No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the California Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the Delaware Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the Florida Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the Hawaii Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the Massachusetts Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the Michigan Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the Nebraska Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the New Jersey Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the North Dakota Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the Ohio Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the New Mexico Senatorial primary.
No challenge to the Democratic Party anointed candidate in the Wisconsin Senatorial primary.
The Democrats aren’t even bothering to run a Senatorial candidate in Indiana.
I’ve focused on the Senate here, but this sort of thing is happening on the lower level of the House as well. After House Democratic Party Boss Rahm Emanuel intervenes, the 24th District of New York is cleared of all but the anointed candidate, Michael Arcuri. Arcuri, after finding out that he will have no challenger in the New York primary, clears his calendar and disappears from sight.
And now, today, we find out there will be no challenger to Democratic Party anointed Senatorial candidate Amy Klobuchar in the primaries this year.
And so democracy dies another little death. Should we rename it the Bureaucratic Party?
The truly crazy thing is that the Democratic Party leadership thinks that the problem is when there is a primary contest, and voters have a choice – like they will in Connecticut. They claim that progressives like Ned Lamont are ruining the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party’s leadership has become insulated from Democratic voters, and now we see the dangerous results.
This is one of the reasons why i commented earlier that the supposed Democratic resurgence this fall will not be a given. The party lacks leadership, a clear message distinct from the Republicans, and now Democratic voters will have no say as to who represents them in many cases. These political parties are no longer in touch with the electorate. They can do this because of the apathy of the American voter. Why don’t they just become the same party (Republicrat) and choose the leadership and representatives themselves? After all, they both seem only to represent the corportate, right-wing, aristocratic, religious minority which funds them and gives them their agenda. Every thing else is smoke and mirrors.
Step 1: Hey, let’s not let people choose their candidates in primaries. They don’t know what they need.
Step 2: Hey, why is it that people aren’t voting for our candidates in the main elections? Golly gee whizzikers, what a mystery.
Step 3: Step 1 all over again.
Primaries are pretty silly anyway.
Greetings from a (still) proportional representation country :-p
Primaries are silly???
How is giving party members the right to choose which person shall represent their political party in an election silly? It’s an essential part of our democracy.
Back in the 70′s Minnesota candidates were chosen by convention, the delegates of which were chosen by party caucus. A group of us students infiltrated our local caucus and got several students elected as delegates, even though one of the party hacks tried to go to the men’s room with a bunch of ballots in his pockets. The primary system seems to me a more open way of choosing candidates than the party caucus system.
Does the democratic party have members ? (this is not a rethorical question, i couldn’t find out, but i guess the answer is no)
Of course members should have have a say about who’s running for there party. But shouldn’t that be a party affair? not a semi-public happening as the current primaries.
Is there public money involved in organising primaries?
Again, nowhere on the internet did i find an answer to that question, only indications that the answer might be affirmative.
Primaries are a logical result of single seat elections. It’s a dividing mechanism, not a uniting one.
A candidate wins the primaries with 45% of the vote, basicly saying to the other 65% of same-party-members: your vote means nothing. After that she wins the general election with 50%, saying to half of the constituency: your vote meant nothing.
(actually you hear stuff like ‘good fight’ and ‘brave battle’, ‘lets work togheter now’)
I have the strange feeling that elections should be about representation, not some twisted sports game.
Yes, Yo.be, that’s (in most states, with some exceptions) how primaries work in America. If you’re a registered member of the party, you get to vote in the primary.