GatewayRedbirds.com

Privately—and often publicly—Republicans on Capitol Hill accuse Texas’ freshman senator of putting his own ambition ahead of party and country. Until recently, their feelings about him could be summed up by invoking Elizabeth Barrett Browning—provided the 19th century British poet had an evil twin: “How do we hate you, Ted Cruz? Let us count the ways.”

Now, however, it seems that GOP officialdom is stuck with Ted Cruz. The cliché about politics and strange bedfellows doesn’t begin to describe how weird this is. The only logic that explains it is the ancient adage about the enemy of my enemy being my friend. The enemy in this case being not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, but instead a certain New York tycoon with a famous hairdo, a penchant for insults, and a fetish for a wall along the southern U.S. border.

But for many prominent Republicans, having to choose between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is an exquisite form of torture. Cruz’s colleagues find him officious, selfish, and maddening. They doubt his sincerity. They hate how he grandstands. They despise him for impugning the integrity of his own party leaders

But all this freelance lobbying may be unnecessary. It has been the tradition of superdelegates, even in contentious primaries, to ultimately vote at the convention for the candidate with the most popular votes and pledged delegates.

Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Sanders' campaign, was actually involved in the creation of superdelegates, as a way to get party officials more involved in selecting the Democratic nominee.

"That was always done with the understanding that the voters would determine the outcome of this process, and I think they'll do it this time," Devine said back in February when the superdelegate controversy was flaring up after the New Hampshire primary.

ghostrunner wrote:I wouldn't put too much stock in the superdelegates. Not saying the system is good, but it's not guaranteed to favor Clinton and the concern may be a little overblown. They don't actually vote until the convention and can switch at any time, so media outlets are essentially reporting them prematurely. Obama had many switch over to him in 2008, though it happened earlier because he was clearly winning.

Bloomberg has many of them already apportioned on their delegate tracker, all the way to the last state.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graph ... e-tracker/

Also, this:

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/09/473398688 ... not-amused

But all this freelance lobbying may be unnecessary. It has been the tradition of superdelegates, even in contentious primaries, to ultimately vote at the convention for the candidate with the most popular votes and pledged delegates.

Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Sanders' campaign, was actually involved in the creation of superdelegates, as a way to get party officials more involved in selecting the Democratic nominee.

"That was always done with the understanding that the voters would determine the outcome of this process, and I think they'll do it this time," Devine said back in February when the superdelegate controversy was flaring up after the New Hampshire primary.