"Bernie Sanders Has Always Sacrificed Pragmatism For Idealism, But Now Its Hurting Democrats"

[JCanete]

143. primarying isn't talking about 3rd parties, now is it? That is working within the party, and

using our democracy. I don't know about you, but I WANT a choice in the primary. That should always be a part of the process. I don't begrudge that effort AT ALL.

Those thinking they want to go the third party route are not doing it the way I would, since there is a progressive wing of the Democratic party now. Splintering off and taking their ability to vote in democratic primaries off the table is not giving them more power to decide the next progressive candidate. I respect their desire to create another party as is their right, but a third party can only play spoiler, or legitimately, apply pressure to the big party closest to it in ideology to tac in that direction.

so the transition would be difficult and disruptive. My guess is the brilliant minds who decided that aren't putting most of their effort into figuring out the best ways to make it less difficult and less disruptive, and I suspect that that is because of ideological reasons. The other side of it would be better. There are industries I personally believe we shouldn't be leaving in the hands of for-profit corporations, because the primary goals of those companies are not necessarily aligned to the interests of the patient. But I'm not well well versed on this topic and I'm not staking my whole progressive perspective on single payer specifically. I'm just not swayed by "it will be difficult."

I credit him with getting people energized. Some people are shitty. Some people are passionate and do shitty things, or go about it wrong. And Sanders, as people were very gleeful to point out, has attracted independents who don't necessarily share all of our goals or attitudes, but THAT is still a good thing. It proves that a message AS progressive as the one he was selling has cross-over appeal. Also, there was nastiness to go around, and legitimate reasons why people felt like the party had put its thumb on the scales. Most of that was simply organic and the way the system works, and the way the players who have been back-scratching and making deals and coalitions will protect their own, because in large part, they are invested, which makes perfect sense. Same goes for Planned Parenthood, etc. One of the other things that Bernie's movement did was get people active in politics who have previously not been, which comes with that added wet-behind-the-ears quality that blows things that look like "injustice" way out of proportion.

But if people who had otherwise not been invested in the party or Clinton at all, still didn't vote for her at the end of the day, I have a hard time seeing how that is a direct consequence of Sanders. You saying it isn't a stretch is not convincing to me. I don't know who these people are who WERE going to vote for Clinton, or would have, but then didn't because of the convention. Far more likely, there were those who were swayed by the primary and decided they didn't like Clinton, or there were those who were always stein supporters or far left voters who may have gone for bernie but were never going to go for clinton, or there were independent conservatives who were never going to vote for clinton but may have voted for bernie, but by and large, the rest of us, particularly in the Democratic party and liberal independents, turned out for her. I don't see anybody going, "wow that convention was ugly....maybe Clinton is a ...bleep."

I don't know why you think that smoothed over uniformity when it comes to politics is actually enticing and inspiring, and that had we had that, we would have had more voters at the end of the day. I'm dubious.

Again, that's not basically his entire contribution. You don't agree because you just deflated it to something less than what I was saying. If people trying to pass legislation had to get Bernie's support and his vote, and if he was actively trying to get adjustments to legislation to make them palatable, then NO, that isn't just about him reliably casting his vote with the Dems, that is about him affecting policy.