Those SD's are Democratic Party stalwarts. The don't take it very well when somebody bashes the party, and especially when that person wants to be one of them.

Hillary Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton both flipped from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama on June 7, 2008.

I expect Bernie to keep a single Super Delegate, though, as the Democratic Party graciously granted him Super Delegate status after he announced his run. Demonstrating he has nowhere near the class and grace of the Clintons.

Maybe You should change that to Once They Get to Know Her and see how that works.

I would wager that the superdelegates are in your nightly prayers. Lord let the firewall hold. it is from all appearances all you've got.

Their point is moot.

No he won't be able to woo the Superdelegaters who have dug in their heels since before the primary even started.

But please don't spread the crap that voters soundly rejected Sanders. If they had, he would have been out of this long ago after the first few primaries.

Sneer and marginalize 40 percent (give or take) and you are sneering at close to half of the votes Clinton will need.

Also, I'm not sneering at or marginalizing anybody.

You tend to be one of the less dismissive, so it was not directed solely at you. But it is a pervasive message: He failed with voters. Therefore he is irrelevant, and anything he and his supporters want is irrelevant.

The tone of this language is what set my button off:

I'm addressing folks who are claiming that it is somehow dishonest to refer to Hillary as the presumptive nominee based on what the SDs have said they will do.

My view is that unless someone can tell me they've changed their minds, or are even thinking about it, it's not dishonest to assume that they will vote how they have said they will vote. I see it as "burying your head in the sand" to believe that they might change their minds without any evidence to suggest that could happen.

gotta love this bit... 'While technically true'...

'Is there one shred of evidence that the SDs are considering abandon Hillary Clinton in mass'

Please explain why SDs pledged before a single primary vote was cast then your post would have a basis to work from but... until you provide the rules/basis for that then your point is mute

then again.. establishment folks like HRC and her supporters follow this example and 'rule'

each individual SD decided to support whichever candidate they chose. I would guess that everyone's criteria is a bit different.

I'm not sure how that relates to my point about the SDs not changing their votes between now and the convention.

Odd that you aren't vested into researching WHY, instead of having this as an answer... 'I have no idea why'

intellectual dishonesty alert.... 'I'm not sure how that relates to my point about the SDs not changing their votes between now and the convention.'

'not sure how that relates'? REALLY? Hmmm let's consider your reply with some intellectual honesty shall we?

Why would an HRC supporter NOT want to dig into the 'why' SDs pledged to HRC before a SINGLE VOTE was cast in the primary... HMMMMMMMMM.... what could be the reason(s) for that..... HMMMMMMMM

Is Bernie and his campaign a 'grassroots' movement?

does this, explain it?

or even why they pledged?

The candidate that won the most votes and the most PDs is going to get the nomination. Is that unfair?