Am I the only one who thinks that the super delegates should endorse whoever won their state? To me, that seems the fairest way to end this. I'd accept whoever comes out with the lead in that scenario.

No, you're not the only one. But I disagree.

Basically, I hate the idea of superdelegates, but the point is that they are supposed to use their own judgment; otherwise, why have them at all? If they were just supposed to follow the wishes of their individual states, then they would just be regular delegates.

I also don't like caucuses either, but hey, them's the rules of the game.

Hillary's folks were more than willing to play by the rules until they started losing.

In all of their bloviating about FL and MI, has anyone asked them DIRECTLY why they agreed not to count FL and MI and have only flip flopped now that they're losing?

at this point its pointless....we have a winner by the set rules. There is no "fair way to end it".

Obama won. He got the most votes. There is no need for a compromise ending because we know who has won and its Obama.

That said...do the rules need to be changed for 2012/2016?

Hella yes.

not yet buddy. He's closer to the magic number, but not quite there yet. And that magic number may just change after all after the meeting the DNC is going to have on 5/31 to decide on MI and FL.

That wont matter. Obama has won, everybody knows it, even the Clintons at this point. Whatever decision they come to will not change the winner. Obama has it won. Chances are she will drop out before a decision is ever reached on Michigan and Fla.

Well I guess the question is what do you do if no candidate gets the required delegates in the GE we have the House of representives elect them if they can't get 271 votes only happened once though and of course when it did there were way less delegates or states for that matter.

what? punctuation is your friend.

Delegates have nothing to do with the general election. You're getting primary delegates confused with electors.

No I am not. What I am saying is that in the General election a candidate has to get 50% of the delegates to become president if they do not then it has to goto the House of Representatives for a vote. It has only happened once in the early 1800's. My point is that it is similar to the superdelegates in that if no candidate gets the required delegates the superdelegates decide teh candidacy instead of the House of Representatives deciding the presidency.

No, that's not how it works either.

Basically, if no candidate at the convention has more than 50%, then they vote again. And again. And again, until one candidate does get more than 50%. Many deals are made in the middle, and people change their votes back and forth. The superdelegates have one vote, just like every other delegate. The only difference is that they are chosen not by the states, but by the party in advance of the whole thing.

I understand that but the pledged delegates while not exactly tied to their nominee are in fact voted for to vote on that nominee the superdelegates allow some leeway without stepping on the pledged delegates.

All the bloviating would be rendered moot if Edwards shoves all his votes and delegates into the Obama column.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

The superdelegates are different from the other delegates only in how they are chosen. Once they get to the convention, they all have one vote no matter who they are. Superdelegates have no more power than any other delegate.

He only has like 19 delegates! It won't make that big of a difference.

19 delegates outside Florida. Since the Clinton campaign loves jerking off to Florida, I'd like to see it get seated 50-47 just to watch their reaction.