First, I fail to see how convincing regular delegates to switch sides would be any more “acceptable” than having the superdelegates pick the winner. If a delegate goes against the person they were elected to vote for, they are “denying the will of the people”.
Second, if the democrats didn’t think it was a good idea for “superdelegates” to override the will of the people, they shouldn’t have HAD superdelegates to begin with. The entire point of superdelegates WAS to override the will of the people, because the people weren’t trusted after picking so many losers.
The advantage the Democrats have is if, after Obama says gets enough delegates to win, he has some scandal, he might not think it’s bad enough to pull out, but the superdelegates can get together and overrule his delegates at the convention to pick a better candidate.
It would be funny if they decided to push John Edwards as a “reconciliation candidate”.
The Republican party I think requires actual pledged delegates to stick with their pledge for at least one round, but we also have a lot of “unpledged” elected delegates, who have preferences but aren’t bound to those preferences.
I wish their convention were in Chicago or Atlanta. What a riot that would be!
Question is, will the people HIllary is bent on disenfranchising know they have been disenfranchized? Hopefully they are smarter now than when Mondale/Hart ran.