One reason why I feel confident the super-delegates will not pick against the will over the people.

[Drunken Irishman]

It's easy, if you think about it, we're in the day of a new media. People keep going back to the Mondale-Hart fiasco, however, outside of a few people who really paid attention to politics, people didn't know. That won't work this time around. Now we're in an era of 24 hour news, the internet, bloggers and an ear tied so closely to the political world, that it will pick up any possibility of the super-delegates revolting against the will of the Democratic voters.

Honestly, I don't think it will come down to these super-delegates, but if it does, I have faith they'll break with the candidate with the most delegates, whether it's Obama or Clinton.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this isn't a concern...yet.

[Demeter]

1. Yeah, Sure. We'll Know We Are Being Screwed In Real Time

We just won't be able to do anything about it.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. Oh I think the backlash would be huge and they know this.

Unlike in the 1980s, when no one cared, this news will be big if Obama ends up with more delegates and the super-delegates give Clinton the nomination.

They could hide it in the 80s, they can't hide it now it would cause a fire storm of controversy in the Democratic Party. But like I said, it isn't going to come down to this. The nomination will be settled by no later than the end of March, write it down.

[truedelphi]

8. But in actuality,why would a superdelegate are about the will of the people?

[CK_John]

2. It's a long time between March and August, world events will get in the way. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Except the deal would most likely come at the convention.

Not in March. If the race is that tight where the super-delegates are enough to throw it for one candidate or another, it'll happen later than March.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

7. sounds like a prediction, you know something? nt

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. I remember McGovern - and the reason we have super delegates

Sorry, but the extremes of our party have led us down failure in the past. Whatever the super delegates do, it's in response to past behavior that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Like by giving us Mondale and Dukakis?

[Demeter]

9. Yeah, Real Winners There

Let's face it, there was a lot of dead-wood prima donnas in the Democratic Party in those days.

Now there is still a lot of dead-wood, like Reid and Pelosi, but they aren't prima donnas. They don't hog the stage.

The problem is, we haven't got much in the star-quality category for leadership. And the party is full of little people who don't seem to know what to do with it.

[Demeter]

10. Yeah, Real Winners There

Let's face it, there was a lot of dead-wood prima donnas in the Democratic Party in those days.

Now there is still a lot of dead-wood, like Reid and Pelosi, but they aren't prima donnas. They don't hog the stage. Just the power.

The problem is, we haven't got much in the star-quality category for leadership. And the party is full of little people who don't seem to know what to do with it.

[Demeter]

11. Yeah, Real Winners There

Let's face it, there was a lot of dead-wood prima donnas in the Democratic Party in those days.

Now there is still a lot of dead-wood, like Reid and Pelosi, but they aren't prima donnas. They don't hog the stage. Just the power.

The problem is, we haven't got much in the star-quality category for leadership. And the party is full of little people who don't seem to know what to do with it.

[Yossariant]

15. Winning the most pledged delegates gave us Dukakis and Mondale.

[Recursion]

12. Exactly. The explicit purpose of unpledged delegates...

...is to deflect the will of the people from a course the party leadership thinks would be disastrous. Fortunately, at least a large portion of the party leadership realizes Obama is the way to go.

[pampango]

13. Agree. Most of us think we have two great candidates, both of whom would win and

be great presidents. (There will be some who can't vote for one or the other.)

If the SDs chose the candidate who was behind in elected delegates, I think they would have a hard time convincing half of the party that they did it for the good of the party rather than as some kind of deal or payoff. They would certainly have to try to make that case.

Didn't Ford and Reagan go the convention in 1976 and Mondale and Hart in 1984 after very close primary battles? Neither parties nominee then won the GE that year, so obviously close hard fought nomination battles can leave passionate supporters if the losers plenty disgruntled. We have to do all we can avoid that and choosing a nominee with less elected delegates (effectively telling the supporters of the one with more elected delegates that they can't be trusted) hardly does not seems like the best first step towards unifying the part.

[TexasObserver]

14. Here's why I think most super delegates will back Obama, not Hillary

Because they either have to run for office in their home state or district, OR, they have to run for DNC membership which requires the votes of home delegate party members. Either way, the super delegates don't want to hear for the next six months from all their supporters, contributors, and constituents: "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN MIND??!!"