Then I think superdelegates should be removed - given that they were created to do what they considered in the best interests of the party - even if that is against what the party voters have said. What's the point of them if they're being told to vote a certain way, since they have a deliberately un-democratic role to play.
Neither Clinton or Obama can win without the superdelegates, if MI and FL gets settled one way or another - I don't see what the problem is with a re-vote - it's the state D's fault, not the voters. Chances are Clinton will not get close to the votes she recorded earlier. At present a 150 pledged delegate difference is not a big enough margin to justify her dropping out yet. But if it gets to the point that there is no mathematical way possible for the nomination to be won, the she has to leave.
The nomination is NOBODY's yet, and calls of Clinton "cheating" or "stealing the nomination from Obama" will no go down well since he hasn't won it yet either.
So, if Obama heads into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates and (quite possibly) the popular vote, would you still say that Obama had not truly won the nomination and that the super delegates could vote either way without penalty in public opinion?
a) We're not at the convention yet - so demanding Clinton step aside before a clear resolution IS silly.
b) the superdelegates were created for exactly like a situation like this - their role is to be undemocratic. They are supposed to do what they consider the best thing for the party to be.
- If they are expected to just follow the crowd, then what's the point of having them?
BTW - I am not advocating one way or the other, but merely making the point.
