-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 0 comments
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Some people are in a tizzy because Michigan is one of the many states that allows “crossover” voting in the presidential primaries, meaning that anybody can vote in either party’s primaries (but not both), despite earlier voting pattens (or registration).
I’ve always been for “crossover” voting in presidential primaries. Why? Because without crossover Democratic votes, Ronald Reagan never would have become president.
It is irrefutable that if Reagan had bombed out of the presidential primaries in 1976, he would have had no chance in 1980. In 1976, though, he lost the first six contests, sprung an upset in North Carolina, and then lost two more contests. So he had lost eight out of nine, and the last one before Texas was a 93-5 wipeout loss in Pennsylvania. He was dead in the water. Then came Texas. Reagan won a huge victory in Texas, 66%-33%, largely via an immense crossover vote from Texas Democrats. He won all 100 delegates from the state, completely jump-starting his campaign and going on to win a long series of primaries. Conservative U.S. Sen. John Tower of texas,was a Ford man that year, and he complained bitterly that the Reagan win was due to the Dems.
In a number of other primaries in addition to Texas, Reagan did the same thing, either winning due to Democratic crossovers or keeping it close due to the Dems.
Ford moaned a lot about it, but Reagan repeatedly put up stirring defenses for allowing everybody to vote for whomever they wanted. He said that the GOP candidate would need Dems and independents to vote GOP to win the fall campaign anywya, so why not appeal to them in the primaries, too?
Reagan won the argument, and only some last-minute vote-renting (of the legal kind) by the Ford White House kept Reagan from winning the nomination at the 1976 convention. But that clsoe call set him up for his triumphant campaign in 1980.
Without the crossover Dems, the entire country would have been much worse off.
Crossover voting is good. And candidates who try to appeal to “Reagan Democrats” should be encouraged and applauded.
UPDATE: Acclaimed Reagan campaign biographer (and good friend of The American Spectator) Craig Shirley sends this message:
The crossover vote kept Reagan in the race quite simply. From the time of his announcement in November of 1975 to
his closing remarks in KC after losing the nomination, Reagan made continuous appeals to Democratic voters.The Ford campaign (and later the Bush campaign) bitched about it but Reagan Democrats kept Reagan in the race in 1976
and help him win the nomination in 1980.…
The emergence of the Reagan Democrat came into sharp relief in the 1980 Wisconsin primary where Frank Donatelli made
sure of the inclusion of culturally conservative voters in the Reagan campaign appeals there.
View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/28/reagans-crossover-democrats
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- What’s in a Name?
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Russell| 2.28.12 @ 2:07PM
I imagine most of the "Reagan Democrats"who will vote for Rick will be potheads from Ann Arbor,muslims from Dearborn and blacks from Detroit.
joe123| 2.28.12 @ 3:14PM
you are a truly despicable human being. a piece of human excrement. grow up turd blossom
WL| 2.28.12 @ 2:14PM
I don't really care about this...
However, I am thoroughly enjoying watching Romney get his drawers all in a wad...
He has been smearing other candidates and buying primaries since the start...and to see ol' Ricky go Democrat on him is the most audacious , underhanded....and DELICIOUS ACT I could have imagined...
Get him Ricky....if you keep it up...he might resort to those "incendiary" remarks that get us Conservatives all kinds of fired up!!!!
I would give almost anything to sit back and sip on a Toddy tonight and watch Mr. RomneyPhoney have to concede Michigan...
while he knows good and well his establishment backers will toss him aside and go to plan B...who you can guarantee will be some other mushhead.
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 3:06PM
Remember, Hillyer and THE OTHER MCCAIN have repeatedly told us that Santorum is "THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE HOPE."
YET this great conservative hope is bashing Romney -------------- from the Left, because not just is he faulting him for failing to support the auto bailout, he's bashing Romney for supporting the bailout of the fat cats on Wall Street.
Now THAT is a Democrat line of attack if there ever was one.
And the very same people who flipped out over the slightest Gingrich response to being subjected to aerial bombardment, now contort themselves in all kinds of ways defending their great conservative hope.
How many times have we heard it said this go 'round that we can't, WE JUST CAN'T allow Democrats to select our candidate? We've been hearing it this entire election cycle!
And now the great conservative hope now EXPLICITLY asks Democrats to select the GOP nominee!
And THE OTHER MCCAIN conjures up some lengthy post justifying all of this!
Think of it this way, with this kind of rationalization, ------------------------ as ANN COULTER is to defending Romney, ---------- The OTHER MCCAIN and now Hillyer are to defending Santorum.
Dai Alanye | 2.28.12 @ 6:47PM
Goldwater (or his campaign manager) said that when you go duck-hunting you hunt where the ducks are. Santorum in Michigan is hunting where the ducks are.
Let's remember what damage John McCain did to himself by publicly dropping his effort in Michigan, although Sarah and Todd were eager to go there. Santorum is setting himself up to capture Michigan in November, while Romney seems to be going out of his way to slam unionists. Is that smart, Mitt?
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 7:31PM
Who here wants to take electoral advice from Goldwater, a guy that got blown out, and then in later years, made his peace with the whole liberal social agenda.
I'm no fan of Goldwater, and for the life of me, I don't understand this weird fixation some in our ranks have for straining interpretations so as to encompass Goldwater.
WL| 2.28.12 @ 9:49PM
It's because Goldwater is the only "conservative" to lose the general election....
It doesn't matter that every jelly bellied moderate squish loses them left and right...
Well...it looks like I may not get that Toddy in celebration of watching Mitt squirm...It appears that Santorum must have known that he was behind and that's why he went after the Dems in desperation...oh, well.
I sure wish Newtster had a clearer path to victory...but...
I am afraid we are stuck with Romney...and to you Romney supporters...we'll be voting Repub. no matter what this year...but I just have a feeling that your boy Mitt is going to lose it.
I MEAN CRAP PEOPLE!!! Can you not see the similarities between Romney and his "I'm not going to light my hair on fire...to get the base" excited....and MCCAIN!!!...
Good GOD we are a bunch of idiots...maybe the liberals are right...and we are a bunch of hayseeds that need herding...
Because for the life of me....I hate to say it...but our voters are as stupid and blind as the Democrats are...
It's no wonder we are heading for the cliff...and nobody knows it.
DustWhit| 2.28.12 @ 5:05PM
I found this comment to be really funny. I type with a smile on my face.
beebop2| 2.29.12 @ 5:09AM
If I see one more article comparing the current situation with RR, I will SCREAM. Move into the present and realize that times change.
I am pleased that Santorum was not rewarded for what I see as boorish and inappropriate pandering for votes from people who hold you in utter contempt.
Owen| 2.28.12 @ 2:20PM
I also remember Wisconsin Republicans in 1968 helping out Eugene McCarthy against LBJ. 4 years later they did the same thing for George Wallace vs.Humphrey(actually allowing McGovern to win the state primary.
As for the 1980 Wisconsin GOP primary,if memory serves,the GOp race was mostly over. The real race in the state was between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Kennedy got quite a few epublican crossovers,though Carter narrowly won.
martin j smith| 2.28.12 @ 2:43PM
Those who vote against Obama are those who know they are being taken for a ride down the primrose path to hell. Those who vote for Obama are happy to go to hell and take everyone else with them
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 2:58PM
The issue isn't getting Dems to vote Republican.
The issue is the manner in which he is asking for Democrat support, by highlighting, by stressing, by emphasizing his support for the auto bailout.
Since when has bailing out Detroit become a character reference in the GOP primaries?
Furthermore, what evidence do any of us have that the Dems who support Santorum today will stay with him in the Fall?
Dai Alanye | 2.28.12 @ 6:51PM
Drek is, as too often, off-base here. Santorum did not support the auto bailout. He's contrasting his consistency in being against both bailouts, while Romney favored the one that helped fellow millionires.
As far as holding onto Dems, think Reagan.
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 7:34PM
Dai,
have you actually heard these calls?
Because to a great many they surely sound like Santorum was puffing his support for the auto bailouts?
teflon93| 2.28.12 @ 3:00PM
All of Romney's primary victories to date have been crossovers.
Funny how the MittBots weren't whining about those.
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 3:09PM
I'm not for Romney.
Nor am I for Santorum.
Because both men will get blown out.
One can't rally the base of the GOP, the other will limit our appeal beyond the party.
I'm for Gingrich!
And if not Gingrich, then let's get to the convention and select either Giuliani or Palin.
Each of those three people has a PROVEN track record of REAL reform.
Casey Abell| 2.28.12 @ 3:12PM
"And if not Gingrich, then let's get to the convention and select either Giuliani or Palin."
Wow. You might call that a wide range in political enthusiasm (wink).
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 3:30PM
The common denominator though is the record of REAL reform.
Both are whip smart, both have a tendency not to suffer fools.
We can't go with some scrub from the bench on this one.
We've got to win, and we've also GOT to change Washington.
Casey Abell| 2.28.12 @ 3:37PM
"Both are whip smart, both have a tendency not to suffer fools."
Agree on Giuliani. Sarah? No way.
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 4:11PM
Remember, there's an intelligence of grades and graduate schools, but there's also an intelligence that just gets it.
She has the latter.
And she's very good at summing things up deftly.
"Death panels." As Camille Paglia noted then, that phrase couldn't be improved upon, and that phrase stuck!
Remember her "WTF" moment, when she laughed and said yea, the American people are thinking "w.t.f."
And she gets all the right people well and truly foaming at the mouth. Now Giuliani did that too, they were calling him a NAZI before 9/11. But Sarah Palin can get them pissed off just by picking up an M16.
Don't underestimate her.
What really bothers the hell out of me is that Giuliani was supposedly unacceptable for his pursuit of women, Gingrich is supposedly undesirable because he refused to be stuck to a harpy.
And we just keep getting all this "wonderful family man" crap rammed down us.
Dai Alanye | 2.28.12 @ 6:58PM
Which "harpy" are you referring to? There have been so many ex-wives for Gingrich.
As for Giulliani, he's nothing like a conservative, and ran a pathetic campaign last time around.
Sarah is plenty smart enough, and has wonderful political instincts, but she's been so thoroughly slammed she must make some kind of a comeback before trying for national office again. Not her fault, just the way matters are.
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 7:34PM
2d wife, by any standard, is a positive harpy.
Casey Abell| 2.29.12 @ 7:59AM
Sorry, I don't think Palin has book smarts, street smarts or political smarts. She flopped as the veep candidate in 2008, quit as governor, and chickened out of the 2012 race after a painful tease. Not an impressive political resume.
She can't even do a halfway decent reality show.
Casey Abell| 2.28.12 @ 3:01PM
Figured that Quin would be defending Santorum for his MI shenanigans, and I figured right. Of course, Hillyer could be reasonable and just say that Santorum is doing what he has to do, no matter how...questionable.
But that wouldn't be our Quin. Instead he has to go all high-horse about the wonderfulness of Rick, no matter what Santorum does.
Get off it, Hillyer. Santorum is just a politician desperate for a win, and willing to do anything for a win. Nothing wrong with that. But spare us this "pious baloney", as your good friend Newt once called it.
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 3:13PM
Hillyer has to!
He's been Santorum's psalmist, singing his praises, he's the great conservative hope, don't ya' know?
And THE OTHER MCCAIN is right out there with him.
Had any other Republican contender tried this stunt this year, THE OTHER MCCAIN would have been howling. But all of a sudden the candidate with the big family does it and it's like it had received some archangelic blessing.
This is just nuts.
It really is.
Santorum has benefited by virtue of the aerial bombardment unleashed against Gingrich by Romney. But even that isn't enough to pull him over the finish line to victory, so now he reaches out to those BIG LABOR TYPES of the Democrat party and begs them in some unseemly fashion for their votes!
This is just squalid!
Worried for the country| 2.28.12 @ 3:11PM
I never knew Michael Moore was a x-over Reagan Democrat.
Who knew?
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 3:16PM
Isn't it great that Santorum has informed us?
But don't worry, THE OTHER MCCAIN will write some convoluted piece that demonstrates that the support of the fat man moore really is because he too is drawn to Santorum's wonderful family.
Because we know that being the "wonderful family man" is THE most important and desirable trait in our candidate.
NOTHING else is as important than the fact that our candidate is still married to his first wife!
THAT will guarantee us victory in the Fall!
R. Freedom| 2.28.12 @ 3:14PM
Santorum & Michael Moore are both trying to get union members to vote for Santorum in the Michigan primary. Is that what you're referring to?
mjs_pa| 2.28.12 @ 3:20PM
Give me a Reagan democrat over a RINO any day of the week!
joe123| 2.28.12 @ 3:22PM
I completely agree with this article, that it IS what jump started Reagan, and led to the dems demise. REAL Americans vote their conscience, not their party. Usually those overlap. Sometimes it does not. A vote is vote, regardless of party. If the state's laws allows for it, there's nothing dirty or tricky about it. I dont care where the support comes from, i dont care the reasons, for each person the reason, while maybe not making to ME or YOU, it legit for that person. I may not understand how a conserv can sacrifice their core convictions (a le, ann coulter) just b/c they view the guy theyre supporting as "more electable" but thats the way it goes. Those of us figh ting for the core convictions who want a REAL choice and not 0bama-lite, do not care what a person's reason is, so long as its legal, for or against what we think. We are out to win hearts and minds and make the case that our ideas are the best. If that means we get dem support, so be it, maybe santorum is really the one with the crossover appeal afterall? His manufacturing focus DOES resonate with many dems and indpends...and many of these blue collar voters AGREE with Rick on many social issues...i think we have a WINNER folks!
SANTORUM 2012!
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 3:28PM
Santorum was all on board while GW Bush DOUBLED the federal budget during his two term tenure.
Bush came in with a budget of 1.6 trillion, and left office with a budget of roughly 3.2 trillion.
And Santorum was right there, right alongside Trent Lott before he left, through all of it.
And who amongst us can recall Santorum raising his voice decrying this reckless and insane spending?
WL| 2.28.12 @ 3:54PM
I don't blame you for being down on Santorum...but come on Drek...
You HAVE to admit that watching Romney...."about to set his hair on fire" over Ricky Bobby's push for Operation Chaos in Michigan...is somewhat gratifying!!!
The country is going to hell...but at least tonight, I may get to watch Mitt storm off the stage mad as hell!!!
Drek| 2.28.12 @ 4:06PM
I can see where you're coming from.
I should go work out.
That should get my mind off of it.
Casey Abell| 2.28.12 @ 3:35PM
At least this has opened a few cracks in the Santorum For President predictability around here. Even some of the usuals like W. James Antle III (just love that name) are actually doubting Saint Rick.
For a while Kaminsky was pretty much alone around here in questioning Santorum. He might have some company for a while.
WL| 2.28.12 @ 3:56PM
I sure do wish Newt would have won in Florida...
Who knows...maybe he ain't out yet...
Bo Darville| 2.28.12 @ 4:04PM
Conservative Democrats favoring Reagan over Ford & Carter is a little different than liberal Democrats voting for Santorum so dear leader Barack Obama can wipe him out.
WL| 2.28.12 @ 4:10PM
Good thought...trying to trump up the Reagan Democrats IS a little bit of a stretch in this one.
Especially since the Reagan Democrats didn't vote for Reagan over Ford...Reagan lost to Ford...
The Reagan Dems voted for Reagan AFTER he beat GW Bush and got the nomination...
Don't take my post as my trying to point out anything contrary to your post. I agree with you on the point.
Paul Windels| 2.28.12 @ 4:25PM
Crossovers are fine if they are likely to vote for the party they are crossing to and want to help that party. They are bad if they are crossing over in order to sabotage a party. Crossover voting was allowed in the South in order to prevent a Republican Party from nominating strong candidates, thus guaranteeing one-party control of the South to the Democrats.
In 1976, Republican enrollment in the South was still sparse, and most Republicans who won elections in the South did so with the support of Democratic voters. These were the voters who did support Reagan in 1980 and 1984 in the general elections.
In 2008, John McCain won the Republican nomination by virtue of crossover votes which enabled him to win winner-take-all primaries by a plurality. He never had solid support among Republican voters, and the result in the general election speaks for itself.
My sense is, barring an anomalous situation such as in the South in 1976-80, crossover voting should not be permitted. If a voter wants to vote in the primary of a political party, the voter ought to demonstrate allegiance to that party.
C Bowen | 2.28.12 @ 4:55PM
Wallace voters, Paul. Reagan won in the South by appealing to Wallace voters, just as Nixon did in '72 after one of them there Lone Gunmen ended Wallace's Third Party bid.
It's interesting because the intelligentsia of the South actually negotiated a piece of the Reagan Administration, but he betrayed them and hired a Democrat, at the insistence of the Manhattan Neocon contingent. This now former Democrat that got the job loves to gamble by the way, even though he talks about virtue.
Nick| 2.28.12 @ 5:38PM
I would be embarrassed to have voted for George Wallace.
C Bowen | 2.28.12 @ 7:47PM
What did Wallace do in that Era to be embarrassed about?
Reagan had voted to legalize abortion, make for easy divorce, raise taxes, and never balance a budget, but conservatives could still tolerate him as a politician.
Tom| 2.28.12 @ 7:56PM
The dumbest, most time-proven bit of stupidity that some people seem so fixated on, is the idea of "electability." "Electability" gave us Dole in 1996 and McCain, in 2008, and both of them promptly crashed and burned despite their "electability."
People also talked about "electability" in 1980. Following is an article from theMarch 5, 1980 Christian Science Monitor. After 32 years of hindsight, a good portion of the article looks totally ridiculous in its analysis. But changes the names, and for the most part, the article could be written today.
Lesson learned: Screw "electability"; I stick with the person who best reflects my values. In 2012, that means Rick Santorum
------------------------
http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0305/030542.html
The Christian Science Monitor, March 5, 1980
Is defeat probable for GOP if Reagan wins nomination?
Washington
The nation's Republicans are working against the clock to answer two key questions: Can conservative Ronald Reagan possibly attract enough independent and Democratic votes to win in November?
And if he is likely to lose, has former President Gerald Ford time enough to challenge him for the GOP nomination?
The consensus among political experts is that time has probably already run out for Gerald Ford, though he still appears the stronger choice to beat Jimmy Carter in November.
But some experts caution: Don't count Ronald Reagan out as a national candidate for the fall. He is not, they say, "a McGovern or a Goldwater" -- fringe candidates who led their parties to one-sided defeats in 1972 and 1964. Intellectuals don't want to take him seriously, but he does well with working-class voters. He would take the West, challenge President Carter in the South, and do well in the pivotal Midwest states like Ohio and Illinois, whose southern regions titled toward Carter in 1976, they say.
"Winability has long been used as an argument against Reagan, and has been proved wrong," says California pollster Mervin D. Field. "in 1966, after he became the darling of the conservatives for his fund-raising pitch for [Sen. Barry] Goldwater, people thought Reagan would have been easier for Pat [Edmund G.] Brown to defeat for the governorship than the moderate, dynamic George Christopher, mayor of San Francisco. Brown was hoping his opponent would be Reagan. But it blew up in his face. Reagan beat Brown.
"The unpopularity, the negative quotient-of Governor Brown was the most critical factor in his loss," Mr. Field says.
The November 1980 election similarly could come down to a test between negative ratings, he says.
"Reagan's age, the feeling 'he's out of it,'" could be offset by "disappointment with Carter on inflation and foreign affairs," Mr. Field says. "In the Truman-Dewey, Nixon-Kennedy, Johnson-Goldwater elections, the winning candidate was the one with the lowest negative score, not true majority public support."
"Reagan is the opponent of choice for Carter," says I. A. Lewis, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, a point on which most analysts agree. "But Reagan can reach across and cause mischief in the Democratic constituency," Mr. Lewis says. "Reagan appeals to blue collar, working-class voters. He can win Democratic votes."
"Carter could beat Reagan more easily than he could Bush or Baker," Mr. Lewis says. "A moderate Republican would appeal to moderate Democrats, while upper-income Republicans might defect from Reagan to the Democrats. Ford is of course, the strongest in the polls against Carter. But if he became a candidate, he could sink the same way Kennedy did after he declared."
Elections analyst Richard Scammon, who thinks a candidate must command the political center to win the presidency, gives neither Reagan nor Ford much chance.
"The general opinion -- that Ford is too late -- is correct," Mr. Scammon says. "A Ford candidacy wouldn't have much meaning unless he persuaded the other moderates to withdraw, which they apparently won't do."
In terms of a national election, Mr. Reagan's New Hampshire victory last week is less imrpessive, Mr. Scammon says. "Reagan got 48 percent in New Hampshire against Ford in 1976, and 49 percent in 1980 with a superfluity of anti-Reagan candidates.
"The odds are very good that Reagan will not be successful in November. It looks like the Republicans have done it again. Down-the-line conservatism has triumphed over down-the-line center forces."
Austin Ranney, American Enterprises Institute authority on the US election system, sees only difficult scenarios ahead for a late Ford entry into the race. First, if Mr. Reagan takes perhaps 40 percent of the delegates to the convention , then "theoretically there could be a brokered convention with Bush and [Sen. Howard H.] Baker throwing support to Ford."
"But as we've already seen," he says, "much of the eroded Bush support has gone to Reagan, not Baker." Neither party has power brokers any more, he says: "The candidates are organized like entrepreneurs, to win for themselves, not to deliver to someone else."
"Given the triumph of populism in politics today, the notion a candidate can enter late and take the nomination away from a candidate like Reagan, in it from the beginning, must be questioned," Mr. Ranney says.
"Ford’s best chance is to enter all the remaining primaries he can, do well, beat Reagan in a couple of head-to-head contests, outshine Bush and Baker. He would claim that if he had entered early, he would be the front-runner and not Reagan.
"The longer Ford waits the more difficult his chances. Bush has clearly said he won't get out if Ford gets in. Bush will likely split the moderate vote with Ford."
Primary deadlines are fast closing for Mr. Ford. Secretaries of state in many remaining primary states can still put his name on the ballot, even though candidate filing deadlines have passed. But even for that route, March holds all the time he has. His political home state Michigan ballot will be set March 21, California's March 31.
Another Ford option, according to Mr. Field: Skip the primaries but go on a national speaking tour, attacking President Carter, saying "I want to offer a choice," and hope the other candidates are viable enough to prevent a Reagan first ballot win at the July Republican convention in Detroit.
Oldefarte| 2.29.12 @ 11:56AM
Quin, respectfully to make partial usage of Texas CongressmanLloyd Bentsen's debate verbage, MOST OF US KNOW ''''OF''''''' FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM [ALTHOUGH NOT CLOSE AND PERSONAL FRIENDS OF HIM], AND BELIEVE ME RICK, YOU ARE NO PRESIDENT RONALD WILSON REAGAN AND NEVER WILL BE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!