Either the Post or the Times today had a piece on the effects of using primaries to select candidates, with the main argument being that primaries widened the gaps between parties and increased partisanship. I don't have the patience to find the url.
The overall thesis may be right; I won't dispute it. But one sentence I did dispute--describing the time frame during which primaries became important. It wasn't the 1980s, but earlier.
For example, in the 1960 campaign, JFK and Hubert Humphrey were the main competitors in several state primaries. I acknowledge not every state held presidential primaries, but effectively JFK won the nomination by winning the primaries. In 1960, and before, the selection process was a composite: "party bosses", the man in a given state or often a major citywho could sway the selection of delegates to the convention, and "favorite sons" usually the governor or highest elected official in the state who also could sway delegates. (The "bosses" were behind the scenes; the "sons" might or might not have dreams of becoming the nominee themselves.)
Today states use primaries, in 1960 the bosses and sons relied on the primaries to assess the strength of candidates, rather like polls today.
No comments:
Post a Comment