2 lessons: 1. Your vote counts, 2. parties must vet their candidates.

[lindysalsagal]

Amen.

[lamp_shade]

1. Yep. K&R

[Jim Lane]

2. How, exactly, should they "vet"?

There was a primary and then a runoff. The Republican Party establishment almost unanimously opposed Moore. He nevertheless got the most votes, so he became the nominee.

They could vet their candidates by abolishing primaries and returning to the old system wherein a few party bosses in a back room could pick the nominee. That approach does have its adherents, but it's not widely popular.

Alternatively, party leaders could do intense opposition research on every candidate in their own primary, hoping to uncover and publicize all the dirt before the nominee is chosen. To me that doesn't seem like a sensible use of party resources.