After '68 the party removed a lot of control from the national committee members and gave more weight to the voters in state primaries and caucuses. Many southern Democrats saw this as leading to the '72 fiasco, and pushed to increase the number of unpledged delegates (there had always been a few). By '84, about one fifth of delegates were unpledged (it's slightly higher today) but those delegates were mainly from urban party machines (think Chicago or Boston). This, ironically, led to the nomination of Mondale over Hart, and a repeat of the '72 fiasco in '84.

Mondale was AFAIK the only time they actually influenced anything; Dean actually had a pretty overwhelming lead in superdelegates in '04, and we saw how that went. I think they only act as an emergency brake of sorts now.

The idea was to prevent another 1972, where the nominee lost 49 states. They were introduced in 1984. Mondale led with the backing up superdelegates in his close race with Hart. Mondale then lost 49 states. At least McGovern didn't almost lose his 1 state like Mondale did. Great job, superdelegates.

... on the fact that Super Delegates exist is late-breaking news to some people?

Stay classy, deflect, evade.

... Tad Devine. I'm pretty sure he could tell you all about it.

Snip:
Ironically, Tad Devine, Sanders' top adviser, who was instrumental in the creation of the superdelegate process, defended their existance.

"It's pretty hard to win a nomination in a contested race and almost impossible to win without the superdelegeates," Devine said in 2008 in an interview on NPR.

Now, Devine's boss, who is running on an anti-establishment message is losing the superdelegate race.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/super-delegates-center-democratic-nomination-fight-again-n516891

There are only 2 people who will get delegates. Therefore one has to get the majority of them. While you could speculate what would happen if they were in single digits of each other, beyond that I am pretty convinced they have to go with the winnet.

Why? Though designed to give TPTB control, in reality if they denied the winner victory, the party would shatter.

Now, we all know this us speaking of them aiding HRC. Yet if she loses having started with all the power behind her and is still given the nomination it makes a mockery of democracy.now I know the party has its own rules and they can do what they want, but there are consequences.

For starters, the GOP ended the practice because THEY thought it was unfair. Yikes! And the promises of the delegates aren't written in stone, so in some respects, what's the point? If we actually got to a nomination and the super delegates overruled the popular vote, that would be the end of the party so maybe it's time to retire them.

I'm more concerned with the voters not having a representative voice in our primary process and the fact we use a public vote in multiple states. All of du use to agree on this point. How times have changed.

is the way the media and Hillary's supporters are using their numbers to try to change the narrative here. Those who have endorsed are having their numbers inserted into primary and caucus results as if they have been won in those processes, and as if they are "pledged". They are UNCOMMITTED delegates, legally, regardless of whether they have endorsed anyone or not. Their very endorsement does not commit them in any way.

So by slipping in the superdelegates who have endorsed into the delegate totals of the primary race, they can make it appear that Hillary has been doing a lot better in primary contests than she is doing. After March 1st it will become much more difficult to guage the progress of the race if superdelegate totals are SNUCK into the totals of those won in the primary process. It is dishonest and manipulative, and if they keep up with that, I say, FUCK THE SUPERDELEGATES, GET RID OF THEM ALL FOR 2020!