https://www.brookings.edu/research/re-en...e-we-vote/

An in depth study on the evolution of how our candidates are now chosen for us in the primaries. I haven't read the entire study yet - it's quite long and includes graphs/figures - but the gist of it is that outsider groups are gaining more power in the election process and thus changing lowering the quality of candidates that we have for choices. Some of my thoughts below:

• Political experience is being exchanged for ideology litmus tests. It's becoming more important to support to "correct" line of thought instead of having actual experience in governing.
• The party bosses initially lost their power and influence; however, they may be taking some of this power back as poor quality candidates are being exposed to the electorate.
• These outside groups are making it harder for politicians from other parties to come up with good compromises in legislation. Without the ability to effectively compromise, we risk more anarchy from our elected officials.
• The outsider groups are to candidates what lobbyists are to elected officials. I have no clue how to effectively curtail any of this because of free speech concerns.
  

And there are plenty of other things to take away from the article. Food for thought. I think it will be a great study to analyze.

Political tribalism is a scourge on this nation. Ideological litmus tests are just one example of that. Hell, most of those litmus test are really are only concerned with that team winning rather than any coherent and rational philosophical ethos.