Not to pile on, but “Ronaldus Magnus” wouldn’t have gotten through under your test, so how does that hekp us? I agree that it is generally problematic to accept party switchers, because such changes are normally nothing but self-serving opportunism, and you get what you pay for.
However, there is an important minority of cases that are the result of serious maturation of thought. They have really become convinced that the perspective of their old party is deeply flawed, and more importantly, they’ve seen those defects first hand, understand them from the inside, so they are totally inoculated against them, and are particularly good at opposing and defeating them. You don’t want to give up some of your best A-Team players if you don’t have to. I say we welcome everybody, but just like church, hold their feet to the fire if their “conversion” later fails to pass the test of genuineness.
Tell me with a straight face that you and the rest on this thread who noted that Reagan was once a Democrat are seriously comparing the Democrats of 40-50 years ago now (ie: JFK) to the Democrats of today.
That's beyond ridiculous, IMO. JFK wouldn't recognize the Democrats of today as being from his party if he were still alive.
The "Reagan was once a Democrat" argument just doesn't hold water. The Democrat party of today is absolutely nothing like the Democrat party of 40-50 years ago. Making the comparison is incredulously ignorant of political history or worse, intellectually dishonest.