Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
I'm talking about the party leadership and donors, who are largely who determines the direction the party takes. Obviously they don't have total control, but without their backing, a candidate has basically no chance of succeeding, so they have the ability to largely dictate who does or doesn't run.
|
Yes, the cloaked masterminds and the billionaires. Not people you're going to see when you get a coffee in the morning or a burger at night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
No, it would be needlessly messy to have Presidential incumbents being constantly challenged by candidates from their own party when they're going for re-election. This was an extraordinary situation that warranted all the drama; it just should have been handled a year or two ago and more quietly. Then they could have had an open primary to determine the candidate.
|
What does "messy" mean? Competitive? I hope so.
If the incumbent is strong, it's a formality. If they're weak, then this is how the people get to address it instead of the "masterminds" who are responsible for what we see now.