SDs do...that said, I don't think you are going to be happy with the results.

obama would put dixie in play if he is the nominee .

he would expand the map to include states like nc , sc , va , ark , tx  , ks .

missouri looks like its getting out of reach for him but he would put those states in play.

They can exercise their judgment based on whatever criteria they like. And so far, they're doing it overwhelmingly for one of the candidates. Sounds like all is peachy in superdelegate land to me!

They can take the decision based on any metric they choose.  They are choosing Obama in overwhelming numbers.  

What is quite funny is that Clinton supporters seem to believe that if they can just get one more bit of information to the supers it will make all the difference - whereas they seem to be finding the whole goalpost moving exercise deeply off putting.

means they can use what ever criteria they want. Even popular vote or the vote in their district or state. Or who they think is more electable.

My favorite criteria and the one I hope they use is who would make the best president, have the best judgment, get the most done. Etc.

In any case I like the way they've been deciding.

Delegates/states won, turnout, coattails, better campaign, momentum, fundraising, all point to Obama.

Looks like the SDs have it under control.

I know when I think qualified and electable, I think "squandered 20 point lead, hires terrible campaign staff and keeps them on out of loyalty, completely incapable of raising and budgeting campaign funds"...

That's why more than 100 have come out for Obama in the last couple of months.

Or is this not what you mean by "do your jobs"? Maybe you don't actually want them to think for themselves as much as you want them to vote for Clinton.

Oh well. This is better than that racist Michelle diary you wrote and deleted yesterday.

Michael, you don't want the supers to use "independent judgment"; you want the supers to use whatever criteria they want to arrive at your preferred outcome: Clinton as the nominee.

you openly admit you want the SD's to STEAL THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FROM THE PERSON WHO WON IT.
(which is like supporting the GOP, because if EITHER candidate steals the nomination we will lose in a landslide. QUIT DOING THE RETHUGS JOB FOR THEM! or go to a ReThug site to do it.)

you are now in a league with Katherine Harris & GW Bush. absolutely disgusting, anti-democratic, elitist bullshit.

you should be ashamed, as should anyone who agrees with you. you should all go to the ReThug sites where you belong, because you state openly you do not respect the will of voters in DEMOCRATIC primaries and caucuses.

This post must be snark...otherwise it is one of the all-time backfires...

Of course independent judgment is the reason, but it highlights just how silly the Superdelegate system is.  If they override the will of the people, as expressed through the pledged delegates, our nominee will lost legitimacy.  

But, if they simply make their role to follow the pledged delegates, then they're completely unnecessary.

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Why are you telling these people to do what they are doing already?  I don't get it.

Superdelegates need to consider electability first and foremost in a close primary result. That's what they're there for. Let's look at the arguments:

States won:

What counts is which states were won, not the number of them. What counts is the number of EVs per state and the likelihood that the states can be won in the GE. IOW, what's the proportion of Democrats to Republicans? Do those Democrats vote Democratic or not? Many Ds in the south vote Republican.

Demographics:

Bill Clinton won with 43% of the white vote in 1996.
Al Gore lost with 42% in 2000.
John Kerry lost with 41% in 2004.
They all won the majority of the black and Hispanic votes.

Question: Who has demonstrated the greatest ability to win white votes this primary season?

Answer: Hillary Clinton.

One final point about the demographics:
If Obama is the nominee, John McCain will win the vast majority of the Hispanic vote. With a small minority of the white vote and a vast majority of the black vote, Obama would lose and lose big.

Electoral votes:

Looking at the primaries won and at the match-up polling, Hillary has a commanding lead over McCain and McCain has a commanding lead over Obama.

Hillary would win all the blue states and most of the swing and battleground states.

Other factors:

A lot depends on the DNC, its rules committee, and how they handle MI and FL. Seat the delegates as voted or risk a rebellion and the loss of the election. Nominate Obama without full consideration of MI and FL and it will be considered illegitimate. Millions of Hillary's supporters would vote for McCain, handing him the White House. The way things look now, about 25% of registered Democrats would not vote for Obama in the GE. They would either stay home, write in Hillary or vote for McCain.

Bottom line:

At the end of the primaries, Hillary will be ahead in the popular vote and behind a few pledged delegates, counting MI and FL fully. Since the sole role of the superdelegates is to nominate the best candidate for the fall election, they should nominate Hillary for the reasons cited above.

Please read:

Why the Dems could lose

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0508/cr oberts.php3?printer_friendly

Select the best candidate to beat McCain--Hillary Clinton!