Mar 29 Timothy commented on Washington Superdelegates Still Endorsing Clinton, Spurning Pro-Sanders Majority of State Voters.
The Super Delegates are free to choose whom they may. Bernie should win their hearts; that he hasn't done so is on him.

Really, the question should be directed to Bernie Sanders himself. Why, after 25 years in Congress, are his fellow congressional leaders so unwilling to back him? Even Elizabeth Warren, darling of the Sanders voters, has yet to endorse him. Why? What do they know? Many of them have worked closely with Bernie and Hillary for years.

If Bernie Sanders wants their support, he's free to get it. That he hasn't should be a real discussion here.
Mar 28 Timothy commented on One Hundred and Forty-Seven FBI Agents Are Investigating Hillary Clinton's E-mails.
This is a misleading comment. You don't know the context. You don't know if theres were concurrently working on it or if 147 have touched the issue in some way. You have the word of a "lawmaker" who was briefed; meaning it's second hand. But, hey, don't let facts ruin a good clickbait ;-)
Mar 28 Timothy commented on Maddow On The Stranger's Dual/Dueling Caucus Endorsements.
Damn the Bernie bots are special :)
Mar 25 Timothy commented on Ask Us Anything About Our Caucus Endorsement(s).
@85...one more thought...

Back to why, in part, the super delegates are supporting Hillary (and again, their support matters more than the support of Republicans in congress in order to get anything done)...

Last I checked, Hillary had raised nearly $30 million for the Party this past year, which is vital to supporting down-ballot races. Building up that supportive congress she'd need to get anything done. Bernie had raised $1800; $1000 of that was given to him by the DNC to seed his fundraising efforts for down ballot races. He's done zero work to build out a supportive network of Democrats. Just the opposite, he and his followers have demonized Democrats at every turn.
Mar 25 Timothy commented on Ask Us Anything About Our Caucus Endorsement(s).
@85...here's a shot, though I'm not sure you actually want to dialogue on the topic.

Congress is not just intransigent Republicans; it's also nearly half Democratic. A Democratic President doesn't need all of the Republicans to enact laws; it needs all of the Democrats and then a few Republicans who can crossover to support a President to enact laws.

Enter the Super Delegates. I know most Bernie supporters think they're completely evil; but Super Delegates are the first test a Presidential candidate faces to see whether they can get anything done in Congress. Because you'll need their support more than the support of anyone else to get things done. The Super Delegates are free to back whom they will; that they aren't backing Bernie is not a conspiracy; that's completely on him. He hasn't won them over yet. And he's been in congress with many of them for 25+ years. So, he's failing, so far, his first test on who he'll get support from, and that's troubling.

When he was here at Key Arena last week, he made a point to say that he's filed legislation to legalize marijuana. The crowd cheered and hollered! I went and looked at the legislation. It was filed just last November. He's got zero co-sponsors, and govtrack gives it a less than 1% chance of passing. But he's convinced you and others that his mere mention of it will make the needed changes.

Democrats in congress will not just give Bernie support just because he attached a "D" to his name in October 2015. They, too, have to face re-election, and many of them don't live in Washington State or Vermont where they can support any and all legislation that Bernie supports. They have to be careful, often, to maintain their own coalitions. Hillary understands this, which is manifest in their supporting her as super delegates.

Finally, you argue in your post that "no Democrat will get anything done" but then at the end of your post, you say "he'll actually change things for the better..." So which is it?
More...
Mar 23 Timothy commented on .
Perhaps we should attempt to elect more than one Seattle City Council member who fully supports this agenda...maybe even attempt to gain a majority in the State House and Senate, and perhaps a Governor...then, once we've proven we can do that, focus on the National stage. But until we can even elect a "democratic socialist" to high State office, trying to do so on the National stage is just fantasy. But, still, I love Bernie and his supporters! ;-)
Mar 16 Timothy commented on Kimya Dawson, Mike McGinn, and Kshama Sawant Made Appearances at a Bernie Sanders Fundraiser Last Night.
@11...I've corrected you on this point before; Hillary isn't only beating Bernie in Red States; she's done quite well in other states too. ;-)

To Wit: 2016 Projected Swing States (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Florida and Ohio)...Hillary has beat Bernie in 5 of 7, winning approximately 58% of the delegates in these States.
Mar 16 Timothy commented on Kimya Dawson, Mike McGinn, and Kshama Sawant Made Appearances at a Bernie Sanders Fundraiser Last Night.
@6...so many errors in your post. 1) Bernie didn't get "half" the delegates last night. It was approximately at 58-42% split of delegates; that gave Hillary more than 100 delegates than Bernie (probably closer to 120, the calculations are still being done). 2) She's now more than 300 elected delegates ahead of Bernie, 3) at a similar point in the Obama/Clinton race, Obama wasn't "worse off" than Bernie; he was ahead by about 100 delegates. In other words, Hillary is doing better against Bernie than Obama did against Hillary.
Mar 7 Timothy commented on Thinking Strategically, Who Should Liberals Want as the Republican Nominee?.
Trump is too much a wild-card. He'd radically change himself for a general election, and it's hard to know what he'd do day-to-day. Cruz, on the other hand, is entirely predictable. He'll stay in a very narrow lane, and it's much easier to plan a campaign around that.
Mar 4 Timothy commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Sexlessish Marriage Less Sexless During Affair.
Dan has lost all perspective. I used to really like his ethical stance; quoted him endlessly to friends. But no more.

Many of you are charging that Dan is now in open war with monogamy. I'd say he's actually in open war with decency. Where he used to have a moral framework, I can't square his recent drift with any set of recognizable standards.

Sad, really.