Thus far what is Liz getting to make her viable to take delegates from Bernie?
your first mistake was rushing in to call someone out when I’m not even making an “argument” but instead calling out their fallacious, often changing, arguments.
She has 8 delegates and has rarely been viable. Their argument is she has a minuscule constituency but also that she is sabotaging Bernie. How many delegates is she costing Bernie?
You don't even have to be viable to cost someone delegates. You just have to pull %'s from them.
Pete got 2 delegates more than Bernie in Iowa even though he only finished 0.1% ahead in the popular vote. Warren got 18% there....let's imagine without Warren that Bernie does merely 5% better than Pete, 35% to 30%. Couldn't that get him 19-20 delegates instead of the 12 he got and finish 5-6 ahead of Pete instead of 2 behind?
In New Hampshire, Warren did even worse, just 9% and got 0 delegates. Bernie finished 1.3% ahead of Pete but only got the same delegates. Let's say without Warren he would have picked up 5% more and won by 4%...maybe 3 more delegates in that case?
And those were small states. In bigger states the swing might be 10 delegates. Multiplied over the entire election, Warren could easily swing 200-300 delegates away from Bernie, both by taking them herself and by costing him position against the other candidates. That could easily be the margin of the race (Obama only beat Clinton by 63 pledged delegates) or the difference between reaching 1911 or not reaching it.
That's how the system works. Whether or not Warren could swing the primaries even if she isn't in the running is not even a question for anyone who can do math.