7 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
ArcticStones's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

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?

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

In hindsight Lamb was clearly the better candidate.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Fetterman clearly won; so I simply disagree with your post

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
benamery21's avatar

😂

Expand full comment
ErrorError