Abraham Lincoln would have been a loser

I've never understood why people who don't give a dime or time to a political party get to choose the party candidates. Good thing we didn't have television or party primaries when Abe Lincoln was nominated by his party to run for president.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/sunday/the-problem-with-participatory-democracy-is-the-participants.html.

The beginning of the end of the open primary?

With the election of Tea Party-backed Christine O'Donnell as the Republican candidate for U.S. Senator for Delaware, some of the Republican establishment see less hope in taking control of the Senate.  Conversely, some Democrats have reinvigorated their campaigns with attacks on Tea Party-backed Republican candidates.

O'Donnell claims she doesn't need "the support of Washington Republicans" and will "harness the power of 'the people' to defeat her Democratic opponent in November."
- "The Morning After: Whose Party Is it?" Michael D. Shear, New York Times, 2010-09-15.

But who are the "people" that supported her in the primary?  Are they members of the Republican Party who give of their time and money to the Party?  Are they people who only say they are Republicans and only show up at election time?  Are they "independents" who voted for her on a lark?  Are they Democratic sympathizers who think O'Donnell will be easy to defeat in November?

Come November we will see how many "moderates" and "independents" reject Tea Party-backed candidates.  If many of these candidates lose, there may be a push for closed primaries.  On the other hand, "moderates" and "independents" may not even vote because they dislike both candidates.  If so, we could be looking at two more years of Congressional gridlock.