“Bernie thought superdelegates were unfair until his campaign wanted to flip the superdelegates and hand him the nomination at the convention”
No, he always thought they were unfair; his efforts to play the game by those rules don’t change that. Further, Politico just interviewed a slew of Democratic senators and found strong sentiment for superdelegate reform:
A growing number of Democratic senators support reforming the party's superdelegate system - a move that would dilute…www.politico.com
I suppose those fellows are responsible for violence now too, eh?
“and overturn the will of the voters who rejected him when the he lost the primaries by 3.7 million votes.”
One would think I shouldn’t have to cover this matter 10,000 times — it should be obvious — but because there are still Clintonites of a certain density who continue to mindlessly parrot this false talking-point that has been programmed into them, I guess I’ll do it again: There is NO meaningful popular-vote count in a primary/caucus process. Sanders didn’t lose by 3.7 million votes; Clinton didn’t win by 3.7 million votes. The count on which Clintonites are relying to make this claim doesn’t include any numbers from 8 contests and severely undercounts several others (nearly all of both Sanders wins). The uniformity of rules required to have a meaningful popular vote-count in a primary/caucus process doesn’t exist; the rules are a patchwork of radically different approaches from different states.
Now that you nowhere-to-run-or-hide know this (and should have — and probably did — know it before you wrote that post), any further repetition of this talking point by you must be regarded as a deliberate lie.