I know who the Democratic presidential nominee should be

[cthulu2016]

The one who gets the most delegates.

Seriously.

That is not just who will be the nominee, but who should be the nominee.

Specify that person X won the most delegates and I believe that person X should be the nominee because the process is probably smarter than I am. If somebody cannot win most Democrats in 2016 then there is probably something wrong with them as a national candidate.

Primaries are unusual in that, unlike general elections, they are a test of aptitude. The ultimate job as nominee is to get the most votes and one seeks the job through a show of getting votes.

I can talk all day about what a president should be like, but since the first prerequisite is getting millions and millions and millions of votes there is no possibility of the best president. That would be like the best singer winning American Idol. Dude... the best singer will never be on American Idol, which is a contest about being liked by millions of people with no particular interest in or aptitude for identifying good singing.

But the winner of American Idol is supposed to sell millions and millions or CDs/downloads, not sing the best. And the process does identify who "they" like. No me. They. Because there is only one of me and I will never buy five of the same CD, let alone millions. (Over the years I have bought four copies of Jellyfish's Spilled Milk, so four seems to be my limit.)

_____

Hillary deserved to lose in 2008 because she lost a vote-getting contest. If she wins a vote getting contest in 2016 then she will be as meritorious in 2016 as she was deficient in 2008.

And if Hillary loses a primary fight then it will be to somebody pretty damned impressive, in the context of a 2016 environment that doesn't exist yet.

And it makes very little sense to blame primary candidates. Blame voters. They are the Democrats... if even Democratic primary voters are presumed to be illegitimate or victims or clueless then what's the point in democracy?

Anybody who can beat her richly deserves the spot. And it follows that if nobody beats her then she is the right candidate for the Party.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want"

"and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken

[cthulu2016]

2. I have always liked that quote, and somewhat agree.

As perverse as the outcomes are, I have trouble with the notion that the American people ought to be saved from themselves.

If democracy can't work here (and it quite arguably does not) then why cling to it as an ideal? And I prefer to cling to it as an ideal.

C'est la vie.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. The Founders weren't big fans of Democracy, either.

They knew that democratic participation would end in trouble. But they knew that all the other forms of government would, too. AFAIK, they went with a Democracy (actually a Republic) because they figured that democratic institutions offered the best chance to right the ship of state when it inevitably keeled over.

[abelenkpe]

3. Maybe the common people would know what they want if we

had responsible media instead of corporate controlled propaganda?

Or if every decision in life wasn't limited to two choices both designed to benefit the haves at the expense of the have nots?

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Mencken opposed representational democracy full tilt, and he also said some really racist shit

"I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him."
And
"The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered, they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display."

Interesting choice you made for a quotation.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Because I hate Jews.

OK?

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I just think some context for his 'aren't voters idiots' crap is in order.

He knocked democratic processes because he opposed them in principle, in part because he was bigoted against vast swaths of the voting pubic.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Sorry, I'm a little paranoid

Please see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024585691#post9

[demwing]

5. The ability to win a Primary

especially a closed primary, does not always equate to the ability to win a general election.

Walter Mondale will attest to that

[cthulu2016]

11. Every primary season has produced a major Party loser

100%

Also a winner.

The success rate of the primary system for picking winning general election candidates in the two-party era is exactly 50%.

So there's no argument to be found there. If the Democrats had picked a great candidate in 1984 who won, that would have been failure of the Republican primaries is picking Reagan to run again.

[demwing]

14. Mondale got stomped. Hart would certainly have done better.

Mondale couldn't even win in MA or NY.

Perhaps Mondale isn't a fair example, as he didn't win the primary so much as Hart lost it.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. Winning elections is all about raising enough money to buy the most negative ads.

That does not necessarily mean that the best person wins. If a left leaning liberal wins the primary I will vote for them in the general. If not, then I will have to consider my options.

[cthulu2016]

12. That's the point (!)

If, as you say, winning elections is all about raising enough money to buy the most negative ads then the person who raises the most money in the primaries to buy negative ads is, in fact, the best candidate in terms of the one quality that we have agreed wins elections.

That doesn't make it good. It is just what it is.

[JJChambers]

13. Winning elections is about a lot of things

Not least of which is timing; specifically, timing of the political pendulum .

[Auntie Bush]

15. Let me get this straight..............

The one who gets the most votes and money deserves to win the presidency.
Do I have that correct?

[cthulu2016]

16. "The one who gets the most votes... deserves to win the presidency"

Um, yes?

The argumentative addition of "...and money" doesn't change anything in the equation.

But the OP is about primaries, so is not about who deserves to win the presidency at all.