edit: was describing a jungle primary
However, the more interesting cases are actually where there have been two Democratic candidates, and, yes, much to my irritation, it really does seem to promote "centrism". See: Harris vs Sanchez for US Senate, for example.
Now, whether "centrism" is a good thing is up for debate as history shows that the centrist position is almost always the wrong position over the long run.
No, they didn't.
> However, the more interesting cases are actually where there have been two Democratic candidates, and, yes, much to my irritation, it really does seem to promote "centrism".
Almost invariably, the candidate thar had the most institutional support (usually, a more centrist one) in the primary wins the general in that case, same as they likely would have in the prior system where the institutional support would have won them the party nomination. The difference is that they campaign against another (usually more leftist) Democrat in the general.
The jungle primary was a response the loss of a viable opposition party.
Got to say after Feinstein won against de Leon in 2018 I'm kinda done with hearing conservatives bitch about her.
It does make an aggregate difference because few people vote in primaries anyways, and even fewer will change their party affiliation every year, making raiding much harder.
Presumably only if they'll have you? People often get ejected from political parties in the UK if they for some reason are being destructive (in someone's opinion.)
Not in the US. Primaries are just the method that political parties use to determine who they should run in the actual election. You do not ever need party affiliation to vote in the actual election, but some state primaries are run in a manner that require you to register with the party if you want to vote in their primary.
Primaries are typically held months in advance of the actual election.