I hope this is just a case of a campaign trying desperately to find additional rationale to go on and keep competing, but the comments from Weaver on an open Dem convention struck me as ludicrous.
Article and video here:
thehill.com/...
The notion that a candidate needs 2,383 PLEDGED delegates to be labeled the winner pre-convention is so fucking ridiculous, it actually hurt my brain to see this spin be laid out like it was some well known fact.
2,383 of the pledged delegates would mean 58%+ of the pledged delegates are needed to win the nomination.
We know that’s not the case.
Superdelegates need to make up the gap, and historically they have backed the winner of the pledged delegate majority. Again, that number is 2,026 — not 2,383.
The additional implication that we need to wait until a convention to count the superdelegate vote is also silly. They announce who they will vote for. I have every expectation that after California, HRC will have the 2,383 locked up combining her pledged delegates and announced superdelegate support. She will have the majority whether superdelegates have actually voted or not, and it will be time for Bernie to pack his bags and get out.
If through some miracle Bernie gets to 2,026, it will be HRC’s turn and I would not support her trying to get the nomination through SD’s.
This could set up a dangerous precedent. If every democratic nomination contest adopts Weaver’s standards, we’ll have a lot of open conventions. In my opinion, that’s not a good thing. This year the conventions are early, but can you imagine a messy open convention in late August because a candidate only got 55% of the pledged delegates and not 58%?
