I think this is done to a limited extent, but if they were organized enough that they could swamp the votes of the opposing party in the primary, then they probably have enough votes that it doesn’t matter whether or not they mess up the other party’s primary.
There have been Democratic ad purchases for hyperpartisan republicans, in the hopes that once they get to the general, the hyperpartisan Republican is going to be unsustainable in the general election, and there’s issues like Trump trying to gin up support and outrage on behalf of Bernie Sanders, just to make Clinton’s support seem wavering.
Yes, it made sense 250 years ago, when it was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. For the first 100 years after ratification, it was relevant. For the next 50 years after the adoption of the telegraph and coast-to-coast railroads, it faded in relevance, but remained ceremonial. But during this whole time the political parties and kingmakers figured out how to game the system to ensure they could use it to remain in power. And they’ve done nothing but hone that knife to a razor’s edge ever since.
Being ratified in the Constitution means it would take a constitutional amendment to change it. That’s kind of a big deal. 2/3rds of the states would each have to raise up the amendment for a vote, and then ratify the new amendment at the next election. That would mean convincing at least some of the existing political machines to agree to give up their political advantage for the greater good.
Some of the democrats may (almost) be at that point, but the fascist wing is not exactly known for giving up their tricks for staying in power. And without them, the chances of putting this amendment up to a popular vote in at least 2/3rds of the states are vanishingly small.
There’s always the option of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would not take 2/3rd of the states to agree as long as there were enough large-population states in the mix, but it would require some red amd some blue states, so maybe not too likely either in today’s political environment.
To be fair, here in the UK you can only vote for the election of your party leader if you are a paid-up member of the party. The Tories have a slightly different rule which can effectively allow the Tory MPs to elect a leader without going to their party members. This is how Sunak was elected.
What always strikes me about these gormless articles interviewing low-information partisans is that they only happen in one direction.
Where are the articles from right-wing outlets trying to empathize with the other side? Maybe an interviewer could try going to liberal arts college to ask a person of color why they feel that conservative policies have failed them? But they never will.
The reason is obvious: Empathy is only seen as a virtue on the Left. There is no appetite for this kind of content from a right-wing audience.
If I were cynical I might guess the reason the “divide in America” always needs to be bridged by the left, and never the people creating it, is because media corporations have some kind of financial interest in encouraging right-wing politics. But of course, that would go against oulets like CNN being basically communist, as I have been told.
