I’ve been voting since I was 18 and I’ve never seen that in the past 16 years. 2024 was skipping because Biden was the incumbent at the time. Incumbent are almost always given the primary. The GOP does the same and is entirely different.
I agree with you, but as devil’s advocate, why would a political party vie against itself for a seat it already holds. At best, it would only slightly sully the incumbent’s name. Take Biden for example: either he’s doing a good job, or he needs to be replaced because he’s not doing a good enough job.
why? imho because its supposed to represent the current situation and overton window not be a reminder the parties are “clubs” that set their own rules.
From what I’ve read the reason primaries aren’t done on incumbents is because every single time it’s been tried the incumbent lost the actual election and the seat went to the other party.
It’s not a thing that happens often, but as far as I can find every single time the incumbent president has had someone try to primary them, the incumbent’s entire party lost the seat.
I mean, in the current system if there’s enough desire from within the party to push to primary the incumbent president, they were already pretty unpopular.
It’s not the primary that’s causing them to lose, it’s that the party had thought a primary was even necessary because they were already likely going to lose.
My assumption is that primary related mud slinging depresses enthusiasm among the public for the incumbent, combined with attempts at it only being made when the incumbent is relatively unpopular anyway.
I’ve been voting since I was 18 and I’ve never seen that in the past 16 years. 2024 was skipping because Biden was the incumbent at the time. Incumbent are almost always given the primary. The GOP does the same and is entirely different.
yeah. see. i disagree that incumbents should be given anything. earn it. primary every time.
i have been voting since 1997.
I agree with you, but as devil’s advocate, why would a political party vie against itself for a seat it already holds. At best, it would only slightly sully the incumbent’s name. Take Biden for example: either he’s doing a good job, or he needs to be replaced because he’s not doing a good enough job.
Parties shouldn’t have that kind of operational control over our elections.
So primaries are only so politicians can choose their voters, and not the other way around? I was told only MAGAts are the cultist?
why? imho because its supposed to represent the current situation and overton window not be a reminder the parties are “clubs” that set their own rules.
From what I’ve read the reason primaries aren’t done on incumbents is because every single time it’s been tried the incumbent lost the actual election and the seat went to the other party.
? If incumbent wins the primary its the same as if they didn’t have one but at least the party members chose.
primaries are separate by party.
It’s not a thing that happens often, but as far as I can find every single time the incumbent president has had someone try to primary them, the incumbent’s entire party lost the seat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge
I mean, in the current system if there’s enough desire from within the party to push to primary the incumbent president, they were already pretty unpopular.
It’s not the primary that’s causing them to lose, it’s that the party had thought a primary was even necessary because they were already likely going to lose.
interesting. maybe a spread in focus leads to loss.
My assumption is that primary related mud slinging depresses enthusiasm among the public for the incumbent, combined with attempts at it only being made when the incumbent is relatively unpopular anyway.