Sanders' hypocrisy wanting establishment to choose him over the candidate w/more votes & delegates

[bigtree]

...is absolutely stunning. The illogic just berns.

Here, he's railing against the fact that the majority of supers have lined up behind Hillary. Sanders first admits he's behind in earned delegates, the appears to argue for some sort of proportional allocation of superdelegates...

Sanders Sunday w/Jake Tapper:

“If I have 46 percent, she has 54 percent. The point that I was making is there’s something absurd when I get 46 percent of the delegates that come from real contests — real elections, and 7 percent of the super delegates.”

Is he arguing for proportional representation of supers, or not? Tapper tries to pin him down:

“Should we assume that means that you believe the candidate who has the majority of pledged delegates by the end of this process should be the nominee?” the CNN host wondered.

No way Sanders was going for that, after all, what he just argued for basically conceded the primary to Hillary. Instead, he shifted to his amazingly hypocritical argument that the establishment supers he's all but called corrupt should back his candidacy, even though he's certain to trail Hillary in earned delegates and votes...

“I understand that it’s an uphill fight to go from 46 percent where we are today to 50 percent in the nine remaining contests, I got that,” Sanders admitted, adding that super delegates should take an “objective look at which candidate is stronger.”

Tapper, however, explained that Clinton “has more votes than you and she has more pledged delegates than you.”

“The question is just a simple, yes or no,” Tapper said. “Should the person with the most pledged delegates be the Democratic nominee?”

“I’m not a fan of super delegates, but their job is to take an objective look at reality,” Sanders opined. “So, we’ll see what happens.”

Here's the thing, expecting party pols, basically the folks he's spent this campaign attacking as establishment insiders, to overturn the will of voters in our primary, isn't revolutionary, progressive, or any other heroic label he and his supporters choose for their campaign. It is an anathema to democracy, it's a kick in the teeth to the people his 'people's revolution' claims to represent and support.

It's based, unbelievably, on the view that polling should take precedence over actual votes. It's stunning in its cynical expectation that there's some sizable contingent of superdelegates willing to leapfrog democracy and advance the losing candidate.

I can't help think about what reaction the Sanders campaign would have if the results of the primary had been reversed. Not just things like their reaction if the more diverse regions and states had supported him over Hillary, but their reaction if Hillary had made a public campaign out of seeking party insiders to overturn those results.

You don't get a pass for an anti-democratic campaign just because you label yourselves as a movement. The only movement which should be given precedence is the movement of those who actually show up at the voting booth. That's where Sanders' revolution against our party has been tested, and that's where it's failed.

Not at rallies with Sanders preaching from the podium; not outside campaign events where partisans shout obscenities at rivals for supporting a different Democrat in this race; not on the internet where invectives and strident rhetoric is substituted for substantive debate; not out of hate and threats made over the phone; but in the voting booth.

I don't think it's too much to expect Sanders and his supporters to know the difference.

[msongs]

1. now he has become partners with fox news/trump in an effort to save himself. what values eh? nt

[insta8er]

8. Oh you mean, like he is going after the same sponsors of Bush? oh wait no that was Hillary!

[Scuba]

2. Isn't that what the superdelegates are for?

[Armstead]

3. I'm so ashamed now. And I'm sure Sanders feels bad too.

Sure told us a thing or two about how democracy is supposed to work.

Never mind that the media has been pushing the Clinton is the Inevitable Next-In-Line Anointed Candidate line in one form or another since 2008.

Never mind that she and Bill have built a wealthy political machine and have been currying favor with Superdelegates since long before the primary was even a glimmer in the eye for the public.

Never mind the fat Corporate backed Warchest the Clintons have been building up for just as long.

That damn upstart Sanders had the nerve to interrupt that with a real challenge, and to keep on fighting. What a terrible little man.

[CrowCityDem]

4. I want him to explain how he would be a legitimate candidate if that's how he won.

[bigtree]

5. of course, he wouldn't be

...and you want to talk revolution? Think of what the public reaction to that would be - not to mention what the republican rival would do with that subversion of votes.

[Ron Green]

6. Bernie Sanders wants the Establishment to do the right thing...

...for once.

[JaneyVee]

7. Wah.

[bigtree]

9. kick