Democrats have nothing to gain be telling Bernie and his supporters to go to hell

[Ken Burch]

246. 53% to 46% is a fairly close outcome.

It means that, while HRC-largely on the argument that she was supposedly "more electable"-did prevail, it indicates that Bernie's views on economics were and are popular in that state.

I recognize that HRC won, and that she was nominated legitimately, and I campaigned hard for her in the fall. So did a lot of other Sanders people.


Why is it so important to you to characterize the Sanders campaign as a total failure and to insist that nothing that campaign supports is popular or worth adopting?

You didn't want him nominated for president, but other than being dissatisfied with his views on race(his actual positions were just as antiracist as HRC's-he just didn't talk about the issue enough) what else about the positions he took offends you?

It's not as though people of color ever benefit from corporate control of the political discussion, OR from economic policies that put the 1% before the 99%.


And it's not as though people of color, from what I can see, would be harmed by a merger of ideas-which is actually what I personally support-that included the positions HRC publicly took on social justice AND the positions Bernie took on economic justice. That kind of a merger wouldn't leave anyone out in the cold-contrary to the inexplicable slur, it would NEVER put the interest of "white men earning $100,000 a year" over the interests of people of color)and it would never mean putting social justice on the back burner.

Why can't you be open to partnership and working together? What is so terrible about admitting, at long last, that the "Sanders v. Clinton" era is over? That it's about US, not any former presidential candidates?