It was a moment that was destined to go viral. During a town hall in Charleston, S.C., on Wednesday, Jason Pietramala, an account manager at a software company and a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., posed the following question to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.: “During the Nevada debate, you and every other candidate on the stage, except for Bernie … indicated that the candidate with the plurality of delegates should not necessarily be the nominee. This essentially means that the will of the voters could be denied by the superdelegates and the DNC, which is basically undemocratic, and in my opinion is a bunch of baba booey to put it politely. Can you explain why the will of the voters should not matter if no candidate reaches a majority of delegates?”

“So you do know that was Bernie’s position in 2016?” she replied, her grin widening when Pietramala answered that he didn’t. “That was his position … that it should not go to the person who had a plurality. And remember, his last play was to superdelegates. So the way I see this is that you write the rules before you know where everybody stands, and then you stick with those rules. Bernie had a big hand in writing these rules. I didn’t write ’em, but Bernie did. … I don’t see how come you get to change [them] just because he now thinks there’s an advantage to him for doing that.”

With a “Hello Somebody” shoutout to @ninaturner, 1 @JasonPietramala asks Elizabeth Warren if she still will go against Bernie being the nominee if he has the most delegates, but not 1991 in Milwaukee? It got testy, with Warren saying she would take it to the floor. #CNNTownHall pic.twitter.com/gBf1cu0q9m — Andrew Jerell Jones (@sluggahjells) February 27, 2020

For the Massachusetts senator’s most vocal supporters online, the exchange was cathartic — an opportunity for their candidate to dress down a Howard Stern-quoting “Bernie Bro” in the flesh and for them to temporarily forget she’s finished no higher than third in a caucus or primary. That she was technically correct made it all the more gratifying. Sanders did appeal to superdelegates in 2016 after denouncing them throughout the campaign, even if his primary goal was to extract concessions from Hillary Clinton on the Democratic platform.

Warren is hardly alone in her willingness to deny Sanders the nomination. A New York Times report Thursday finds that in addition to the other presidential hopefuls, dozens of superdelegates are committed to stopping the Vermont senator, even if it means sacrificing the party’s progressive base.

“From California to the Carolinas, and North Dakota to Ohio,” write Lisa Lerer and Reid J. Epstein, “the party leaders say they worry that Mr. Sanders, a democratic socialist with passionate but limited support so far, will lose to President Trump, and drag down moderate House and Senate candidates in swing states with his left-wing agenda of Medicare for all” and free four-year public college. … In a reflection of the establishment’s wariness about Mr. Sanders, only nine of the 93 superdelegates interviewed said that Mr. Sanders should become the nominee purely on the basis of arriving at the convention with a plurality, if he was short of a majority.”

According to the rules set forth by the Democratic National Convention, a candidate can clinch the nomination on the first round of voting by securing 1,991 pledged delegates. If he or she fails to do so, then those delegates become unbound and 771 automatic delegates or “superdelegates” are added to the pool, with each of the latter counting as one half vote. In that scenario, the first candidate to win 2,375 total delegates would become the nominee. What the Times makes clear is that anything less than a clear majority would put a potential Sanders nomination in jeopardy. Some Democrats even appear willing to consider officials who aren’t running in the 2020 race. From the report: