From the outside looking in I see the following happening, in various degrees:[ul]
[li]Democrats spending more time attacking each other than forwarding their own policy ideas.[/li][li]Democrats ‘wasting’ millions campaigning against each other when the money could be best pooled* for use in the main election campaign against the GOP.[/li][li]Democrats actually digging out dirt on each other to undermine opponents chances and give the GOP further ammunition against the candidates.[/li][/ul]Other than historic convention, is this a strictly necessary procedure?
Would it not play better if the decision of who would lead the Democrats to the next election be made in-house** (perhaps even a separate in-party referendum), to eliminate the extent of public bickering? (and save time and money). Should it not be a over-riding directive of the party to have someone elected to represent their interests, rather than having several candidates taking bits out of each other in the attempt to be “the one” and be given the nod to challenge for the hot-seat?
- Can campaign contributions be pooled, if they decide they want to?
** If this is really stupid, please educate me as to why. Thanks.
Thanks for any information / discussion.