The New York Times and the "Democratic establishment": stenography or trolling?

Don't miss this classic piece of stenography journalism in the New York Times: By Lisa Lerer and Reid Egstein, Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders 02/27/2020.

They write, “Dozens of interviews with Democratic establishment leaders this week show that they are not just worried about Mr. Sanders's candidacy, but are also willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance.”

Wait, what about The Resistance? You know, Party Unity against the unique menace to democracy represented by Donald Trump and all that?

But at least the New York Times recognizes that the "Democratic Establishment" is really A Thing.

This is especially entertaining: “A number of superdelegates dream of a savior candidate who is not now in the race, perhaps [Ohio Sen. Sherrod] Brown, or maybe someone who already dropped out the race, like Senator Kamala Harris of California.”

I'm trying to imagine if their sources actually managed to tell them with straight faces: So, Sanders gets to ‎Milwaukee with 45% of the delegates, and the convention votes to nominate Kamala the Cop instead. It's brilliant, man!

Yeah, that’s gonna happen ...

That fantasy also may be circumstantial evidence that use of hallucinatory chemical substances may be common among this “Democratic establishment.”

A lot of the article consists of various angles arguing against Sanders' position that the candidate that comes into the convention with a plurality of delegates should get the nomination. Of course, everyone tries to frame it in terms of high principle. But it's actually a tactical issue. If one of the other candidates besides Sanders was the most likely to get a plurality on the first ballot, they would be taking the position he's taking now and Sanders himself would be arguing that the convention needs to make its own decision despite the plurality.

Lerer and Egstein define their version of the "Democratic establishment": “The Times has interviewed 93 party officials - all of them superdelegates, who could have a say on the nominee at the convention.” along with, of course, various party big names that for shorthand we could call Bloomberg supporters.

Also, I was happy to see this mention of a group of which I'm part, "“Superdelegates from Democrats Abroad count as half a vote each.” Democrats Abroad counts as a state party so it also has DNC members. And WE ALL SUPPORT BERNIE SANDERS. Well, mostly, probably. At the 2016 convention, Democrats Abroad sent nine delegates for Sanders and four for Clinton.

This also provides some comic relief:

Others are urging former President Barack Obama to get involved to broker a truce - either among the four moderate candidates or between the Sanders and establishment wings, according to three people familiar with those conversations.

William Owen, a D.N.C. member from Tennessee, suggested that if Mr. Obama was unwilling, his wife, Michelle, could be nominated as vice president, giving the party a figure they could rally behind.

"She's the only person I can think of who can unify the party and help us win," he said. "This election is about saving the American experiment as a republic. It's also about saving the world. This is not an ordinary election." [my emphasis]

So the way to save the American Republic and the entire world is ... nominate Michelle Obama as Vice President?

They're just trolling us now.