Over at Ox Road South, Chap Petersen has an article examining the history of conventions and primaries in Virginia. His conclusion, in a nutshell, is that primaries are superior to conventions in terms of results come general election time. Here's Chap:Over the past twenty years, the parties which select their nominees by primary generally win in general elections. That result does not necessarily occur immediately. For example, it took two years after the Dem primary in 04 for the results to sink in and really be utilized.Obviously, this analysis bodes well for Virginia Democrats as we head into the last week of our 2009 primaries for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. This year, Virginia Republicans chose to go with a convention - attended by over 10,000 people - in order to select their statewide nominees. In addition, Republicans cut a deal before the convention so that Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling would not fight each other in a primary, but would agree to the pecking order (McDonnell for Governor, Bolling for LG) beforehand. That left only one real race, for LG, and even that one was pretty much a joke as Ken "Cooch" Cuccinelli is wildly popular among the socially conservative "base" that attends Republican conventions.
However, by 2006, the Democrats had a much better idea where their potential voters lived and how to reach them. This process then exploded in 2008, when nearly a million people came to vote for Hillary or Obama. That list was crucial for organizing the state for Obama in the general campaign.
Conventions are less costly and limit participation to party regulars. There are arguments for and against that. But the record is clear that primaries, in the long term, produce the winners.
Meanwhile, Democrats went with a primary, including one for governor for the first time since 1977. True, primaries cost money and can lead to blood on the floor, but they also do a number of other things: 1) they earn tremendous amounts of media and exposure that conventions don't do; 2) they give candidates an opportunity to present and hone their cases to the voters; 3) they give voters and opportunity to get involved (e.g., Webb's "ragtag" army in 2006, Obama's people-powered "movement" in 2008); 4) they force campaigns to build up their organizations, field staffs, fundraising operations, etc., which then can be used in the general election campaign; 5) they can turn unpolished and/or inexperienced candidates into much better ones, as happened with Jim Webb in 2006 and Barack Obama in 2008; and 6) despite the bitterness that often accompanies the intra-"family" fights that primaries essentially represent, you also get the "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" side of the coin, in which candidates are "vetted" in public, prior to the general election.
On that last point, I'd point to the 2006 Virginia primary for U.S. Senate, in which Jim Webb was accused of being a racist, misogynist and sexist, but survived it and was stronger to take on George Allen. I'd also point to the 2008 Democratic primary for president, which involved the airing of attacks on Barack Obama regarding Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Jeremia Wright (as well as his "lack of experience," etc.). Not only did the attacks on Obama not destroy his candidacy, I would argue that they toughened him up for the general election against John McCain. Could Obama have beaten McCain in the fall without getting through the primary in the winter and spring? Given the economy, it's certainly possible but my guess is that it would have been a lot harder. Could Jim Webb have beaten George Allen if he hadn't first faced Harris Miller in a primary? I strongly doubt it.
Perhaps most importantly, consider the numbers of people who get involved in seriously contest primaries versus either conventions or lackluster/uncontested primaries. This year, in contrast to the 10,000+ people who attended the Republican convention this past weekend, Democrats will have hundreds of thousands (200,000? 300,000? 400,000?) of voters cast ballots on June 9. Heck, just in terms of volunteers alone, Democratic candidates practically match the total number of Republican convention attendees (e.g., Terry McAuliffe claims "thousands" of volunteers across the Commonwealth). After June 9, that will quickly start paying dividends for the Democratic nominee, as will the voter lists, campaign organization, and battle-tested candidate the primary produced.
In the end, primaries are like Democracy itself - rough, messy, nasty, even vicious at times - but in the end I agree with Chap Petersen that they more frequently produce better outcomes for the party that holds them - "the winners," as Chap writes - than conventions. Or, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, one could argue that primaries represent "the worst form of [choosing a nominee] except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." We'll find out starting in just over a week.
P.S. Also read Karen's thoughts on this subject at "Anonymous is a Woman." (her conclusion is that "the good senator from the 34th District is on to something" with his analysis)
