Yeah, but Salon told me that Clinton is the real right-wing candidate, so I don’t know what to believe.

I’m referring to two things: The popular vote, and the pledged delegate count. Clinton leads both. Bernie’s streak of recent wins hasn’t been enough to overcome her lead.

They’re not budging because Bernie isn’t winning by enough to overcome his pledged delegate deficit.

Although Obama led Clinton in delegates won through state contests, Clinton claimed that she had the popular vote lead as she had more actual votes from the state contests. However, this calculation could not include many states that had held caucuses, which Obama had dominated, and it did include Michigan and…

The 2008 Democratic primary was way more crowded than it was this time around. That’s why you didn’t see as many superdelegates pledging to Clinton right away back then. Still, she amassed a large lead over Obama before they decided to switch.

There’s no reason to have them, really. But they’re kind of like the Electoral College, in that as long as they don’t actively turn against voters then no one really cares.

I’ll never cease to be amazed by how quickly people forget that superdelegates jumped ship from Clinton to Obama in 2008 once it became clear that he was winning.

There’s no conspiracy. If Bernie were actually winning (or if he manages some major upsets in the next few big primaries) more superdelegates would join his…

I think polls show that most Democrats generally like Clinton and Sanders and would have no problem voting for either. And most Sanders supporters would certainly vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. The loudest voices on the Internet just happen to be the stubborn ones, and they dominate the conversation.

He can’t be rattled? Eh, all she has to do is make a comment about his small hands and he’ll go off on a rant about how they’re actually really big, and he’ll forget about whatever it was he was talking about.

The problem with assuming that a Trump presidency will lead to a progressive revolution in four years is that Trump only needs to appoint one Supreme Court justice to kneecap progressive legislation for a generation.

Wait, he lost his stars, too? I thought the star totals stayed the same when levels were deleted. I guess that’s only if the creator deletes them themselves?

Nah, Burr never said what he was against and what he was for.

Found Thomas Jefferson.

Yeah, I’m getting a little tired of explaining superdelegates to people. Eight years ago, they all backed Clinton until they didn’t. They’re not going to stubbornly back her now unless she actually wins the pledged delegates.

Reminds me of this article, which called on Bernie to launch a “Bernie’s Thirty” effort to help win targeted seats held by the GOP: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archi…

And of course, when our star Democratic presidents fail to get their entire agendas enacted (because Congress is GOP-controlled, or state governments sue to block new laws) we immediately demand to know why the president isn’t leading harder.

Good thing there’s a perfectly qualified Democratic nominee who could win, as well as two entire other branches of the government that deserve our focus.

I get that. My original comment was prefaced on the idea that Democrats could take back the Senate in this election. It’s a real possibility if they win the White House.

My point is that when minority parties start to successfully block Supreme Court nominees through filibuster (and we have every reason to believe that this will begin happening with greater frequency) pressure will mount for the majority to eliminate this opportunity.

Both parties have used the filibuster in the past, including the judicial filibuster, but it just keeps getting worse with each passing year.