I have fucking had it with: "Sanders, which could potentially force Hillary Clinton further left..."

[DirkGently]

169. I think "pushing HRC left" is a valid point.

A lot of these discussions / poo-flinging sessions, here on DU and elsewhere, revolve around tension between "electability" (money and insider support) and "principle," (actually being right about things).

In fact, we often worry that obtaining power, and then looking after the interests of those with less power, are in direct conflict. Monied interests are thought to be necessary for a candidate to win, but those same interests expect protection and favors when the election is over.

It's the oldest problem in politics -- or at least if you're looking for a democracy of some kind.

But one of the possible antidotes to that dynamic is popular pressure. Many of us recall Obama insisting that the people "hold his feet to the fire." LBJ is said to have told MLK to pressure his office on civil rights, implying that he wanted to do "the right thing," but needed outside support to make it happen. To provide what we sometimes call "political cover."

You generate "political cover" with debate.

We also hear a lot of argument based on the binary nature of a two-party system, e.g., "If you don't support X Democrat, you are effectively supporting Y Republican." That's tiresome and a little childish in my view, but there is an element of truth in it as well -- if you really only have two choices, and one is horrific, anyone "better than a Republican" will do. That kind of lowering the bar hurts everyone though.

Two Democrats helps with both of those situations. If Bernie gets traction talking about things like not letting Wall Street screw over Social Security or more effective banking regulation -- areas in which HRC is found wanting by some Democrats, but where she realistically may feel a little hemmed in given the support she's received from big banks and financial interests in the past, she may suddenly have the political cover to disappoint the banks and take stronger progressive positions. Positions she can be pressured to stick to later if she becomes President.

Likewise, the "Agree with HRC or you're asking for a Republican President," line of rhetoric is dead, at least for now. It's not a binary proposition again until the nominee is decided. But even if Hillary wins the nomination, IF part of winning means adopting more Sanders / Warren-esque stances on core Democratic principles, we could end up with a Hillary Clinton that people not so fond of her positions now might like much better.

Frankly, I think that's why at least part of why Bernie's running. I love his positions, and will support him as long as he is a candidate, but I think his calculation had as much to do with giving Democrats the space to create political pressure / cover for Hillary to move left where she needs to as with a desire to be President.

If HRC is smart -- and I think she is -- she'll actually count that as a plus as well.