I’m sick of both words.
Regardless of the possible negative effect of challenged (or “divisive”) primaries on the general election, what’s the alternative? That all party nominees are chosen by county chairs (who may or may not be fair)? That “our” incumbents get automatic renewals?
“Divisive” is used to put challengers on the defensive and depict them as disloyal to the party and its ideals. But challengers just may be be seeking to advance those ideals, perhaps in the face of enormous odds. Or they may not be– isn’t that a judgment call that should be up to voters?
I support Lautenberg on his record and his merits. But I think accusations of divisiveness are counterproductive – not to mention boring and predictable. Same with the accusations about going negative that are sure to come. The more sanctimony, the more annoying. My eyes glaze over and my mouse clicks away from all posts complaining about negative campaigning by either side.