Bernie Sanders doesn't like superdelegates. Neither do members of Bernie's staff, nor Bernie's legions of supporters. Superdelegates are unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic. These party elites, who get to vote however they want, shouldn't be counted in assessments of the Democratic primary race. Superdelegates "don't count until they vote, and they don't vote until we get to the convention," Bernie's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said on CNN last month.

But, as The Hill reminds us, Sanders didn't always sing the same tune. On June 5, 2008—two days after the last state voted, but before Hillary Clinton dropped out—Sanders pledged his support to then-Senator Barack Obama in an interview with The Burlington Free-Press. The Vermont senator had customarily held off endorsing anyone, the paper explained, until the party had chosen a nominee.

Scott Olson Getty Images

Except that Obama was not yet the nominee.

At that point in the '08 race, Obama had the support of 1,766.5 pledged delegates, according to The Hill, while 2,118 total delegates were required to secure the nomination that year. Clinton had 1,639.5. That meant that Obama needed superdelegates to put him over the top and make him the nominee—something Sanders apparently had no issue with at the time. Clinton dropped out two days after that interview, conceding defeat when she was 127 pledged delegates behind.

In the 2016 race, 2,383 total delegates are needed to win the nomination.

Clinton has 1,768 pledged delegates, while Sanders has 1,497. That's a lead of 271 without any superdelegates, with six states plus Washington, D.C., remaining. It's unlikely Sanders will narrow the gap to the 127 that separated Clinton and Obama in 2008, and virtually impossible for him to catch up to her completely. Yet he has promised to go to the convention and force a floor fight for superdelegates.

Sanders will likely need more superdelegates than Clinton would have had she fought to the convention in 2008.

If you're keeping score at home, this means Sanders wants to use the super-undemocratic concept of superdelegates, which he used to be OK with but now thinks are the worst, to overturn the democratically-determined will of the people—keep in mind Clinton also has 2.4 million more popular votes than Sanders—and make him the Democratic nominee. Plus, he'll likely need more of them than Clinton would have needed in 2008 to overturn Obama's advantage.

Isn't Bernie the guy who's against the establishment political machine?

Isn't he the one who represents the popular will against the elites who are trying to subvert it?

[H href='http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281302-sanders-takes-different-position-on-superdelegates-than-he-did-in-2008' target='_blank">The Hill']

Jack Holmes Politics Editor Jack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io