Being "primaried" should be the norm for our elected officials.

[milestogo]

Nobody is entitled to their office. If they want to run for the next term they can do so and have the advantage. But its also a time for the voters to exercise their prerogative to select someone else.

When there are no primaries the voters have fewer options.

[sboatcar]

1. Agreed

They're not some special snowflakes that need to be protected. They stand on their record, if its not good, get 'em out.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Incumbency was not designed to be a career.

Citizen-politicians of short duration was supposed to be the norm, propertied classes who served the interests of their districts a few years, and then went home.

We are far from Founders' intent.

[purple_haze]

12. Exactly right.

[kentuck]

3. Hell yeah!

They want a career? Let them earn it.

[Oopsie Daisy]

4. No. Why force an incumbent to use all their time and funds on unnecessary primaries, thus leaving little *

* to fend of challenges from well-funded Republican challengers. Better to advocate for term limits if someone really wants to make THIS (of all things) their pet-issue.

[milestogo]

6. The cost of running is a separate issue.

Yes, its ridiculous. But its also become a way of maintaining the status quo.

[Oopsie Daisy]

8. This is not the problem you think it is... but faced with "status-quo" or opening the door for the GOP *

* to swoop-in an flip the seat away from the Democratic incumbent who's been bloodied, negged, and financially depleted... which would you rather have?

In the quest for the "perfect" candidate, it seems that some would rather take the chance of losing to the GOP. Even a simply Dem-for-Dem exchange does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help us regain a majority. I seriously question the wisdom of such tactics. It seems to be focused more on grandstanding and virtue signaling rather than accepting political realities and learning (or accepting) the system and working within it.

[milestogo]

9. Primaries are part of the "system" and should not be viewed as a threat.

[Oopsie Daisy]

10. No, I do not view them as an inherent threat. But, when that process is misused for purity reasons...

... unnecessarily, and without regard to political reality, and rather than challenging and removing Republicans, then yes... it's more than a "threat", it's sabotage that benefits the GOP.

Having an effective strategy can be better than mere purity. The GOP are the enemy and they should be treated as such... not incumbents.

[betsuni]

19. Assuming an enemy corrupt establishment anti-progress Democratic Party is so ingrained

for some that it's impossible to understand the situation as it really is.

[Oopsie Daisy]

22. Agreed. That kind of anti-Democrat (non)thinking is knee-jerk and automatic *

* with no consideration of the consequences. Same thing applies to anyone who holds up AIPAC as some sort of boogeyman to be feared and hated. If it's not one, it's the other. As outrageous as the claims are, I think the only purpose is to distract from the real damage coming from actual anti-Democratic Party groups... DSA and Justice Democrats, I'm looking at you. Neither one can truthfully claim to e be a friend of Democrats or the Democratic party.

[betsuni]

25. The Democratic Party and AIPAC are both shadowy evil cartoon villains. Living in a comic strip.

When there's an actual real life-threatening horribly destructive amoral extremist rogue senile Frankenstein reality TV monster who is president and no one in that party will stop him when they could do it immediately.

Yet Democratic leadership is the most pressing problem? Jeffries tweeted a Bible verse, OMG. Democrats just need new leaders who pass the Purity Fight Test and better messaging (magic slogans like Trump uses, I guess)? Just explain things to Republican and swing voters in strongly worded yelling rallies and they'll snap out of it and vote for independents and socialists and everything will be nice? It's too silly.

[Prairie Gates]

5. Yes, and living with primary results until the next primary should also be encouraged

I really like DU's rule for Presidential elections that primaries should not be relitigated during a general election campaign. I think it is implicitly extended to other races (including local and municipal) through the Support Democrats rule.

These are good and cohesive rules. I think people who supported the primary loser should be especially cognizant that they may be viewed as flouting these reasonable rules if they constantly post negative stories about the primary winner, even if these are under the guise of "objective reporting." Anyway, I view that as flouting or skirting the rules and I act and vote accordingly.

[ITAL]

7. I feel like most get challenged

It's just that those challenges are typically quixotic ventures at best. Just because someone takes on a well entrenched multi-term congressman doesn't mean they're gonna even hit 20% support once the election rolls around.

[FirstLight]

14. ...that's just a matter of shifting public opinion...

Gen Z I think is more inclined to go for the grass roots unknowns, they have a healthy distrust of career politicians, as we all should.

[ITAL]

16. I was just saying

Most incumbents are actually "primaried," contrary to popular belief. However most of those challenges are usually doomed from the start, unless that incumbent is unpopular for some reason or another.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. And oftentimes it's not.

You know, just because a new sometimes-voter was propagandized by a non- or sometimes-Democrat into thinking that their elected Democrat is just as evil as MAGA Republicans, it doesn't mean the majority of their constituents feel that way -- or else they wouldn't be elected to begin with.

[Ping Tung]

11. Agreed. With open primaries for the offices requiring a run off vote for the top 2 candidates if neither gets 50%.

[FirstLight]

13. It's time to change thye playing field and the rules of engagement...

Tired of these electeds thinking they are just gonna settle into a cush job and skate for years...

I also think there should be a term limit of some kind on SCOTUS

[niyad]

21. term limits for scotus would require a constitutional amendment.

lifetime appointment Article III Section 1.

[Kid Berwyn]

15. Absolutely!

If you don't work to solve the nation's problems, get out of Washington for someone who can.

[Midwestern Democrat]

17. Especially in one party districts where the primary is the de facto election. The idea that a congressman is entitled

to his seat for life just because he won the primary when the seat became open 20 years ago is ridiculous.

[Arazi]

18. Yup. If nothing else it gets candidates out and directly engaged with voters

This isn’t punitive, it’s healthy

[Bettie]

20. If the congressperson is working

and doing a good job for their constituents and district, then they'll be reelected.

Incumbents have the advantage, but there is nothing wrong with being challenged.

Are we supposed to just have everyone in office until they die?

[W_HAMILTON]

23. It is the norm.

[yorkster]

26. We are facing a mortal enemy, but sure...

let's automatically primary every Dem.

Jeezus. In many cases THAT would be actual waste, fraud and abuse.

Primary where needed,sure. But every candidate? every time they run?