On Thursday, New York Times journalists Lisa Lerer and Reid J. Epstein reported the results of their interviews with 93 of the Democratic Party’s 771 superdelegates. Of those Lerer and Epstein spoke to, only nine thought that Bernie Sanders should become the Democratic nominee “purely on the basis of arriving at the convention with a plurality, if he was short of a majority.”

Some seemed embarrassed to be contemplating whether to override the will of primary voters. Connecticut congressman and superdelegate Jim Himes told the Times, “We’re way, way, way past the day where party leaders can determine an outcome here,” before noting his openness to a “vibrant conversation” about doing exactly that.

Different superdelegates interviewed for the Times story made one (or more) of at least three arguments for awarding the nomination to a candidate with fewer votes than Sanders (or even no votes at all, if the nominee was a “white knight” who didn’t run in any primaries). First, some of the superdelegates — and other prominent Democrats quoted in the piece — argued that it would be hypocritical of Sanders or his supporters to complain about disregarding the voters given the positions Sanders himself took during the 2016 primary and his role in shaping the current convention rules. Second, some appealed to electability considerations. Even if a plurality of primary voters favored Sanders, these superdelegates felt, the convention’s duty to respect that democratic mandate would be less important than picking a candidate who could defeat Donald Trump. Finally, some asserted that if Sanders came to the convention with only a plurality, with the majority of primary voters having gotten behind more moderate candidates, this would amount to a democratic mandate for a broadly defined anti-Sanders centrism.