[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Seems like a reasonable position. Where are all the strident voices of disagreement I expected? 
[/QUOTE]
It’s the weekend? 
Actually, the most heated arguments seem to be extensions of the tone of the posters. When reasonably engaged, most people have no problem discussing the issue in a calm fashion. Unfortunately, this is the straight dope so it doesn’t happen very often.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
There’s nothing sacred, ISTM, about a 1 or 2% advantage in the popular vote (just to pick a number) if there are other contradictory factors that could well decide the election–for example, Clinton winning all the big states, the ones that will carry that electoral weight in the general election, the one that assigns the real prize. Again, I’m reacting to the notion that any superdelegate vote for Hillary in opposition to a delegate and popular vote advantage for Obama, must be considered an outrage. Not if the margin is narrow, not if Hillary’s states won would actually provide a greater EC advantage (not that anyone can count on anything conclusively).
[/QUOTE]
This is where the issue gets muddied because it is essentially educated guesses. Some states, like New York and California, can be counted on to vote democrat no matter who the nominee is. Other states, like Texas, Ohio, and Florida, might not be so inclined. Likewise with the small states. Will Hillary’s placing importance on the large states pay off, or will her insistance that smaller states don’t matter as much turn off voters in those states? Can Obama win in the larger states where it’s harder to campaign, or will his victories in smaller states turn into broader support.
It’s a shame the campaign has become so long and contentious (moreso amongst supporters than candidates). It’d be a lot easier if they could go into the convention and say that the person with the most delegates is pres and second place is the vice.
Agreed. It’s a mess.