Should the candidate with the most pledged delegates be the nominee?

[Onlooker]

FYI, in case there's someone here who doesn't know: Pledged delegates, as opposed to superdelegates, are the ones won in caucuses and primary elections.

[leftstreet]

1. You mean "so-called" delegates?

:rofl:

[jakem]

2. whatever

as long as it gets us some obama!

[ericgtr]

3. Yes, unless you are Hillary from vulcan and can do a mind meld on SD's

[bunnies]

4. Of course.

Considering that there is no such thing as popular vote in a primary that has caucuses, pledged delegates are the closest thing to a democratic nomination we can get.

[thoughtcrime1984]

5. Nah, we'll just change the rules to whatever will get Hillary

the nom. Longest name wins.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. The only people trying to change the rules

are the ones who insist that the superdelegates must vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. I think we should follow the rules that were in place before the primaries and caucuses

began and accept the outcome. You can't change rules in the middle of a contest.

[onehandle]

7. Most votes trumps delegates trumps superdelegates.

But the convention could trump them all.

[DB1]

8. One big problem, caucus states don't have an accurate tally of pop vote.

I would agree with you if it were not for this one, rather insurmountable, problem.

[onehandle]

9. Just another reason this will likely go to the convention.

The caucuses added to the mess, if you ask me.

I'm not pulling for Hillary, but it's kinda hard to blame her for taking advantage of the situation.

Obama has bigger numbers, but neither of them have reached the goal.

This is politics after all. And a big time screwed up situation.