Like many of the other things we think we know this "fact" may or may not useful in helping us understand what led Routh to do what he's accused of doing. But North Carolina (as a swing state) does not have the same structural incentives as those that exist in Utah for independents/democrats to vote in republican primaries (or vice versa). So I think there needs to be a better explanation if you want to label him as a republican who chose to vote democrat in order to make his voice heard.
I mean, is having him cross over politically just for the primary possible? Sure, anything's possible. Is it likely or even something that has a decent probability? I have a harder time seeing that without something more persuasive than the Utah analogy.
EDIT: It's possible I may be misunderstanding your point. At least fish's comment that you're referring to seems to be more about where independents are allowed to vote in primaries. Is that your point? Upon first reading, it seemed your point was more about where independents vote to best make their voice heard (without reference to which party either does or doesn't allow their participation).
Last edited:
