walfredo
There is no way I could support a candidate that lost in pledged delegates. I don’t think you can change the rules as you go, and I think it sets a terrible precident for all future campaigns; that the rules can be made up, and numbers can be reinterpreted to focus whatever calculation benefits you.
But I understand the media’s obsession with focusing on all 3 qualifiers- popular vote, pledged delegates, and contests won. This specific question is asked to Hillary supporters often- if your candidate at the end, trailed in all 3 of these categories, would she drop out… Not one surrogate will give a straight answer, so obviously instruction from the top is to keep the A-bomb on the table. The superdelegates selecting her, without any populist justification.
So, I’m not asking you to draw as hard a line as I think voters should. I’m asking, would you support a candidate that (I don’t care which one btw)lost in pledged delegates, contests won, and popular vote? What type of impact do you think this precedent would have on future primaries? How would you explain to supporters of the canidate (again don’t care who it is) who won all 3 of these measures why they aren’t the nominee, and why they should support the other candidate.