DNC changes rules to stop Bernie Sanders, but it might not work

His agreement with the Vermont DP is precedent (if the matter has to be litigated).

For those who are familiar with what's been going on for the past year and a half -- that would not include the little old lady at the Beauty Shop, by her own declaration -- I'll cut to the chase.

Sanders, who is currently running for reelection, typically runs in the state’s Democratic primary but declines the party’s nomination after winning. The move allows him to fend off Democratic challengers in the state while still running as an independent. Last month, the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting this strategy and proclaiming that Sanders would still be considered a member of the party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.” That membership could inoculate him against the DNC’s rules change.

In fact, it might be on the path to... not killing off, but neutering the superdelegates.  At least on the first ballot for the presidential nomination, taken at the national convention.

One source familiar with the discussions told Yahoo News the rules change was not aimed at Sanders and wouldn’t necessarily affect him. In fact, the source described it as a step that was designed to make it easier for party leaders to accept one of Sanders’s main priorities — the end of superdelegates.

Committee members are continuing to discuss the proposal to eliminate superdelegates. They will meet again to make a final vote on the proposal in the coming weeks before all proposed changes head to the DNC for a final vote in August.

I am wary that this is progress, and don't harbor any hope that the Donks can manage to do the right thing in two months.  The easy arguments against blocking Bernie from the nom on the "he's not a Democrat" fallacy are obvious: the 2016 split becomes a canyon, the centrists and the establishment succeed in driving him away to run as an independent or to anoint someone who does, and Trump cruises to re-election.  And the blame game begins anew.

Squandering the millennial and independent base of votes ready to line up behind an FDR Democrat and not another incrementalist isn't something most of the neoliberals running the DNC seem to be concerned about.  Doing the same thing over and over again -- like Texas Democrats trying to get Republicans to vote for them -- and expecting a different result is ... well, you know.

Just not a fight the Democrats ought to be having.

(In my proposed wager to Ted, this would have been one of those 'rules' things I would have been forced to accept.  He wasn't smart enough to take my bet; it's off the table now.)