Primaries as killing fields

Quote:
"But is it good for the party to have candidates still kicking at the end? A party is supposed to unite around the winner as quickly as possible. There is research to show that the more divided a party is after the primaries, the less well it does in November. Primaries are supposed to be a killing field. Their purpose is to finish off weak candidates and get their bodies off the field. But the delegate hunt keeps losing candidates alive. They can keep on accumulating delegates. They live to fight another day."

Reason for Nomination:
With Romney dropping out of the race, political pundits are increasingly saying how this is good because that way the base can unite around the winner quickly and prepare for the general election.

Bill Schneider, a conservative who works for CNN, is using war as an analogy for the primary process. Saying that primaries are a "killing field" whose purpose is to "finish off weak candidates and get their bodies off the field," Schneider is saying that it is survival of the fittest and that this is good for democracy.

This is not the way progressives look at primaries. For us, it is a way to get everyone's voices heard and to select the candidate that we feel best represent progressive values. The longer it lasts, the more of a choice you have when it's your state's turn at the polls.

What I do think though is that we should have a national primary. That way, no one party has an advantage over the other if they choose their nominee first.