Schumer has picked some turkeys in the past, this is true. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans have over-eagerly embraced candidates who can finance their own campaigns. In this regards, I trust Gillibrand more than Schumer.
What I do hope is that Democratic leaders will sit down with people that definitely should not be running,…
Schumer has picked some turkeys in the past, this is true. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans have over-eagerly embraced candidates who can finance their own campaigns. In this regards, I trust Gillibrand more than Schumer.
What I do hope is that Democratic leaders will sit down with people that definitely should not be running, and quietly convince them not to do so. The very last thing we need is ugly primaries that leave our eventual candidate injured and weakened for the general election.
That’s not what I am saying. And certainly we don’t want "coronation by the hidden powers that be" – voters should decide! However, primaries are often overcrowded, and all too often include absolutely-marginal candidates, as well as toxic mudslingers who through their losing campaign leave the winner damaged.
I think it's fair to limit primaries to 2-3 candidates. But also who's to judge who is a "toxic mudslinger" but also when have we seen this on the Democratic side? I don't know that I can think of an example of this happening. Admittedly the voters make mistakes sometimes just look at Fetterman & Lamb.
Primaries can have as many candidates as they want. I don't think anyone should be in a position of deciding if there should be anywhere from 2-3 candidates. That's up to any person's right to run for office.
Also, I don't follow you - How have voters made mistakes with Fetterman & Lamb?
That's subject to anyone's interpretation but Fetterman ended up being more liberal than Lamb as a candidate. On the other hand, given how flawed Dr. Oz was as a Senate candidate, I don't see how Lamb would have had difficulty defeating Dr. Oz in the general election.
On the other hand, Malcolm Kenyatta as a Senate candidate running was also quite liberal from what I understood.
Schumer has picked some turkeys in the past, this is true. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans have over-eagerly embraced candidates who can finance their own campaigns. In this regards, I trust Gillibrand more than Schumer.
What I do hope is that Democratic leaders will sit down with people that definitely should not be running, and quietly convince them not to do so. The very last thing we need is ugly primaries that leave our eventual candidate injured and weakened for the general election.
God forbid the party of democracy allows the people to decide who's unelectable and who isn't.
That’s not what I am saying. And certainly we don’t want "coronation by the hidden powers that be" – voters should decide! However, primaries are often overcrowded, and all too often include absolutely-marginal candidates, as well as toxic mudslingers who through their losing campaign leave the winner damaged.
I think it's fair to limit primaries to 2-3 candidates. But also who's to judge who is a "toxic mudslinger" but also when have we seen this on the Democratic side? I don't know that I can think of an example of this happening. Admittedly the voters make mistakes sometimes just look at Fetterman & Lamb.
Primaries can have as many candidates as they want. I don't think anyone should be in a position of deciding if there should be anywhere from 2-3 candidates. That's up to any person's right to run for office.
Also, I don't follow you - How have voters made mistakes with Fetterman & Lamb?
In hindsight Lamb was clearly the better candidate.
Fetterman clearly won; so I simply disagree with your post
That's subject to anyone's interpretation but Fetterman ended up being more liberal than Lamb as a candidate. On the other hand, given how flawed Dr. Oz was as a Senate candidate, I don't see how Lamb would have had difficulty defeating Dr. Oz in the general election.
On the other hand, Malcolm Kenyatta as a Senate candidate running was also quite liberal from what I understood.
😂
horrible strategy; pure loser strategy this