3 ms·

I think it is a little misleading to claim that Clinton has the 394 super delegates already. My understanding is that 1) super delegates can change their mind w

I think it is a little misleading to claim that Clinton has the 394 super delegates already. My understanding is that 1) super delegates can change their mind whenever and 2) these super delegate counts tend to even out over time if the race is close.

rconti 11y ago
Agreed. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not...
wcummings 11y ago
It seems unlikely the super-delegates would decide the nominee, if they did, they'd have a lot of disenfranchised voters on their hands and it'd hurt them in the general. The electoral college has rarely diverged from public opinion [1], even though individual electors can and have voted "incorrectly". I can't find a similar figure for the democratic nomination. [1] http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-...
- jharger 11y ago
  I think you mean disenchanted[1], not disenfranchised[2]. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenchanted http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenchanted [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise
  - leereeves 11y ago
    Both could apply. Overruling the result of a popular vote with votes from party insiders would be like denying people the right to vote by allowing the ritual of voting then ignoring the votes.