Washington Post Claims Elites Should Run Elections; Quietly Edits Article After Public Outrage Ensues

The Washington Post is taking heat over an op-ed authored by Marquette University political science professor Julia Azari, titled “It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president.” Instead of primaries in which caucuses are held to pick primary delegates, Azari suggests that the parties should use “preference primaries” which would “allow voters to rank their choices among candidates, as well as to register opinions about their issue priorities.” After outrage ensued, the Post changed the headline to the far less inflammatory “It’s time to switch to preference primaries.”

The Washington Post is taking heat over a Tuesday op-ed authored by Marquette University political science professor Julia Azari, titled “It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president.”

Azari argues that the Democratic party’s primary process is overly-complicated and convoluted, and the process of choosing the nominee should instead be placed in the hands of politicians instead.

After outrage ensued, the Post changed the headline to the far less inflammatory “It’s time to switch to preference primaries.”

The article reads:

The current process is clearly flawed, but what would be better? … A better primary system would empower elites to bargain and make decisions, instructed by voters.

One lesson from the 2020 and 2016 election cycles is that a lot of candidates, many of whom are highly qualified and attract substantial followings, will inevitably enter the race. The system as it works now — with a long informal primary, lots of attention to early contests and sequential primary season that unfolds over several months — is great at testing candidates to see whether they have the skills to run for president. What it’s not great at is choosing among the many candidates who clear that bar, or bringing their different ideological factions together, or reconciling competing priorities. A process in which intermediate representatives — elected delegates who understand the priorities of their constituents — can bargain without being bound to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better reflect what voters want.

Read full article here…




Bloomberg Comes Under Scathing Attack at First Democratic Presidential Debate in Nevada


Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York and current 2020 Democrat presidential contender, has reportedly spent $460 million of his own money to rise in the race, and critics say he is trying to buy the presidency. In the recent Democrat debate, he criticized communism and called out Bernie Sanders for claiming to be a socialist who owns three homes. Bloomberg was targeted for attack by the other candidates on the stage and he hesitated under the barrage.

Michael Bloomberg faced a barrage of attacks at his first Democratic presidential debate on Wednesday, as his rivals assailed the free-spending and fast-rising billionaire over his record on race, history of sexist comments and the use of his massive fortune to muscle his way into the contest.

In a rough debate debut that gave voters their first unscripted look at the media mogul and self-funding former New York mayor, Bloomberg seemed uncomfortable and hesitant as he defended his record and argued that he is Democrats’ best chance of beating Republican President Donald Trump in November.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg all lined up to go after Bloomberg, who has surged in polls helped by an unprecedented advertising blitz. But they also heaped personal attacks on one another in the most contentious of the nine Democratic White House debates.

All of the contenders on the Las Vegas debate stage accused Bloomberg of trying to buy his way into the White House and said his record as mayor and businessman was not good enough to beat Trump.

Read full article here…