative theory, that there were no conservative voters, is even more painful.

[llandres]

“According to some of the posters here on FreeRepublic, Ron Paul’s support came mostly from Democrats (or George Soros).”

I’ve thought that early, early on - that the Dem’s staged their own operation chaos via Ron Paul.