[Once-Ler]

The rat AZ primary was a contested field of 4 rats, but you believe huge numbers ignored their own primary to vote against JD? Even though the polls showed JD had no shot at beating McCain? Interesting.

See post 183 and get your facts straight.

J.D. was statistically tied with McCain for months. Shucks, when the polls were restricted to Republicans only, J.D. was leading McCain.

When I said polls, I didn't mean polls from 4 months before the primary. Do you have access to polls from late July and August 2010? Find them and then you will understand my statement "polls showed JD had no shot at beating McCain." However I will concede your point that JD polled well before he announced his candidacy in mid Feb 2010...and up to 4-6 weeks after.

I don't know if Palin's endorsement beat JD, but I do believe scandal, hypocrisy, 100+ other endorsements from major GOP and AZ state law enforcement figures, plus $21 million is probably worth more.

Instead of answering my question you pointed me to DoughtyOne's post about the effect of Palin's endorsement 4 months before the primary election so I'll try my question again this way...Do you really think Palin's endorsement convinced rats to ignore their own contested primary and vote against JD? really?

[DoughtyOne]

Out of the box, let me say I'm no fan of open primaries.  Open primaries allow the Leftists the opportunity to block Conservatives from getting on the general election ballot.  When the subject of open elections was considered in California, you didn't hear hardly a peep out of the Republican leadership.  Par for the course in our state.  The measure passed.

As you have noted, Arizona has open primaries.  I think the contest between McCain and Hayworth is a good case in point.  That isn't to imply that this segment of the vote did swing it to McCain though.

Lets look at the numbers.  Reference

I threw these numbers into an Excel Spreadsheet, and did a work-up.  If you wish to take a look at the PDF, I think you'll note my numbers are accurate.

Conclusions:

1. Hayworth lost to McCain 192,229 votes to 333,744 votes.  McCain received 37.59% of the votes and Hayworth received 21.43% of the votes.  The leading Democrat received 11.3% of the votes.

2. While Hayworth lost to McCain by 16.16%, he would have only had to take 8.08% plus one vote away from McCain to have won the election.

Side note: Primaries in Arizona being open, most polling captures a more valid picture related to the actual election results.  You don't have to guess what the Dems will do.  It's right there in the poll.  This would probably be the only plus, if you can call it that, related to open primaries.  We have a pretty clear picture of what dynamics were in play, that related directly to the election, involving the voting base for both parties.  We have that from prior to January 2010 right through to the primary election day.  Thus the swing subsequent to the March 26th campaign rally looms large in the overall scheme of things.  If the subsequent swing was in the 10% range, that's significant.  There's a very real possibility that it was in the neighborhood of 10%.*

3. Registration figures for Arizona

32.27%  Democrats
00.15%  Green
00.78%  Libertarian
36.08%  Republican
30.73%  Others

Yes, that's 100%.

4. Here's where the data turns a bit dicey.  When it comes to votes cast, it's rather unclear what they mean.  Are they referencing votes cast for Democrats, or are they referencing votes cast by Democrats (and other parties to follow suit)?  I take it to mean votes cast for Democrats (and other parties to follow suit), because there is no showing for 'Other'.  When you break it down by votes cast for, you find that Democrats got a 32.27% showing compared to their registration.  You also find that the Republicans got a 60.02% showing compared to their registration.

The implications of that may be huge.  If you look at the overall showing for Democrats, it's clear none of them stood a chance.  11.3% being their best showing comparted to McCain and Hayworth, it comes into focus that there may have been a massive cross-over vote.  60.02% vs 32.27%?  Did the Republicans get that percentage of their base out, while the Democrats got only 32.27% of theirs?  I doubt it.

It seems to me the 'Others' and even some Democrats moved into the Republican ranks here.  If as I suspect, the Democrats in Arizona are a more moderate beast than in say Los Angeles or New York, the breakdown in votes may not be all that pronounced.  McCain probably got the larger number of them, but it's entirely possible Hayworth got a good portion of them too.  It's seems clear, they all didn't go for McCain.

In the race for Senator...

Republicans received 593,301 votes.  66.83%

Democrats received 289.866 votes.  32.65%

I don't think there's a way to break this down further.

5. I believe it is rational to believe the following.

a. Crossover voting did occur  (66.83% for Republicans and 32.65% for Democrats)
b. McCain likely didn't win because of it  (He didn't win by a 34% plus spread, the lopsided margin of Republican to Democrat votes)
c. It is also likely that the immediate and near term swing after the March 26th campaign rally may have had more impact than even I expected.  If the support had gone to Hayworth instead, that 8.08% plus one would have been easily in reach.  He was only behind by 7% at that point, according to some polls.*

You can look at the numbers all the way through.  The one significant swing that took place, was just subsequent to the March 26th rally.  That swing seems to have been about a 10% swing.*

* It should be noted, the data concerning the post March 26th rally is not provided in this work-up.  I did provide that data higher up in the thread.

I have provided my conclusions, but others are free to look at the data and come to their own.  Those may differ from mine.  Later...