Who schedules the primaries so this one is early, that one is latter? Who punishes states by stripping them of their delegates for trying to move their caucus/primary up to an earlier date? Who decides if it is a primary or a caucus? Who decided if a primary, in an early state, is open and that one is closed? Who decides to hype the media coverage of say a certain Candide squeaking out a win in state A and ignoring him getting blown by double digits in State B? How is it that the media spends 90% more time talking about Candidate A, who finished 4th in Iowa then they do talking about Candidate B who pulled a surprising 3 place finish? Why do party politicians line up, like good little whores, to all endorse a specific candidate? Who decides the timing of those endorsements to make sure they have maximum impact on the voter’s?
The process is manipulated. It just done in such a way most of us never notice.
Powerful people are powerful mainly because they know how to make their own luck. Powerful people try to keep that power. It not some evil plot where the faceless evil ones sit around and pick who will win this or that election. But by controlling the scheduling and structure of things the politically connected make an outcome more likely.
The Primaries are rigged. That doesn’t mean they are not honest competitions but that they are structured and gamed as much as possible so that the Party Chiefs, not us peons, pick the candidate.
That's what makes Obama's run so interesting. he's doing very well against a very powerful opponent, and up against an entrenched "old establishment" and 'entitlement' mentality.
The process of party control really became apparent this year. Why any state Republican party should prefer open primaries is just beyond me. Why have a party if your opponents can help choose your candidate.
In a way they are similar to how we pick our local candidate for MP at the end of the day the local party chiefs and central office get who they want even if all local party members get a vote. It is engineered that the person that they want becomes the most viable candidate.
The precincts in CO that supported Ron Paul happened because activist supporters got neighbors to agree with them and go to that caucus. Some complained but that’s how the system is supposed to work. Neighbors getting together on a grass root level and supporting a candidate.
(But, I’m sure you already knew all of this and your question was more rhetorical.)
Add to that my experience at my caucus yesterday where discussion and debate about the candidates wasn't allowed and you have a VERY rigged system. When we entered the room, we wrote down who we were for (I think this is what is being reported as the WA state caucus "results") and then the time was spent signing up volunteers to go to the county and then state conventions. They stated who they were for, but there was no talking them out of it or convincing them to be for someone else to better represent our precinct. It was a complete waste of time and I'll never participate again.