Yea, because a map that has Obama winning IN is surely something to bank on.  I mean, when was the last time a Democrat lost IN?

I'm not counting Michigan.  

Yea, because it would be so much better to ignore America's ability to choose the weaker candidate cough 2004 cough...  

Shouldn't you be a Republican if you're into the "irrational faith" thing?

No, if I wanted that I would be backing Obama since McCain can most easily beat him.  

I don't think she will, not because I don't think she wants to, but because I don't think anyone could continue to campaign this hard for this long without intending to win the nomination for themselves.  

She's just going to be worn out, is my guess.  

2006 wasn't winner take all like the electoral college.  

Even a 1% defection can sink us.  

He got 1% because his supporters realized that Romney was going to win and backed Huckabee to keep Romney from getting the delegates.  There's no indication that he would come in 3rd in a straight up vote and there's nothing to make us feel better about Obama in WV come fall.

Now, the ONLY vote that matters in the Democratic party is the Appalachian vote?

I don't know where you would get that reading from...  

t sounds to me like you're saying their vote simply doesn't matter.  All I'm saying is that it does.  

"all about" pledged delegates (in the sense that super-delegates have to follow their lead)?  As far as I know, but pledged and super-delegates have equal standing in the rules, so I don't see why the super-delegates pushed by the rules towards following the pledged delegates?  Why isn't the race all about both pledged and super-delegates.  

Really, I think the only argument that can force super-delegates to follow the lead of either count is the democracy based argument.  If you think that one standard or another represents popular will, then I can see why you think the super-delegates might be obligated to go that way.  

But without the democracy thing, super-delegates seem free to go for elect-ability, or self interest, or whatever.  

I would tone it down, but then I would be writing journal entries to myself, and usually I want to have a conversation.  

Besides, if you come over from democraticundergeround it can sometimes be hard to take your extremist hat off.  

but it goes in either direction.  Obama has serious problems with potential defections from Hillary supporters (actually, polls suggest his are worse).  

I think that Obama supporters will be knocking on doors no matter what.  Why?  Because they don't want McCain.  

No, actually, at this point it's largely based on wooing super-delegates.  And if Hillary doesn't win the popular vote, she loses.  But not because she wasn't the pledged delegate winner - because she wasn't the popular vote winner.  

I say this a number of times above, but there's no rule changing going on here.  We're talking about how super-delegates are going to behave.  

But again, the Delegate Math argument assumes that super-delegates will go to the pledged delegate leader.  That the only reason we care about who's ahead in pledged-delegates.  That's where the whole "she can never catch up" thing is supposed to come in.  

If you just want to talk about who gets more delegate votes, then you're not making the delegate math argument anymore.  You're talking past me at that point.