LogFAQs > #965922484

Kenri posted...

Primary voting is almost by definition dominated by activists, who tend to be more ideological. More moderate candidates who might represent the majority of citizens in a state or a district are at a disadvantage.
. . .
As the system has evolved, however, primaries have come to be dominated by ideological partisans who please the more agenda-driven elements in either party who are the most likely to participate in primaries.
There is comparatively little incentive to reach out to voters who might fall somewhere between the two parties. And that is especially true as computer-assisted gerrymandering creates more districts that are "safe" for one party or the other in November elections.

I dunno, I feel like this isn't true at all? At least for the DNC, """"moderates"""" win constantly in all but the most progressive areas. And since when are GOP candidates elected based on their agenda? It's like the writer thinks nothing has changed since 2006.

Yeah this article is just completely detached from reality at least as far as democratic primaries are concerned. Aside from Jayapal the entire northwest Washington area is in a New Democrat Coalition strangehold that we absolutely cannot break out of - my rep's the fucking chair for christ's sake. I WISH left-wing activists stood a chance!