How the Continuation of the Bernie Sanders Campaign Hurts the Chances of a Democrat-Controlled Senate


Bernie as a candidate is the main reason young people are so fucking excited to vote.

Also, there's no statistical evidence to suggest that Bernie or any primary contender is hurting the front-runner or the party or seriously the senate races by staying in the primary. Democrats have fucked their own chances at congress so many times, but let's blame the outsider who has the support of 80% of the newest generation of voters.

And seriously, how many times are you going to be duplicitous and use Nate Silver's statistics to boost your argument while ignoring the articles that hurt your argument.…
I guess then maybe Clinton should just go ahead and offer him the VP slot.
Nonsense! Old Hill knows that if Bernie wins California as big as he won here (he'll probably do better) she's toast. Get ready for President Sanders and stuff this line of baloney.
It's like 2000 all over again where a dedicated group of cynics declare there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans and manage to peel off votes or discourage people from voting. Whatever faults Gore had he would have been a champion for fighting climate change, promoting environmental stewardship, would not have appointed supreme court justices that unleased corporate money and gutted the Voting Rights protections, and his response to 9/11 NEVER would have involved invading Iraq.

But we've grown complacent with 8 years of a good president held back by Republican obstructionism. The cynics have risen again and decided that if they can't have a full loaf, not only will they not accept a half loaf, they will force the nation to eat bread filled with broken glass all because dammit, if they can't come off the sidelines to decide the outcome of the Democratic primary, LGBTQ rights, financial reforms, environmental protection, voting rights, reproductive rights, investments in renewable energy, and EVERY THING THEY CLAIM TO HOLD DEAR should suffer.
"a Clinton landslide "
"actual laws and policies move leftward on a scale not seen in a long time"

These are both way more laughably far-fetched than a Sanders nomination.
This whole article/argument is total BULLSHIT!
.... And basically what #'s 1-6 have said.
@5: Al Gore was a shitty candidate. He "championed" very little in his campaign for President.

She could offer Kermit the Frog the VP slot and still trounce your shit-brained fool of a candidate.
Eli's using old tea leaves.
Shame on you, Eli. This is pure Wall $treet/corporate supremacist propaganda. Not much polling on this specific topic, but what has been reported is it's Clinton that's the real down-ballot drag in this race.

Finally, a new WBUR poll finds Hillary Clinton barely leading Donald Trump in New Hampshire among likely voters, 44%-42%. In the competitive Senate race in the Granite State, it's Democrat Maggie Hassan 48%, GOP incumbent Kelly Ayotte 46%. And check this out from Politico: "While 33 percent said Ayotte's support for Trump makes them less likely to vote for her, 14 percent said it would make them more likely to back the Republican senator. (Another 53 percent said it would make no difference.) By comparison, 26 percent said Hassan's support for likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton made them less likely to support Hassan, but only 8 percent said it made them more likely to back her. Sixty-five percent said it wouldn't make a difference." Bottom line: Both Trump and Clinton are down-ballot drags here.
"[Sanders remaining in the race] makes it easier for mega-wealthy conservatives to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to lethally bludgeon both Clinton’s candidacy and the progressive agenda. . ."

Why? How? This not addressed anywhere in the article. 20 paragraphs later, the author states that Sanders is disadvantaging the DNC by preventing them from running a coordinated, early get-out-the-vote effort on Hillary's behalf as if the DNC was anything other than the wheels upon which Hillary's coronation chariot has been rolling since like 2014.
Bernie isn't going to quit, so what is the point of this article?? Is this your idea of unifying the party?
The only problem with Bernie staying in the race is his continued insistence that he has a chance at winning, when that ship sailed months ago. He needs to be winding this thing down, but instead he's setting his supporters up for a disappointing defeat while insisting that the DNC rigged the whole thing, ignoring the simple fact that Hillary has won because she's gotten more votes. Nevada should have been a wake up call for him, but instead he's doubling down. It's really disappointing.
I could have sworn this was gonna be a Matt Baume article. It's so hilariously terribly written.

Matt Baume would have started off telling us about being in the middle of fucking his guy.
Time will tell and we shall see...

See @ 12 and see this:…
I really don't know what would be worse: A POTUS that hates the poor, people of color, and gays to our face, or one that hates us behind our backs
Sanders is not an outsider. He's been in Congress for 26 years. He's an extremely competitive politician and will not quit, even after he loses the nomination -- he'll simply continue campaigning as though he had won. That will ensure that Trump will be President.
I support Clinton but don't see any reason for Sanders to drop out at this point. It would break faith with those that have worked for him and the issues that he's championed.

Clinton ran all the way to the end against Obama in 2008 and, if I remember correctly, she won 7 out of the last 10 primaries. And at the end, many of Clinton's supporters were angry, bitter and vowed never to vote for Obama. Four months later, Obama won in a landslide and brought the House and Senate along with him. Granted, Clinton isn't the candidate Obama was, but she does have the enormous advantage of running against Donald Trump...
@sarah91 (20) while we're just making shit up: Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich are going to team up together in Philly with the ghosts of JFK and FDR, in support of a Lenin/Corpse of George McGovern ticket.
This whole scenario sucks. The Democrats have been given an opportunity to win the Presidency, change the composition of the Supreme Court and switch control of at least one House of Congress. And they're throwing it away with infighting and name calling. I do blame Sanders' supporters for this, but to be fair I also blame the genetic deficiencies of progressive voters generally. We're fucking blowing it. Welcome President Trump.
Trump will ensure that Trump will not be president - because he is a penis
Op-eds like this garbage are why I stopped reading anything Stranger related long ago. Iirc, the Stranger was never too supportive of Bernie to begin with, so I'm really not shocked at the disparaging articles, flimsily disguised as a call for party unification. It seems you all just can't wrap your heads around why so many of us refuse to support the establishment candidate! I don't know why. It's perfectly clear that we have a competent candidate who cares about moving us forward, who isn't going to continue to sell us out, imprison us, or send us off to war. I personally don't see why YOU don't get it.
The Democrats had won the Presidency and control of both House of Congress. And they threw it away none the less.
@22 I blame the Clinton supporters, who were rabid right out of the gate. I once had a friend who was a rabid Clinton Bro, who started trolling national news sites with verbatim notes from Notepad last June. He would post things against Bernie, but admonish me when I would post things against Clinton. He would feign shock and ask why I wasn't posting about the 18 other Republican candidates (which, at that time, lulz). Basically, he wanted a coronation and eventually dropped me as a friend for calling him out on his eventual, hopelessly desperate, rhetoric that Bernie people were sexist for not lining up Clinton (you know, the one who fucked up Libya, voted for the Iraq War, supported NAFTA, the Crime Bill, the PATRIOT Act. TPP, denounced single-payer health care back in the 90s, among a slew of other shitty things). He was older and worried about being passed over.

I'm surprised he isn't writing for The Stranger.
I want him to throw in the towel so these repetitive articles will stop. They're everywhere!
I personally don't see why YOU don't get it.
I personally don't see why you (and most of the other commenters) can't seem to grasp that the next President will be Trump or Clinton. That's your choice, good, bad, or indifferent. If you're seriously going to argue "distinction without a difference", then I don't know what to say besides having repeat "The perfect is the enemy of the good" until it kicks in.
@teslick You pay attention to too much mainstream media. $hillary is the problem here, not Bernie.

The most recent independent polling for California has Bernie trailing by 10 points, on average.

He just doesn't do well in cities, and California is a relatively urban state.
First rule of the internet activated, so forgive me if I repeat what others have said.

The reason this is wrong is due to alllll those douches all over my friends list on fb who (admittedly only claim they) will vote Trump over Clinton. This is too fucked at this point, both parties are imploding in graphic technicolor. I wish this article was right, but I fear it isn't. The people in favor of pissing on the ashes and salting the earth of American politics seem to be something like the vocal majority, and predictable outcomes are a thing of the past.
If i were int he Hilary brain trust, given the situation now, the turn id be making is to the Bernie supporters. The unfairness of the 2 voice votes to take 4 delegates that won't make a rat's ass of difference when there should have been a tally at the very least and all this handwringing about how Bernie dropping out is hurting Hillary are doing nothing to help this process. Protest voting is a long tradition in Europe and the view that 4 years of Trump to get to an elizabeth Warren is a fair view.... one I totally disagree with and would try to talk anyone holding that view out of. But using the machinery of the Democratic establishment to make Bernie do something Hillary did not do then talk to me. Hillary withdrew and endorsed Obama on June 7 in 2008 and she was not vilified anywhere like Bernie is being.

And gosh, that goddam bit*h cost the Dems how many seats in the senate by doing what Bernie is being villified for now? I mean the refucklitards did great in senate 2008. Oh what, they LOST 8 seats?

If I was Hillary, I'd be talking to Elizabeth Warren right now.
@21, what you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

It's amusing reading comments that say "This crappy article is why I stopped reading the Stranger 5 months ago."

@32, you apparently are new on Slog and hopefully you'll leave soon.
People who think everyone should just accept that Clinton won and move on: What would you do, in November, if polls showed that Trump (or some other Republican, some other year) was guaranteed to win? Like, up by 20 points? Would you decide not to vote? Or would you just vote for the Republican since you know he or she will be the president? Or would you vote for the Democrat even when you knew he or she would loose?

This might come as a bit of a shock to you, but there are a lot of people out there who believe that voting for their actual leaders is a civic obligation, but voting for a candidate in some party or other is not.
Joe Biden says chill the fuck out.…

Joe who?
@37 I don't understand what you are trying to say (except for the sarcastic intro)

Ah, OK. Then you probably don't understand the rhetorical questions you were posing in @35, either.

That's OK, I've certainly typed plenty of stuff I didn't understand before.


Biden? Biding my time? Binding of Isaac? By then I'll be lookin' like Tropicana twist?

What's this weird slang and who are you talking about?

Oh, Joseph Biden!

So you're saying that a guy who's thrown his hat in the ring every four years for the past couple-few decades without ever having any real chance of success, who really loves listening to himself toss insults around but hasn't even co-authored a single piece of meaningful legislation in over 20 years in congress, who is apparently oblivious to the fact that he's alienated large segments of his own party's base with his macho, no-time-for-compromises posturing-- this guy says Bernie totally deserves a fair shake?

Gosh, that sure is surprising.
My favorite piece of campaign trivia is that Jeff Weaver, Senator Sanders' long time friend and ally, was running a comic book store before being tapped as the architect of their nonsensical super hero mouse that roared revolution. Sanders shoulda gone with Stan Lee instead. Better characters. More plausible story lines.
One this is certain: the Clinton Machine is making damn sure defeat in November will never be their fault. Somethings never change

Yes, I guess Joseph Biden. He is commonly known as Joe.
@44 - well, Biden was responsible for the Violence Against Women Act, but I guess since that benefited women, it doesn't count as a meaningful piece of legislation, right?
The Democratic Party is the new GOP. Yay, us!
@35, what an odd way to frame this. The primaries aren't the general election for a number of reasons, but the biggest one is probably that they don't all happen at once. Like, they're cumulative, rather than speculative? So it's not just that Sanders is down in the polls in California (which he is, and which have been pretty accurate this election, barring Michigan), but that he's down enough ACTUAL VOTES AND DELEGATES that making up that deficit even with a landslide in California is going to be difficult near to the point of impossibility. He'd have to win California by something like 40 points, which would mean outperforming his polls by an equal amount. He outperformed in Michigan -- a historically stunning upset -- by less than half that.

I mean, a better analogy would be in the results are coming in on Election Night and Clinton is down by enough states that she would have to sweep the remainder to clinch the election, and they're all red strongholds. At that point you keep hoping and praying, I guess, but the writing would be on the wall.
@44: Any statements you make about him are deeply undermined when you sarcastically dismiss usage of the name he goes by, and by which every major source uses to refer to him.

It's the equivalent of the dog whistle Seattle Blues employed by insisting on referring to Jon Stewart and Goldy's full names, not the ones everyone knew. Though exactly what you're alluding to is beyond me.
@51, I know the differences between primaries and elections, but I don't think those differences make my "framing" inherently wrong. Supporting Bernie in CA, even though you know he is not going to be the nominee, is similar to voting for a democratic presidential candidate even if I knew she is going to lose. I tried to imagine a scenario in which the polls were clear enough that it was really certain. My point is that just because your candidate is doesn't have a rat's chance in hell of winning, that doesn't mean that you should just support the other candidate. That doesn't make sense for an election (at least I don't think it does; no one actually answered my question so I don't know what you think); and there's no fundamental quality of primaries that indicates that I should preemptively support the presumptive nominee.
@52, ignore him, the dudes just being deliberately abstruse.
@53, No one is saying you should not vote for the candidate you prefer. The problem starts and ends with Sanders and his campaign. He should be preparing his supporters for his inevitable loss to Clinton, but instead he continues to wind them up with talk of taking the fight to the convention. I think he should stay in to the very last primary and everyone should vote for the candidate they like the best, but he shouldn't be deluding his supporters with false promises and blaming his shortfalls on the DNC.
@49 (Bax):

[W]ell, Biden was responsible for the Violence Against Women Act, but I guess since that benefited women, it doesn't count as a meaningful piece of legislation, right?
Biden also wrote the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which kicked off the explosive growth of the prison-industrial complex, the birth of the incarceral state, and the mass disenfranchisement of African-American men through felony convictions. (As part of their strategy of out-Republicaning the Republicans to get big-money donors and racist white voters, it was vocally supported by Hillary and signed into law by Bill.) But I guess since that act overwhelmingly victimized people of color, it doesn't count as a meaningful piece of legislation, either, right?
@45 (mfg5000): Doesn't say much for Clinton and her campaign that a comic-book-store manager has come so close to beating her, does it? What you neglect to mention, of course, is that Weaver was Sanders' chief of staff (first in the House, and then in the Senate) before leaving politics. Personally, I prefer a guy who leaves public service to run a comic-book store to one who takes a revolving-door payoff from Wall Street.
Clinton's SuperPAC has now employed Eli. Which one? Correct The Record?

Its the Dems to lose by coronating Clinton, cuz she's a crappy candidate. Clinton will lose the general to Trump, as aggregate polling shows her steadily losing her lead from 10% (on 3/31) to 3.3% yesterday.

Sanders, OTOH is averaging a 10% lead over Trump.

Check RealClearPolitics for aggregate pollilng data.

Conclusion: pick a winner Dems, not just the one with all the corporate cash.
@34 Apparently you are wrong. I have been on the site for over 5 years mostly commenting on Savage Love topics but a screw up in resetting thepassword left me locked out so a new nickname.

In any case, just what is your issue? Why should anyone leave if they are posting their opinions. That's what I thought these comment threads were for.

As long as I am not spewing hate speech or threatening or harassing anyone, my presence here is just as justified as yours. And if you spy any of this behaviors in my post, please point them out so I can learn from your point of view.
How DLC Third Way Democrats Pre-emptively Blame Their Party's Failures On Liberals

Fixed that for you.
Wow, this thread went to shit in a hurry. Just the usual stuff about how Bernie is totally going to win it! and how anything bad that happens is the fault of Clinton, and that if you publicly express support for Clinton you're automatically a paid $hill. I used to think the Democrats were a little smarter than the Republicans, and then all these Bernie wackos came out of the woodwork and proved me wrong quite nicely.
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."…
@52, @54

I have to say, to me "abstruse" is a rather novel term for "I refuse to recognize any difference between electing the person who will make decisions for me for the next four years, vs. participating in a contest to pick a contestant for a party that may or may not have a recent history of representing my own personal politics particularly well."

But hey, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference, well, that kind of sends a message, too, doesn't it?
I love the way that many of those who are feeling the bern also feel perfectly free to call Clinton every awful name they can think of, and then play the victim if anyone dares to question the great man. And frankly, I'm getting tired of walking on eggshells around you - and we'll win with or without your support. So here's just a small and uncensored sample of why I won't be voting for Senator Sanders:

I could never vote for a candidate whose favorite pastime as mayor was standing on a stage with brutal communist dictators, grinning and fawning as they called for the destruction of the United States, and then vowing to turn the small town of Burlington into a similar utopia, and set an example for the entire world. Even his lefty hometown paper called him a "useful idiot for communist dictators." Go get 'em, Che. Lol.

I also can't vote for someone as intellectually lazy as Sanders, whose knowledge of banking and finance doesn’t seem to extend much beyond what a twelve year old with a savings account might know. And he's had fifty freaking years to study this stuff. It's embarrassing.

I won't vote for Sanders because he shamelessly lies to his followers, often to cover his ass on something he hasn't bothered to think through. But most egregiously, he has lied about his chance of winning the nomination, and the non-existent chance of ever getting any of his mostly nonsensical proposals through an obstructionist congress even if he did make it to the Oval Office, particularly given that no one on either side of the aisle can stand the guy.

He also lies about money. During has last run for Senate he took $200,000 from a Clinton PAC that's funded by Wall Street and it's allies, and attends their fundraisers in places like Martha's Vineyard and Miami. He and his wife own four houses, all in her name, which probably explains why they won't release their taxes. And just last week the FEC sent a letter to the Sanders campaign that called out 850 pages full of illegal donations to the Sanders campaign, mostly the result of sloppy and incompetent paperwork. The Clinton campaign had zero violations. Gee, I wonder who we should hire to manage the budget?

I would never vote for someone so completely and utterly unprepared to be president, who seems pathologically drawn the spotlight, yells at and shoves his wife for daring to stand next to him at one of his Elmer Gantry-like rallies, where Bernie-worship seems to be the only point of the whole misguided effort. And I won't vote for Senator Sanders. I think he's a phony.

Aaah. That felt good.

mfg5000: you forgot: I would never support someone so politically craven that, after refusing to join the Democratic Party for his entire career, suddenly expects the party to ignore all that and pony up a billion dollars or more to fund his vanity campaign for the White House. If you're going to be a socialist, that's just fine. But be consistent - turn to one of the many socialist parties that apparently better reflects your values rather than party shopping for one that has deeper pockets.

If i came down to it, I'd vote for him over Trump, but I wouldn't be happy about it. I've been saying for months now - Sanders is basically Trump of the left. Just as credible, just as ego-driven, and perhaps only a smidge more qualified.
No more blank checks for establishment Democrats.
I was for Bernie when this began, and then I was for a Hillary-Bernie 2016 ticket, but after watching months of him trashing her and whinging, calling her unqualified, calling on her to release the transcripts but refusing to release his own tax returns, along with his personal odious chauvanistic qualities, in my opinion, he's lucky if he gets a spot at the convention, for all I care. His campaign has been all about himself since after the first couple of debates. Before seeing him in those, I was all for him, having listened to him every Friday on Thom Hartmann's show. Last week Hartmann has blocked me on twitter for gently challenging Nina Turner, which is emblematic of Bernie's support; it's brittle, humorless, holier-than-thou, and insecure.

If his movement depends on entirely him, it's a weak movement. A weak, runny movement. And now he's helping the republicans and he doesn't care. He'll return to the senate to a standing ovation. From the republicans. I'm berned out. And those clever memes and pictures are annoying as fuck.
#68 mlb, Bernie is Trump on the left. The similarities are numerous and alarming.
#64 mfg5000 I'd vote for you, and not just for the Elmer Gantry reference.
Nice of you to say mandyv, but the guy really is an easy target, and I should probably be ashamed of myself. But I can't help it:

I just saw that Senator Sanders is so darn mad at Debbie Wasserman Schultz's that he's endorsing her primary opponent, and threatening to remove her as DNC chair when he's elected president. Oh my.

Where does one even begin? Maybe the DNC threat? The DNC chair is elected by the party, not 'appointed' by the president, and is yet another stunning example of Sanders' unwillingness or inability to learn or grasp even the most basic details of the nonsensical rubbish he peddles. I can only imagine where his whirling dervish of a 'when Bernie Sanders is president' vision will take us next. How about a Tesla for everyone with a drivers license (except DWS, of course)? They're very green and we could pay for it with the carbon tax, whatever that is.

And picking a snitty and hissy fight with the three-time elected, and very popular among her colleagues, chair of the DNC, the party that he's cleverly plotting to take over, is not only a dreadfully bone-headed strategic blunder, but embarrassingly petty for someone running for the White House. I can only imagine the number of super delegates he'll persuade with a ridiculous threat like that. And, gee, wouldn't it be great to have his cranky and irrational finger on the doomsday button when someone like Putin pisses him off? No thanks.

And so please, Senator Sanders, try to show some gravitas and dignity during your remaining moments under the bright lights. For someone who never had a chance you did pretty well. But you began to believe your own myth, and we all know how it must have hurt when that sparkling carriage turned back into a pumpkin, the magic gone like a promise in the wind, with even fewer allies than before 'the great folly', exiled to that lonely shadow-land where political grim reapers stalk the endless night. Or not, I suppose.

In any case, when you finally do leave, Senator Sanders, please don't forget all the posters and advertising stuff, or the piles of ashes and bags of hot air and platitudes. We have a serious race to run and they're in our way. Thanks.
I know. The sense of entitlement is stunning, even for a very white guy in the whitest state in the nation who says he shocked, shocked! that a black man couldn’t catch a cab 20 years ago. I mean really. That’s out of touch on so many levels. He joined to use a party he doesn’t give two shits about and complains because he’s losing, by the rules.

We have learned that caucuses are shit and every state needs to go to a closed primary, and that independents need to learn (1) registration deadlines and (2) not to join the right-wing independent party. That’s probably too much to ask of them.

I thought that was odd threaten to fire DWS LOL but he’s nothing if not petulant. That’s another thing he has in common with Trump. A whiny bitch, to borrow from Bill Maher.

I did used to like DWS a lot and then I went off of her, but now I’m back on board. She is straight talker and progressive. I wonder if she catches so much shit because she’s a woman. Howard Dean, besides being right, didn’t. Complaining about the times of the debates, like you don’t have a damn DVR. shut up lol

The time for dignity and gravitas is passed. He should have fake brought those out after NY but instead it was a whine fest. Whatever. I lost a lot of friends over this bullshit and that’s another reason to dislike him for because I don’t have enough already.

It is satisfying knowing he’s dug such a hole she’ll never consider him for VP like he was hinting today LOL #Putz #Cheers
@70: Yeah, I love how his solution to the DNC chair being allegedly biased is to replace a Clinton ally with an ally of his own. That doesn't remove bias, it just makes him the beneficiary of it!
It's like how Republicans in Congress want to get rid of judges who make partisan liberal decisions and replace them with ones who make non-partisan conservative decisions (the immediate implication being that liberal rulings are political but conservative ones are just plain common sense). Bernie has shown he's not against the system being gamed so much as he's against it not being gamed for him.
Right. He is vehemently opposed to anything and everything he doesn't personally benefit from. There's your principles.
Only in the Tinker Bell world of Sanders worshipers is there a Never Never Land where the overwhelming winner and is expected to make broad concessions to the loser. I can't think of anything more depressing than the idea of Hillary Clinton agreeing to spread some or any of the nonsensical and poorly thought out pixie dust that cost Senator Peter Pan the nomination. That's not how it works. Fortunately we have a candidate who understands that.
No more blank checks for establishment Democrats.
Why is it that Eli never talks about what really hurts Democrats with voters:

Top Democrats Ally With Oil and Gas Industry to Fight Colorado Anti-Fracking Ballot Measures
"... a Democratic landslide and the progressive achievements that could follow, which is an opportunity too rare and precious to squander."

Remember the last time the Democrats controlled both houses and the White House?

Yeah, they fucking squandered that like it was going out of style. It's like THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ISN'T PROGRESSIVE, it just pretends to be to get votes.
@65- You don't know what "craven" means.
@77 - they "squandered" it by passing the most important piece of health care legislation in decades, that has saved millions of lives and will save millions more. If that's squandering something, then give me lots more squandering.
@79- The ACA might, in several decades, save thousands of lives. It may, at this point, have saved dozens. It was the greatest "progressive" achievement of those 2 years was ROMNEYCARE. Requiring people to buy health insurance was the shittiest option available to reform healthcare (from a progressive point of view) and we even got screwed out of a public option.

The Democratic Party is not a progressive party.

But I too would have liked more of that squandering. But the ACA was really the high point in two years of feeble wiggling from the Democratic majority, which preferred to pretend that the GOP somehow still ran things. And then the Party wonders "where did the Obama voters go?" at the two year mark and run further to the right.
@79- Also: Obama's drone war has killed more innocent civilians than the ACA has saved.
To her credit, Hillary Clinton said that Bernie has the right to continue his cam…. So even she can recognize that, unlike The Stranger. The nomination may not be likely but it's important not to back down. Sander's campaign is completely unprecedented, and it sends a strong message that we are tired of the status quo.
If Trump is our next president it will be Clinton's fault for using establishment ties to clinch an undeserved nomination. Then again maybe the Democratic party deserves what it gets. Sanders is polling over 10 points ahead of Trump and it looks like Clinton will likely lose in November, but the Dems can't get their heads out of their asses to realize that Sanders is the stronger candidate. Period.
Unfortunately we'll all pay the price for such blind loyalty.
@80 - if you think at this point the ACA has only saved "dozens" of lives, you are either intentionally lying or do not have a clue about its impact.
@81: Literally a lie. The ACA can claim 50,000 lives saved already:…
Meanwhile, the highest estimates for civilian casualties from drone strikes under Obama clock in somewhere around 500. You're off by TWO WHOLE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
@84- When did you become so mendacious? '“the precise causes of the decline in patient harm are not fully understood,” but it notes that “the increase in safety has occurred during a period of concerted attention by hospitals throughout the country to reduce adverse events”'. 50,000 people may have not died in a hospital because of a small bit of the ACA that mandated better procedures. Maybe.

This has nothing to do with the meat of the ACA, of course. The mandatory health insurance which is the marquee "progressive" achievement has no track record to speak of.

How many civilians have been killed by drone strikes? We'll never know for sure, but 500 is a laughably low number. In 2009 it was already thought that at least 600 civilians had been killed by drones (…). That number hasn't gone down. I'm in the middle of "Dirty Wars" by Jeremy Scahill, you should give it a read. Drones are only part of the global assassination program Obama is running to the benefit of terrorist organizers everywhere.

The Democratic Party is not a progressive party, I don't know why everyone feels progressives are obliged to vote for them.
@85, When in doubt, look to Politifact. Here's what it found regarding the ACA:…
(short answer: it's helped tens of millions)

Here's what it found with Sanders' plan:…
(short answer: it could work according to some economists but not others, and even those who state it could state it will most likely never pass)