I don't think the superdelegates will decide the nomination any differently than the majority in the Primaries and Caucuses. There are a good number of Democrats who feel that the election was stolen in 2000 when Gore actually won the majority but lost the election, and there are even a few who think it was stolen in 2004. They think Republican stole it from Democrats. I think the party would disintegrate if it looked at all like the nomination had been stolen, Democrats stealling the nomination from other Democrats. I'm sure the Superdelegates will not change the outcome of the primary, no matter how they are currently pledged. Which calls into question the whole point of the superdelegates. If it would be unacceptable for them to change the outcome, then what is the point of even having them?

The original idea of the superdelegate was as a way to break a true deadlock. If you got to the convention and no one had prevailed, especially if it was a close three-way race, then you would need a way to break that deadlock. Also there was some theory that becasue most of the superdelegates are elected officials who have already won their own elections, they would have a good sense of the best candidaae to win, as opposed to the rank and file. I don't think I believe all that, but that is part of the reasoning. I think we would be better off without them.
dragonrider Reviewed by dragonrider on . Superdelegates "Superdelegate" is an informal term for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the quadrennial convention of the United States Democratic Party. Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state. Instead, the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are legally free to support any candidate for Rating: 5