Which is a good reason for people voting for a candidate for President not to ignore the other races on the ballot, and a good reason for people who care about the policies embraced by their favorite Presidential candidate to not only advocate for that candidate, but advocate for down-ballot races as well. (And this applies just as much to any other candidate, of either party, as it does to Sanders.)

Someone with much support, influence and popular appeal.

> I can't imagine hardened Bernie supporters rallying around an old New York billionaire

Me neither, but I also can't imagine them rallying around an uncharmismatic, non-mediagenic guy with primarily nerdy support and the same ideas as the rest, except for the unrealistic and probably "unamerican" UBI, to phrase it in the same style.

> the Republicans still nominated him

Democrats aren't Republicans, of course.

Nope. The shift from Bush to Obama was immense. It resulted in two Supreme Court nominations by a Democrat instead of a Republican. What would the Obama to Sanders change be? Zero. Nothing.

The shift from Bush to Obama resulted in every Cabinet position becoming Democratic too, of course. Obama to Sanders? Basically no shift would result here; possibly a couple nominations that are slightly further leftwards.

Legislatively, what would Sanders veto that Obama hasn't? Very little.

Would Sanders have more or less luck than Obama at passing major legislation with a hostile Congress? Hard to say for sure, but I'd argue he'd have less luck, simply because he's less moderate.

You're right, of course, that Obama is a moderate, but still wrong about your overall point.

>> Well, you can't have a sheep herder run for President and win.

> Or a progressive Democrat like Bernie Sanders.

No one was stopping Sanders from running as an independent.

Nothing is certain in politics, but I'm curious about why you hold that opinion. Why would you consider Sanders a big risk?

In the real world you have to compromise, while he may perhaps resist interest groups his constituents may not and he will have to compromise with them and by proxy may be influenced.

But I believe he's the best so far, out of all of them, in term of his views and mines.

I don't expect any president to be perfect they're only human. And I don't expect his views to be exactly like mine, if I wanted that then I would be running really.

But I believe he's an honest man like Jimmy Carter.

I hope he win but if not at least he's pushing Democrats toward the left more so and stopping the march toward center.

Has Sanders changed the policy of the Democratic Party in any way? I'm not seeing it.

If anything, Joe Manchin shows the real route to power: refusing your vote until they're forced to cave to your demands. Manchin is effectively the leader of the Democratic Party now and vastly more powerful than Sanders, even though they both have exactly one vote in the Senate.

Anyway, the Forward Party seems to be mostly Republicans. On the Democratic side there's Andrew Yang, who has never held office, Stephanie Miner, former mayor of Syracuse, NY, and... who else?

If people wanted real, substantial change in a positive direction (in the sense of having a positive program: things the candidate stands for rather than against), they'd have voted for Bernie Sanders.

While the spirit of what you’re saying is right, the media and the Democratic National Committee portray Bernie Sanders as an outsider, even though he’s been in politics for decades. The difficulty for lobbyists to influence him is well publicized and considered mostly true. His proposal to fix this specific problem - Medicare for all as opposed to free market healthcare pricing - is certainly consistent, cogent, and likely to work, even if you disagree it is the best one.

It goes to show that the original comment you are reacting to many not be as partisan as it appears. It may simply be reactionary.

So do you like Hilary Clinton's support for fracking? Do you see that as a pragmatic choice? How about Wall Street regulation, where she's basically admitted she thinks it's best if Wall Street regulates itself, do you see that as pragmatic? How about her support for TPP, which will end up encouraging more jobs to be taken outside the US, do you see that as pragmatic?

> "As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large."

Other countries manage to have tax-funded healthcare and tax-funded higher education systems, and still pay less overall than the current systems in the US. Bernie laid out how he was going to pay for it. If some American people ignored the offer and the details, that's their fault, not Bernie's.

Repealing the First Amendment is a tremendously weighty decision, and not one whose prospect should fill anyone with optimism.

A) By and large the DNC actually adhered to their own rules.

B) Why should the Democratic National Committee play nice with someone who isn't a Democrat?

1) Everybody seems to forget that while Bernie caucuses with the Democrats he isn't actually a part of the Democratic Party.

2) Everybody seems to forget that Bernie wasn't winning. When you're the underdog, losing well doesn't get you anything.

i don't recall obama being an actual socialist or talking about breaking up the banks. i do recall obama being a dem and giving the banks bailout money though.

> he is being undermined by the DNC

agreed.

I’ve wondered about this with people like Beto in Texas and Abrams in Georgia, and used to think it’s because being a perpetual candidate is lucrative.

But I think Abrams may win the next governorship in Georgia. Who knows about Beto.

Sometimes “hopeless causes” pay off and I like to think that Yang is an idealist who really wants to make a difference.

Or a progressive Democrat like Bernie Sanders.

Hillary is just as neoliberal as anyone. If Sanders had gotten in, maybe we'd see some movement, perhaps.

Why would he be the first Presidential candidate in history to not seek to have a Congressional majority supporting his policy objectives elected alongside himself?

(Sure, he probably won't get that, and he'll probably have to compromise with the Congress he actually has. But that shouldn't stop him from trying to build as much support as possible for his actual policy goals.)

He's still officially in the race, and there's extreme circumstances one can imagine where he might be able to actually win the nomination, but mostly he is focusing on shaping the party through the platform, for mobilizing people to run for office, etc.

They're not the same at all. Sanders has a long history in Congress. Obama was a junior first term senator. Sanders is very specific about what he'll do. Obama was deliberately vague.