While I agree with your facts, the point still remains that 2008 will find Democrats running against McCain, who is basically Bush term 3. Other politicians who stood behind Bush kept their seats in 2006, so maybe the democrats of PA had something to do with getting rid of an incumbent (not an easy task).

My point remains that while Clinton may win the democrats in the state, that doesn't mean she would be better to face off against McCain. Obama gets many more independents than she does, and in the general that is more important.

Still waiting for you to answer my question about how you would react if Hillary was the one with the most votes and the most delegates. Would you still be supporting the superdelegates overturning the desires of the voters? And if so, why do we have these expensive primaries and caucuses then?

You have a lot more trust in unelected insiders than I do, then! I know that deals go on behind closed doors and that quite often, the superdelegate insiders are more concerned with what they can get out of something. It's the reasons we did away with the proverbial "smoke filled rooms" all those years ago to a system where the people chose the candidate instead of the party bosses.

I think this is not what democracy is supposed to be about.

I fjust ind it odd we didn't hear these complaints about the Democratic Party's primary process before Obama started to lose.

The Obamatron motto: Change the rules when you start to lose!

Did anyone even know about superdelegates before this year? Bueller?

I didn't. Even when Obama was behind I thought the idea of super-delegates is abhorrent.

Yeah, I had no idea. If I did know, I would have been against it then, too. The entire concept seems undemocratic to me, kind of like the original electoral college.

too bad Obama can't win Pennsylvania.

That would really help things.

Recent polling confirms this. A 6 March Rasmussen poll shows that 57% of Americans think the candidate with the most votes should win the Democratic nomination. Only 26% of Americans think the candidate with the most delegates ought to win."[/i]

The problem with that is that it means states with caucuses don't count, doesn't it? Or are the caucus voters included in that number?

I'm not sure. I think so though. Why would they not be included?

Well, because they don't necessarily fill out ballots in the same way someone who votes does.

I mean, I know there are numbers because they report them on the news, but I wasn't sure if the totals listed above included them or not.

I'm curious though, what would you want to happen if prior to the convention, it became clear beyond dispute that Clinton had garnered more overall votes with Obama having more delegates. Because I remember you being very vocal about the stolen election of 2000 and being heavily critical of the electoral system.

Well, because they don't necessarily fill out ballots in the same way someone who votes does.

I mean, I know there are numbers because they report them on the news, but I wasn't sure if the totals listed above included them or not.

I read a very good BBC article, "Can Hillary Clinton still win?", a few days ago. When it was written the popular vote was as follows:

BARACK OBAMA: 13.6m

HILLARY CLINTON: 13.3m

According to the article, there's a fairly good chance that Hillary will end up winning the popular vote when it is all said and done, even though she'll certainly have fewer delegates. The article then continues:

"[Hickman] says that Democratic voters felt so bruised by the 2000 election - in which former Vice-President Al Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for lost Florida votes that could have made him president - that they are reluctant to allow the nomination to be decided by a cabal of elected officials and party dignitaries voting in accordance with their own personal beliefs.

Yet it is precisely this argument that Mrs Clinton will have in her corner if she can win the popular vote.

If Mr Obama is forced to argue that he has more delegates while Mrs Clinton has more votes, his position is dramatically weakened, especially given the history of the very party that was forced to put up with the Bush administration for eight years, despite Mr Gore winning more votes in 2000.

Recent polling confirms this. A 6 March Rasmussen poll shows that 57% of Americans think the candidate with the most votes should win the Democratic nomination. Only 26% of Americans think the candidate with the most delegates ought to win."

So yeah, after the Bush-Gore scandal, I think it would be extremely hypocritical for the Democratic superdelegates to select Obama as their candidate instead of Clinton if she actually ends up with more votes.