= new reply since forum marked as read
There's been consideration of the need for further changes since the last ones, and here they are. Helped along, certainly, by the calls of this faction to eliminate the superdelegates altogether.
These overblown claims, third one I've seen, suggest they're not happy with the changes, which is too bad. It's unlikely this would have been done this year when we're battling the right for the future of our nation, so their efforts weren't for nothing, certainly.
Perhaps there's some residual anger fueling this. After all, the very people they hoped to strip all superdelegate power from are almost entirely the same colleagues who individually and as a group refused the trailing candidate's requests to use their power to make him the nominee.
Well, principle or personal, we might expect a try, try again at some point.
but also for illuminating the various maneuverings for power, and various other motivations as the case may be, in our political parties.
It clarifies enormously to realize the simple truth that those who seek to rule but don't represent a majority must find other means of winning.
and they'll be fine.
Hopefully putting a close to this will help focus on what really matters right now. Like turning what is just the beginning of this into the end.
....I don't recall "the media" reporting superdelegates included with the pledged delegate results. That's difficult to do since many hadn't committed to a candidate at the time of his/her state's primary or caucus. It may have happened from time to time, but certainly wasn't a common occurrence.
I believe this is an urban myth or something people talk about even though it's not based in fact.
Have you anything that would disprove my observation?
Thanks.
Thanks for the thread Raphe M. 
