MI Dems for Rick? Bad! 53% of non-Republicans in NH though...

[Keystone Phil]

So MI Dems for anyone but Mitt is horrible but, as Santorum points out, the 53% of non-Republicans in NH for Mitt are fine by Romney - http://politi.co/zj36hO

Mitt, thanks for making it so easy to own you. No, not that owning. We know, we know...you are very rich.

[tmthforu94]

Really, calling Romney a bully? Get some skin, Rick.

Democrats aren't voting for Santorum in Michigan because they're "conservative Democrats" and he's "appealing" to him. They're voting for him because they find it laughable that he actually has a shot at the nomination, and they know Obama will destroy him in a General Election.

[Keystone Phil]

Really, calling Romney a bully? Get some skin, Rick.

Democrats aren't voting for Santorum in Michigan because they're "conservative Democrats" and he's "appealing" to him. They're voting for him because they find it laughable that he actually has a shot at the nomination, and they know Obama will destroy him in a General Election.

Uh, he certainly appeals to conservative Dems just like Mitt, at one time, appealed to moderate Norteastern Dems.

[Keystone Phil]

And how does Rick have to grow some skin? Have you seen your candidate today? He's been crying about Santorum winning Democrats non stop.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Tmthforu1994: because Mittbot is so electable

[tmthforu94]

And how does Rick have to grow some skin? Have you seen your candidate today? He's been crying about Santorum winning Democrats non stop.

Calling him a bully, though? Seriously...

I hope exit polls show what percentage of "Santorum Democrats" plan to vote for Obama in the General Election.

[tmthforu94]

Tmthforu1994: because Mittbot is so electable

He's no Reagan, but he's certainly more electable than Gingrich or Santorum, for sure.

[Torie]

Well the first thing wrong here is that Dems cannot vote in the GOP primary in NH, just declined to states, which is why Rick was careful to use the term "non Republicans" rather than Democrats. Second, Mittens did not appeal in particular for declined to states to vote for him, while Rick is so appealing to Dems, not because many of them would agree with anything Rick says or stands for, but rather because they, like Daily Kos, think he is a weaker candidate in the general. Mittens is right to so inform the voters what Rick is doing. And if Mittens loses MI by a bit, he can claim that it is due to Dem mischief votes, which is what Bush said when he lost to McCain in MI for the same reason - Democrats voting in the GOP primary.

[Niemeyerite]

Santorum supporters have to recognize that democrats are voting for Rick because they think he's a joke.

Romney supporters have to recognize that the fact that their candidate is trailing in his birth state   can't be covered with any arguments.

[Keystone Phil]

Fact: there is no substantial proof that most Dems voting for Santorum are doing so for electability reasons. As many of us pointed out before, this tactical voting very rarely happens. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but it won't be substantial enough.

[tmthforu94]

Winning over Independent voters, like both Paul and Romney did in New Hampshire, is what's going to help us win in November. Not the "conservative Democrats" who voted for Santorum today in Michigan. Considering they'll all be voting for Obama regardless of the GOP nominee, they'll be hindering us instead.

[tmthforu94]

Fact: there is no substantial proof that most Dems voting for Santorum are doing so for electability reasons. As many of us pointed out before, this tactical voting very rarely happens. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but it won't be substantial enough.

There is also no substantial proof that most Dems voting for Santorum are doing so because they actually like and support him.

Hence why I'm looking into reading the exit polls tonight, to see if they confirm what many of us already suspect.

[Keystone Phil]

Winning over Independent voters, like both Paul and Romney did in New Hampshire, is what's going to help us win in November. Not the "conservative Democrats" who voted for Santorum today in Michigan. Considering they'll all be voting for Obama regardless of the GOP nominee, they'll be hindering us instead.

Uh...conservative Dems are definitely voting for Obama?

I love trees. I love cars. God, those American cars...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Santorum supporters have to recognize that democrats are voting for Rick because they think he's a joke.

As much as I hate to agree, it's true.  One of my friends, who was head of the College Dems here was in the Detroit Free Press today talking about how he voted for Santorum because Obama can beat him.  And I've seen him promoting this to his friends all week.

[ajb]

Winning over Independent voters, like both Paul and Romney did in New Hampshire, is what's going to help us win in November. Not the "conservative Democrats" who voted for Santorum today in Michigan. Considering they'll all be voting for Obama regardless of the GOP nominee, they'll be hindering us instead.

Uh...conservative Dems are definitely voting for Obama?

I love trees. I love cars. God, those American cars...

Well, "conservative Democrats" are definitely voting for Obama. Conservative Democrats may or may not.
The best evidence we have so far about why there might be Democratic crossover voters in Michigan came from PPP last night, who said that of the Democrats who said they'd be voting for Santorum, 53% approved of Santorum, 40% did not. I'd also guess that the latter category will be less likely to show up today -- it's fun to tell an automated voice that you'll vote for someone you don't approve of, but it's a bit of a hassle in reality.  
But presumably the exit polls will give us better data on this, right?

[Politico]

Santorum supporters have to recognize that democrats are voting for Rick because they think he's a joke.

As much as I hate to agree, it's true.  One of my friends, who was head of the College Dems here was in the Detroit Free Press today talking about how he voted for Santorum because Obama can beat him.  And I've seen him promoting this to his friends all week.

Yep. Here is Michael Moore on national TV talking about it:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/28/michael_moore_a_lot_of_my_democratic_friends_will_vote_for_santorum.html

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One of the big differences is that the Democrats voting for Santorum (at least that I know) aren't conservative Democrats.  Everybody I've talked to (and I'm close with a lot of Democrats on campus) have crossed lines to screw with the GOP.  Ultimately, Limbaugh's probably to blame, supporting stuff like this in 2008, and now it's coming back to bite us.  And nobody's complaining about "non-Republicans".  They're complaining about hard-core Democrats.  53% being non-Republicans isn't the same as being Democrats.  There's a lot of Independents in that number.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Fact: there is no substantial proof that most Dems voting for Santorum are doing so for electability reasons. As many of us pointed out before, this tactical voting very rarely happens. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but it won't be substantial enough.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120228/NEWS15/120228049/Democrats-voting-droves-Santorum-Paul-deny-Romney-Michigan-win?odyssey=mod%7Cbreaking%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

[Politico]

But presumably the exit polls will give us better data on this, right?

Is there any reason to believe they will answer exit polling questions honestly? This is chaos. It is exhibit A for why all future primaries/caucuses should be closed, not open to both parties.

[ajb]

But presumably the exit polls will give us better data on this, right?

Is there any reason to believe they will answer exit polling questions honestly? This is chaos. It is exhibit A for why all future primaries/caucuses should be closed, not open to both parties.

The fact that they answered PPP. Also that they're proud of what they're doing.

[Mr. Morden]

Apparently, Romney is fine with Republicans tampering with Democratic primaries, just not the other way around:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/romney-outraged-at-democratic-mischief.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Politico]

Apparently, Romney is fine with Republicans tampering with Democratic primaries, just not the other way around:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/romney-outraged-at-democratic-mischief.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Republicans cannot vote in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary. Only Independents and Democrats can. That at least makes some sense. Allowing Republicans to vote in Democratic contest, and vice-versa, is madness.

[BigSkyBob]

Apparently, Romney is fine with Republicans tampering with Democratic primaries, just not the other way around:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/romney-outraged-at-democratic-mischief.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Republicans cannot vote in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary. Only Independents and Democrats can. That at least makes some sense. Allowing Republicans to vote in Democratic contest, and vice-versa, is madness.

So, you are saying in 1992 Romney wasn't merely a registered independent, but,  rather really wasn't a self-considered "Republican" at all!

This is the man real Republicans should treat as one of their own?

[Mr. Morden]

Apparently, Romney is fine with Republicans tampering with Democratic primaries, just not the other way around:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/romney-outraged-at-democratic-mischief.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Republicans cannot vote in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary. Only Independents and Democrats can. That at least makes some sense. Allowing Republicans to vote in Democratic contest, and vice-versa, is madness.

Right, but my point is that Romney apparently has no problem with voters supporting a candidate in the primary who they think will offer the weakest opposition to the candidate they really support.  Romney is basically saying that when he was an Independent in MA, he was an Independent in name only (IINO?), and was actually supporting Republicans, but would sometimes vote for the weakest Dem possible in the primaries to help the Republican.

That's essentially what's happening in Michigan.  Except you say that it's different because of the voter's party registration?  (Actually, does Michigan even have party registration?)  The voter motivation is identical either way.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

"I'm the least appealing candidate to those who are not steadfast Republicans!"

"Oh no no no, I beg to differ! I'm the only candidate who can be reliably counted on to fail to carry a single Democratic or independent vote!"