They're not some special snowflakes that need to be protected. They stand on their record, if its not good, get 'em out.

Citizen-politicians of short duration was supposed to be the norm, propertied classes who served the interests of their districts a few years, and then went home.

We are far from Founders' intent.

They want a career? Let them earn it.

* to fend of challenges from well-funded Republican challengers. Better to advocate for term limits if someone really wants to make THIS (of all things) their pet-issue.

Yes, its ridiculous. But its also become a way of maintaining the status quo.

* to swoop-in an flip the seat away from the Democratic incumbent who's been bloodied, negged, and financially depleted... which would you rather have?

In the quest for the "perfect" candidate, it seems that some would rather take the chance of losing to the GOP. Even a simply Dem-for-Dem exchange does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help us regain a majority. I seriously question the wisdom of such tactics. It seems to be focused more on grandstanding and virtue signaling rather than accepting political realities and learning (or accepting) the system and working within it.

... unnecessarily, and without regard to political reality, and rather than challenging and removing Republicans, then yes... it's more than a "threat", it's sabotage that benefits the GOP.

Having an effective strategy can be better than mere purity. The GOP are the enemy and they should be treated as such... not incumbents.

for some that it's impossible to understand the situation as it really is.

* with no consideration of the consequences. Same thing applies to anyone who holds up AIPAC as some sort of boogeyman to be feared and hated. If it's not one, it's the other. As outrageous as the claims are, I think the only purpose is to distract from the real damage coming from actual anti-Democratic Party groups... DSA and Justice Democrats, I'm looking at you. Neither one can truthfully claim to e be a friend of Democrats or the Democratic party.

When there's an actual real life-threatening horribly destructive amoral extremist rogue senile Frankenstein reality TV monster who is president and no one in that party will stop him when they could do it immediately.

Yet Democratic leadership is the most pressing problem? Jeffries tweeted a Bible verse, OMG. Democrats just need new leaders who pass the Purity Fight Test and better messaging (magic slogans like Trump uses, I guess)? Just explain things to Republican and swing voters in strongly worded yelling rallies and they'll snap out of it and vote for independents and socialists and everything will be nice? It's too silly.

I really like DU's rule for Presidential elections that primaries should not be relitigated during a general election campaign. I think it is implicitly extended to other races (including local and municipal) through the Support Democrats rule.

These are good and cohesive rules. I think people who supported the primary loser should be especially cognizant that they may be viewed as flouting these reasonable rules if they constantly post negative stories about the primary winner, even if these are under the guise of "objective reporting." Anyway, I view that as flouting or skirting the rules and I act and vote accordingly.

It's just that those challenges are typically quixotic ventures at best. Just because someone takes on a well entrenched multi-term congressman doesn't mean they're gonna even hit 20% support once the election rolls around.

Gen Z I think is more inclined to go for the grass roots unknowns, they have a healthy distrust of career politicians, as we all should.

Most incumbents are actually "primaried," contrary to popular belief. However most of those challenges are usually doomed from the start, unless that incumbent is unpopular for some reason or another.

You know, just because a new sometimes-voter was propagandized by a non- or sometimes-Democrat into thinking that their elected Democrat is just as evil as MAGA Republicans, it doesn't mean the majority of their constituents feel that way -- or else they wouldn't be elected to begin with.

Tired of these electeds thinking they are just gonna settle into a cush job and skate for years...

I also think there should be a term limit of some kind on SCOTUS

lifetime appointment Article III Section 1.

If you don't work to solve the nation's problems, get out of Washington for someone who can.

to his seat for life just because he won the primary when the seat became open 20 years ago is ridiculous.

This isn’t punitive, it’s healthy

and doing a good job for their constituents and district, then they'll be reelected.

Incumbents have the advantage, but there is nothing wrong with being challenged.

Are we supposed to just have everyone in office until they die?

let's automatically primary every Dem.

Jeezus. In many cases THAT would be actual waste, fraud and abuse.

Primary where needed,sure. But every candidate? every time they run?