Still Baron wrote:
NYT - The argument of Mr. Sanders and his allies — that a plurality of delegates should be sufficient to clinch the nomination — is a different standard than the one laid out in party rules that his team helped draft two years ago.
Lying New York Times. "Helped draft" my ass. Just reminded that Bernie fought against having any superdelegates at all and reluctantly accepted their role in a compromise.
In what regard is the NYT lying? Was he actually for a rule holding that the nominee with the plurality of delegates (rather than a majority) gets the nomination? If so, what happened? Did his team not take part in drafting the rules?
Jimbo wrote:Crystal - "They would rather lose to Donald Trump ... than let Bernie win."
That's 10 minutes I'll never get back. The usual litany of false premises (or, in Jimbo speak, lies) followed by desired conclusions.
Is Elizabeth Warren really a hypocrite because she has been against superdelegates and is now running in a race in which she and the other candidates are bound by rules that include them? It's a bit like attacking someone as a hypocrite for running their campaign to maximize electoral college votes rather than a popular vote when they have criticized the electoral college system in the past
Would the democratic bigwigs rather lose the election than see Bernie be the nominee? I think what is much closer to the truth (and is borne out by the story) is that the democratic bigwigs are worried that Bernie as the nominee will lose. That's why most of them don't want him. To be clear, I think it would be a very foolish move to bust a superdelegate heavy move if he has something close to a majority. Finally, Krystal's conspiracy theory about leaders of left wing PACs (and the like) pulling for another Trump term so they can carry on raising money is remarkably silly. Are there some very cynical, unscrupulous political operatives out there? For sure. But I rather suspect that the people setting up and running left wing action committees and PACs and whatever else do so because they think that the Republican Party and the Trump Adnimistration are existential threats to their entire worldview. C'mon, man. What a load of amateurish, addled nonsense.
Here endeth my seasonal response to Jimbo. Talk again in late spring, old chap.