A candidate that gets 35% of the votes shouldn't win. But a candidate that gets 25% should!

[ehrnst]

110. How was it totally different? You can't make the case that it was...

You can't show that your position on superdelegates isn't simply what benefits your candidate, and hasn't been contradicted, no the record, by said candidate.

Or you would have.

I've shown you factual documentation concerning the statements made by Sanders in the 2016 primary. You imply that it's not factual, but that I am "re-litigating" something. There is no 'litigating' what was said. It appears you can't provide any facts that aren't re-litigating, and won't undermine your repeated and frantic prouncements on the purpose of Superdelegates, which is not to get in the way of "the will of the voters."

Here are the facts. Explain what is 'different' in 2020 about the responsibility of superdelegates, and the importance of "letting the voters decide" other than a brokered convention not being to your candidates' advantage. Here is your chance to objectively show that as you claim, 2016 was "totally different."

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.