2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Superdelegates do not have to listen to the Voters in their States [View all]ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I really don't care who they endorse up until the convention. Given that we have superdelegates, they will endorse whoever they please, up until that time. Once a candidate arrives at the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates, then I expect them to fall in line as they always have before and vote for that candidate. That includes the likely scenario where Hillary is the one who has the most pledged delegates -- at that point I do expect Alan Grayson and all the others to do the right thing and vote for Hillary.
I'm torn on whether we should have superdelegates or not. On the one hand, it is a way for the party establishment to put their thumb on the scale. It has allowed the MSM to skew the primary narrative by quietly including them in delegate totals. Only recently have they started being a bit more honest about pledged vs. unpledged delegates. On the other hand, I see what is happening in the Republican party, where Trump is almost certain to win the primary. It does seem prudent for a party to have some way of preventing an extremist demagogue from becoming that party's nominee.
But then one has to ask, if the party's voters really have expressed a preference for an extremist demagogue, WTH is wrong with the party in the first place? In the case of the Republican party, we know it has encouraged this sort of divisive, nasty discourse for many years, and they are now reaping what they have sown. Let's hope that whoever we nominate wins!