one of ironies of primaries is that they function at expense of party organization...irrespective of whether or not one accepts premise that primaries have 'democratized' nomination process, fact is that neither candidates nor voters need have any particular commitment to 'their party'...
take over of local dem orgs would have little impact in much of country anyway, about 75% of local elections are non-partisan (although only about 20% in northeast)...large cities are no more likely to conduct partisan elections than smaller ones (although ones that do, such as nyc and chicago, generally get attention)...
one effect among many, including lower voter turnout, of non-partisan elections is increased influence for local newspapers, well-heeled interest groups, so-called 'good government' associations...absence of party politics enhances importance of money, candidates are forced/allowed to create their their own orgs, raise and spend money (increasingly, their own)...
of course, some might say that taking over local dem shells could offer opportunities for state legislative/congressional elections and state/national conventions...but state/national dem parties adopted fundraising/campaign service functions placing themselves in *broker* position between potential contributors and candidates for party endorsements... michael hoover