In my reply number 47 also addressed to you, I tried to crunch some of the numbers. The source of those numbers I exerpt here from the original post
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2516748/posts?page=1#1):
"Indeed when all the votes were tallied, 80, 736 were cast in the Democrat primary and only 45, 852 in the GOP Primary. The results from the primary and general election for PA-12 appears below via Fox News:
U.S. House - District 12 - Democrat Primary: Critz, Mark: 57,704 Bucchianeri, Ryan: 16,618 Mackell, Ronald: 6,414 Total Votes Cast: 80,736
U.S. House - District 12 - Republican Primary
Burns , Tim GOP: 26,120 Russell , William GOP: 19,732 Total Votes Cast: 45,852
U.S. House - District 12 - Special General Critz, Mark: 70,662 Burns, Tim: 60,500 Agoris, Demo: 3142 Total Votes Cast: 134,304"
This is where I got the data from which to conclude that Critz got only 87.5% of the primary ballots cast for his general election but Burns got 133% of the Republican primary ballots cast in his general election. That means that Burns got a ton of independents and he got a ton of Democrats.
I think those numbers portend better for a national analysis than they do for a redo of the PA 12 election in November because if the Democrats across-the-board are slipping and Republicans are picking up the independents and many Democrats, there are a lot of districts which do not have a two to one Democrat advantage where Republicans will expect to win.
The unknowable is the degree to which there is real intensity on the Republican side. I am not comforted by the weak turnout by Republicans even though the Democrats alone had the seriously contested Senate race. This was the only real election and the Republicans should have shown a better turnout I think. That makes me question whether the intensity is as strong as we think.
