Are "OPEN" or "CLOSED" primaries better for us?

[Matt Collins]

What do you think, and WHY?

[malkusm]

Ron wins a lot of crossover votes, and therefore SHOULD do better in a open primary.

However, we'll never really know, since there are no states who are going to use an open primary in 2008 and a closed primary in 2012, or vice-versa. Without that type of data to compare apples to apples, we'd really have too many noise variables to figure it out quantitatively.

[Brett]

I think we can utilize both and campaign in different states differently. Be more anti-war in blue open states, more fiscally conservative in red closed states, etc.

[james1906]

The Dem primary shouldn't be contested (who knows what Hilary will do), so Dems might vote in the Rep primary.

Now the old-school disillusioned Dems might vote for RP, but there's plenty out there that might vote Palin or someone else unelectable in the general. Then again, most people just vote the party and not the person, so Obama's their man regardless.

[Aratus]

ANY and ALL primaries are better for the rEVOLUTIOn people who run!!!
a complete total lack of primaries sends things back to smoke filled rooms!

[surf]

open because, lets face it, many of the shared views here on freedom cross "party lines," and many don't.

the drug war, the patriot act, constant warfare, etc. are issues that most Ds dislike though many Rs lustily endorse. cutting spending and bureaucracy sound great to most Rs.

"liberty" candidates will need to appeal to both sides of spectrum to have any chance of defeating their establishment foes.

at times i feel unique in my belief that the only way that we can win the highest office in the land is by influencing democrats to vote for whomever our guy is because i doubt the republican party will ever side with us on civil liberties - and this is perhaps the simplest argument to make with our peers regarding whomever is in charge at the time.

my .02

[Daamien]

Absolutely open, as you can get a lot of independent, third party, and Democrat voters to cross over to support a liberty candidate. Closed primaries are skewed to favor party establishment candidates.

[Kilrain]

Isn't the difference between caucus and primary a much big factor here? Dr Paul did way better in caucus states than in primary states, right? When he runs, targeting caucus states may be a good idea, or am I wrong?

[LatinsforPaul]

Open, especially if the Democrats do not have primaries because Obama has no challengers.

[Maximus]

Open

[ChaosControl]

If they aren't open then I can't vote in them, so I support open primaries.

[oyarde]

open

[wormyguy]

Objectively speaking, closed. Liberty candidates historically have a much better chance of getting through.

[nate895]

The best Paul did was in caucus states. Some caucuses are open, but generally they are closed and advancement to the next round in the caucus/convention process requires the activists within the party supporting you. This would seem to indicate that closed primaries are better.

[pcosmar]

Better for us?

:confused:

I have been watching politics since the 70s, though I only got personally involved recently.

I haven't seen that any of it has been good for us.
:(

[nate895]

Better for us?

:confused:

I have been watching politics since the 70s, though I only got personally involved recently.

I haven't seen that any of it has been good for us.
:(

Better does not mean good.

[brandon]

No simple answer. There are just too many ways that they are conducted. In PA the primary vote is completely meaningless. The RNC delegates are elected by popular vote and unbound....so that is all that really matters.

[cindy25]

open, with no contest on the Dem side

closed=no chance; fiscal won't matter, all GOP say they want lower taxes/spending; and the base is still pro-war. even on wikileaks it was Republicans taking the hard-ass view (along with Lieberman)

[Debbie Hopper]

Isn't the difference between caucus and primary a much big factor here? Dr Paul did way better in caucus states than in primary states, right? When he runs, targeting caucus states may be a good idea, or am I wrong?

You're exactly right.

[tremendoustie]

What do you think, and WHY?

Open, for sure.

[tremendoustie]

Isn't the difference between caucus and primary a much big factor here? Dr Paul did way better in caucus states than in primary states, right? When he runs, targeting caucus states may be a good idea, or am I wrong?

Yes, much bigger, you're completely right.

[heavenlyboy34]

Intuitively, I would say open. I know that Ron appealed to some dems who would've voted for him (I knew one personally). Having to change parties just to vote for RP may be a turn-off because a lot of people are just lazy or religiously partisan. JMHO

[KurtBoyer25L]

I think we have done better in caucuses because they are smaller & tend to attract small numbers of hardcore activists.

With closed primaries, I think Romney or Palin or a similar candidate w/ corporate backers will walk away with the nomination. But with open primaries Paul has a chance.

I have no stats to back this up but you have to figure there's about a 10% "Ron Paul base" support in the Republican party among registered GOP. That number may improve with enough hard work. But with open primaries, let's say we can convince a large enough segment of independents & registered dems to vote for Paul to get base vote % up in the 20-30% range. If ten or fifteen GOP candidates run, this gives us a fighting chance.

[jmdrake]

The best Paul did was in caucus states. Some caucuses are open, but generally they are closed and advancement to the next round in the caucus/convention process requires the activists within the party supporting you. This would seem to indicate that closed primaries are better.

Caucuses > primaries because it's all about mobilization aka CPAC.

Open primaries > closed primaries because we can win crossover voters.

We should really be looking at recruiting independents and disgruntled dems. Last go round there were many more democratic primary voters than republican. I suspect the opposite will happen since Obama will likely run uncontested. In 2008 we had a lot of independents and young people who liked us, but ended up being sucked in by the Obama pied piper.