since they haven't rushed en masse to Barack, giving him a certain victory, what do you think they're waiting for? Many who haven't endorsed are in congress, and they want to win their seats back.  many of their small town constituents voted for hillary and poll far less favorably for Barack. Are they supposed to turn against their own voters to go for a guy who is less prepared, and has a reduced chance of winning the GE?  Well, it's rhetorical, we'll all see soon enough.  How long until Denver?  In this case the Dem's have an advantage over pug districts, they've been elected by Democrats and they represent Democrats, not indies or left-leaning libertarians.  She's got the Reagan Dem's with her, that's a big loss for him, he praised Reagan and wrongly predicted they'd go with him in a landslide that would give him a mandate. he's already proven wrong, how much wronger does he need to prove himself to be?  

I'm sure you have some kind of source to back your accusation up, is all I'm saying...don't you?

Or are you making things up again?

actually anna, you're taking a horrible snark attempt by susanhu made at No Quarter and passing it off like its true. She doesn't have a source either. Grow up, anna.

Yet you can't cite a source on it.

Why are you abusing the rating system in many diaries??

That's the problem: certified votes are meaningless when so many states have different ways of counting the vote and deciding their nomination.  Whether that's fair or right isn't the question here; the fact is that they do, and certified votes alone leave a great deal to be desired.

There are two main problems with going only by certified votes:

1. Certified votes don't count four caucus states; do you want to disenfranchise them by not counting them in the popular vote total?  That seems to fly in the face of the (since Feb 6) Clintonian notion that Florida and Michigan must be counted.  Why shouldn't voters in WA, ME, IA, and NV be counted?  Do their votes not matter as much as those in MI and FL?
   
2. Certified votes give Obama zero in the state of Michigan.  True, he took his name off the ballot out of respect for the pledge he and the other candidates signed that said they wouldn't participate in the MI primary, but nevertheless, there is nobody who seriously suggests that he has zero supporters in that state.  To be fair, at least some, if not all, of Michigan's uncommitted votes should be counted into Obama's total.  This would erase her 30,000 vote "lead" (according to RCP, not counting WA, IA, ME, or NV) and acknowledge his actual lead in the primary votes.
   
3. Whether or not you count certified votes or actual votes, the fact of the matter is that the superdelegates, being as they are professional political actors in one way or another, are well aware of the two problems with the certified vote count above.  This means that no matter how much you may make the case that only the certified vote count should matter, they know better than to make a decision based on an underestimate of Obama's support.  This is made evident by the fact that Obama continues to pick up superdelegates day by day, while Clinton does not.