Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
Clinton notches another do-or-die big-state win in Pennsylvania. Which is more troubling for Democrats -- her scorched-earth tactics or Obama's failure to build on his base?
  • Interesting, Sitka

    "According to NPR and other sources, some 160,000 Republicans changed their voter registration to Democrat in order to vote in the closed Pennsylvania primary.

    While I am certain some of those individuals sincerely changed parties, many likely did so to alter the outcome of the election (who can forget Rush Limbaugh encouraging his listeners to support Clinton in Texas).

    Though I do not know if it is possible to determine how the majority of these 160,000 voted, we should nonetheless keep in mind that Clinton, according to the unofficial results at the Pennsylvania Department of State page, won by 193,701 votes.

    If we assume (and I believe it is a safe assumption), the majority of these Republicans (and that is what they still are despite their current registration status) voted for Clinton, then her margin of victory among true Democrats in Pennsylvania is much smaller than the election results indicate.

    -- sitka0230

    ______________________________________________________________

    Thanks for pointing this out. I found this at the NPR web site:

    "Voter turnout was high throughout the day. The primary was open only to Democrats. About 10 percent of voters changed their party affiliation to participate, according to the exit poll data. About half of those who had switched had been registered Republicans, while the remainder had not been affiliated with either party."

    NPR has been known to make a mistake now and again. Still, ten precent would be approximately 800,000 voters state-wide. And, as much as I despise Rush Limburger, he has the most popular radio show in the entire country. Maybe his dittoheads played a significant part in Pennsylvania.