Does the primary system we use now leave us with the lowest common denominator? It seems that in our quest to find the candidate that will be all we want in a president, we end up with one everyone can live with but few are excited about. Take B.O. for example. While he was able to just pander to the left wing fanatic element in the party he did, then we he saw that wasn't enough, he sold a part of his soul to the moderate left, then the centrists, now he is even trying to sell a bill of goods to conservatives. Liberals can't love him for what he is doing, conservatives can't trust that he has completely changed his leopard spots overnight, centrists are like someone at mid court watching a tennis match with a sore neck.

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

Eh, yeah, That seemed pretty objective. I can hardly wait to hear your description of how Sidney was the benefit of the lowest common denominator theory.

Primaries are focus groups for parties. They are designed specifically to bring out the candidates with the broadest appeal.
Consider the alternative. What if all the Democratic and Republican candidates were in one election. The problem is that, without some form of run-off voting, you could easily get a candidate who is DESPISED by the plurality of the population.
You can get that with the primary system, but not as extreme.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

the only thing obama changed on was public financing, which no one but obama haters care about -- which is funny, since mccain did the same thing, and got in deeper trouble over it. telecom immunity was never about hating on the phone companies, but preventing abuse -- there was a compromise. and he has not changed on iraq, despite the lies you guys like to spread.

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/