Last week, I wrote a little about how I'd change up the Democratic primary process. You'll notice that, of the changes I proposed, two seriously disadvantaged the candidate I'm supporting this year, two disadvantaged the candidate I'm opposing, and two aren't easy to classify from a short-term electoral perspective.

On the other hand, most vigorously stated arguments about process mysteriously benefit the side proposing them. It's almost as if the process argument is a cover for a results-based argument that you're less comfortable making!

This is one reason I've adopted two mantras with my candidates. First, that the overwhelming majority of voters don't really care about process stories. Second, that 99% of arguments about process are really about results. Neither of these is a revolutionary idea, but as we hear more and more about an "unfair" process these dictums are useful to remember and use to analyze partisan pouting.

So the next time a Sanders supporter fumes about how superdelegates are undemocratic, but caucuses are great - and flipping delegates that you lost on election night by packing party conventions is also great - there's a pretty obvious, and extremely human, reason for that disconnect. They're not arguing about process; they're just trying to get the results they want. The same goes for any Clinton supporter who argues that superdelegates should overturn the will of the voters, or that the October 2015 party change deadline in NY is great, though I don't hear that argument much if ever from my side of this primary.

It's also why I am always going to tell my candidates to talk about the issues that matter to the voters, not focus on inside baseball minutiae that just does not matter to anyone in the real world.