The presidential primaries have three big disadvantages for any political party using the primary system:
-
They cause the candidates to have to say extreme things, in order to prove their liberal or conservative credentials - words that will come back to bite them in the general election;
-
They cause divisiveness within one’s own camp - there was ill-will between some Hillary and Obama supporters in 2008 even long after the primaries ended;
-
They often don’t lead to the most “electable” candidate garnering the nomination. Neither McCain nor Romney were very electable in 2008 or 2012, for instance. Success in the primaries doesn’t mean success in the general election.
Therefore it seems that the first major political party to ditch the primaries and have its candidate appointed by a wise, pragmatic internal committee - selected for having the most “electability in the general election” - will immediately hold a significant advantage over its opponent that still uses primaries.
Sure, there will be anger and frustration within one’s own ranks over ditching the primary system, but the vast majority of voters would still vote for their party’s appointed candidate on Election Day anyway. And even in a primary system, many voters don’t get to see their preferred candidate rise to the top anyway.