Burlington (Vt.) Free Press: 'Sen. Sanders cannot win this primary and there will be no revolution'

[bigtree]

Terra Firma @SDzzz
Burlington Free Press (op-ed) calls for Bernie to quit. "Sen. Sanders’ campaign is becoming more like a cult of personality"http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/opinion/my-turn/2016/05/01/opinion-bernie-sanders-contest/83699326/

[Buzz Clik]

1. He's already won. Why can no one see that?

[boston bean]

2. Oh NO!

Losing is winning!

Less is more!

Delusions are reality!

That danged author can go straight to H.E.double toothpicks!

[bigtree]

5. only in America

Larry ?@crazylary51
#IndianaPrimary Onlyin America does a candidate behind in delegate count and popular votes still think he is winning

[DetlefK]

4. There would be no revolution, even if Sanders HAD won.

The US is too stuck in their own culture, their own traditions, their own prejudices, to make actual political changes.

The US doesn't want to adopt some foreign idea merely on the basis that it works! They want a uniquely american solution because the US is a unique and special snowflake.

In Europe, a social-democrat like Sanders would easily win >30% of a national vote.
The establishment-Democrats of the US, like Hillary Clinton, wouldn't be regarded as "left" in Europe. They would range somewhere from center-left to center-right.
And the party-platform of the US-Republicans would be so far to the right in Europe, they would get about 20% of a national vote, but not much more.

[bigtree]

7. much of our party is judged by what has passed the gauntlet of our national legislature

...the problem with a 'revolution' supposes that there's a majority of Democrats who hold radically different values and beliefs than Sanders and his supporters. That's been the theme of more than one post here; Hillary's supporters are 'cogs' or 'establishment,' while Sanders' are supposedly the epitome of progressiveness.

In fact, most Democrats share the goals expressed by the Vermont career pol, offering, I would wager, as many failed or rejected progressive proposals as Sanders in his terms in office, but compromising (as Sanders has done on a vast range of issues) when it came time to actually do the business of advancing legislation through a divided Congress and Senate.

Point is, there are ongoing political fights for progressive changes being waged against a recalcitrant and obstructionist republican majority which most voters don't feel require a 'revolution' in our party to prevail.

Take the Progressive Congressional Caucus which Bernie Sanders founded when he was in the House. All but a handful of the members are now supporting Hillary for president. That's not some dearth of values or some abdication of their desire for progressive change, it's a recognition of political reality. They're smart enough to understand that dividing the party among ourselves and demanding fealty to untenable and implausible initiatives and agendas isn't progress, it's a deeper regression into the obstinate way that republicans are managing our public affairs. Why should we emulate them in their obstinacy?

The very notion of a revolution is an absurdity in the wake of Barack Obama's productive and effective presidency. We need a wider recognition of the efforts being made by our party and work to build on the successes of the past 7 years.

[JaneyVee]

6. This one gotta sting.

[Jitter65]

8. And they love him most. Tough love... nt