Would you explain your reasoning?
There are some states in which crossover voters will commit early to a candidate, even going so far as to vote in the primary. A closed primary doesn’t always get the strongest candidate. In MS, as bad as it is, the result will be good if McDaniel wins. Already Cochran is damaged goods. None of that would have come about with a closed primary.
In a state like IL you have a Kirk, who, though he’s a RINO, votes with us on all kinds of issues and by more than 50%. Our other Senator is Durbin who votes against us 100% of the time. It is a simple political calculation to see that two Kirks are better than two Durbins from IL.
There are FReepers who demand absolute purity. They don’t fully understand the political process. Our form of government was designed for slow incremental change. That’s healthier than fast, forced change. See abortion via Roe v. Wade, Same Sex Marriage via judge, and Democratcare via Obama and a Democrat-run Congress. All of which are being forced down our throats.
If the GOP can hold on to Congress for a generation or two while at the same time implementing long term changes - ending deficit spending, lowering regulations and taxes, ending crony capitalism, encouraging federalism, etc. That’s better for our republic than an instantaneous change.
The political process is one of compromise, not perfection. For instance, would our SCOTUS be better off with one more Kennedy or one more Kagan? It’s unlikely we’ll get another Thomas or Scalia in the next two years, but we could get another Kennedy who is a swing vote, but better than Kagan or Sotomayer. It’s a matter of degree and possibility.
For Illinois I’d much rather have two Peter Fitzgeralds, but he was too good for the Ill-annoy GOP. Does that all make sense to you?