Mitt Romney's getting razzed for voting in the Democratic primary in 1992, which he could do as a registered independent at the time. In MA, independents could vote in either primary, but were logged into the party they voted for temporarily. Since most of the action in MA was on the Democratic side, signing up as an independent made sense strategically.
In 1992, you had nose-holding choice on the GOP side of a tax-raising Bush 41 or Pitchfork Pat; I recall passing on that election as a grad student in Ohio, not wanting to encourage either of them, as the old non-voter saw goes. Had I had the option of crossing party lines in Ohio and supporting a neoliberal Paul Tsongas, as Romney did, I might have done so. Back then, as a newly recovering neoliberal, I might well have voted for "St Paul" if it was a Tsongas-Buchanan race.
Michigan does let you cross party lines, since they have open primaries; the exception is that the Democratic presidential primary is a non-binding "beauty contest" since the MI donkeys do a primary-esque caucus since they don't do open primaries. That lets you raid the "other" party's primary if you have no action going in your own; by definition, Democrats are free to raid the Republican primary to either vote for the candidate they like or for the candidate they'd find easiest to beat.
As a wet-behind-the-ears 18-year-old, I recall voting for Bush 41 in the 1980 primary even though I was a Democrat-leaning voter at the time. You vote where the action is.
Trying to make the 1992 vote out to be a precursor for Romney running in the Democratic primary against Ted Kennedy in 1994 doesn't pass the sniff test. He had a shot at winning as a moderate Republican in a general election, but beating a sitting senator in his own primary when the incumbant is a better fit for the primary electorate just isn't happening.
Comments