What are the limits of the strength party bosses ought have?

I actually tend to agree with MM on this one, but I think the question needs specifics and cannot be answered totally in the abstract.

Jay Cost is an e-genius. I look forward to his first book. He predicted 2004 with uncanny accuracy and is always worth a read.

I agree that stronger parties would be good for our system of government, the main reason being exactly the reason you state: its a localizing force of political engagement.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/the_party_system_and_the_2008.html

I think we are seeing that National Parties have little control over the process. I mean Howard Dean is about powerless as his Republican counterpart. That might be good or bad. I read someplace that National Party structures are pretty muchcreatures that can be used in a effective way by the Sitting President. After that their power diminishes

Tha tbeing said the Dems could change things up. I think having Caucuses are good things as long as they are tru Caucuses. A few of them are good for the system to test a person strenths or weaknesses.

If the Dems had a more winner take all states in the mix and adjusted such things a how their delegates are done per COngressional district then in might help them out in many ways.

I am in the minority on this but I think have stronger parties is a better thing. Stronger in that the average citizen is more involved at a local level and thus that has an effect all the way up.