>Yeah, it would, I think. In general, they'd have to be
>allowed to run in the Democratic Primary. I don't know
>how someone can be barred from doing that -- I know
>some pretty wacko types have run as Dems, Lyndon
>Larouche, the conspiracy theorist, for one, but there
>are presumably some rules. At at the very least the
>party could endorse an opponent and channel money to
>that person. whole loudly announcing that it found
>Lieberman (say) no longer welcome.
Yeah, but what's to stop people who support an opposing political platform and hence have an interest in preventing the Democrats from running a strong campaign, from voting in the Democrat's primary and foisting an unacceptable candidate, with an unacceptable platform on them?
In a worst-case scenario, this would force the Democrat party, insofar as such a thing exists, to campaign against its own official candidate. Something I understand has been known to happen.
Face it, you can't blame the Democrat party if its electoral candidates and candidates' political platforms are no good. These are things political parties in the US have no control over. Political parties are not permitted to participate in US elections.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas