The propaganda machine to fall in line behind another corporate shill is strong in your litany of despair. Cynicism is a poor substitute for wisdom, and preemptive surrender is the strategy of losers. Anyone reading your sorry little rationalization of submission should know that revolutions are not won by apathetic lemmings and they should not trust anyone who asks them to jump off a cliff because it's slightly smaller than another. Clinton will serve her corporate donors and not the people, and voting for her just makes you a sucker.

Don't despair, Heidi. I used to say that I would never cast a vote for Hillary under any circumstances, but I've come around. Now I think I could stomach voting for Hillary under two conditions: (1) if she adopted Bernie's platform pretty much wholesale; and (2) if I believed she would actually fight for it once elected. The problem is that -- based on where her campaign money comes from, based on where her personal fortune comes from, based on whom she is married to, based on whom her daughter is married to, and based on her entire personal and political history -- I will never, ever, ever believe that she will switch from serving the top 0.01% to fighting them. Ever.

I would rather lose this election to a reality-show buffoon than give another mandate to a neolib/neocon Democrat, and if that's incomprehensible to you, google "more effective evil." If Bernie doesn't win the Democratic Party nomination -- and he probably won't, unless the superdelegates come to their senses en masse, California comes to its senses en masse, and a court orders a timely, effective remedy for rigged votes in New York -- I'm voting for the Green Party nominee. Whether that's Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein is up to them.

Obiter dicta: Judicial Watch's FOIA suit for Hillary's emails is due to be decided in June. If any of the emails suggest a witting tit-for-tat in the recurring pattern of large contributions to the Clinton Foundation (or large speaking fees to Bill) and State Department weapons-sales approvals, well ... have fun defending her against that, Hillary supporters. Don't worry too much, though. You have the conglomerate media and their corporate advertisers on your side. They'll probably sweep it under the rug, along with Hillary's subversion of democracy in Honduras and her wholesale destruction of Libya.

Abandon all hope and vote Clinton/Sachs--it's their turn (to steal every last cent from the treasury, pick every pocket, and empty every child's piggy bank). No dollar left behind.

Bernie winning the Dem nomination would be the worst possible outcome. Sanders comes from a tiny state, and he's never ever faced the GOP attack machine. They would make mincemeat out of him in short order. By the time November rolls around, voters would see him as Lenin reincarnated.

@ 5 Correct. The good news is that The Great State of Washington will cast its twelve electoral votes for Hillary Clinton in November. Forums like this give frustrated Sanders supporters a place to vent. Better that than throwing chairs at people. Why did Bernie run as a Democrat?

@6: because he knows that the country is better off with a Democrat, ANY Democrat, as president, and a 3rd-party bid would put a Republican in office. Bernie's not a Berner.

TL;DR

I would rather lose this election to a reality-show buffoon than give another mandate to a neolib/neocon Democrat, and if that's incomprehensible to you, google "more effective evil."

That is so seriously misguided. How about you Google "The switch in time that saved nine," and study up on how the Supreme Court effectively stymied progressive legislation for decades. Then consider a modern day Supreme Court with a young 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority.

Think closed primaries are unfair? Wait till you see a serious effort to restrict voting rights around the country. Abortion rights? Access to contraception? Regulation of businesses? Environmental protections? Rights of unions and union members? Access to federal courts? States right?

Good luck changing American in anyone's lifetime after that precedent is set down over the next 30 years.

Wow, look at those angry comments from buttfrustrated Bernie fanatics.

@9: Exactly. This election, when it comes down to it, is about the Supreme Court and down-ballot Senate and House races in the future. Any #BernieorBust moron that argues taking votes from the Democrats (as flawed as they may be) and helping Trump to win clearly doesn't understand the import of this election with regards to their policy positions. The Right is coalescing around Trump right now. The Left needs to start that process as well; Hillary ABSOLUTELY cannot be equated with Trump in any way, even with her glaring flaws. If Trump wins, the Supreme Court goes conservative (Trump has already said he would appoint conservative justices). And that means the progressive agenda dies for a generation. There is more to a presidential election than one's own personal position on things, or even the office of the President itself (which doesn't really have a whole lot of law-creating-or-changing power anyway, more a checks and balances position than anything). Learn how our government currently functions before you burn your own position to the ground and don't help the Right win. Keep the grassroots pressure up high after the election to change the system in the ways it needs changing. That's the most intelligent way to proceed.

"I would rather lose this election to a reality-show buffoon than give another mandate to a neolib/neocon Democrat, and if that's incomprehensible to you, google "more effective evil.""

Hey, do you face any immediate consequences from Trump getting elected, or do you live in a liberal enclave that will be essentially unchanged? If the latter, then maybe your opinion doesn't matter so much.

@7 I didn't think Bernie was a Berner, until his weak-ass statement after the NV clusterfuck. Now I'm concerned he may be. I hope he has the good sense for his historical legacy to rip Trump's lungs out at the Dem convention.

@13 -- Unfortunately, I agree. Sanders seems more and more like a guy who is positioning himself to break his pledge to endorse the Democratic candidate and launch a third-party run. Similar to Trump it would be because of imagined betrayal. That Obama managed to run the tables on Hillary, that Hillary has many millions of votes more, that won't matter.

I hope I am wrong, but Bernie increasingly looks and feels like Ralph Nader.

@6 "Better that than throwing chairs at people. Why did Bernie run as a Democrat?"

Show me any evidence of anyone throwing chairs. Seriously, this is misinformation. The only video out there - of a well captured event - is a man lifting a chair and then being hugged by Bernie supporters.

As for "violent" Bernie supporters at the NV Convention, where is the evidence? There were a lot of people and law enforcement present - were there arrests? The problem here is that Bernie supporters were angry when the the NV Democratic party played around with the rules. (Have you seen the videos with the voice votes?) People were justifiably angry. It's sad to see that misinformation and disinformation rule the day.

I voted for Bernie, but recognize that he is not going to get the nomination, and Clinton is the only option now for the presidency.

However, she is not going to win without making some effort to entice Bernie supporters. Saying we need unity then soliciting Bush superPacs? That's not going to do it. Dismissing the ~45% or so of democratic primary voters who voted Bernie as losers, without offering them any acknowledgement of their concerns, is a recipe for failure. We know what happens when younger voters don't show up, and when 85% of them supported your opponent, perhaps you need to make some changes to get them on board.

@15 Perhaps it was misinformation. The reports are from CBS and NY Times - their reputation for accuracy is good but not perfect. The convention chair reports that she and her family have received death threats and unrelenting harassment from Sanders supporters. Barbara Boxer was afraid of what she witnessed and called Sanders to complain. Perhaps that is misinformation as well. If not, violence and the threat of violence must be confronted and condemned wherever it occurs.

Clinton won the Democratic primary in Nevada and was awarded 20 delegates to Sander's 15.

#14, I wonder about that. I was listening to an interview with Ralph Nader on Brian Lehrer yesterday, and Nader stated that Sanders endorsed Bill Clinton in 1996 over Nader, and he referred to Sanders as one who has always been a "Lone Ranger senator," who doesn't network with groups that agree with him or want to support a broader progressive agenda. That is my big concern with him. This article from a Vermont paper written at the time recalls this issue: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/left-…

At this point, I want to see him endorsing other progressives and raising money for their campaigns, since he does have so much influence at the moment. I think he has only endorsed three members of congress so far, and he refused a joint appearance with progressive socialist senatorial candidate John Fetterman in PA who stated he was one of the first politicians to endorse Sanders and was surprised when Sanders wouldn't even agree to have him up on stage at one of Sanders' own rallies.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attyt…

Heidi made me sound like a naive, poor person from backward Texas. I have a Masters in Social Change and was a professor and program director for a Social Change college program, a paid policy analyst//legislative aid in a state legislature I worked for the SF Department of Environment and did policy advocacy professionally at the local, state and federal level (negotiating with the DOE on nuclear waste disposal), as well as 15 years of paid, successful community, national and international organizing experience. Sincerely, Mira Luna

The lead in the popular vote has been debunked since it doesn't count caucus votes. Also, no one has made a good argument for why he should drop out, so thanks for your long-winded article, but it's not happening.

Since when do you support something or someone you believe in, based solely on their chance of success? Do you only like books that are best sellers, or movies that win academy awards? Or, do you like what you like, and believe in what you believe in? Aren't we supposed to base our voting decision on the candidate we believe in, and not on their likelihood of success in a democracy? This is a primary. Vote for who you want. Even if they don't win, the votes they accumulate will draw attention to the candidates platform. Clinton supporters have said it's over, that there is no chance to beat her since the first day Sanders entered the race a year ago. If his supporters had listened to that crap back then there wouldn't be near the attention of issues on campaign finance reform, wealth inequality, tuition and medical coverage. If A Clinton win is a foregone conclusion, then what do they care how we vote? Or, do they not want it to be that close and enter a general election without a mandate, and questions about the Clinton platform? I'm thinking the latter. Screw them. They're being forced to listen to the progressive side of their party, and that is a good thing. Bernie is in to the end and people should vote their conscience, and the results will effect the future direction of the party.

I've said this before, but by this time next year, "Feel The Bern" will be buried in that endless graveyard of trite and haggiographic politcal slogans, it's overheated believers scattered to wherever the winds of magical ideas blow their Good Ship Lollipop next.

And all because, sadly, as it so often turns out in these situations, while their current object of semi-mass veneration was standing on his perfectly lit stage, and feeling the warm and righteous bern of it all, the Clinton juggernaut was out glad handing for votes, one grubby hand at a time, like they've been doing for decades. And of course that includes the glad hands of Wall Street, the financial world and big business as well, but also communities like Harlem, for example, where Hillary raised funds for the largest lead abatement program in the city's history. Their list is quite long and impressive. And voters remember those things. Great stage lighting and slogans, not so much.

@22 and "I'm with Her" will go down next year as one of the most vile compromises ever made by well meaning people after Kissinger's endorsed warmonger candidate.

@23 - You were happy Bush got the presidency in 2000 weren't you?

The answer to your question is - when Clinton earns the support of the Berners. At this point it doesn't seem like she'll have time to do that.

It's OK, we're Democrats. A little butthurt is par for the course. People will get over it and vote for Ms. Clinton, who is an outstanding candidate, especially in light of the ever-worsening freak show on the other side.

@9 brings up a valuable point. The "injustice" of party rules pales in comparison to what the Republicans have planned. Angry young white male Bernie supporters will never be in the situation that black people and immigrants will find themselves in if the Voting Rights Act is further demolished, if Republican gerrymandering worsens, if ID laws and closing polling places continue. A Trump presidency means an end to every progressive dream ever -- abortion rights, contraceptive rights, gay rights, civil rights. All of which were accomplished by concerted political action the likes of which Hillary excels at and Bernie has never had any interest in. Just ask Barney Frank (who is an actualfacts progressive hero): https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2…

@28 - Well said.

Karen Black: I also thought it was quite telling that Senator Sanders wouldn't appear on stage with Senate candidate John Fetterman, who as you pointed out, was not only one of the first of only a handful of politicians to publicly endorse Sanders, but is also one of the very few candidates daring to run as a progressive socialist, and someone who would actually vote the cause if elected. I guess there just wasn't enough Bern to go around that day.

It reminds me of the incident with his wife, Jane, one of the fewest of the very lucky few who are occasionally invited up onto the beautifully lit set of "Feel The Bern!" (a tragic-comedy loosely based on Don Quixote, but with a less sympathetic main character). Unfortunately, his dutiful wife made the terrible mistake of trying to stand next to Sanders during one of his rousing stem-winders, forcing him to stop mid-sentence, turn to her and dismissively snap "Don't stand next to me!", and then physically push her away and behind him. (20 second video link below). Real classy, Senator.

So yeah, that's why people like me are annoyed and condescending toward those who won't shut up about how kind, selfless and noble Senator Sanders' is, and how their equally selfless and noble conscience makes voting for the great man on the stage their only moral option. He's a solitary Joan of Arc-like figure, only obviously enjoying the burn far more than she did. And if the rest of us do end up like her, so be it. You will not be compromised. You will hold your breath until you pass out before letting that happen.

Snapping at Jane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV2Itjvt…