At this point in the primary season the two remaining Democrat presidential candidates are essentially deadlocked in the delegate race.  The primary process will select 3253 delegates.  A candidate needs 2024 delegates to win the nomination.  In addition, the Dems have created 794 SuperDelegates (not counting 55 from Michigan and Florida).  There should be a total of 4047 delegates and superdelegates voting at the convention.  Today, BHO has 1414 pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses and HRC has 1243 delegates from primaries and caucuses.  So what?

This gets interesting in several ways.  First, nearly 20% of all convention delegates are appointed by the party and not selected by voters.  A candidate would have to take 62.22% of all elected delegates to clinch the nomination without any superdelegate votes.  Also interesting is the fact that a candidate could win as few as 1230 elected delegates and still become the nominee if all the superdelegates supported that candidate.  So a candidate could theoretically win as few as 37.81% of the elected delegates and still become the Democrat nominee.  

By reserving 20% of the delegates for the party to appoint the Democrats clearly did not want to leave the choice of the nominee up to the voters.  As pointed out earlier, a single candidate would have to win over 62% of the primary votes to win the nomination without any superdelegates.  So the Dem party has created a system that effectively protects the party's interests as the expense of the voters.  

Virtually all Democrat primaries award delegates based on a proportion of the total votes cast in a given state.  This is not true in the Republican primaries were a number of the events are "winner-take-all" delegate events.  What this means is that effectively, Dem voters never get to actually choose the nominee.  It may look like they can but mathematically, they can't.  Even in a mostly two-way race the voters don't really choose.  If you doubt, do the math.  Those 794 party-appointed superdelegates insure that the party will pick the nominee.  Furthermore, the so-called "pledged" delegates are not under any legal obligation to vote for any candidate even on the first ballot of the nominating convention.  

Why does anyone suppose the Democrat Party's system of selecting a candidate is so skewed against the input of the voters and so tilted toward allowing the party apparatus to choose the person they want to nominate?  

Do those people voting in the democrat primaries know that they are not choosing the nominee?  Some people seem to have realized this over the last few months.  A few professional protester-types and anarchists seem to know it and have threatened to riot in the streets of Denver if the election is "stolen."  What they don't seem to realize is that the election will be stolen because there are not enough "pledged" delegates to allow the people to select the candidate in the first place!  

Funny how the Democrats aren't.

Mum had a post asking if Hillary might abandon the Dem party and go independent if she thinks she has no chance of winning the Dem Primaries.  

I suggested that absolutely nothing is beyond that woman, but  that an independent run by HRC would most likely ensure a McCain victory.  But then I said this:

But, I would expect her to first try to steal the election by co-opting the "SuperDelegates". I think that's why the Democrats created the SuperDelegates -- to utterly disenfranchise Democrat voters in case a particularly popular and charismatic newcomer threatens an entrenched Party-establishment candidate. What other purpose could SuperDelegates have except to thwart the will of the democrat voters and put the vote in the hands of a few reliable Democrat Party hardliners?

Regardless of the ridiculously UN-Democratic idea of having SuperDelegates; I think that the numbers you cited raise a more important question/issue.

If, as you say

BHO has 1414 pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses and HRC has 1243 delegates

why is there such a push by the media to distort the real closeness of the race and have report after report, day after day, to compel Hillary to drop out of the race?

The MSM has, for whatever reason that seems logical to liberals, decided to back Barack and to crush Clinton.  Forget about the whys and wherefores of that decision -- the reality is this: the Media is attempting to decide the democrat primary elections rather than leave it to the voters.  By telling folks that Hillary has NO chance -- even though she does -- the media is atempting to pick the Democrat nominee rather than leaving it to those simpeletons, the electorate.

The MSM was ultimately succesful in choosing the Republican Nominee for the Republicans by airing repeated stories that Duncan Hunter cant possibly win, followed by repeated stories that Fred Thompson can't win, followed by repeated stories that Rudy Giiuliani can't win, followed AGAIN  by repeated stories that Thompson couldn't win, followed finally by repeated stories that Romney couldn't win.  Somehow or another, the candidates themselves actually believed these stories -  and so did generally uninformed/retarded voters.

Think about it.  McCain came out of NOWHERE.  Before the primaries began, he was dead last in any and all polling.  Then, after 2 or 3 Primaries in which Liberals, Democrats, and "Independents" were allowed to pick the Republican nominee, McCain was suddenly in the lead.  Once this occurred, the Media went full force to try to discredit and eliminate any other Republican Nominee.

The MSM is trying to rig the Democrat Primaries in just the same way that they were successful at rigging the Republican Primaries.  The voters did not choose McCain as the Republican nominee -- the Media did.  Now they are choosing Obama, rather than letting the Dem voters decide.

Obviously, I despise HRC every bit as much as I despise BHO.  So why do I care that the media is making the choice rather than the Dem voters? Because, more than I hate HRC; more than I hate & fear BHO; I hate and fear the REAL COMMUNIST POWER in this country -- the Media.

Remember, I say that this nation has only one enemy with two heads: 1) the brainwashing of the MSM, and 2) the indoctrination of the Public Education system.

Forget the corruptness of the Democrat Party.  The real corruption and the real power in this country is held by the MSM.

I think we have had part of this discussion before.  Can you diagram your players in the liberal power structure conspiracy for me.  I am getting confused by who is who and who controls whom.  

I think we once decided we separate "them" into slightly different groupings and that leads to the confusion on my part.

Yeah, I think I decided to consider the multitude of Leftists inhabiting nearly every government job in nearly every agency -- especially CIA & Dept. of State -- as another group.  But really, they're just victims/products of Liberal indoctrination in schools, and Liberal brainwashing by the media.  My general point is that the true enemy of American principles is the source(s) of the ideology, those institutions which spread the ideas and inculcate the thoughts & beliefs of Liberalism/Leftism/Socialism/Communism.

After they're properly "educated" by schools, and "informed" by the media; the infected people go out spread the virus of Liberalism like a plague whether they get government jobs, political office, or become teachers or reporters.

We have to come up with a standard liberal identification chart.  This is going in circles.  

Didn't Sun Tzu say "Know your enemy."

Of course, Jeremiah Wright kept it simple with "Kill Whitey!"