As long as we're on the topic, let's stay on topic.

[HassleCat]

There was a post here that was locked for being off topic, but it did make a couple good points about the primaries and some of the fallout from the primaries. I thought it would be useful to paraphrase and discuss the points as they relate to the Democratic primary election.

First, many of us have not yet voted, and we would like to think our opinions and our votes mean something. In any primary election, there is always a push by the front runner to declare the contest over, to get the landslide moving faster. In our party, there is some urgency about this because we are afraid of spending all our money and energy before we face the Republicans. That's understandable, but we need to respect the voters and their opportunity to make their voices heard.

Second, and related to the first point, is the tendency of the party to choose a favorite and throw the weight of the party organization behind the favorite. It happens all the time, so I guess it's not unreasonable, but it contributes to casting aspersions on individual Democrats and their loyalty to the party. "If you were a real Democrat, you would be more positive about supporting our nominee, whoever that is." OK, but that makes it more difficult to oppose the party favorite. If you advocate voting for the insurgent, you're saying, in effect, "Don't vote for the party favorite." This creates all sorts of suspicion and bad feelings, with the party demanding that supporters of the insurgent declare themselves yellow dog Democrats, and said supporters resisting and getting rebellious.

The implication of course, is that we should all just chill out and let the process run its course. Easier said than done. Hang in there, everybody, and try to keep a lid on the suspicion and aggression directed at the other camp.

[Agschmid]

1. Every vote does matter.

And I 100% agree with the last part.

[sufrommich]

2. When was the last time a primary was decided after

every state voted?

[HassleCat]

4. Not all states have voted yet

Which was one of the key points of the original post, and my post.

[Mufaddal]

5. Let's let Hillary answer that question

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” she said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

[Downwinder]

7. 1960 was one and we did pretty well that year.

[99th_Monkey]

3. Well said HassleCat. nt

[Old Codger]

6. Not unreasonable?

This has been way more than a "tendency" this has been outright favoritism and plain old fashioned corruption on the part of the DNC, not just a tendency.

Second, and related to the first point, is the tendency of the party to choose a favorite and throw the weight of the party organization behind the favorite. It happens all the time, so I guess it's not unreasonable

[HassleCat]

8. The party is an organization, after all.

It's made up of people who build associations with each other, raise money for each other, sponsor each other's legislation, etc. So when the party acts like a party and sides with "one of their own," it's not a surprise. Yes, it would be better if they were strictly democratic about it, but that's impossible. Part of the reason to form a party is to gather a group of insiders to help each other get elected. I realize this often verges on corruption, and is very undemocratic, but we would have to make political parties illegal to eliminate it. Hey! Maybe you're onto something, here.

[Old Codger]

9. elitism

From what I see there so far..It is way too selective for a true democratic organization .. I know that isn't going to happen and am not so naive as to believe that it is fair, but still pisses me and a lot of others off to at the attempts to run roughshod over what I truly believe will be the majority.
Especially considering that there are quite a few primaries remaining.