"Open Primaries" & $$$ Eviserate Real Choice

The tactic used in open primaries is designed to manipulate outcomes surreptitiously...

Phoenix, AZ January 28, 2024… While the Iowa Caucuses were a landslide for President Donald J. Trump, the media has focused on the narrative, but he lost Johnson County by one vote to Nikki Haley; that means he is not as popular as everyone thinks. The Washington Examiner put it this way, “Despite former President Donald Trump‘s massive victory in the Iowa caucuses over Nikki Haley, his campaign reaped the repercussions of the former U.N. ambassador winning only one of Iowa‘s 99 counties by the closest margin possible.”

“Trump swept the first contest on the 2024 GOP primary calendar with 51% of the vote, but Haley won Johnson County, the bluest area in Iowa, by a single vote. Still, Trump’s 30-point victory was a record-setting win.”¹ 

While the “loss” was not what the Trump Campaign would have liked to see, one must keep it in perspective. In the most Democrat-populated county in Iowa, Trump took 50% -1 of the vote. That means an overwhelming number of Dems voted for DJT. While Kaley may look at this as a victory, it sounds like thumping on a waterlogged hollow log.

And then there was New Hampshire, where President Trump dominated the Presidential Preference Primary Election. The neglected back-story is, that it appears over 70% of Nikki's voters there were Democrats. In a Republican Primary? And, when you look at Nikki Haley’s primary donor(s), a troubling picture emerges.

Reid Hoffman, one of the top Democrat donors told Barron’s, “he disagrees with Haley on policy but backs her belief in democracy and the rule of law.”² Now it is true that candidates are full-time fundraisers, money is the rocket fuel of an election campaign. Without enough fuel, your flying time is minimized and your message is marginalized. But there is a shady ethical question that emerges with accepting campaign cash from the opposition, and it is related to “open primaries.”

Open primaries are a disservice to people aligned with a party platform…

Open primary elections are those in which voters are not required to declare party affiliation, or where they can change party affiliation for the Primary, and then switch back to their true party affiliation for the General election. The hard-to-answer question is, could it be a good-faith attempt to select a more conservative nominee from an opposition party who would be palatable to the counter-party voters? Conversely, it could be sabotage, an attempt to nominate a weaker candidate who is easier to defeat in the general election.

Many who support closed primaries, where one can only vote for the candidate of the party they are affiliated with, believe —as I do— that the naked purpose of this “cross-over” voting is to help promote the person the opposition wants as their preferred candidate to run against. The logical assumption is that putting up a weaker counter-party candidate will help in the General election vote count.

This happenstance in New Hampshire reveals something about their Democrat slate and the Haley Campaign mindsets. While Hoffman claims he is supporting Haley’s belief in democracy and the rule of law, I’m not buying it. He knows that regardless if Haley wins, or the “fill in the blank” Democrat wins the General election this November, the globalist agenda will still march on.

Are Independent voters disenfranchised by Closed Primaries?

Critics make two claims that relate to disenfranchisement. One that closed primaries can drive polarization within the party faithful and promote the radicalization that naturally occurs in Primary elections when candidates focus on one faction within their party’s “base” rather than the political center. This is the plurality argument, when the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority, 50%+1 vote. In some states, there is a run-off provision to have a decisive winner.