This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
End of dialog window.
EXCERPT:
GARCIA-NAVARRO: "You’ve talked about your interest in having had an open primary."
PELOSI: "Yeah."
GARCIA-NAVARRO: "And, as you know, it would have uncovered her weaknesses, her strength, it would have tested her electability. That’s what the primary system is intended to do. And it would have also perhaps resulted in a nominee that wasn’t so tied to an unpopular president."
PELOSI: "Well, let me — it's interesting that you say those things. I don’t think that any review of the election should be predicated on weaknesses, but strengths of Kamala Harris. She gave people hope. She caused a great deal of excitement in all this. It’s about winning, you don't have to tell me that, but the fact is, we’re set up for what comes next."
GARCIA-NAVARRO: "Should there have been an open primary then?"
PELOSI: "Well, see, we thought that there would be. It was — the anticipation was that if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary. And as I say, Kamala may have — I think she would have done well in that and been stronger going forward. But we don’t know that. That didn’t happen. We live with what happened. And because the president endorsed Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time."