LogFAQs > #934647104

pxlated posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARLqEgsC0HI

oof. this warren surrogate just did a damn good job of killing any support warren won back from me last night.

not only is his response at the end to the question about super delegates weasel-y as all hell, but he repeats the false claim that the sanders people were in charge of the new iowa caucus rules.

the sanders people on that committee were in the minority of people in the committee (IIRC there were only 2), and large portions of the changes they proposed were ignored. that whole narrative is just outright false and it's pretty gross seeing a warren surrogate propogating it.

"winning because you won the most votes is winning on a technicality!"

those are some real good optics

I mean "most votes" is not a good system for an open, multiple-choice race like this, or anything more important than say a gamefaqs contest. I think the surrogate is right to frame it around the superdelegates not being a good solution (they're not) and supporting ranked choice (this is). The delegate system is like a bad ranked choice by party insiders, but equating "most votes" here to popular vote in the presidency like the host does is totally disingenuous.

Agreed on the Iowa talking point but I honestly have no idea what point is even being made whenever it gets brought up. Bernie's camp supported the caucus, helped reform it for more transparency, and exposed a clusterfuck. Okay. I dont understand the leap in logic to it being their fault from there.

---

DPOblivion was far more determined than me.