Why not count the Superdelegates?

[Yavin4]

Why would they switch their vote to someone who is not "racking" up wins and is losing the core African American vote in large numbers?

[revbones]

1. I'm sure that Hillary supporters made that argument in 2008 as well

Right before that jumped ship to Obama.

[TheDormouse]

2. it's misleading to present only the combined vote including superdelegates

Superdelegates can change their minds at the last minute, so that count is potentially a moving target.

It's fine to speculate on what the superdelegates count will be and to report those separately, but the supposedly reliable reporting sources (such as the media) should be reporting the official delegate counts that are based on actual votes cast. Those aren't as subject to change.

[global1]

4. Unless You're MSNBC Then You Count The Supers Because....

they favor the establishments candidate and want to demoralize Bernie supporters.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. ...you've been bloody well told to by your corporate masters.

That kind of shit AND stacking the early primaries into a list of states biased towards the conservative South makes it damn hard for anything other than conservative candidates to win. It demoralizes progressive voters.

Not this one, though. In it until the convention...

[MrChuck]

3. For these reasons

1. This is a primary and those people are choosing between two Democrats. In the general they can be expected to vote against the GOP. No democrat will win her red state victories in Nov.
2. "Winning" or not right now Clinton isn't out of the woods yet. The map ahead tilts towards Bernie.
3.Superdelegates are not disposed to thwarting the will pc the people. Her lead is not as impressive without them and it will shrink from here on out.