[CA Conservative:] They made the same argument when McCain and Romney won the nomination by relying on Dems and independents. How did that work out in the general?
[ConservingFreedom:] I wonder what today's Trump supporters were saying about Thad Cochran winning his primary with crossover votes?
[grania:] It wasn't crossover votes choosing to do so to nominate the person. It was those darn backstabbers again, getting people who would never vote for them to defeat a true constitutional conservative in the primaries.
Where's the evidence that Trump's margin of victory came from those who intend to vote for him in November? (Hint: rally attendance is weak evidence at best.)
[grania:] If this nomination is stolen from Trump
Holding closed primaries is stealing the nomination from Trump? If not, what's the relevance to this topic of your paranoid fantasy?
Until Super Tuesday, Sanders was viable. Those who have no intention to vote for Trump had to choose which Dem best represents their view.
In the Cochran situation, it was a runoff when the dems didn't have one, so the mischief makers had nothing better to do for the runoff. The fact that the Republican elite exploited that situation WILL NOT be forgotten, and the anger will explode if the nomination is stolen from Trump. I'm not saying that as a threat. I'm just taking the "given" and trying to hypothesize the most logical conclusion.
FWIW, I'd much rather see closed primaries, at least to the point where an independent who chose a primary couldn't drop out of their new political party the same day. In the case of the Cochran/McDaniel runoff, it's bizarre that it wasn't restricted to those who were registered Republican for the original primary. I'd also like to see an end to early voting, which skews to the status quo and diminishes the effect of events close to election day.