Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread

[Heebie Jeebie]

Good.  I can't wait to see his campaign crash and burn.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The measurement here for him and many of his affiliation is how many cardboard cutouts a particular influencer can put into office, irrespective of whether they share the same views (or even the party's views) on key issues. In their eyes, Sanders is a failure because most of his endorsed candidates either didn't win their primaries or lost their general elections. It's the same reason they fixate so much on him "not being a Democrat": it's all about labels, branding and superficial belt notches for them.

Of course, they overlook that Sanders' foray into presidential politics started not because he wanted to win an electoral contest, but because he wanted to steer the narrative of the Democratic Party. By that measurement, he has been far more successful than any other Democratic politician in many years, including the candidate he lost to in 2016 (does anybody really remember any unique policies Clinton championed?). Practically every presidential candidate who has entered the race or is expected to enter has cozied up to him on all of his core issues, including substantially higher taxes on the wealthy, $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and so forth. Just three years ago, virtually no prominent Democrat would be caught near these issues.

By and large, Bernie Sanders doesn't need to win the endorsement/brand game of checkers in random congressional and statewide primaries because he has taken charge of the chessboard upon which the game is played. The candidates and politicians now sing his tune; in a large number of cases, whom he picks in primaries is merely a potential cherry-on-top kind of branding/notch game victory just like the #Resistance types value.

Give me a break. Sanders's influence on Democratic Party orthodoxy is wildly overstated. It's not like establishment Democrats thought "higher taxes on the wealthy, $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and so forth" were bad ideas or not worth pursuing--the only difference between Sanders and the establishment was that the former was/is willing to make empty promises and the latter is actually interested in what is politically possible.  You want to credit Sanders for moving the party to the left, but the real credit belongs to two others:  Mitch McConnell, for completely destroying the notion that compromise  with Republicans is possible, and Trump, for being so unpopular that Democratic majorities in Congress after 2020 are now a distinct possibility.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Give me a break. Sanders's influence on Democratic Party orthodoxy is wildly overstated. It's not like establishment Democrats thought "higher taxes on the wealthy, $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and so forth" were bad ideas or not worth pursuing--the only difference between Sanders and the establishment was that the former was/is willing to make empty promises and the latter is actually interested in what is politically possible.  You want to credit Sanders for moving the party to the left, but the real credit belongs to two others:  Mitch McConnell, for completely destroying the notion that compromise  with Republicans is possible, and Trump, for being so unpopular that Democratic majorities in Congress after 2020 are now a distinct possibility.

Thats exactly what happened under obama.

My God that is such a dumb, unserious critique.  The Democratic party under Obama was responsible for one the greatest redistributions of wealth downward in the country's history and easily the largest expansion of the social safety net since the Great Society.

[Heebie Jeebie]

And really none of those "authentic democrat" concerns matter, it's what the policies/record are, and what effect those will have on the country, and being authentically something is not a good unto itself.

None of the "policies/record" matter if you don't have the institutional support necessary to actually enact legislation, and you don't build institutional support by constantly spitting on the party that drives progress in this country.  Ever since William Jennings Bryan took control at the 1896 convention, the Democratic Party has been by far the greatest force for good this country has known, and for Sanders to reject membership in that party, preening about like some kind of holier-than-thou saint, while simultaneously benefiting from all the party's work and resources--it's an insult to anyone who's ever volunteered, or donated, or run for office as a Democrat.   F that guy.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Not surprised to see that Bernie derangement syndrome is alive and well, and many of the same people who complained about Hillary being held to an unrealistic standard hold Bernie to a similarly unrealistic standard. He's not a saint, and there are votes and statements of his worthy of criticism. (While I get what he's saying about white voters being "uncomfortable" with black candidates, i.e. xenophobia and racism are not the same thing, I think he could've used better wording, which is a common issue for him.)

However, the attacks on him "not being a Democrat", not doing "enough" for Hillary in 2016, being too old, being too "soft" on guns and/or Russia, and the mere fact that some DINOcrats in states like KY, OK, and WV voted for him come across as nothing more than people holding a grudge on him from 2016 for committing the act of domestic terrorism known as challenging Hillary to a primary, and continue to blame him for her loss, when he's one of the last people who should be blamed.

I know it probably feels easier for you to just ignore the substance of the Sanders criticisms and pretend it's all petty Clinton supporters holding a grudge, but just try for a moment to imagine we're speaking in good faith.  The Democratic Party is important.  If you want to see political and social progress in this country, it's going to happen through the Democratic Party.  Recognizing this fact is why I've invested so much of my own time, money, and energy in supporting the party and its candidates, why I've run for local office as a Democrat myself.  When Sanders claims to be committed to progressive, liberal values while at the same time rejecting the only political organization that can realize those values--well, like I said, as a proud Democrat I feel personally insulted.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Your dumb comment of course ignores that William Jennings Bryan "took over the democratic party" over a long term period of heavy infighting resistance from the business-friendly Cleveland establishment, including direct criticism of their policies that was much, much uglier and nothing like the civil discourse between Hillary and Bernie

I'm well aware of the history, and nowhere did I suggest that today's arguments are nearly as heated as the ones back then.  Heck, they're nowhere near as venomous as the inter-party fights just 30 years ago--remember the vitriol between Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton in 1992?  But that doesn't change the substance of my criticism!  There are plenty of politicians who criticize leaders in the party without rejecting the party itself.  Elizabeth Warren has made a political career out of that.  And that's good!  There should be debate and competition within--I wish Warren had challenged Clinton in 2016. 

But Sanders's shtick is a whole different thing.  His whole reason for being is to divide and weaken the party, not to reform it.  The man has no appreciation for the value of institutions, just a bottomless pride in his own lily-white purity.  That's not only childish and self-aggrandizing--it's dangerous.   He's doing his best to convince a whole generation that the only reason we're not living in utopia is because the leaders of the Democratic Party have sold them out to the rich, have betrayed them.  He's convinced thousands, maybe millions, that the Democratic Party is hopelessly corrupt, is unworthy of their commitment.  He sows divisions between the people and their greatest ally.  So I say again, F that guy.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I know that the stereotypical Sanders supporter might be a college kid with no previous investment in politics, but some of us have been involved with the Democratic Party for a while. I've seen plenty of people "loyal to the Democratic Party" fail to deliver on the promise of a progressive agenda time and time again, despite promises to voters. At least Sanders has (for the most part) the voting record to back up the idea that he's committed to progressive values, whereas many Democrats will turn on their voters when it suits them politically. I'm tired of the insistence that we can't run people because they're too far left, and then the more "electable" Democrat loses anyway. I'm also tired of seeing Republican-lite candidates get lauded as heroes.

Isn't it more important that he caucuses with the Democrats, doesn't fail the Democrats when they need him, and always endorses the Democratic candidate than it is that he simply isn't a registered Democrat? Would Jim Webb, who is a registered Democrat, but rejects most progressive principles and didn't even support Clinton, be preferable?

These kinds of comments frustrate me so much.  Part of me is genuinely sympathetic to what you're saying.  I too wish we lived in a world where the morally pure could just speak truth to power and then utopia descend from on high.  But politics is not a morality play!  Does every Democratic politician remain steadfast, loyal, and true to progressive principles at all times?  Of course not.  Good politicians are necessarily opportunists and compromisers--that's how politics works.  And yet, despite all the inconstancy and double-dealing of individual politicians, despite the constant compromises and set-backs, the party as a whole has been dragging this country ever leftward for the last 125 years.  We're not constantly being betrayed--progress is just really, really hard and tedious work.  There's a Max Weber quote I'm sure you've heard before:  "Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.  It takes both passion and perspective."  And it's true--politics is strong, and slow, and boring.  The party faithful have the perspective to see that; the Bernie faithful have all of the passion but none of the perspective.

Anyway, I'm glad Sanders caucuses and votes with Democrats--that's certainly preferable to the alternative.  I just wish he, and his devotees, would recognize that the Democratic Party is not the enemy.  It's home.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Yes, let's do all we can to boost the viewership of FOX News and burnish their image as a credible news source and not just a right-wing propaganda machine.    God, Sanders is such a delusional fool some times.  This isn't complicated--Don't lend credibility to an organization whose entire goal is to destroy everything you stand for!  He's being an idiot, and anybody who supports this move is also being an idiot.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Why would any Democrat want to help legitimize FOX News?

[Heebie Jeebie]

Why would any Democrat want to help legitimize FOX News?

Bernie Sanders only cares about Bernie Sanders.

DNC Chairman: Democrats don’t need to legitimize FOX News.

Bernie Sanders: Lets have a forum for FOX News to throw loaded questions at me about socialism and create sound bites for the general because if I speak to Trump voters without the “iDeNTiTy PoLiTiCs DeMoCrAtS” in the room they will completely change their ideology and vote for me.

Yeah, just one more example of Bernie Sanders shetting on the party. Sadly, nothing new to see here.

[Heebie Jeebie]

*yawn* This has got to be one of the dumbest things people have gotten mad about ever since Sanders was lambasted for campaigning in CA while Beto was campaigning in NE.

This is not a trivial issue.

A study by Emory University political scientist Gregory Martin and Stanford economist Ali Yurukoglu estimates that watching Fox News translates into a significantly greater willingness to vote for Republican candidates.  They find that if Fox News hadn’t existed, the Republican presidential candidate’s share of the two-party vote would have been 3.59 points lower in 2004 and 6.34 points lower in 2008. Without Fox, in other words, neither Bush nor Trump could have won and the 2008 election would have been an extinction-level landslide.

And yet here's Bernie, doing his best to boost FOX News' viewership and give them credibility and bipartisan cover.  He's a naive ass, and so is anyone who thinks this is a smart move.

[Heebie Jeebie]

*yawn* This has got to be one of the dumbest things people have gotten mad about ever since Sanders was lambasted for campaigning in CA while Beto was campaigning in NE.

This is not a trivial issue.

A study by Emory University political scientist Gregory Martin and Stanford economist Ali Yurukoglu estimates that watching Fox News translates into a significantly greater willingness to vote for Republican candidates.  They find that if Fox News hadn’t existed, the Republican presidential candidate’s share of the two-party vote would have been 3.59 points lower in 2004 and 6.34 points lower in 2008. Without Fox, in other words, neither Bush nor Trump could have won and the 2008 election would have been an extinction-level landslide.

And yet here's Bernie, doing his best to boost FOX News' viewership and give them credibility and bipartisan cover.  He's a naive ass, and so is anyone who thinks this is a smart move.

This is the definition of a trivial issue. You are upset that a Democratic Presidential candidate is going to give an interview on a Right Wing news channel. Its only 1 day, hes not endorsing Fox News, etc. In fact, your evidence suggests the reason he should do this, as breaking the echo chamber could do a lot towards helping to counteract that trend in Fox News Viewers.

Going on FOX News for a day is endorsing it.  To think otherwise is just being purposely obtuse.  Sanders is signaling to everyone that Fox is a network that can be turned to for news and useful content, that it serves the same function as any other cable news network.  But that's not true!  It's a right-wing propaganda outlet that misinforms and warps our politics in profoundly destructive ways, and it's in no way comparable to CNN or MSNBC or any other cable news outlet (those others are garbage too, btw, but for very different reasons).  But instead, what?  I'm supposed to think that Bernie Sanders will, with a single appearance, disrupt the echo chamber and counteract the deleterious effects of the rest of Fox's programming?  My God, what kind of messianic figure must people see him as to buy into that kind of delusion?

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'm sorry, I "agree" with Bernie Sanders on almost everything, but I cannot stand him. The problem is that his supporters are absolutely hideous. At this point I'll even take Joe Biden over him.

Can't be much of a progressive if you'll support Biden over Sanders.

Not necessarily so. I consider myself more ideologically aligned with Sanders but I think Biden would be more effective as both a candidate and a president. That's not inconsistent.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'm sorry, I "agree" with Bernie Sanders on almost everything, but I cannot stand him. The problem is that his supporters are absolutely hideous. At this point I'll even take Joe Biden over him.

Can't be much of a progressive if you'll support Biden over Sanders.

Not necessarily so. I consider myself more ideologically aligned with Sanders but I think Biden would be more effective as both a candidate and a president. That's not inconsistent.

Considering that Biden is one of the most moderate Democrats that could jump in, It's not a principled stand. It makes you look like  weather vane.

Get off your high horse. Preferring someone who can get results over someone who is all talk, that's called common logic.  

What ‘results’ does Biden even want to get?

I'd imagine all the same 'results' every Democrat wants:  expanded health coverage, climate change mitigation, fairer elections, a saner immigration policy, better schools, etc.  In any case, I'm not endorsing Biden.  There are at least six or seven other candidates I'd prefer over him.  I just think he'd be better than Sanders.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Can we stop with lumping Bernie’s whole base with these trolls on social media? For all these endless Bernie or bust, burn down the DNC if we don’t get our way posters like 90% of his base voted for Hillary. There is a clear disconnect between his actual base and these online trolls

This. Let's not forget more 2008 Hillary supporters voted McCain over Obama than Sanders supporters did Trump over Clinton.

A lot of people cite this fact as if it means something, but you're comparing apples and oranges. The 2008 election was a lopsided Democratic win, so there was little to disinsentivize protest voters from switching their party vote.  Basically, nobody cared if a bunch of deadenders voted McCain because Obama was all but guaranteed a win anyway. The 2016 election was obviously a much more closely run contest and threre should have been ample pressure to stick with the party.  Different context, different incentives.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Can we stop with lumping Bernie’s whole base with these trolls on social media? For all these endless Bernie or bust, burn down the DNC if we don’t get our way posters like 90% of his base voted for Hillary. There is a clear disconnect between his actual base and these online trolls

This. Let's not forget more 2008 Hillary supporters voted McCain over Obama than Sanders supporters did Trump over Clinton.

A lot of people cite this fact as if it means something, but you're comparing apples and oranges. The 2008 election was a lopsided Democratic win, so there was little to disinsentivize protest voters from switching their party vote.  Basically, nobody cared if a bunch of deadenders voted McCain because Obama was all but guaranteed a win anyway. The 2016 election was obviously a much more closely run contest and threre should have been ample pressure to stick with the party.  Different context, different incentives.

Nobody thought Trump would win in 2016

First, this is not entirely true. Second, that's not even what I said. To repeat, "the 2016 election was obviously a much more closely run contest."  Are you really going to argue that?  I mean, on Nov 6, 538 published an article titled "Don’t Ignore The Polls — Clinton Leads, But It’s A Close Race."

[Heebie Jeebie]

It would seem that Clinton supporters on this site are still bitter towards Sanders even though it was Trump and not Sanders who defeated her. When she won the primary Sanders quickly supported her as he had promised, but that doesn't seem good enough for Clinton supporters.
It's quite sad really.

They seem to want to continue to be divisive which can only help Trump.

Ha, a Sanders supporter accusing others of being divisive!  Pot. Kettle. Black.

Seriously, though, your comment is the lamest kind of straw man. I can assure you that I and many, many others deeply dislike Sanders not only for what happened in 2016 but also for most of what he's done since.

[Heebie Jeebie]

It would seem that Clinton supporters on this site are still bitter towards Sanders even though it was Trump and not Sanders who defeated her. When she won the primary Sanders quickly supported her as he had promised, but that doesn't seem good enough for Clinton supporters.
It's quite sad really.

They seem to want to continue to be divisive which can only help Trump.

Ha, a Sanders supporter accusing others of being divisive!  Pot. Kettle. Black.

Seriously, though, your comment is the lamest kind of straw man. I can assure you that I and many, many others deeply dislike Sanders not only for what happened in 2016 but also for most of what he's done since.

What more could he have done for Hillary in 2016 besides vigorously endorse and campaign for her, as he did? And what has he “done” since then that’s so horrible, besides fix his sights on taking down Trump and creating a more progressive Democratic Party? I don’t expect any specifics from you, cause you have none.

A Sanders supporter criticizing someone for a lack of specifics!  That's cute.

Look, I'm not interested in rehashing 2016.  You think Sanders's support for Hillary was vigorous, and I remember it being resentful and tepid at best.  Neither of us is going to rewrite the other's memory, so no point in arguing about that.  But I will try to articulate why I disliked him then and why I still dislike him now. 

I think Sanders is basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.  Sanders's explanation for everything he wants to do is that we need a revolution in this country.  But we're never going to get a revolution, and Sanders knows it.  You don’t build a revolution on top of an economy like ours.  If you want to get anything done, you’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through slow, boring, hard work.  If you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves—all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment.  In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that’s never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to slow, boring, hard work?  Or do they give up?  If you don’t want your followers to give up in disgust, your inspiration needs to be in the service of goals that are at least attainable. By offering a chimera instead, Sanders has done the progressive movement no favors.

[Heebie Jeebie]

It would seem that Clinton supporters on this site are still bitter towards Sanders even though it was Trump and not Sanders who defeated her. When she won the primary Sanders quickly supported her as he had promised, but that doesn't seem good enough for Clinton supporters.
It's quite sad really.

They seem to want to continue to be divisive which can only help Trump.

Ha, a Sanders supporter accusing others of being divisive!  Pot. Kettle. Black.

Seriously, though, your comment is the lamest kind of straw man. I can assure you that I and many, many others deeply dislike Sanders not only for what happened in 2016 but also for most of what he's done since.

What more could he have done for Hillary in 2016 besides vigorously endorse and campaign for her, as he did? And what has he “done” since then that’s so horrible, besides fix his sights on taking down Trump and creating a more progressive Democratic Party? I don’t expect any specifics from you, cause you have none.

A Sanders supporter criticizing someone for a lack of specifics!  That's cute.

Look, I'm not interested in rehashing 2016.  You think Sanders's support for Hillary was vigorous, and I remember it being resentful and tepid at best.  Neither of us is going to rewrite the other's memory, so no point in arguing about that.  But I will try to articulate why I disliked him then and why I still dislike him now. 

I think Sanders is basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.  Sanders's explanation for everything he wants to do is that we need a revolution in this country.  But we're never going to get a revolution, and Sanders knows it.  You don’t build a revolution on top of an economy like ours.  If you want to get anything done, you’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through slow, boring, hard work.  If you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves—all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment.  In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that’s never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to slow, boring, hard work?  Or do they give up?  If you don’t want your followers to give up in disgust, your inspiration needs to be in the service of goals that are at least attainable. By offering a chimera instead, Sanders has done the progressive movement no favors.

So Sanders is a conman then?

Thanks for saying all his supporters are gullible f**ks. That's the way to win them over!

I'm not so silly that I think posting some comments on an Internet forum is going to "win anyone over."  I'm just curious to see how a Sanders supporter responds to my criticisms.  But as is typical of a Sanders supporter, you don't address the critique at all. 

Anyway, yes, I think Sanders is either a naive idiot or a self-aggrandizing conman, and most of his supporters are gullible and/or immature--more interested in virtue signaling than actually doing the hard work of making people's lives better.  But I guess I'm not supposed to say that.  I guess I'm supposed to coddle you infantile bozos?

[Heebie Jeebie]

It would seem that Clinton supporters on this site are still bitter towards Sanders even though it was Trump and not Sanders who defeated her. When she won the primary Sanders quickly supported her as he had promised, but that doesn't seem good enough for Clinton supporters.
It's quite sad really.

They seem to want to continue to be divisive which can only help Trump.

Ha, a Sanders supporter accusing others of being divisive!  Pot. Kettle. Black.

Seriously, though, your comment is the lamest kind of straw man. I can assure you that I and many, many others deeply dislike Sanders not only for what happened in 2016 but also for most of what he's done since.

What more could he have done for Hillary in 2016 besides vigorously endorse and campaign for her, as he did? And what has he “done” since then that’s so horrible, besides fix his sights on taking down Trump and creating a more progressive Democratic Party? I don’t expect any specifics from you, cause you have none.

A Sanders supporter criticizing someone for a lack of specifics!  That's cute.

Look, I'm not interested in rehashing 2016.  You think Sanders's support for Hillary was vigorous, and I remember it being resentful and tepid at best.  Neither of us is going to rewrite the other's memory, so no point in arguing about that.  But I will try to articulate why I disliked him then and why I still dislike him now. 

I think Sanders is basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.  Sanders's explanation for everything he wants to do is that we need a revolution in this country.  But we're never going to get a revolution, and Sanders knows it.  You don’t build a revolution on top of an economy like ours.  If you want to get anything done, you’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through slow, boring, hard work.  If you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves—all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment.  In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that’s never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to slow, boring, hard work?  Or do they give up?  If you don’t want your followers to give up in disgust, your inspiration needs to be in the service of goals that are at least attainable. By offering a chimera instead, Sanders has done the progressive movement no favors.

So Sanders is a conman then?

Thanks for saying all his supporters are gullible f**ks. That's the way to win them over!

I'm not so silly that I think posting some comments on an Internet forum is going to "win anyone over."  I'm just curious to see how a Sanders supporter responds to my criticisms.  But as is typical of a Sanders supporter, you don't address the critique at all. 

Anyway, yes, I think Sanders is either a naive idiot or a self-aggrandizing conman, and most of his supporters are gullible and/or immature--more interested in virtue signaling than actually doing the hard work of making people's lives better.  But I guess I'm not supposed to say that.  I guess I'm supposed to coddle you infantile bozos?

Just keep insulting Sanders supporters. Like it or not, you kinda need them to win. They stay home, Democrats are going to lose big-time. And insulting them endlessly is not going to do that, but if you do, then they won't vote, then you'll go around blaming everyone but yourselves for losing.

Kinda like everything you've been doing since 2016.

I love how the response to "You all need to grow up and commit to hard work" is "Don't be mean or we'll sulk and stop participating."  All you Sanders supporters are so precious. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Maybe try to understand them and why they’re disillusioned with the political process

That's exactly what I'm doing, and my conclusion is that they're disillusioned because political charlatans like Bernie Sanders keep making promises they have no intentions of keeping.  Sanders presents no real plan for anything--just a bunch of vague gestures and inchoate sputterings from his high horse.  He's done his best to convince a whole generation that politics is some kind of dumb morality play where the real heroes are those who don't compromise.  It's such a childish way of seeing the world, and I don't see why I have to pretend otherwise.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Maybe try to understand them and why they’re disillusioned with the political process

That's exactly what I'm doing, and my conclusion is that they're disillusioned because political charlatans like Bernie Sanders keep making promises they have no intentions of keeping.  Sanders presents no real plan for anything--just a bunch of vague gestures and inchoate sputterings from his high horse.  He's done his best to convince a whole generation that politics is some kind of dumb morality play where the real heroes are those who don't compromise.  It's such a childish way of seeing the world, and I don't see why I have to pretend otherwise.

You’ve got the chicken and egg backwards. Bernie’s message resonates with many young people because they were already very disillusioned with politics, not the other way around. Is he setting their hopes too high? Perhaps, but the idea that we need to champion incremental change and be bipartisan in the era of Trump and the current Republican Party is, to me, extremely troubling. It’s time to stand our ground and fight back, even if it means being “stubborn”, and not always compromising. In my view, he’s convinced a generation to get involved and vote for a government that will represent their interests, rather than simply pay lip service to change while failing to address fundamental problems in society. The mantra that we need compromise and bipartisanship is frankly old, not fitting in the current political climate, and often itself is intellectually lazy if the only proposed plan to actually get anything done is to “reach across the aisle.”

Also, where do you get your assertion that he has “no plans”? From his rallies? Most candidates don’t go into detail about exactly how they’ll enact their policies in campaign rallies.

Look, I want to believe that you care about enacting change that will benefit people and simply believe that Sanders is going about it in the wrong way. If that’s what you do believe, fine, we don’t have to agree. But I think you have yet to really understand what motivates his core of supporters, rather than his most obnoxious ones on Twitter.

Re:  "the idea that we need to champion incremental change and be bipartisan"  Nobody's arguing for that.  In fact, I think just the opposite.  We need aggressive but attainable goals, and strident partisanship is the only vehicle we have to accomplish those goals.  Sanders, unfortunately, shows no interest in either.  Like I said, he's got no plan to accomplish anything beyond shallow "political revolution" sloganeering, and he shows an undisguised contempt for the party organization actually trying to realize progress.

Re:  "he’s convinced a generation to get involved and vote for a government that will represent their interests"  A government that will represent (and has represented) their interests is a Democratic government, and Sanders is nothing but contemptuous of the Democratic party.  His whole appeal is premised on the idea that the party has betrayed the people, and as a man who has donated a lot of my own money, time, and energy to the party I find that insulting.  When he spits on the Democratic party, he spits on me.

Re:  "detail about exactly how they’ll enact their policies"  Every speech doesn't need to be a detailed policy proposal, but you've got to show some indication of how you'll get things done, especially if you're proposing a series of wildly expensive new programs.  Sanders won't even entertain ending the Senate filibuster.  He won't put minimal effort into outlining funding options for his proposals.  There's nothing serious about his proposed agenda, and no indication he'll be able to deliver on anything he promises.  Do I have to explain why it's dangerous to make promises you have no intention of keeping?

[Heebie Jeebie]

You can't win the nomination with the support of progressives alone.  What makes you think he'll be able to get the support of enough moderates and/or minorities to win?

[Heebie Jeebie]

So a pledge called 'We Are Indivisible' making the rounds. Basically a pledge to support the eventual Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

Sanders has been the first to sign https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-first-to-sign-pledge-to-rally-behind-whoever-wins-democratic-primary

FF petition, good on Sanders for signing it, I really like the dude, I will support him if he is the nominee. Everybody needs to get on board with this.

I just hope he can more effectively relay this message to his more fanatical supporters this time.

Hillary had far more supporters who voted for McCain than Bernie had vote for Trump.

2008 was nowhere near as close of an election as 2016 was, or 2020 looks to be. There needs to be as little internal dissent as possible if the Democrats want to win the election. Sanders seems to see the bigger picture, and his supporters, or any candidate's supporters for that matter, should see it too. And that goes for any election actually.

McCain was leading in September 2008. while Hillary had a consistent lead in the polls in 2016.

Come on.  You know that's deeply misleading.  McCain got a post-convention bounce just like every candidate gets every cycle, but that bounce had completely dissipated two weeks later.  Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3 and he led by significant margins the entire race, save that one two-week period in early September.  And of course, the financial crisis hit in mid-September, all but sealing a Democratic victory.  It's dishonest to pretend 2008 was as closely contested as 2016.  You're usually more responsible than that.

[Heebie Jeebie]

All of these arguments about 2008 being less competitive than 2016 are missing the point. We couldn’t have known earlier in those years what the outcome would be for sure. People assumed that 2008 would be a close race up until the recession, and many assumed that Clinton would win easily in 2016. The point is that Sanders did try to convince his supporters to back Clinton, and was largely successful. Blaming him for what a very small percentage of his supporters did is disingenuous, and just comes across as another excuse to attack Bernie, blame him for everything, and retain old grudges. He’s claimed that he will support any of the Democratic candidates, so how about we focus on this year, and not attack him as divisive unless he clearly walks back on that.

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, NV, and while I wish I could agree (God knows I don't want to rehash 2016 til the day I die), I just can't.  For one, blaming Sanders for his role in the 2016 defeat isn't the same as "blaming him for everything."  There's plenty of blame to go around, and just because he wasn't solely responsible for Democrats' losses doesn't mean he's blameless.  And two, it makes no sense to just "focus on this year" and ignore the recent past as we evaluate the candidates.  Would you say we do that for all the other candidates too?  Do we ignore Biden's tenure as vice president or Senator?  Should we forget about O'Rourke's Senate race last year?  Is Harris's time as California's AG off limits?  Should we ignore everythign Trump did prior to this year?  I assume not, so why are supposed to give Sanders a pass?