The DNC and/or state orgs should change their rules

[Jim Lane]

32. That would be a very simple DISASTER for the Democrats

Consider a state where the GOP has the "trifecta" of control of both legislative chambers and the governorship. (I think Florida and Ohio are currently in this category, and probably others. It's certain that some states will still be under total Republican control after the midterms, and it's likely that some swing states will be.) The Republicans would be delighted to make sure that a candidate who doesn't meet the DNC's requirements would nevertheless be listed on the ballot for the Democratic primary. They'd change the law if they had to.

Then what? With the Democratic Party's proportionality rules, a credible candidate has a good chance of getting at least some delegates even if he or she loses the primary. Then those delegates get to the convention and the party refuses to seat them or prohibits them from voting they want (and the way the voters in the Democratic primary instructed them). Do you see anything wrong with this scenario? I certainly do. The Republicans would be delighted to spend the fall campaign pointing out that the undemocratic "Democrat Party" (as they would see) wouldn't let the people of the great state of Florida or wherever have their voices heard in the selection of the nominee. Even in a state like California or Texas, they'd throw this in the faces of Democrats in close downticket races.

The example of 2008 is not encouraging. There was a clear violation of Democratic Party rules in the scheduling of the Florida and Michigan primaries. It was clear under the rules that the delegates thus selected were therefore not to be seated. In the end, they actually were seated. The Democratic Party didn't want to exclude democratically elected delegates. If, instead of excluding an entire state delegation, the party were to try to admit some delegates and exclude others, because the DNC had decided that its own views as to candidates' qualifications should outweigh those of the voters, the blowback would be even greater.

Fortunately, the hatred of Bernie Sanders on DU -- "hatred" is not too strong a word, in my view -- is not representative of the party as a whole. To the party leaders who care more about winning the election than in carrying on a vendetta, it will be perfectly obvious that trying to target Bernie, and doing so by threatening to override a fair and free election, would be a disaster for November. This plan will continue to be championed by some people on DU but will get no traction out in the real world.