Yet, here you are, still writing about Bernie. Why no focus on what a fantastic candidate Hillary is?

It's fascinating to me seeing all these anti-Sanders posts, that keep telling me that Bernie is no longer relevant and his actions no longer have any value or political worth. Yet, these posts keep happening - almost on a daily basis. What gives?

Its about time he fucking stepped in line so we can start working towards ensuring the raging garbage fire that is Trump does not make it into the White House. It's going to be pretty hard to get any change when that orange faced atrocity is elected and gets the opportunity to appoint at least one supreme court justice. Christ.

@1, that is the LAST thing anyone will do for the rest of this campaign...the last thing.

the cognitive dissonance in this article is amazing. should be preserved in a museum as the most succinct example of doublethink ever produced by mankind

@3

What *is* clickbait, really? Is there, like, any definition for it at all?

remember when republicans were all "lol Obama is so bad he hasn't even done anything" and then would turn around and say in the same sentence "holy crap he has to be stopped he's ruining america"

I'm no Bernie fan, but I wish the Stranger staff would start focusing on Hillary's policy positions and why they would actually be better than Sanders' or Trump's. For example, her $12 an hour minimum wage policy ($15 with conditions) is better for workers AND small business owners. When only wealthy people can afford to own businesses in the city, we end up with cities full of Chase Banks, Sleep Country USA's, and bars and restaurants owned by the same five rich people like Linda Dershang. Other issues need to be addressed (rent control, e.g.) before we can place this kind of burden on small business owners. A $15 an hour wage makes sense for businesses netting a certain amount of profit per year. It doesn't for the truly small businesses that make cities interesting which are struggling to stay open already.

Also, I wish you would focus on the problems with the protectionist trade policies of Sanders and Trump and the impact they would have on commerce/cost of goods, and why free trade is better for the economy according to most economists, even the liberal ones who favor reform. I think you'll find a lot of disgruntled Sanders supporters wondering why their IPods now cost 3x as much as they used to and Trump supporters Stymied when their Walmarts shut down or only stock $45 American Apparel sweatshirts.

@8:

If this is all it takes to turn-off some so-called "progressive voters" from engaging in the political process, then they didn't really stand much of a chance in the first place. Politics is, by-nature, a messy, ugly, hard-fought business, because EVERYONE has an agenda, and everyone wants THEIR agenda at the forefront; that's why compromise is the only paradigm that actually works in the process. If you're going to insist on absolute adherence to any particular agenda, especially in a democracy, you're never going to accomplish anything - as the current state of Congress aptly demonstrates - because no one in their right mind is going to give up the entirety of THEIR agenda for the sake of someone else's, particularly when the two are in diametric opposition to each other. So, the only realistic option is to learn to give-something-to-get-something, otherwise you get what we have now: a state of near-absolute gridlock where nothing gets done.

@9 Linda Dershang is rich?

Hahahahaha. I know Linda real well. Sure. She does pretty okay. But comipared to carpet bagging tech people who contribute JACK SHIT to this city, she's a veritable pauper Gandhi.

Jesus Christ. So what's the cut off for successful business person? Two restaurants? Three food trucks? When do we stop employing people, funding progressive local causes for decades, and helping artists and musicians in our communities and just hide away from you poor church mice so as not to offend you?

No good dead or success goes unpunished with some people.

Business owners like Dershang and Minnert aren't even remotely the wealthiest restauranteurs. The presence of fucking soulless chains that send all their money out of town and don't do shit for people here should offend you more.

"Corporate media doesn't talk about Bernie, therefore Sanders has no leverage"

Wow! what a waste of time. Stop trolling, Baume.

@9 Corporate "free trade" agreements aren't about free trade. Opposing them isn't being protectionist. Enough propaganda already!

@11, I don't know many paupers who own Marni purses, Comme des Garcons wallets, and million dollar houses, but ok:
http://lineout.thestranger.com/lineout/a…

http://seattle.curbed.com/2015/5/1/99649…

My point is that Sanders & Trump policies are all about bringing back the middle class. Well, middle class and lower middle class-owned businesses are all but disappearing in cities across the countries, and so-called progressive $15 minimum wage policies that don't include exemptions for small business owners contribute to that loss.

Adding my voice to those who want The Stranger to stop writing about a failed primary candidate and start talking about all the progressive things Hillary has done, and will do.

Let's start focusing on the winning candidate's excellent record, not the loser's bizarre refusal to step back. Why doesn't anyone ever seem to want to talk about Hillary?

@12: "Enough propaganda already! Read MY propaganda instead!"
Trump and Sanders have both espoused objectively protectionist policies. Next!

I assume your rhetorical about the last Bernie article is not supposed to include the ones yall write EVERY FUCKING DAY?
I even agree with you but MOVE THE FUCK ON PLEASE .

@15 Sanders hasn't espoused protectionism. Give your sources and explain them.

Also, Trump recent comments about TPP weren't protectionist even though corporate media claimed they were. You appear to be dutifully regurgitating what your hear on corporate news.

@15 Elizabeth Warren on TPP shows that these international agreements aren't about free trade but increases in corporate profits.

@18, The definition of Protectionism is "The theory or practice of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports."

NAFTA's purpose was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment by reducing and eliminating tariffs (taxes on imported products). - from Bernie's website

Bernie wants to repeal NAFTA and other trade deals. Therefore, the taxes that were reduced/eliminated will be re-imposed, which is the definition of protectionism.

I was almost able to fully make sense of this article, but some of it was garbled.

Next time, Matt, try to type with both hands or keep your dick off the keyboard, the amount of smug self-gratification in this piece was off the charts.

Also, congratulations, Clinton's got the nomination locked up, I hope he does endorse her and I hope she does win, not only because Trump is a complete horror, but because maybe, for five minutes, it might shut these sycophantic tirades up.

(the endless bernie or bust chanting from certain corners is no less annoying, lest one be tempted to accuse me of playing favorites).

This is getting pathetic and cruel. Reading slog these days is like getting drinks with someone who got dumped five months ago, yet complains about their ex all night long. "Oh, nobody cares about her. I don't think she even has friends anymore - they all picked me! I, like, never even think about her, anyway." Well, buddy, then you should shut the fuck up about it. Let's hear about your new "progressive" center-right girlfriend instead.

Honestly, it seems like most of the cynical, ironically distant Stranger writers were a little hurt when a genuine human being ran an issue-based campaign and found a measure of success because he had a soul. The entire Sanders campaign was an affront to their type of limited thinking, which relies on dismissing any sort of genuine passion as kooky or useless, only because it allows that cynical, ironically distant person to morally justify their political laziness and inaction at a time when it's absolutely necessary.

It's sad that The Stranger has dissolved to the point where they can only offer milquetoast political coverage equal to vacuous rambling on CNN.

@19: THANK you. Saved me a little trouble; much appreciated!

The Stranger really hurt its credibility this election season with the constant condescension, gloating, and disdain for people who wanted an honest, progressive candidate.

I'll vote for Hillary, despite the fact that she's a moderate conservative and demonstrated war hawk. But I'll care less about the Stranger's political views, and I'll be more skeptical of the Stranger's endorsements down ticket. How many other establishment candidates with track records of dishonesty and anti-progressive policies are Baume and company going to push with the dismissive "the grown-ups in the room know mediocrity is the best option" line?

In fact, it's hard to imagine his endorsement even meaning much at this point.

That is bullshit and you know it. If you don't, then ask your editor. Just the other day he wrote a great letter comparing Bernie supporters with Nader supporters. This, or some variation of it, is what Clinton supporters fear the most. A relatively weak candidate combined with a small percentage of voters who think they will change the world by losing an election, and next thing you know we have a really stupid president in charge.

That is probably a stretch, of course. Clinton supporters want the enthusiastic support of Sanders the same way that Kerry appreciated the enthusiastic support of Kucinich (who also didn't officially end his campaign until right before the convention). A strong speech like that and no one cares how nasty the campaign got. They figure they could use the (largely young) Sanders supporters enthusiasm -- not only in the presidential race, but for every race out there (efforts made to take the House are arguably more important at this point). It was no different eight years ago, when Obama asked (and got) the support of Hillary Clinton. Back then, though, uniting the party was more about fund raising than people on the ground (Obama already had the latter).

Is The Stranger's new editor really keeping this shitstain on staff. Does anyone find him amusing or informative?

@19 "Bernie wants to repeal NAFTA and other trade deals."

Sanders wants to renegotiate these trade deals because they are bad deals for American workers. Don't you agree?

Sanders didn't say that he would tax imports. You are making that up. Your definition of protectionism conveniently leaves out barriers to protect the profits of corporation with patents and kangaroo courts, which is not surprising since the entire point of the "free trade" propaganda is to enhance corporate profits at the expense of people.

@19, What do you think "renegotiating these trade deals" means? If he doesn't think the American people should be forced to compete with workers making 65 cents an hour, how do you think he is going to keep this from happening other than imposing taxes on imports from these countries (or engaging in any of the other protectionist policies outlined in the Wikipedia page below)? To be fair, Sanders has not stated what his actual plan is, which is one of the biggest problems I've had with him as a candidate.

There is no proof that Nafta has created job loss for the American worker: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…

The problem American workers have is the same problem British workers have. These manufacturing jobs are not coming back because the nature of the economy has changed from industrial to post-industrial. The real solution to this problem is to train workers for these new jobs, not to try to salvage manufacturing: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/busine…

My definition of Protectionism is the Google definition. I don't know where you got yours from. Here's the Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection…

@27:
BTFO
TFO
FO
O

I get it now, Baume is a sociopath who sees life as a cartoon. The more you know.