so, the numbers can change there too.

For decades, we've been warned by legions of scientists and mountains of evidence that this was coming - that we couldn't just keep burning fossil fuels and contribute to the changing atmosphere without consequence. And yet, for decades, far too many have ignored the warnings, either dismissing the science as a hoax or believing that it was the concern of enviros looking to save polar bears and rainforests.

(...)

The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril.

One could attribute it to the forces of culture, politcs, media elites...combined with Hillary's reputation (fair/ un fair).

Or...more than likely, it's just "time"....it's Time for the next generation to take over.

Of course they are. Everyone is. MoveOn is claiming that Obama has the 'will of the people' because he has more delegates. That's total BS, given the mechanics of how delegates are awarded. Likewise, the notion that the popular vote exemplifies the will of the people is nonsense, since so many states employ caucuses.

But in the end, all this spinning about the will of the people is just that...spin. We're talking about a process where almost 20% of the delegates are awarded to super-delegates precisely for the purpose of overturning the will of the people if they judge the will of the people to be bad for the party.

That's a mistake, though I think "lie" is a bit strong.  The point remains that the super delegates should go with the winner of the primaries rather than the loser.  This is a real point of contention whether we are talking about pledged delegates or popular vote; the Clinton campaign is certainly not conceding that the super delegates should vote for Obama if he wins the popular vote.

All you can really say is "That doesn't matter, rules are rules."

Which is what I heard fom Republicans in 2000.

Clinton won the primary vote in Texas 1.46 million to Obama's 1.36 million or a total turnout of nearly three million people. Out of those three million, only about 50K or less than TWO PERCENT bothered to show up and vote again in the caucus. Even though only two percent showed up in the caucus and these people were all a subset of the earlier primary, it was still awarded 77 delegates or 38% of the states total delegates.

Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine all ran caucuses.  For these events, there are no statistics for how many people showed up to caucus for each candidate other than delegate apportionments.  Based on total turnout and these delegate apportionments, it's estimated that the net result of the four caucuses is somewhere in the range of Obama +110,000 votes, but that's only an estimate.

The nomination is decided by delegates, and every primary contest in the nation boils down to pledged delegates.  The notion that the popular vote is a superior metric is nonsense, and the last gasp of a campaign who already knows that they've lost the pledged delegate race.

If you'd like to argue about caucuses being undemocratic, there's a debate there.  But so long as the primary process uses a hybrid system of primaries and caucuses, you have to use the underlying metric, the thing which ties both of those processes together, and that's pledged delegates.  Those are the rules of the game, they've long been established, and the game has already begun.  If you don't like the rules, we can talk about changing them for the next time the game begins, but we will not be changing the rules now.

I didn't like the way 2000 turned out, especially the bogus Supreme Court ruling, but the popular vote argument there rang just as hollow.  The process for how Presidents are elected was established and the game was underway.  Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean you can change the rules of the game during the game to get the result you want.