except that her campaign had a plan to also go after pledged delegates, who at least at that time could also switch.

Obama had a majority of pledged delegates.

That's what Sanders will do too. He will not try to steal the nomination, which apparently will disappoint some of his fans who masquerade as progressives

the more date observed. Awful. Why would hillary think it's best to act like nothing is going on, "thank you new york!" and on to the next. How does she sleep at night? She knows this all went bad there. She appears to really not care about our voting rights.

She is the last person to lead the country, when she can't lead in finding out what happened in her 'adopted home state'. Stunning.

That MILLIONS more people have voted for Hillary than have voted for Sanders so far, and that number just promises to grow larger? Do you not get that?

The super delegates ARE aligning with voter sentiment.

And if you mean on a state by state basis, that STILL won't bring your candidate any closer to winning.

conducted in the winter and spring -- and just take a poll this summer.

Cause, you know, momentum.

Their highly vaunted purity sure did disappear fast, didn't it?

as long as they vote for you?

And, BTW, the notion of "millions more" has already been debunked. Different nominating processes yield "vote counts" with radically different meaning.

If, for whatever reason, Bernie was up in the national polls as the preferred candidate, Superdelegates would be perfectly justified in supporting him, regardless of pledged delegate totals.

You can say "never will happen." Fine. If you think his national popularity couldn't possibly continue to grow, then why be so worked up? Let him stay in, make his case, and lose.

Even accounting for those different kinds of vote counts, Hillary is cleaning his clock in popular vote.

Who is worked up? Answering your post means worked up to you?

There is no one who can prevent him from staying in. But he has already lost.

Delegates so it stands to reason she should get all of the super delegates.

Or could work out some other way.

We'll know how it plays out when it plays out. For example, could go like this (it gets interesting as you get deeper into it):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1798895

So Sanders needs a larger percentage, now how is this math going to work? It is all in the math, was to figure, now what the poster may have meant was Sanders needed 67% of the delegates.

... which is the number needed to "cinch." (i.e., win without help of any pledged delegates).

I think the writer makes some interest points about what sorts of strategies could come into play if neither gets sufficient pledged delegates to "nail it down" without superdelegates.

Delegates represent influence, and the convention is not just about nominating our presidential and vice presidential candidates. Delegates are also involved in decisions about procedures and platform.

I just found it interesting. I see a lot of reasons Bernie should stay in through the convention, as I describe here, and here. The article raised implications I hadn't thought about.

Decision based on this information. If he does, I hope he does not say this, it would really look foolish.

... and then we found out he had been in cahoots with Citibank on some big slimy mortgage derivative scheme, you wouldn't want the pledged SDs to weigh in nominate Hillary?

Sounds to "Bernie or Bust"-ish to me. Cut off your nose to spite your face and all.

Sure you don't want to bring up Vince Foster now?

Because this sure isn't a response to mine.