Does the Party discourage primaries and, if so, how realistic is populist reform?

[merrily]

I am far, far more of a replier than a thread starter. However, some of my replies can be OP's. So, I may be re-posting some them in this group, unless one or more hosts think that inappropriate.

Everything that follows in this OP follows is the body of a reply that I posted a few minutes ago in GD, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026508711#post33

Since McGovern, a faction within the Party sought to take the choice for a nominee out of the hands of primary voters. That was when Super Delegates were first proposed, but turned down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History

When Carter lost, the meme became that Carter lost to Reagan because of a primary challenge by Kennedy. Although that is a ludicrous claim, apparently, it "took." So, when Mondale also lost to Reagan, the proponents of Super Delegates were able to get the Party to adopt that policy. But, think about the ramifications of actually holding a primary for about a year, then having Super Delegates override the vote. It would be far easier for the Party just to use choose the candidate and then use the primary for the benefit of the chosen one. (Maybe, eventually, they'll just do away with an expensive primary entirely?)

We had no primary in 2012, but there is no incumbent this time. They've simply been treating Hillary as though she were an incumbent.


A post of mine from almost a full year ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1265&pid=1223

All I will say at this early date is, I want a real primary, damn it.

First, the Democrats come up with Super Delegates, so that if primary voters choose a liberal, the party PTB can overrule all of primary season. Now, they've come up with the self fulfilling "foregone conclusion" propaganda, unanimously touting Hillary as the winner, with the help of all the party pundits and strategists on TV and radio and the MSNBC anchors.

I began noticing this in the early fall of 2012. I even saw all those "Tell Hillary you want her to run" things online that far back. (LOL, as if anyone had to persuade her?)

When that kind of coordination exists more than four years before a Presidential election, the workings of the Democratic Party certainly don't seem to me to be as democratic as I expect them to be. IMO, single candidate primaries are almost as bad as single candidate elections.

Just one example. Recently, Chris Matthews was giving Christie another well-deserved bashing. However, Matthews referred to Christie as the only one who could have given Hillary any trouble. Not the only one who could have given the next Democratic Presidential nominee any trouble, but the only one who could have given Hillary any trouble.

Who the fuck are Matthews and the rest of the propaganda team to spend three or more years brainwashing everyone to believe that Hillary is the inevitable nominee? Why are they the "deciders" now? And do they think no one notices those tactics?

I thought an advantage of registering as a Democrat was the privilege of choosing a nominee from a real field of qualified people. Not gesture of a vote, but a vote that actually means something.

When the democratic is back in the Democratic Party process, I'll get excited. For now, I want the brainwashing attempts to stop and my party to start acting democratic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1265&pid=1223

More recently, I posted about comments Senator Schumer, Governor Brown and Barney Frank saying no one should challenge Hillary in a primary and also a statement from Schumer saying that, when he took over the DSCC in 2005, he made avoiding primaries the official policy of that committee. Moreover, a number of people in a position to know what goes on with the Party have written urging a real primary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=401152