Here’s what Hillary Clinton said during an interview with Rachel Maddow:
RACHEL MADDOW: Senator Sanders's campaign this week has suggested that if heading into that convention-- he is behind in the pledged delegates, and even if he's behind in the popular vote, that he will still try to win the nomination at that convention by persuading super delegates to switch their allegiance to him at that point. Is that a legitimate, reasonable, ethical way to try to get the nomination? Would you-- forswear that sorta strategy yourself if the situation was reversed?
HILLARY CLINTON : Well, I don't understand the argument. If I have more popular votes and more delegates, then I think it's pretty clear that-- the people who turned out and voted-- chose me to be the nominee.
And that's what I would expect-- as I've found. I've been on the other side of this equation. I got slightly more in the popular vote in 2008, but not in the delegates. And so from my perspective, you know, this is about delegates. You have to have-- the right number of delegates to get the nomination.
I think given this conversation, it’ll be tough for Hillary to claim superdelegates should support her if she’s behind in pledged delegates. The question was about being behind in pledged delegates, Hillary says she doesn’t understand the argument, and then goes on to talk about popular vote, delegates and “people who turned out and voted”. Superdelegates aren’t part of that mechanic.
As I’ve said before, I think it’s good and smart of the Sanders campaign to raise this issue so the media discusses superdelegates and people understand who they are and why their votes count. So the target for Bernie is 2026 pledged delegates.
Then again, there might be a little wiggle-room built in with “right number of delegates” which could be superdelegates?
Clearly enough people thought this that I changed the title.