Neither candidate is likely to win the nomination outright, so the real game is the super delegates

[andym]

Neither candidate is likely to win the nomination outright (using pledged delegates), so the real game is the super delegates.

Besides local considerations, the super delegates will tend to choose the candidate they believe will win the general election.
So, how will they decide this? The conventional way. They'll look to the general election match up polls (probably waiting as long as possible to get the most "accurate" view) and the late momentum from the latter primaries (possibly right into June). They will also take into account who has the most pledged delegates. How they make their final calculations about which factor is more important will determine the outcome.

Since Obama currently has a lead in delegates and there are so few primaries left, he'll probably need fewer super delegates, but it is by no means a sure thing that he will be the nominee.

My best guess is that the late general election match up polls (April-June) will be the most critical factor. Should it be this way?
Will it be this way?

[walldude]

1. Should it be this way? Hell no!

Get rid of this delegate/super-delegate shit and while they are at it get rid of the goddamn electoral college too. One person, one vote, most votes wins. That is a fucking Democracy. Not sorry, your vote was nice and all but we are going to support_________. Fill in the blank.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Add in ranked voting too, please. Let's get rid of the strategic spoiler voting nonsense.

[andym]

3. electoral college is consistent with the geographical representation system: senate congress

The electoral college is consistent with the geographical representation system: senate and house. Do you think we should also reform congressional representation to be made on the national level as well?

[walldude]

4. No I think Senate and Congressional votes should be

made at the state and local levels . I also think I don't want my Congressman or Senator deciding for me who the next candidate should be. I want my vote to count and to mean something. As should everyone who supports a Democratic system.

[Levgreee]

5. He has a big enough lead right now that it would be sacriligious for the SDs to overturn

If he keeps the strong lead in pledged delegates, the SDs will not come out for Clinton.

[Gore1FL]

6. Part of who is electable comes from who won the pledged delegates

The Super Delegates won't overturn a amajority of Pledged delegates because the party divisions from doing so would destroy the nominee's chance in a general election.

To make up a gap of 50 pledged delegates, would require 56% of the super delegates voting against the will of 6 months of voting.

To make up a gap of 100 pledged delegates, would require 62% of the super delegates voting against the will of 6 months of voting.

To make up a gap of 150 pledged delegates, would require 68% of the super delegates voting against the will of 6 months of voting.



She currently has a 243 to 202 lead. That is 54% of those already committed. That ratio is 2% lower than need to overcome a 50 delegate gap. To even get to a 50 delegate gap, she needs to get 55% in all states except for PA, where she needs to win with 64%--and still improve on her ratio of super delegates to get the nomination.

The reality is the pledged delegate gap will be between 100-175 when the contests are over.

[ctaylors6]

7. I think the SDs should split according to what the Faux News poll says day before convention

[ctaylors6]

8. self-delete