The pledged delegates were chosen by an electorate in which women outnumber men, yet Obama is still leading among them. It's not like the superdelegates are choosing a different candidate.

Exactly how many antiwar protesters did they expect to be attending the fundraiser inside?

The whole point of the popular vote argument is that it's supposed to be a better measure of the people's will than the delegate count. That's questionable as it is, but it becomes completely ludicrous when Michigan is added in with zero votes for Obama. How can any measure of popular will be taken seriously if it's claiming that no one in Michigan supports Obama (especially considering that Obama leads Clinton in polls there)?

Correction: Since he's not currently an elected official or (as far as I know) a party leader in NC, he couldn't be a PLEO delegate even then.

PLEOs are different from unpledged add-ons. The only PLEOs other than the superdelegates are the pledged PLEOs, who are chosen after the primary.  Edwards couldn't be a PLEO delegate unless he pledged to Clinton or Edwards.

Yes, it's bizarre that Clinton supporters are complaining about both proportional representation and the possibility that the popular vote winner (by whatever definition of "popular vote" they come up with) might not winner the most delegates. A winner-take-all system would make it far more likely that the popular vote winner would lose the delegate count. That's what's happened several times in the general election with the winner-take-all Electoral College, most recently in 2000.

Hell, with winner-take-all, a candidate could win a state 35-30-20-15 and get all the delegates for that state. The 65% who voted for other candidates would be completely ignored. I think McCain did something like that in a few states.

Winner-take-all would be an undemocratic step backward.

Yes, the argument is that since they've just finished having a primary, there's no point in holding another one before the special election. It will require the Maryland legislature to pass a special bill for it, though.

The Sentencing Project has a rundown of the three candidates' positions on criminal justice issues.

You jump from the idea that superdelegates should go with the overall winner to the idea that they should go with the winner of their state, but somehow going an additional step to the idea that House members should go with the winner of their district is "nonsense"? Where's the logic there?

I wonder when McCain's file was accessed. Was it back when he was the enemy of all true conservatives, or was it after he'd wrapped up the nomination and become the standardbearer for continuing Bushism?

Only Democratic senators are superdelegates. Lieberman isn't a Democrat, so he was never a superdelegate during this cycle. Some people incorrectly think he was stripped of his status for endorsing McCain, but he didn't have any status to strip.

There are only 566 delegates at stake in the remaining contests. I think you must be including undeclared superdelegates or something.

No. Democratic former presidents and vice presidents are superdelegates, but those who were just candidates are not. Lieberman, for example, was never a superdelegate.

The margin of error is 4.3% (and for the subgroup of just women, it's probably more like 6%). So it's true that the race is close, but speculating about 2-point movements here or there is like hearing secret messages in radio static.

If the expectations are "pretty much set" for Obama more than six weeks before the primary, then why were expectations for Clinton always set from the polls immediately before a race that showed Obama closing the gap, despite 20-point Clinton leads a few weeks previously?