The obvious answer is that a lot of Democrats are not (still and/or yet) convinced Sanders is, or will be, a FDR for 21st century. And that doesn’t mean they’re all evil blue running dog capitalist lackeys, either; a lot of the people I’ve encountered online worried about Sanders seem basically traumatized by the 2016 election, and thus looking for as safe a candidate as possible. (Of course, “blandly inoffensive center-left establishment Democrat” is not the same thing as “safe”, but neither is Sanders.)
It worked for President John Kerry 
The marks I’m referring to are the ones who believed that most of the folks saying that in the democratic establishment ever meant it.
No. Not now, and not before. I always knew that these people were fundamentally not on the same side as me, and was always happy to say it. They never actually started admitting it until they got seriously rattled.
So - who did you vote for in the general last time?
@anon62122146 the only acceptable answer is Hillary Clinton 
even if she was going to get your state’s electoral votes anyway, and even if you knew that in advance
Exactly why I felt relieved of pressure to vote for her, and so I didn’t.
As is Sanders the only acceptable answer if Sanders wins the nomination - though I’m sure some people are comfortable enough that they can do otherwise with minor discomfort.
From the candidate who tried to insert one of his staffers into security for the Nevada caucus, that’s pretty rich.
The NYT, continuing on its path along the Kübler-Ross model in regard to a true economic progressive being the popular choice for Dem nominee, arrives at the early stages of Bargaining.
I voted for Jill Stein (I’m aware that she’s a stupid hippie, and if the Libertarians had nominated someone who was even marginally less of a tool, they could have gotten my vote. )
I was not a registered Democrat, and this had nothing to do with Sanders running. There was never any chance that I was going to vote for someone who supported the Iraq war, and there still isn’t.
If you think giving someone who supported the Iraq war the power to do it again is a good idea, then we are fundamentally not on the same side. However, if warmongering is not one of your core values (i. e. you could go either way on it, depending on the situation and the candidate), then we could totally be part of the same coalition, given the right candidate.
The problem is that, they don’t like talking about it, because it looks really bad, but for the Clinton wing of the party (DNC, CNN, MSNBC), warmongering is a core value, and not something they’ll ever compromise on, any more than I will.
Th situation with the patriot act and warrantless surveillance is the same as with a the warmongering.
If you think that enabling a person that lead to babies in cages was correct - we are fundamentally not on the same side. And I doubt you were personally discomforted by Trump being in office.
well, that was the case with bush v gore. fox news called the election for bush on the night, other networks dutifully reported that fox had called the election, when the supreme court weighed in they said they didn’t want to change the presumptive winner.
set, point, match. ( or something that sounds like a tennis term at any rate. )
Well, at least the Greens found a novel way of eliminating the essential unfairness of the Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada primaries/caucuses.
This is unsurprising.
https://twitter.com/queeninyeiiow/status/1164235837640495104?s=21
Ok, on the one hand, you have ~1,000,000 civilians dead, millions more displaced, a worldwide network of CIA torture camps, and the creation of ISIS.
On the other you have ripping children out of their mothers’ arms and putting them in cages.
For me, those are both so incredibly fucked up that they are far beyond the point where you can really say that one is more fucked up than the other, except perhaps in reference to the scale.
At that point, saying we should choose either one as the lesser of two evils doesn’t hold a lot of water.
I also don’t buy that failing to line up behind your candidate of choice constitutes “enabling” anyone else. That is an incredibly self-serving position, and implicitly privileges your position (war is the lesser of two evils) over any others. Your chosen candidate has no more inherent claim to be the opposition than anyone else’s.
Lets try a thought experiment: If everyone did what you did, we wouldn’t be putting as many kids in cages, but we would still be looking at the likelihood of more wars like the Iraq war. If everyone did what I did, we wouldn’t be looking at either of those problems.
When the Iraq war broke out, I got ridden off the road by horse cops while out protesting, and then pepper sprayed by the cops the next day at another protest.
When they started putting kids in cages, I was out on and off for weeks protesting outside the ICE office in Portland, and bringing supplies when I couldn’t be there. I wasn’t around when they cleared out the encampment, so I missed the direct confrontation with the police that time, but there’s always a significant possibility that the cops will kick your ass when you’re doing something like that.
Direct action outside the two party system is a real option. If as many people as voted for Hillary Clinton had showed up at those protests, shit would have gone down, so don’t try to tell me I don’t have any skin in the game.
As predicted, the GOP are now jumping on the “Bernie is a Russian traitor” theme.
Good work, Zentrum.
I love Nina Turner. I’m not sure if it would be a savvy political move, but it would make me really happy if Sanders picked her as his running mate.
Reminder:
As always: nothing about Trump is truly new. Worse, yes. New, no.
Yes, but putting kids in cages is only bad when Trump does it. When Obama did it, it was the lesser of two evils, and if you weren’t willing to overlook it and do what you were told, you’re just as bad as a Trump supporter. Didn’t you get the memo?
