Going into this nomination fight, Clinton had a bigger advantage than any previous nonincumbent in either party. The commentators looked at the polls, the name recognition, the money, and the endorsements; based on all that, they said that Clinton was a lock. Only Biden was thought to have the remotest possibility of mounting an effective challenge.
I can't make fun of them because I was right there with them. I thought O'Malley had an outside shot, maybe 20% chance, of upsetting Clinton. As for Sanders, I was sure he was headed for Kucinich-type numbers, low single digits.
With all those factors stacked against him, Bernie did not put up Kucinich-type numbers. He was closer to Clinton-2008-type numbers. He took on the presumptive nominee -- for so she was in the eyes of her supporters and of many objective commentators, before even a single vote was cast -- and he totally blasted the prognostications. He won quite a few states, including some upsets. When the voting concludes, he'll probably emerge with 40-something percent of the popular vote and of the elected delegates. He shattered even Obama's eye-popping record by mobilizing millions of small-money donors. He accomplished all this despite the virtual media blackout and the DNC's heavy thumb on the scales on behalf of Clinton.
Think about all those genuine progressives who'll be going to Philadelphia because of Bernie. Our nominee will probably be a fracking champion, but, thanks to Bernie, Bill McKibben is on the Platform Committee.
My bottom line is that Rome wasn't built in a day. The progressive movement within the Democratic Party has shown astounding strength. We can go forward from here. In most elections, there won't be a conservaDem candidate with all the initial advantages that Clinton had this time around. I understand your feelings, but I think it's more constructive for those of us who supported Bernie to stay in the party and try to take it back. We shall overcome.
= new reply since forum marked as read
