In it, among other things, he states, roughly the way I read it, delegates can be zealous ideologically which can conflict with what the mood of the electorate at a general election might prove to be - and winning is not an important thing, it is the only thing.
That is how I hear the barking, but decide for yourselves, this extended quote:
Not long after winning the endorsement for governor, Tom Emmer was rejected in the race for a seat to the Republican National Committee from Minnesota.
Yes, we know the two pools of delegates who endorsed and rejected Emmer aren't the same, they are comprised of many of the same people. The Venn diagram has much overlap.
On the other hand, a primary can play a beneficial role in producing a candidate who is seasoned and tested for a general election contest.
If the delegates have truly selected the best candidate via the endorsement, then that candidate should have no problem trouncing his or her primary opponents.
The hard truth is that the primary electorate and environment more closely matches the general election environment than the endorsement environment.
Put another way, winning the endorsement does little to prepare a candidate for the environment of the general election.
A primary can also keep a candidate and their campaign staff on their toes and force them to hone and refine the campaign plan.
It is also true that sometimes the delegates get it wrong. Sometimes they endorse a candidate who isn't the best in the field.
"Hone and refine the campaign plan," might mean different things to different people, and I leave it at that.
Now wisdom of the Gipper, from March 1, 1975,
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I know the Gipper said so, since Aplikowski sidebars that on his blog.
"Hone and refine the campaign plan," and "certain fundamental beliefs" form an interesting juxtaposition. The truth is, the Gipper blew smoke and knew he was blowing smoke for those who would go, "Wow, smoke," while Hamilton is being honest. And, as to certain fundamental beliefs, can anyone say Harold Hamilton would waffle over a raise in taxes? He did not break ranks and castigate Pawlenty over the "cigarette fee" tax the way Bachmann did, but then Hamilton's not the idiot Bachmann is, and party loyalty is one of his fundamental beliefs.
His crystal ball says the GOP will have a primary, and I think it's correct.