I agree that if he has more delegates, more states won, and more of the popular vote (all of which he has), then he should definitely be the nominee. It gets a little murkier if she has the popular vote and he has more delegates because then it's kind of like Bush/Gore all over again, and that would put the superdelegates in a harder position. Still, I think he's likely to keep the popular vote and the delegate lead.

And I don't think that if he does have more delegates and she uses swing state wins as justification that the superdelegates should vote for her anyways, that they should. I just understand the reasoning behind it more. But I would be very upset if they went for her for that reason; I do think that they should go with what the people vote for. I just find it incredibly ridiculous to use those particular states as justification, but I keep reading articles and hearing her talk about those states, and everytime I just have to go "...seriously? You think Obama's not going to win California? You think you WOULD win Texas?!" And the Texas thing is bothering me the most because SHE DIDN'T WIN TEXAS. But she keeps using it for justification and the news outlets keep citing it as a big win for her, and it's kind of driving me crazy. (Part of the problem was that I watched way too much of CNN last night while they were reporting on the Mississippi primary and it kind of drove me insane.)