Did 100,000 democrats actually cross over 3-1 for Santorum in the Michigan primary? No.

Republican Michigander ^ | 3-5-2012 | Republican Michigander

[Darren McCarty]

One of the big pushes from Romney surrogates in Michigan is that due to sites like Daily Kos and a Santorum robocall, that 100-120,000 democrats voted in the Michigan primary to create mischief like the case with McCain in 2000. The source that is used is exit polling from CNN. I do not begrudge the surrogates for using exit polling as a source. On a lot of things, it is good. I think the polling was close with a lot of factors. That aspect I am doubting. I also highly suspect that it is being used as quasi-justification for awarding that extra delegate to Romney after the fact.

Even if the 100,000 democrat crossover is true, I don't have a lot of sympathy for it. This year. The reason being is that the party chose an open, or a closed in name only primary with same day choice of ballot. There's no party registration in Michigan either. I've long argued against an open primary when there is no contest on the other side. It only works when there is a competitive race on both sides. Presidential primaries are much different than August counterparts when both sides usually (although not always) have contests of their own.

So why don't I think 60,000 votes out of the 377,000 cast for Santorum came from democrats? Actual election returns. If you look at Michigan maps, especially 2004, you'll see how many counties votes for democrats and how many voted for republicans, along with which ones. A lot of the democrats in Michigan are concentrated in a few areas. This can be seen with the congressional districts. Most of the democrat districts, especially under the new allocation, are 60% or more democrat. All of those districts except the 13th district, votes for Romney, not Santorum. Most of the Republican held districts voted for Santorum.

GOP held Districts:
CD 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 - Santorum
CD 8, 11 - Romney

Dem districts:
CD 5, 9, 12, 14 - Romney
CD 13 - Santorum

That alone doesn't tell the whole story. There are pockets of democrats in the republican districts and pockets of republicans in the democrat districts, but it is not hard to find samples in democrat areas. One thing is clear, most of Santorum's votes were from Republicans. Most of Romney's votes were also from Republicans. Democrats don't win Livingston County in primaries. Democrats don't win Ottawa County in primaries.

I'll start with Pontiac and Auburn Hills. Why? Pontiac is a democrat stronghold in Oakland County. It's 80% democrat every election. It also was ground zero for an open state rep election and charter issue as well, so there is a reason for the democrats to vote there besides mischief. Here's the results for that state rep district, strictly in Pontiac itself, followed by Auburn Hills, a democrat leaning area, but not nearly on the same scale. Republicans often get 45% of the vote there, although McCain bombed and Obama broke 60% there.

Pontiac:
Tim Greimel (D) - 88.10% - 5,746
Bob Gray (R) - 11.90% - 776

Auburn Hills:
Bob Gray (R) - 50.53% - 1,338
Tim Greimel (D) - 49.47% - 1,310

Gray overperformed in Auburn Hills, probably due to the presidential primary. Here's the primary results in both areas there.

Auburn Hills: (population about 21,500)
Romney - 743 - 40.23%
Santorum - 639 - 34.88%
Paul - 279 - 15.23%
Newt - 117 - 6.39%
Obama - 782 - 93.65%
Dem Uncommitted - 53 - 6.35%

Pontiac: (Population about 59,000)
Santorum - 575 - 41.01%
Romney - 364 - 25.96%
Paul - 317 - 22.61%
Newt - 92 - 6.56%
Obama - 4881 - 97.72%
Dem Uncommitted - 114 - 2.28%

Most dems stayed home in their primary, even with just Obama there with "uncommitted". About 15-20% of Pontiac often votes Republican and about 45% of Auburn Hills often votes Republican. The Republicans in Pontiac are more likely working class social conservatives and small business owners. Those in Auburn Hills tend to vary. Auto executives are there, and it is also Tom McMillan's old stomping grounds before he went to the Rochester area. Both Romney and Santorum received more votes in Auburn Hills than Pontiac. Ron Paul was another story.

Here's one of the most Republican areas of Oakland County. Brandon Township. I'm going to follow that with nearby Oakland Township. They are both republican strongholds in Oakland County. There were not a lot of crossovers here. Both of these areas are consistently over 60% Republican areas.

Brandon Twp:
Santorum - 802
Romney - 775
Paul - 275
Obama - 135
D Uncommitted - 22

Oakland Twp
Romney - 1736
Santorum - 870
Paul - 271
Obama - 188
D Uncommitted - 17

Both of those are North Oakland Republican strongholds. The areas there are both republican areas voting for different republican candidates. One's a little more rural than the other, but neither are Bloomfield Hills where there is more of a homer factor.

Macomb County results varies some as well. The strongholds there are less like Pontiac and are whiter, with some republican pockets, and a lot of union independents. There wasn't a real pattern one way or the other.

Warren (about 60% dem):
Romney 4229, Santorum 4074, Paul 1337, Obama 3066, D uncommitted 638
Roseville's percentages were about the same as Warrens

Washington Twp (GOP Stronhold)
Romney 1932, Santorum 1347, Paul 355, Obama 376. D uncommitted 66

Utica (50/50)
Santorum 217, Romney 213, Paul 77, Obama 89, D uncommitted 28

Ray Twp (GOP Stronghold)
Santorum 261, Romney 250, Paul 74. Obama 53, D uncommitted 11

Overall Santorum won these areas:
GOP - Armada, Memphis, Ray, Richmond City and Twp
Dem - Center Line, Eastpointe,
Swing - Lenox, Utica

Santorum didn't win Roseville, Warren, or Mt Clemens which are democrat, nor Republican areas like Washington Twp, Shelby Twp, or Macomb Twp.

Obama had the most votes in Center Line, Eastpointe, Roseville, all narrowly.
Romney actually beat him in Mt Clemens. Both Santorum and Romney beat him in Warren. I think both candidates had their share of crossovers in these parts of Macomb County. Social liberals more to Romney and Social conservatives more to Santorum. I certainly didn't see a big push though one way or another, despite dem consultant Joe DiSano's advocacy of mischief.

Looking at another democrat stronghold. Washtenaw County.

Ann Arbor had less than 10% turnout outside of the 2nd Ward which is more republican than most of the city. That is a high money area, and went for Romney. The rest of Ann Arbor was mixed across the board, but hardly enough to manner. Some went to Santorum, some Romney, some Paul. Some of those were probably crossovers, but at less than 10% turnout, they could just as easily been those few republicans in the city.

Ypsi went narrowly for Santorum, but Obama had more votes there. The "rural" Ann Arbor Township precinct went for Santorum. That's also the Dominos Farms location. Whitmore Lake area went for Santorum. Augusta Twp (south of Ypsi) did as well. Probably not crossovers. Saline went for Romney. Probably not crossovers there either. These areas are matching about what I'd suspect.

I've look at different election areas across the state. I'm noting really out of the ordinary with vote patterns. 100,000 votes or even 65,000 in crossovers is very significant. If someone can point out where they would come from, I'd appreciate it. I don't see it. Not with Bay County and Saginaw County going for Romney, and if I was going to expect crossovers, it would be there.

I may be wrong and missing the forest for the trees here, but I don't see it. Exit polls are usually close, but not 100% in all aspects, and sometimes that is due to people lying. Voting results are what tell the truth.

[Darren McCarty]

This was copied verbatim in full text from the Right Michigan and Republican Michigander blogs with permission of the author who is a political consultant and a friend of mine. After referencing this piece a few times in the face of claims by Romney supporting Santorum haters both here and elsewhere that Santorum competed in Michigan and won Alabama/Mississippi because of democrats, I asked Dan if I could post this here. He obliged as long as it wasn't edited.

If you have a problem with his story, he'll be happy to defend it on his site or on Right Michigan in the comments section.

I believe the claims that are made here after looking at some of his sources used with the election results compared with the results in previous general elections. Santorum's votes are coming from Repubicans, not democrats, regardless of what CNN says.

[Lazlo in PA]

Santorum for President Ping List.

FReepmail “Antoninus” to be added or removed.

[Netizen]

They asked for party affiliation before handing over the ballot, explaining that Dems could not vote for Rep Pres candidates. The Dems could only vote for local items. My question is, once in the booth, how do they know if they did or didn’t vote for the Rep candidate if they were Dems?

[Darren McCarty]

The comparison that the author used were presidential votes which aren't that hard to do because democrats are largely concentrated in certain areas. If there was heavy turnout for Santorum in Pontiac or Detroit, then there would be proof of mischief just based on percentages. Obama was listed on the ballot as well, and he did the best in a lot of the strong democrat areas like Pontiac.

I asked him to compare the 2000 primary results where there was heavy democrat mischief, but he said he can't get the municipal results for the primary online, just the entire counties. I did find this interesting however:

Wayne County:
2000
Bush - 69,099
McCain - 103,937
Keyes - 9,423

2012
Romney - 48,498
Santorum - 38,890
Newt - 6,905
Paul - 19,168
Obama - 54,015

I think that reinforces his theory. The only proof is the fact that Pontiac is 80% democrat so high number of republican votes would show that something isn't right. The other would be if all similar areas voted the same, which wasn't the case for either candidate as Macomb County showed.

[Ingtar]

If it is like it is here in Tennessee, your choice locks you to selecting only from the party you declared.

[Waryone]

The last person on earth who should be complaining about cross overs is Mitt Romney. He and his GOP-E liberal friends wanted open primaries to keep conservatives from winning too many delegates. This fix was supposed to give them a candidate who was more acceptable to independents.

Looks like unintended consequences rips Mitt’s best laid plans to shreds.

But one fix was more successful for Mitt. Most of the winner take all primaries are in liberal states. All the conservative Southern states are proportional contests. Mitt makes out like a sleazy fat rat again. Yes, the fix is in.

[cripplecreek]

Like grellis I'm going to try to avoid pinging you to blogs but I felt that this one was worth a ping.

[cripplecreek]

Our governor, Rick Snyder was on Fox complaining about the dirty tricks of Rick Santorum. Funny thing is that when asked if he would work to get the primaries closed he said “No”.

It just might be because he himself is in office because of those crossover voters.

[ElayneJ]

Thanks! Why on earth do we have an open primary?

[BobL]

Too bad the Dems weren’t that organized in Michigan. If it takes the Dems to help us nominate our strongest candidate (Santorum, of course), then more power to them.

[cripplecreek]

There is also the issue of union members who vote republican consistently anyway. I know I did as an AFL-CIO member and I know my union neighbors are almost exclusively conservative. Just yesterday my postmistress was complaining about how her union is screwing the little towns to protect the union members in the cities.

Its a result of forced unionization. It doesn’t flip some kind of switch and turn us into liberals.

[cripplecreek]

Because the Michigan GOP is largely owned by the SEIU.


GOP Senators, SEIU Taxpayer Giveaways, Campaign Cash and More, OH MY!

On Aug. 5, 2009, Sen. Jason Allen, R-Traverse City, introduced Senate Bill 731, which would give statutory cover to a scheme transferring approximately $6.6 million in taxpayer money annually to the SEIU government employee union, one of the parents of ACORN. This is accomplished by creating a shell government "employer" for some 42,000 individuals who are actually hired by elderly or disabled Medicaid recipients to provide personal care services in their homes. A Mackinac Center lawsuit is pending regarding a similar arrangement imposed on home day care providers.

Wendy Day of Common Sense in Government has reported on Facebook that Allen was the recipient of a $2,000 campaign contribution from the SEIU on June 22, six weeks before SB 731 was introduced. In another post she hints that introducing and passing the bill was part of a quid-pro-quo between Senate Republicans and the SEIU for union support of former state representative Mike Nofs in a November 2009 special election, which state Republican Party Chair Ron Weiser had characterized as among the party's top priorities. Day observes that the SEIU endorsed Nofs on August 22nd, two weeks after SB 731 was introduced, and sent four full-time workers to help on his campaign.

(snip)

Senate Bill 731 was co-sponsored by these Republican Senators: Roger Kahn, Bruce Patterson, Valde Garcia, Tony Stamas, Judson Gilbert, Mark Jansen, Randy Richardville, and Patricia Birkholz.

GOP-Dominated Senate To SEIU: 'Here's $4 Million'

How the Forced Unionization of Day Care and Home Health Care Providers Took Place

'Forced Unionization' Employer Out of the Picture, But Dues Keep Flowing To SEIU

SEIU Sent Key GOP Senator $5K on Day Bill to End 'Forced Unionization' Arrived in Senate

Michigan Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Roger Khan, R-Saginaw, received $5,000 from the Service Employees International Union on June, 9, 2011. That was the day House Bill 4003 was sent to the Senate, one day after its passage in the House.

It should be noted that Khan is the uncle of Randy Richarville.

[Hot Tabasco]

They asked for party affiliation before handing over the ballot, explaining that Dems could not vote for Rep Pres candidates. The Dems could only vote for local items.

Where are you referring to? Here in Macomb county, there was only one item on the ballot and that was the Republican nominees......all of them including those who had dropped out.

As a side note, I'm curious as to how many dems who voted actually did so because they were supporting the candidate they hope to vote for in November. I know several dem couples who voted for that very reason.....

[cripplecreek]

As a side note, I'm curious as to how many dems who voted actually did so because they were supporting the candidate they hope to vote for in November. I know several dem couples who voted for that very reason.....

I'm sure plenty did. They can force me into a union but they can't force me to become a liberal. After all, the core of the Reagan Democrats were union members.

Terry Bowman and his conservative UAW group are a good example and they're doing more than just talking the talk. Just last month, Bowman testified against union political fundraising on capitol hill.

UAW Member: Union Workers 'Need to Embrace' Right-to-Work Laws


If republicans were smart, they would work to drive a wedge between public and private sector unions. Obviously there are problems with the private sector unions but they aren't near the problem public sector union cause. In fact, I'm not even sure public sector unions are constitutional.

[RasterMaster]

Based on your last message...I cannot reply to mail and all posts must pass thru the censors.

[conservativejoy]

Just an aside FYI, Postmasters are non bargaining unit employees and have never been represented by unions. Craft employees in the Postal Service are represented by unions, management employees are not.

That said, union postal employees in cities are largely dems, and in the more rural areas, it is about 50/50.

[cripplecreek]

That said, union postal employees in cities are largely dems, and in the more rural areas, it is about 50/50.

That's something I wish more FReepers could get a handle on. In my experience the rural vs urban divide among union members is much more pronounced among private sector unions.

[conservativejoy]

Most of the folks I know that are union members joined to get a particular health care policy. The union does not seem to have a lot of sway with their political views.

[cripplecreek]

I was in the AFL-CIO because I needed the job. Just the other day one of our local shops overcame the teamsters and voted to remain non union.

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2012/03/employees_at_jacksons_producti.html#incart_river_default