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

[ehrnst]

114. It completely undermines your frantic defense of the strategy that will benefit your candidate

to acknowledge what your candidate said, on the record, that completely contradicts you.

That's the only 'litigating' there could be. Facts are facts.

Hillary Clinton was the clear choice of voters, in 2016, via the most pledged delegates, and Bernie Sanders, pushed superdelegates to overturn the choice of the voters, and give him the nomination instead in a brokered convention.

Fact. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

Sanders, (and you, a Sanders supporter) insists, in 2020, that if Sanders has more pledged delegates than other candidates, that Superdelegates should not give the nomination to any candidate but Sanders because "the voters should decide."

Fact. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

What is incorrect here? What is "completely different?" Both are Democratic primaries, both have Superdelegates.

Now, using facts, please explain what relevant "completely different circumstances" make this public, documented, reversal of Sanders position consistent, and not status quo political expediency - as you would label it in any other candidate.

If you don't I will continue to assume you don't have facts to support your claim that the 2016 relevant circumstances were "completely different."

Surprise me.