Open primaries typically produce candidates with broad appeal, mavericks who aren't afraid to challenge party orthodoxy. Eliminate independents and crossover voters from the process and you end up with divisive nominees who advance by placating their base. And who makes up the respective bases? Shrill partisans, mainly, people like Hugh Hewitt and Terry McAuliffe.
Guess who's banking on this decidedly undemocratic system:
For what it's worth, Mike and I ran into a Clinton insider last night who offered an additional twist on this argument: Not only does Clinton do better among registered Democrats than she does among independents and Republicans. But he thought registered Democrats would be especially inclined to give her a second look after Iowa and New Hampshire because they'd resent having their nominee chosen by a bunch of interlopers.
Bush used this strategy to beat McCain in 2000. Think of this way: In a general election, would McCain have defeated Bush? Would Obama trump Hillary?
Could there be a stronger argument against closed primaries? Shouldn't voters have more influence than parties?
(No, no, no and yes.)
Comments