I think it’s pretty clear that Daveed Gartenstein-Ross has his priorities screwed up. In a New York Daily News op-ed he writes:
Imagine it’s 15 years ago, immediately after the 9/11 attacks. You are told that in September 2016, a couple of major counterterrorism victories would be just around the corner. These impending victories are that a coalition of countries, including the U.S., are on the verge of retaking the Iraqi city of Mosul and Syrian city of Raqqa from jihadists.
To put it mildly, it would be obvious that something had gone horribly wrong in the U.S.’s fight against Al Qaeda and associated movements.
Certainly billions and probably trillions in contracts have been let; incumbents have been repeatedly re-elected; Bush was re-elected; Obama was elected and re-elected; Hillary Clinton is on the cusp of being elected to the presidency.
Surely these are the things of overwhelming importance. Judge by what they do not by what they say.
Tonight the last three states hold congressional primaries. To date, no Senators have lost in a primary, and only five Congresscritters. (Another Congressman MAY lose tonight.) Of the five, two are under federal indictment on corruption charges, and one lost when a judge redrew the Congressional district in North Carolina, throwing two incumbents into the same district.
This is why we can’t have nice things. Incumbents are protected in so many different ways. Not only are districts gerrymandered to Hell & gone, it is almost impossible to unseat an incumbent in a primary because of the money and connections they have. If you want to run against an incumbent in your own party, you not only have to overcome their monetary advantage, but the fact that the party is almost certainly going to be against you. And, of course, the incumbent will likely have a huge name recognition advantage.
Hmm, perhaps we should skip primaries and do what some jurisdictions do: No primary, everyone that wants to run goes into a general election, and if no one finishes with a majority the top two do a run-off. (The Presidency is done in this manner, and I believe some offices in Louisiana. Perhaps this is a Napoleonic Code thing?)
Anyhow, this is why I don’t think Trump is a sign of a big movement that is happening. He’s a sign (as was the Sanders run, as was the Tea Party) that a good chunk of the people want such a movement in the political landscape, but don’t know how to do it. This will only get worse as the political system ossifies further.
National Razor Party in 2018 & 2020.
@Icepick
The Open Primary/Election system does not include the Presidential race. If one person gets over 50% of the vote, that person is automatically the winner, and there is no election day vote. Otherwise, the top two candidates of the primary election are on the ballot.
The original purpose was to rig the system, but not against black voters as has been claimed. Under the old system, the state was overwhelmingly Democrat, but Republicans always had candidate on the ballot and a chance to win.
Under the rigged system, there would not be enough votes for the Republican candidate to get on the election day ballot, if there was one. This worked until too many Democrats began running and the registered Democrat voters began voting for Republicans.
At this point, the rigged system began to backfire against the Democrats. They could not keep every fringe candidate from running, but the Republicans were fairly disciplined. The system has a big flaw though. With a slew of candidates, it only takes a small number to have the first or second most votes, and this is how you get a David Duke as a candidate and/or elected. Depending upon who was running and won, it is possible that he could have been the better candidate.
#BasketOfDeplorables/IrredeemableVersion