Another reason to get rid of the horrendous blanket primary.
Idiocy. That may happen under every imaginable primary system. Anything is better then previous party primary system, which, mostly, produced only "activist idiots" as a candidates.
The distinction being, that when you have party primaries, the party can step in to be an arbiter to resolve these types of situations so there is still a general election candidate in a reasonable period of time. In this case, both sides will drag this out as long as possible, given the stakes. But this isn't even one of the bigger issues about why this system is terrible; there are myriad reasons to do away with it.
Case in points: Panda Express's post highlights one of the big issues with the blanket primary. When one party has a wider field of credible candidates that split the vote, the less contested party can squeak through (e.g. CA-31, which would've been lean Dem had one advanced). Or alternatively, more neutral districts can have one party run two low-key candidate but the other side advances two, due to a competitive primary ramping up GOTV operations amongst their party's voters (CA-25).
All primary systems will have some sort of flaw. This one has many and will hopefully be done away with in a ballot initiative in 2016 or 2018.
