There is a difference between advocating for superdelegates and lying.
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).
This OP would fall into the former category if the word "superdelegate" appeared somewhere in the OP.
But as it stands (and it does stand, due to a broken DU jury system), it is simply using DU as a platform to spread lies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511897544
Now, I realize that there are folks in both camps who advocate the use of superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate count should their candidate come up short on pledged delegates.
And that's a perfectly acceptable position to take. (My own position is that the supers will follow the pledged delegates, and that the whole thing is overblown, but whatever.)
But to sneak superdelegates into the count secretly, in an effort to deceive, is not engaging in that debate in any way.
OPs that include the supers really need to mention that fact somewhere (and I don't mean somewhere buried deep down in the comments), and openly engage in this debate with honesty and integrity.
Lying about it does us all a disservice, no matter which side if the issue of superdelegates we are on, and no matter which candidate we support.
= new reply since forum marked as read
