As you've probably read my postings on here, I'm of the opinion that if Hillary or Obama have a clear lead in delegate votes then that person should get the Dem, nomination. The key here is the phrasr “clear lead”. I don't know if 2% constitutes a clear lead or if 5% is the determining threshold (or some other figure).

As an example of what I mean. Let's say that Hillary receives 100 delegate votes and Obama receives 101. Does this constitute a clear lead? Technically he is ahead, but the superdelegates can exercise their judgement in selecting a candidate. In this case I would say that Obama does not have a clear lead and if the superdelegates end up giving HIllary the nomination, I'm fine with that (I wouldn't cry foul).

Whereas if Hillary received 100 delegate votes and Obama received 105, then I'm inclined to believe that the superdelegtes (as a whole) should follow the will of the people. Some supers will vote for the candidate their constituents choose, some will vote for the candidate because of promises, loyalty, etc. But overall Obama would receive enough support from the superdelegates to be nominated.

If Hillary received 100 delegate votes, and Obama received 105, but the supers stepped in and gave Hillary the nomination, then I would call foul. A 5% lead is a “clear lead” as to who the Dems want as their nominee.

At any rate, I don't know if 5% is the threshold, or if some other figure makes sense. I used 5% in the above example for illustration purposes only.

So that's the important conversation we should have- what should that threshold figure be? Does 5% seem reasonable?

To answer your question as to what constitutes the popular vote, I think this is fair:

FL and MI should be disregarded. This is what both Hillary and Obama both agreed to beforehand.

Primary votes- no squabble there.

Caucus votes- there should be one method to determine this and the “extrapolation” that you mention seems to get us to some reasonable figure.

At any rate, that's why this conversation is important. If Hillary does manage to remain more or less even with Obama, then the superdelegates will be able to tip the balance. On the one hand I want to recognize their own judgement, which they should use. But on the other hand, their judgement should not be “bought” so the nomination is taken away from the candidate the people clearly want. So, any ideas as to a percentage that a candidate needs to be ahead by to be considered a clear leader? Or am I being too simplistic? I'm trying to make it easy so it makes sense.

Thanks again!