Well, I have to say:
(1) We didn't need to see this result to know that open primaries make no sense. The fact was that it was an open primary, and one can only hope that the Ciro campaign took that into account (though few in the netroots seem to have been made aware of that until very late in the game).
(2) The netroots can't just shrug and say, "Hey, we did our part (donating), but we don't run the campaigns." If the good guys want to win in the future, and the netroots wants to have its donations (and volunteerism) pay off, then we have to work with campaigns to make sure they are well-organized and getting the on-the-ground operation in shape to use that funding. And the grassroots campaign has to do its part to honor that compact. The party is supposed to bridge this artificial net/grassroots divide, but often fails to do so.
My seven (constructive) questions for the campaign, looking forward to future efforts, are at:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/8/12244 2/3793
"We didn't need to see this result to know that open primaries make no sense."
I disagree. I think that a district like this demonstrates why open primaries are sometimes necessary. If the true contest for this seat is the primary, it seems terribly undemocratic to say that some significant portion of the electorate cannot have a voice in its outcome, since democracy is about having a voice in the selection of your leaders/representatives.
Closed primaries is actually what creates DINO's, I see it often in North Carolina, some counties here you must be a Democrat to win and offices holders and the voters who elect them remain registered Democrats although extremely conservative ones for that very reason.
