I never understood the problem with what Hogg is doing. No politician should ever think their seat is safe. Every primary should be contested. If the incumbant is doing a good job, they will win, and the party gets behind them. But if the incumbent loses a primary, then they were probably not doing a good job to begin with.
I could see the logic being that you’d end up spending a lot of money and resources on primaries that could be used in the general, but that’s obviously only a problem because money in politics is a huge issue to begin with.
I’d still argue that the upsides (candidates that better represent the electorate, keeping the incumbents on their toes, …) outweigh the downsides in that regard.
Running for local, state, or congress sucks balls. You’re basically a beggar, you have almost no power, you are beholden to your sponsors and party leadership, and you’re expected to work long hours campaigning for shit you barely care about while pet issues get lost in the shuffle. Most of your time is on the phone making promises you won’t keep to people who don’t believe you. The rest of your time is spent in transit. Everyone hates you, you’re surrounded by morons, and if you can’t even sneeze on camera without your opponents posting the ugly sneeze face photo on twitter.
Basically, the DNC has to beg candidates to keep them around. One reward they like to dangle is support from the national committee. Blocking primary challengers helps the candidate save some cash make makes their re-election seem inevitable. It’s a massive weight off, especially for younger politicians with few fonnections and fewer leverage options.
Is it right? Fuck no. I agree with you completely. But I can certainly understand why, if I were st the top of that ant hill, I wouldn’t want climbers to get a foothold, either.
I never understood the problem with what Hogg is doing. No politician should ever think their seat is safe. Every primary should be contested. If the incumbant is doing a good job, they will win, and the party gets behind them. But if the incumbent loses a primary, then they were probably not doing a good job to begin with.
What’s wrong with that?
The problem is that the human trash in the Democratic Party want to sit on their fat asses and take bribes while doing nothing for the people.
I could see the logic being that you’d end up spending a lot of money and resources on primaries that could be used in the general, but that’s obviously only a problem because money in politics is a huge issue to begin with.
I’d still argue that the upsides (candidates that better represent the electorate, keeping the incumbents on their toes, …) outweigh the downsides in that regard.
Running for local, state, or congress sucks balls. You’re basically a beggar, you have almost no power, you are beholden to your sponsors and party leadership, and you’re expected to work long hours campaigning for shit you barely care about while pet issues get lost in the shuffle. Most of your time is on the phone making promises you won’t keep to people who don’t believe you. The rest of your time is spent in transit. Everyone hates you, you’re surrounded by morons, and if you can’t even sneeze on camera without your opponents posting the ugly sneeze face photo on twitter.
Basically, the DNC has to beg candidates to keep them around. One reward they like to dangle is support from the national committee. Blocking primary challengers helps the candidate save some cash make makes their re-election seem inevitable. It’s a massive weight off, especially for younger politicians with few fonnections and fewer leverage options.
Is it right? Fuck no. I agree with you completely. But I can certainly understand why, if I were st the top of that ant hill, I wouldn’t want climbers to get a foothold, either.