I did not say that caucuses should be discounted completely, they are indicative of a campaign’s ability to organize and  generate enthusiasm in the base, both useful and important factors for Superdelegates to consider when selecting a nominee. They are just very poor or (like in  Texas) wrong indicators of the "will of the voters" for their states. Caucuses can and should be determinative if a candidate can pile up enough pledged delegates to make the supes moot. But Obama did not do that, and since he failed to do so, it is wrong to claim that a pledged delegate plurality is a a proxy for the the "will of the voter". It isn’t. That is my point, not that pledged delegates from caucuses have no value, just don’t claim they are something that they are not - like the will of the voter.  To repeat myself, the best you can say is that some pledged delegates represent the will of some of the voters.

Since Obama will apparently fail to close the deal despite outspending Clinton 4 to one, it will boil down to the best argument to Superdelegates. And there are no Dem Party rules on what or who can be counted in crafting an argument to the Superdelegate judge and jury.

If Clinton can show a popular vote plurality by Denver (it will admittedly be tough but is very doable, and not as improbable as Claudia suggests), has all the big states, and end of game momentum, she’ll have the best argument in Denver and will get the nomination.

And there will be no civil war, because the price that the Supes will extract from Clinton for their vote, will be putting Obama on the ticket. That is exactly what the superdelegates will want.

And Obama will take it, because (unlike his supporters image of him), he is fundamentally just another very ambitious, very smart, very savvy pol who knows that 4 or 8 years as VP is an automatic ticket to the next party nomination.

Michael, Thanks for the kind words, but I disagree about the Dem process and Superdelegates. I think it is a terrible system and they should get rid of it before the next election (but probably won’t).  

It is too late to do anything about it this round, it is what it is.   The system was designed to make the nomination a trial by superdelegate if there is an effective tie. That is the situation we have. May the best argument win.

As for me: I don’t believe anything you suggest. I believe that superdelegates should vote for the person they consider to be the best candidate (for the party). Some will think it’s Obama, others Clinton. Either way; that’s what it should depend on, their expertise.

And what the ‘people’ think is irrelevant to superdelegates.

If they just do what the people say, superdelegates are irrelevant and they might just as well get rid of them.

No, let them make up their own minds.

I actually like the system; it’s a check on Democracy.

We should do that with normal elections as well.

and instead count in their tally both Michigan votes (of which Obama gets zero, because his name wasn’t on the ballot) and Florida. Additionally they should consider that Clinton won big states like New York and California, never mind the fact that the likeliehood of those states going to McCain is virtually nill.

Yes I’m sure that’s really probable. I mean, it’s such a logical proccess, no way it would cause a civil war within the party is there?

It’s a nice fantasy, but very, VERY improbable. The superdelegates are not that dumb. I concede that Clinton, while she has virtually no chance of catching up in delegates, does have a slim chance of getting ahead in popular vote (which is a very important marker), but she’d have to do amazingly well in all the remaining states, including North Carolina and Oregon, states where Obama is favored.

"You do realize you contradict yourself in terms of what is acceptable do you not?" - Interested

No - I think you are not getting it. I am making the point that it is Obama supporters who are contradicting themselves - First defending the "rules" against the the "will of the voter" when it is convenient in TX, MI, & FL, but getting on their high horse about defending the "will of the voter" vs. "the rules" when that is more convenient and the subject is superdelegates at the convention. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

Ryan,
Help me understand your math. Are you saying that none of the caucus attendees voted in the primary? Or are you saying that Obama voters should be counted twice?

Caucuses show party enthusiasm and campaign organizing skills. Both good things. But caucuses disenfranchise people who cannot dedidcate 4 hours to two weeks (in the Texas case)  just to cast a vote. You know, like people with jobs and kids. But I guess the Dems won’t need that demographic  in November.

You’ll be happy to know we are in agreement on your final point, but I’d like to put in my own words:
"See, now you understand. Now please go convince all the other Obama supporters to unite together under our party nominee which is Clinton. Each day this infighting continues, the odds of us doing another 4 more years of Bush/McCain increase. For the sake of America and our troops in Iraq, join us and let’s defeat McCain together."

Oh. I can see this is going to be traumatic for you.

You do realize you contradict yourself in terms of what is acceptable do you not?

But let’s be pragmatic here, winning a state simply means winning the majority of delegates to the national convention.

Some states distribute delegates through a simple primary vote, other states allow for discussions and hold caucases.  Texas assigns delegates through both and then adds them together for the final determination of who won the state.  Clinton barely won the primary portion and Obama strongly won the caucas portion, resulting in Obama undisputedly winning Texas.

See, now you understand.  Now please go convince all the other Hillary supporters to unite together under our party nominee which is Obama.  Each day this infighting continues, the odds of us doing another 4 more years of Bush/McCain increase.  For the sake of America and our troops in Iraq, join us and let’s defeat McCain together.

We are all playing by the rules here. And the rules are - superdelegates decide.

Umm no,  Playing by the rules is not something Clinton is interested in at this time.  She was interested before she was measured up as not worthy.

Stipulated: Clinton is a conniving politician who will use the rules to her advantage when it is convenient and she is every bit as bad as Obama in that regard.  That’s not the point.  Here is the point:

If it goes to Denver, there is going to be a tally of the popular vote, and there will be only two numbers. One number will be the sum total of voters who put a check mark by Obama’s name, and the the other number will be the  sum total of voters who put a check mark by Clinton’s name. And the superdelegates are just not going to care that Michigan and Florida are in that total. Those Floridians and Michiganders are still people who walked into a voting booth and checked her name, so they are part of her total. 

If you believe Michael Barone’s analysis (author The Almanac of American Politics - linked in earlier comment) - Clinton is going to have more popular votes by the time we get to Denver.  And if you don’t think that is going to get superdelegate attention, well - I don’t know what you are thinking.

I am just trying to be helpful and prepare you ahead of time, so there will be no whining or crying when we get to Denver.  We are all playing by the rules here. And the rules are - superdelegates decide.