Reply #21: I replied to that thread... [View All]

[SaveElmer]

And I usually agree with MRBenchley. First, the DNC, DSCC, DCCC or any other national organization has absolutely no authority to get rid of primaries, it is up to the state party to decide that for themselves.

Second, Schumer said absolutely nothing about getting rid of primaries. He said the DSCC will intervene to back the stronger candidate sooner to prevent a bloodbath. I have no problem with this.

Of course, in the Presidential race, many states do not have primaries, Iowa being the most famous example. Selecting a candidate is a matter for the party to decide. Whatever rules the party decides to set up for that purpose is perfectly legitimate. If enough within the party do not like those rules, they will be changed, or a third party will be formed. In my memory this has happened many times. Before 1972, the rules were changed to encourage primaries. After the 1972 debacle this was dialed back to give party leaders more say - thus super delegates. The rules were changed to stipulate how many delegates had to be women. These changes were all made within the party.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing less primaries and more caucuses. Primaries are divisive and get played out in the media, often weakening the eventual winner. Folks going to causcuses (of which I have attended many), have more intelligent rational discussions about the candidates merits and then make a choice. Not to say there aren't plenty of arguments, there are, but they are in house.