[EL] raiding in California blanket primaries tells us little about2012 raiding potential

Wed Nov 2 13:39:06 PDT 2011

I would vigorously dispute that Republicans caused George Wallace to win the 1972 Michigan Republican Primary or that there is any “good evidence” that that is so.

Growing up in the heart of west Detroit’s auto/industrial network, in a district that went strongly for Wallace (John Dingell’s 16th), I can tell you that Wallace’s voters were Democrats. In fact, almost everyone was a Democrat. In time, many would become “Reagan Republicans,” but in 1972 these were union workers in the McLouth Steel, Dana Corp., Ford, and Chrysler plants, the Mobil refinery and other heavily unionized, blue collar industries in the “downriver” area. Few would have thought themselves Republicans. I recall in 1964 I was one of 4 in my class of 31 first graders to vote for Goldwater in the Weekly Reader poll – and that’s because my family was liberal – it supported integration and stuff like that. In 1968, Wallace won my class Weekly Reader poll over Humphrey with ease. The few Republicans in Wayne and Macomb counties back then were the liberals in Michigan, supporters of George Romney and Bill Milliken, liberal Republicans who dominated the Governor’s mansion from 1962-1982. 

Statewide, Michigan Republicans not only went heavily for favorite son Gerald Ford over Reagan in 1976 (65% to 34%), but voted for George Bush over Reagan in 1980 by 57% to 32, with John Anderson third. Indeed, Michigan Republicans remain on the moderate side of the party, choosing George Bush over Pat Buchanan in 1992, Bob Dole in the 1996 primary over Buchanan, John McCain in 2000, and going top 2 Romney-McCain in 2008. 

Wallace undoubtedly did receive some Republican votes, because, as Richard notes, the GOP primary between Nixon and Pete McCloskey was essentially meaningless, and also because Wallace’s opposition to mandatory cross-district bussing was very popular. (Remember, this was before Milliken v. Bradley, in which the Supreme Court said that school segregation in Detroit could not be used to force suburban school districts, with no history of segregation or discrimination, to bus students into the city for racial balance. Cross-district bussing was a huge issue in the Detroit suburbs at the time, incredibly unpopular among Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and probably even Socialists, when you could find them. Our parents – by which I mean my classmates’ and mine – all hated the idea, and all talked about it. They had left the city in part to escape its poor schools and crime - it was then popular to call Detroit, with the nation’s highest murder rate, the “Murder City” - and they knew we were talking bus rides of one hour or more each way). But there is no way that crossover votes accounted for Wallace’s win, no evidence that Republicans who did vote in the Democratic primary voted heavily for Wallace, and no evidence that they were “gleefully raiding” that primary rather than voting for Humphrey (as a non-segregationist alternative to Wallace) or voting for Wallace out of opposition to cross district bussing (and perhaps also higher taxes and welfare spending). In fact, Wallace won with well over 50% of the vote, almost 385,000 more votes than second place McGovern, out of about 1.5 million cast. Even if one takes the highest estimates of GOP crossovers (a preposterous 40% of Democratic primary voters is the highest I’ve ever seen, by Jim McNeely) and assume that they voted overwhelming for Wallace (and certainly many Republicans would have specifically voted against Wallace because of his race stands, or for McGovern as the weakest opponent for Nixon),  Wallace would still have won the Democratic primary. In the General Election that fall, some polls showed Michigan UAW members – not a hot bed of Republicanism - voting 2 to 1 for Nixon over McGovern. They hated McGovern (who, remember, supported cross-district bussing to remedy discrimination).

It is simply revisionist history that Republicans gave Wallace the vote in Michigan in the 1972 primary. Some reports even say that local newspapers reported on it, but if you go back and look at those newspapers, that’s not really true. I spent some time doing this a few years ago, and it was all but impossible to find such references. The only ones to say so came after the primary, and then they consisted entirely of claims by Democratic Party State Chairman Jim McNeely, who argued that Wallace won due to cross over votes. McNeely, however, was an ardent opponent of Wallace, and had even kept Wallace from speaking at the State party’s Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in March, while allowing Muskie, Humphrey, McGovern, Scoop Jackson and Shirley Chisholm to speak. So Wallace held a rally at the same time, drawing more than 10,000 to a hastily organized event, or 4 or 5 times as many people as the dinner. Political prodigy that I was, I remember how the state party was beside itself with the idea of a Wallace victory. Wallace’s showing hugely embarrassed McNeely and the union leadership, so they essentially made up the crossover business.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault 

  Designated Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 East Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6317

bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu> 

http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp <http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp> 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Winger
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:06 PM
To: 'WewerLacy at aol.com'; David at HoltzmanLaw.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu; Eric McGhee
Subject: [EL] raiding in California blanket primaries tells us little about2012 raiding potential

California used blanket primaries in 1998 and 2000, even for the presidential primary.  But the 2000 presidential primaries were competitive for both major parties, at least at first.  California's 2000 presidential primary was March 7, and at that time Al Gore still faced a competitive race with Bill Bradley.  The only presidential primaries in 2000 earlier than March 7 were:  New Hampshire, where Gore beat Bradley 49.7% to 45.6%; Delaware, where Gore beat Bradley 57.2% to 40.2%; and Washington, where Gore beat Bradley more decisively.

2012 is a different kind of election year than California 2000, because in 2012 there is no contest on the Democratic side at all.  And there is good evidence that in 1972, in the Michigan presidential primary, Republicans gleefully raided the Democratic presidential primary (because the Republican primary was so obviously not a contest) and caused George Wallace to win.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Wed, 11/2/11, Eric McGhee <mcghee at ppic.org> wrote:

From: Eric McGhee <mcghee at ppic.org>
Subject: Re: [EL] Herman Cain and Black Democrats
To: "'WewerLacy at aol.com'" <WewerLacy at aol.com>, "David at HoltzmanLaw.com" <David at HoltzmanLaw.com>, "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 2, 2011, 11:49 AM

There was a fair amount of research on California’s experience with the blanket primary a decade ago.  The evidence strongly suggests that the kind of strategic “raiding” described below (i.e., voting for the worst candidate in order to sabotage the nomination) is extremely rare.  It requires complicated coordination by voters (why raid if nobody else is doing it?) and is a much bigger gamble for the average voter than simply choosing the candidate one likes the best.  

Of course, that’s just an empirical issue--whether an open primary of any kind is a good idea is a separate question.

Cheers,

Eric

Eric McGhee  |  Policy Fellow  |  PPIC  |  415-291-4439

Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the Public Policy Institute of California.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of WewerLacy at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:35 AM
To: David at HoltzmanLaw.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Herman Cain and Black Democrats

I actually have done legal work for a nonprofit Herman Cain chaired during the mid 2000's and I was an early contributor to his Presidential exploratory committee last January so far be it from me to address Professor Lowenstein's question from a political as opposed to a strictly election law perspective....

But I think it is a good question.  Where there is an open primary, is a result that voters of another party cross lines to affect the outcomes of the opposition party either out of affinity with a candidate of the other party, or to enhance the outcome in the general for their favored candidate by supporting whom they might consider to be the weaker opposition candidate?

It seems to me that perhaps in some settings, such as the south, where Herman is from and has been known as a Baptist minister, African Americans, particularly Baptists, who are also Democrats, might find reason to vote for Herman Cain out of affinity.

It seems to me that urban African Americans in large states like Illinois and New York, to the extent they vote, and to the extent the primaries are open, and who already support Obama out of shared ideology and more common affinity, might also vote for Cain in the open primary for several reasons; 1) the assure that the next president is an African-American regardless of which party wins the general election; 2) and perhaps of a perception, still to be proven, that Cain might be the weaker of the Republican candidates in the general election.

James V. Lacy

Wewer & Lacy, LLP

visit our website at www.wewerlacy.com

This of course goes to the core of what is wrong with an open primary system, as it creates an opportunity for manipulation of outcomes by voters who do not really support the platform of the party whose primary election they are raiding.  In California, the promoters of the open primary system stated they thought the system would moderate outcomes in both parties.  The price to be paid for moderation is less emphasis on a platform of idea and significant intervention by voters who do not share those views.  Creating opportunities for clever, well-funded consultants to further manipulate outcomes through advertising.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111102/0e784595/attachment.html>