Sanders primary voters defected from the party in the general at a lower rate than Clinton voters defected when Obama was the nominee. It just makes for a more comforting narrative that Sanders voters were some unusual subset rather than looking at a weak campaign in some key areas and a systematic voter suppression campaign in those areas.
I’ve rarely found this to be the case. Almost every time there has been a more left wing candidate proposing a large scale project they nail down the financing conversation with more clarity than almost any other promise in politics. Bernie and Warren both have sweeping and explicit tax code changes to fund their proposals in a way that a centrists vague promise of reinvesting in infrastructure is never held to.
The thread I directed you to starts with concrete evidence of the difference between the parties on actual policy. So, if you want to dismiss that, I’ll have to put you in the “I ignore documented reality” column.
I’m a social liberal and economic Keynesian who believes in mixed economies – basically a New Deal liberal, albeit one who’s willing to consider MMT. That would make me a centrist in a country like Canada. But in the U.S. the Overton Window has shifted so radically that my positions lump me in with actual Marxists, so I can’t call myself one anymore.
Not that I’d want to; the only people I see proudly calling themselves “moderate centrists” these days are other privileged white people who fret when people use admonitory guillotine images, who worry about hurting the feelings of privilege-blind folks by discussing privilege, or who ask me to be civil and respectful to fascists and white supremacists and the fools who support right-wing populist leaders. At best they’re establishment Dems who want to return the party to the “normalcy” of now unsustainable Third-Way neoliberal-lite ideology. No thanks.
