1. New DNC chair
2. no more closed primaries
3. No more superdelegates
4. Progressive platform
Long ramble of commentary I'm sure no one would read (and I wouldn't encourage anyone to read):
1. Sure? I mean her term is almost over anyway. This is a weird thing to make a demand about.
I do want to pushback a bit against the narrative that HillGAF started "liking" DWS the moment Bernie started throwing his temper tantrum. She's never been very popular in PoliGAF. The frustration was more when Bernie decided to support her primary opponent for a race that has nothing to do with her DNC chair - and a guy who considerably veers away from Bernie's politics! - solely out of spite. He's free to complain that he was treated unfairly by the DNC, but making it personal was just unwarranted - and I can have that opinion without having to actually defend her ineptitude at the position.
2. I'd be fine with no more closed primaries, but I'd prefer semi-open to open as the minimal. I'm not a fan of strategic voting.
That being said, while I think push-comes-to-shove I'd go with open instead of closed primaries, but there is a part of me incredibly frustrated with the left electorate that comes out to support their presidential candidate, but has no intention of sticking around to actually strengthen the party overall and be involved. One of the main weaknesses of the left is the vulnerability to hero worship for the presidency and ignoring local and state elections. People on the left want the Democratic party to be an ideological party, but that's never going to happen - it's always going to be a big tent party and if voters want to win, they need to be comfortable with compromise. Let's be honest - it's not like blue collars, Latinos, African Americans, and college liberals, to name a few, actually have identical political beliefs. It's always been about coalition building that requires compromising, even when you are 100% correct in your beliefs.
It's always easy to be ideological pure on your social media when you don't actually care about winning and making changes. I wish more people could swallow their pride and just try and change the party from within, rather than emphasizing their independence and taking their ball home every time a policy or decision is made that doesn't 100% support their beliefs.
Also, I am giving Bernie the benefit of the doubt that he's including in this demand the abolishment of caucuses. I know his hands have been tied from criticizing them too strongly because it would downplay his delegate math during this primary, but I have enough respect for him that I'm sure he recognizes caucuses are just as, if not worse, than closed primaries in terms of keeping people out of democratic process.
One final comment - I hope all the people going from Bernie to Stein keep this in mind as they join that party. They might be surprised to learn that the holier-than-thou third parties very much comprise of smoke-filled backroom deals with how things go down. It's not the pure land of democracy free of the tyranny of the "major parties" like people are envisioning.
3. Eh, I'm not fully supportive or dismissive of super-delegates - they are there for historical reasons and meet a particular need within the primary process. If we get rid of super-delegates, then we need some other mechanism to solve contested convention (actual contested conventions - not the imaginary one Bernie devised through tortured logic) and other circus acts from compromising the party agenda (i.e., electing an entirely unqualified celebrity personality or something of that nature).
I think a reasonable compromise would be a firm cap on the proportion of delegates that can be super-delegates relative to pledged delegates. Enough for party support to have the smallest hand on the scale, but not enough to be capable of overturning an unequivocal will of the electorate (one could say, a Trump sized hand).
4. My one take home lesson from this entire primary process is that the term "progressive" is incredibly vague and politically useless. I have a lot of sympathies that are progressive, but Bernie's particular brand of progressivism isn't popular with me personally. I'm not a fan of his complicated history with firearms, I vehemently disagree with his anti-nuclear and anti-GMO positions, I'm not intrinsically anti-trade deals, and I'm not a fan of isolationism or even non-interventionalism. Progressivism shouldn't be a race to the bottom - remember, the Green party finds support for homeopathy and being anti-vaccine "progressive" - so in a sense it's a very relative -ism. It shouldn't be a game of who can be the most ridiculous. So... I'm not sure what to say? I think there's a few issues we need to push further left, but they aren't really the things Bernie platformed on specifically. So this one is just a giant question mark for me.