McCain won because of the votes of non-Republicans and Hispanics
(See, below, the comment from a Freeper that may begin to explain the large Independent vote in the supposedly “closed” Republican primary, followed by my reply.)
I heard that the “semi-open” quality of the Florida primary consisted in the fact that voters could change their registration at the time they voted, meaning that an independent who wanted to vote for McCain could register as a Republican on primary day and vote as a Republican. But according to the exit poll as reported by the New York Times, 17 percent of voters in the Republican primary said that they were not affiliated with either party, and they voted for McCain over Romney, 44 to 23 percent. So it’s an open primary, period. McCain only won in Florida because of the votes of non-Republicans. Why has this not been reported? In what sense is the Florida Republican primary not open, if independents can vote in it, as independents?
Furthermore, while non-Hispanic whites (making up 84 percent of voters in the primary) chose Romney over McCain by 34 to 33 percent, Hispanic voters (12 percent of the GOP primary voters) preferred McCain by 54 to 14 percent, with Giuliani getting 24 percent. McCain, the candidate of amnesty, won in Florida because of the votes of Hispanics. In the Hispanicized America created by open borders, the pro open-borders candidate wins. There’s direct proof that we are losing control over our country, over our very ability to be a sovereign country, because of the indiscriminate admission of people who do not believe in America as a sovereign country.
- end of initial entry -
Tim W. writes:
Many Republicans simply don’t understand why the “Mexicanization” of our society is devastating to the GOP and conservatism in general. All one has to do is look at California to see the effects.
It’s hard to believe today, but California went Republican in every presidential race from 1952 to 1988, with the lone exception of the 1964 Johnson landslide. It elected many Republican governors and senators. The GOP was a strong party there, fully competitive with the Democrats in the legislature and in statewide offices.
But over the past two decades, millions of people (mostly whites) have moved out and millions more (mostly “people of color”) have moved in. The result is that the state is so Democrat that the Republicans practically write it off in presidential races. Bush lost the state in a landslide even as he won re-election in 2004. California has gone Democrat in the past four elections and there’s no sign of any change this year or in any future year. Both Senate seats are safely Democrat. There’s no chance of ever electing a governor like Reagan again. Schwarzenegger is a GOP governor, but he won solely because he’s very liberal and because he was a big action film star.
In addition, the Democrats there have been radicalized. There are no moderates, or even moderate liberals among them. The legislature is controlled by the state’s powerful racial groups, the gay lobby, feminists, environmentalists, and government employee unions. Once whites lose their majority in an area, the more vocal and racially-absorbed other races dominate. The only whites the politicians listen to are the exotic ones: homosexuals, feminists, Hollywood types, uber-rich people who live in gated mansions. The white middle class, the backbone of America, is simply shoved aside as yesterday’s news.
One other note. The Cuban community in Florida is different from other Hispanic populations within America. When Castro took power, it was the productive class that fled. These people also respect the U.S. military. This is why they vote Republican, but they are unique among Hispanics in doing so. In the rest of America, the Hispanics are mostly Mestizos who are as attached to liberalism, welfare programs, affirmative action, and other liberal policies as blacks. They have a grudge against America and regard us as an imperialist nation who “stole” the southwest from Mexico.
The idea that the GOP can ever win them over, without totally becoming a liberal party, is ridiculous. This is why McCain,with his amnesty scheme, is suicide for the party.
R. Dent writes:
You wrote: “Hispanic voters (12 percent of the GOP primary voters) preferred McCain by 54 to 14 percent, with Giuliani getting 24 percent. McCain, the candidate of amnesty, won in Florida because of the votes of Hispanics. In the Hispanicized America created by open borders, the pro open-borders candidate wins.”
That was exactly the case, Lawrence. This is precisely why, rather than being concerned about offending Hispanics, Romney should have absolutely hammered McCain on his pro-illegal amnesty stance. It’s where he’s most vulnerable, and Mitt utterly failed to address it, and frankly, since Tancredo dropped out, it seems as if it’s disappeared as an issue in this race. Hispanics will break for McCain in far greater numbers now that they’ve left Florida, where Cubans voting patterns are more like conservative Whites. Having lived in both Miami and Los Angeles, I can attest that Cubans are worlds away from the Mestizos that are streaming into the rest of the country, as Tim says.
LA replies:
But the Cuban vote was also heavily for McCain, though not as much as the Hispanic vote as a whole.
LA writes:
The Florida mystery deepens. A reader sends this, from the State of Florida elections FAQ page:
Is Florida a closed primary state?
Yes, Florida is a closed primary state. Only voters who are registered members of the two major political parties (Republicans and Democrats) may vote for their respective party’s candidates in a primary election. However, if all candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner will have no opposition in the general election, all qualified voters, regardless of party affiliation, may vote in the primary election for that office. At general elections, all voters receive the same ballot and may vote for any candidate or question on the ballot. If there are write-in candidates, a space will be left on the ballot where a write-in candidate’s name may be written.
This makes no sense. We know that 17 percent of the voters in the GOP primary identified themselves as Independents. And on primary night the tv was saying that Romney was beating McCain by 33 to 31 among Republicans (according to exit polls), meaning that a lot of non-Republicans were voting, since at the same time that McCain beat Romney by five points.
LA writes:
rmlew, a VFR reader, posted the current thread at Free Republic. Most of the replies were inconsequential, but there was one that at least moves in the direction of a possible answer:
The Freeper, named “NonValueAdded,” wrote:
This makes no sense. We know that 17 percent of the voters in the GOP primary identified themselves as Independents.
Here’s how that can make sense in a closed-primary state such as Florida. Those self-identifying “independents” registered as Republicans 30 days or more ahead of the primary. For that matter, Democrats could change their party affiliation to Republican as well, as long as it was done 30 or more days ahead. Now they can either go back to being registered RATS or drop their party affiliation.
I believe that was part of the strategy once it was clear that Florida’s RAT delegates wouldn’t be seated to cross over to select the weakest republican. That had to be done back in December and when Hillary suddenly wanted to put the state in play, it was too late to switch back to get a RAT ballot and vote for Obama or the Silky Pony.
10 posted on 01/31/2008 5:24:01 PM PST by NonValueAdded (What Would Hobson Choose?)
The answer suggested by NonValueAdded is that Independents registered properly as Republicans more than 29 days before the primary, solely for the purpose of voting in the Republican primary. The first problem with this theory is that though the Independents had legally changed their registration to Republican, when they answered exit poll questions they still identified themselves as Independents. Meaning that this huge number of people all cynically registered as Repubicans, while still seeing themselves as non-Republicans.
The second problem with the theory is that it involves a huge number of Independents deciding more than a month in advance of the Republican primary that they wanted to vote in it so much that it was worth their trouble to make a special trip to their polling place or election office to change their registration to Republican. And presumably now they are going to have to take another special trip back to their poling place to change their registration back to Independent. Why would so many people—17 percent of the voters in the primary—have that kind of motivation?
NonValueAdded suggests a motivation in that this was an organized Democratic plan. Since the Democratic primary had become meaningless this year (because the National Democratic Committee had taken away Florida’s convention votes to punish Florida for moving its primary), the Democrats decided to use their votes to cross over to the Republican side and vote for the most liberal Republican candidate. But the exit poll, as I remember, did not say anything about Democrats voting in the Republican primary. It only mentioned “unaffiliated” people voting in the Republican primary. And in any case, the Democratic cross-over theory would not explain the 17 percent Independent figure. The theory might explain a big Democratic cross-over to the Republican primary (if there was one; but as far as we know there wasn’t one); but it would not explain a big Independent cross-over to the Republican primary.
So the whole thing remains a mystery. Another mystery is the media’s failure to address this stunning anomaly of Independents voting in the “closed” Republican primary. None of these media people with their six figure salaries notices the most glaring questions crying out to be answered.
LA continues:
A VFR reader in Florida has called her county elections office today and got the following information which takes the story in a whole new direction, massive fraud in which Independent voters voted illegally in the Republican primary. But if that’s the case, then all those illegal voters were happily identifying themselves to the exit pollsters as illegal, Independent voters, and that the people who compiled the exit polls had no knowledge that there were not supposed to be any Independents voting in the Republican primary.
The reader in Florida writes:
I just got off the phone with the man in my county who is the assistant supervisor for operations re the primary. I told him I was a registered Republican voter here and asked about the CNN website stating 17% of the voters in the Republican primary were Independents. I was quite surprised at the details he went into with the numbers with me, but here goes:
He stated that they received a statewide email Wednesday morning about allegations that over 300,000 votes were made by Independents who were NOT registered as Republicans. The Secretary of State of Florida is aware of this and it is being investigated. The man I spoke with reiterated that this is illegal. He said he thought the counties were in South Florida, and Broward was the one name he remembered. He said the numbers were either 314,000 or 341,000. In Florida, you have to sign in and you have to show ID, so they should be able to check the books about what happened.
This is my own bias, but I wouldn’t be surprised at anything that happened in Southeast Florida.
I asked him about any follow up in the news and he said he would call me if he heard anything else. Again, I was surprised he told me this much on the telephone, as this is going to be a huge scandal if anything comes of it. This is the Secretary of State page if you would like to do any follow up yourself.
I will let you know if I hear anything.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 31, 2008 10:29 AM | Send