Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

That seems like a non-answer though. If Sanders were to win the primaries, would you vote for him in the general?

No.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

The amount of wrong in this post makes ErasureAcer seem tame in comparison.

Except I asked Bam Bam flat out if he would vote for Bernie in the general and he still hasn't replied.

These are grown men; they can tell me if I'm wrong on my assumptions or not.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No.

benji, are you going to write in Murray Rothbard again?

 

[benjipwns]

benji, are you going to write in Murray Rothbard again?

The last time I voted it was to write in Gary Johnson (and vote for Senate since it was the new ballot status line) due to the MIGOP's stripping of his name and position off the ballot. (One of four people at my precinct.)

And my ballot jammed up the machine because the workers were ignoring the flashing "FULL" signal to indicate they needed to empty the ballots out for burning or whatever it is they do with them.

The process works.

 

[Fenderputty]

No.

I always pegged you as a trump supporter.

 

[GavinGT]

If there's one thing that's clear, it's that the fringe candidates being there is just a waste of time. Nobody even clapped for them, it was pathetic.

 

[benjipwns]

I always pegged you as a trump supporter.

Alan Sugar is the superior The Apprentice host.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

If there's one thing that's clear, it's that the fringe candidates being there is just a waste of time. Nobody even clapped for them, it was pathetic.

Of course. The next debate should only have Hillary, Bernie, and O'Malley.

Punished Webb was just embarrassing last night.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If there's one thing that's clear, it's that the fringe candidates being there is just a waste of time. Nobody even clapped for them, it was pathetic.

O'Malley can stay.

 

[GavinGT]

Of course. The next debate should only have Hillary, Bernie, and O'Malley.

Punished Webb was just embarrassing last night.

And then, 10 minutes in, Biden emerges from the stage with a fourth podium like it's a Motley Crue concert.

 

[benjipwns]

It'd be funny if O'Malley got no poll bump and stayed in fifth behind a convicted felon, a racist gun nut, a non-candidate and President Jim Webb.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And then, 10 minutes in, Biden emerges from the stage with a fourth podium like it's a Motley Crue concert.

If this joke was any older, it would be Bernie Sanders.

 

[OuterLimits]

Sanders won because he won, but Clinton also lost because she came across as a shill for the banking industry.

I realize I'm biased since I'm conservative, but I thought Clinton did rather well.

She did have some laughable moments though. Her saying she told Wall Street to "Cut it out" and her saying she didn't take or have a position until I chose a position line. Her trying to excuse her changing positions by pointing out everyone on the stage was old and it happens was not her best moment.

She did stay committed to the Patriot Act which isn't exactly super popular with many on the left. She talked some about Climate Change but she probably realizes that issue won't be in the top 10 in a general election.

Like I said in a previous post, I think she did a good job walking the fine line between being progressive enough but also keeping close to the center on some issues which she needs in the general.

She took advantage of Sanders weakness trying to explain socialism. Her comment about us not being Denmark was good. Plus she had him on defense with gun control.

Granted, I thought Sanders had a stronger second half, but he could have gone after her a bit more when she made the mistake with the Cut it Out to Wall Street line.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

Trump going after Bernie.

https://instagram.com/p/80rWSdGhT0/

Trump agrees with Ann Coulter and wants nothing to do with Sanders. He would prefer running against Clinton.

Spoiler

Don't take this post seriously, I'm just poking fun of things. Trump will attack any and everybody.

 

[dramatis]

I mean, I like Hillary in many respects and think she is a reasonable candidate. My main problem with her is that she is absolutely, in every respect, low risk; which in the long run is more harmful to leftist policies and therefore the poor and underprivileged. You're probably aware of the concept of the Overton Window? Every time the left runs a very centrist candidate, and the right runs a rightist candidate, the left will probably win, but the parameters of the debate shift to the right - naturally, because in a contest between a rightist and a centrist the centre-right is the new centre. Hillary might do a whole world of good... but after several Hillary-type candidates in a row, America will be further and further to the right than ever before, because the left is always chasing the right. Look at Sanders - in the 1950s, he would have been an entirely unremarkable candidate in many respects, support for gay marriage and civil rights aside. Now, he's an extremist.

The only way ideas take hold is if you have people willing to argue for them in the public sphere. That's what Sanders does. This is the first serious public stage in a long while where any candidate has seriously called out the degree of inequality in America or the way the system is rigged in favour of an elite class. And that's why he's been dragging Clinton to the left. It's pretty clear to see all the occasions where that has happened - Keystone XL ("I'll take a position when I've taken a position"), TPP (the gold standard in trade deals), and so on. Even when it isn't Sanders, the general left movement has consistently pushed Clinton - she opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013 until an insurgent leftist movement forced her to do otherwise.

If you genuinely want to help the American poor, American minorities and American women, it's pretty important that you support Sanders at least until it looks like he might beat Clinton, because that's the only way we can in the long-run pull Clinton to the left and thus hopefully start pulling American discourse to the left.

I mean, in general, I think Sanders is more electable in the general than Clinton, for a number of reasons. But even putting that aside, there doesn't seem to me to be any strong reason for being a vocal Clinton supporter right now (aside from possibly gun control). Back her when she works for it and then maybe she will.

You're arguing mostly conceptually though. Hillary's more liberal than Obama, and Obama is certainly more liberal than Bush; we're moving left. Society is moving on its own. In the 1950s, Sanders couldn't possibly be a democratic socialist while we were Cold War-ing it up with Russia; even today he remains the only self-described democratic socialist elected to federal office.

I don't think supporting Hillary means you're any less genuine about wanting to help the poor, minorities, and women. There may be disagreement on the approach but I don't doubt everyone wants to do something to change the current state of affairs. But it's rather arrogant to suggest that Sanders is the genuine option, because that sort of description is just in the same vein as personality politics, the typical spiel about Hillary's lack of authenticity, or that she's a liar, or that she's a corporate puppet. People can decide for themselves what they think the choice that can genuinely help people is.

There's a division between what Hillary does in public and in private, but no one will ever acknowledge her for her good work. Her emails actually show that she was supporting gay rights when she was secretary of state, which is before 2013. If you're proud of the Keystone pipeline and TPP concessions, sure. But her substantive plans for economy, education, criminal justice reform, etc. were long hashed out in consultation with current legislators, before Bernie became a name.

Moreover, what is her incentive to appeal to the Sanders crowd? In the thread about her TPP decision, there was a stampede of people who, instead of being happy about her attempt to take their criticisms into consideration, merely called her a liar and stood by Bernie anyway. If I were the campaign monitoring the responses, I would consider these voters an excessive burden to court because they were never going to be satisfied anyway. Campaign resources would be better allocated elsewhere.

It's also amusing for you to say that she doesn't work for the support she gets. It's easily to stand up and shout your principles. It's hard to work to find realistic solutions. It's easy to be the important white guy in politics. It's twenty years of vilification to be the important woman (she's white and it's still hard!) in politics. It's easy to stand in your comfy home state with demographics that match your ideals. It's hard to accommodate the vast difference in opinions across the full US map.

Apparently, the woman always needs to work harder for any acknowledgement.

 

[Clefargle]

If a person likes Clinton for her electability, why would they stay home for Bernie? This persons whole purpose is to keep the GOP out and make sure they don't control all three branches.

Exactly, I support Clinton for her numbers and I would definitely vote for Bernie if he won the nom.

 

[Regiruler]

Voted for trump

You will never see me say this under any other contex ever again

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This counter rhetoric "Bernie Sanders supports are crazy and think he
is the messiah, bahahaha, they don't understand reality" is so prevalent on the internet in the last couple months. I think due to hive-mind communities such as reddit, which much of the time comes off as very obnoxious, they have alienated themselves and there candidate from the others. Well i at least think this because, I for one can't stand the majority of reddit's opinions or how they express it. Plus you can recall similar reactions with Ron Paul and he is often brought up in this counter-rhetoric("What happened to your last old savior Ron Paul???") For one Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders political positions are so vastly different with Reddit being one of their only similarities.

Saying Clinton is less rhetorically tough on Wall Street and corporations is very misleading. She works with them and has officially represented them. Just because she uses dialogue in debates such as " I went there before that big crash and said cut it out" doesn't mean she is tough on them. Guess what, that crash happened, and they still were bailed out the following year. Her so called telling them to "cut it out" is debate fluff. Now we have people here saying, "she's just less rhetorically tough on wallstreet." She works with them,but somehow she has people thinking she is somewhat tough on them because she isn't a republican who want's to drastically cut corporate tax rates. Its so crazy and genius at the same time. If she was tough at all she would attempt to place some kind of policy against them, its really not hard to understand. People side with Bernie because as these issues have arisen since the 80's you can go on the internet and watch him debate them at that very moment and try and pass policy.

Your initial statement is false. Bernie has more individual donations. And his "bigger" investments are from worker unions, not media corps, banks, and hedge fund companys.

What I actually meant re: "rhetorically" is that no matter who is elected in 2016, nobody is going to seriously do anything about Wall Street, the big banks, and the general fuckery of corporations for a very long time. One can say that Hillary has taken money from them and worked with them, and Bernie has not, but I don't see any compelling reason to think that a Bernie presidency would lead to the government having a substantially different relationship with Wall Street than a Hillary one would, given the present reality of Congressional gridlock and the GOP stranglehold on the House. There's only so much one can do with executive orders.

 

[OuterLimits]

Trump agrees with Ann Coulter and wants nothing to do with Sanders. He would prefer running against Clinton.

Spoiler

Don't take this post serious, I'm just poking fun of things. Trump will attack any and everybody.

Trump does attack almost everyone. Except Carson and Cruz. Which shows he is getting somewhat smarter politically. He mainly attacks the establishment Republicans and of course Clinton and to lesser degree Sanders. Oh and the media of course. Lol.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

That seems like a non-answer though. If Sanders were to win the primaries, would you vote for him in the general?

It's pretty obvious I'd be voting in the general. Unless Republicans suddenly become super moderates then it's also pretty obvious who I would be voting for.

Can YOU say the same?

 

[pixelish]

She took advantage of Sanders weakness trying to explain socialism. Her comment about us not being Denmark was good. Plus she had him on defense with gun control.

not american but why did you like her "we're not denmark" comment? don't you think that the american government should adopt some of denmark's models which fare much better like healthcare and education?

 

[zero shift]

After watching the debate I have to say that I would be lying if I wasn't a bit impressed. Hilary played all the right cards. She managed to say a lot while technically not saying anything. She also came across as the most "presidential" of all the candidates as she was able to keep it cool and stay professional. Bernie was able to hold his own. The most important part was that he was able to stick to his guns and voice the concerns of the left wing without being annoying. He was able to steer the conversation at times just as much as Cooper was. His goal has been to pull the conversation to the left during this election and he seems to be succeeding. O' Malley managed to do well. He actually became somewhat visible during the debate. I can see the single digit percentage of Americans who won't vote for Bernie because he is too left and won't vote for Hillary due to her being the establishment candidate supporting him. The other two candidates were barely there. I can't remember who did the "it was my first day!" sob story despite it being one of the most hilarious moments of any of the debates so far this year. Chafee did to well to bring climate change up as an issue. It seems to be as big of a thing to him as inequality is to Bernie. The problem is that it isn't the biggest issue to most of the voters.

I also want to give attention to O'Malley's closing statement. It really shows were the Democratic party and the country as a whole could potentially be headed. While many statements are made negatively about the currently state of American citizens he claimed it was a positive. The gridlock in politics is due to the changing course that is happening in the country as the growing and soon to be standard younger more open-minded part of the country argues with the older more fearful part of the country. The nation is just experiencing growing pains, but there is a growing consensus in the country with these issues. And it will be the Democratic party to lead the country toward that consensus. I personally found this to be the true highlight of the debate. The GOP debate boiled down to the candidates throwing poo at each other and is filled undocumented-welfare-queen-terrorist-gangbanger-citizens, while the nation isn't able to properly deal with Führer Putin and the growing threat of underwear bombing Muslims with James Bond cunning intellect. The Democrats offered up a sobering reality of where the country is at now and where they want it in the future. That is what I feel is the biggest difference between the two parties, and I hope that the people who have watched the debates see that.

I don't generally see attacks on Bernie supporters, just on Bernie supporters with an irrational anti-Clinton bent.

Hell, I side with Bernie on more things than Clinton. But the Anti-Clinton Rage Machine is a real thing, and it's frustrating. It's very much like the Clinton fans who derided Obama throughout the 2008 primary.

Just because a few "revolutionary" hardliners from NeoGaf claim that they won't vote Clinton (we all know how that will likely turn out) doesn't really mean much. 99% of Bernie supporters are going to vote Hillary come 2016. Not much are going to be voting Republican or not vote at all.

But he's winning the official NeoGAF poll.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

It's pretty obvious I'd be voting in the general. Unless Republicans suddenly become super moderates then it's also pretty obvious who I would be voting for.

Can YOU say the same?

Lol, you can't even write it out. As for me, yes, I would vote for Hillary in the general if she were to get the nom and be happy about it.

Edit: reading your reply again, you just proved my point. If a Republican presidential candidate were to become super moderate, you would actually vote for them instead of Bernie?

Wow

 

[benjipwns]

Lol, you can't even write it out.

The more you talk about it the more likely it is to happen. That's science.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Lol, you can't even write it out. As for me, yes, I would vote for Hillary in the general if she were to get the nom and be happy about it.

Edit: reading your reply again, you just proved my point. If a Republican presidential candidate were to become super moderate, you would actually vote for them instead of Bernie?

Wow

I'm not an ideologue so I try to vote for whoever is best. Problem is, the GOP has moved further and further right so it's impossible this group of candidates would get me to vote for them.

Also, given that I have repeatedly stated how important this election will be for the balance of the SC, what do you think I'm gonna do? I'm not a fucking moron.

As usual, ideologues such as yourself want purity and blind followers so my response threatens you even though it's pretty clear what I would do in 2016. You want blood oaths and ceremony, I'm giving you pragmatism. Something that I assume you despise.

 

[ponpo]

lol

 

[theprodigy]

(we all know how that will likely turn out)

Why do people keep posting this image, some people flaking on it doesn't mean everyone did, especially when that game was the start of the decline of Call of Duty on PC.

(this is a tangent, but I don't care, it bugs me)

 

[Einhander]

Bernie is winning the GAF poll by a large margin.

 

[Merc_]

Bernie is winning the GAF poll by a large margin.

Looks like the mods all made the real right choice tho.

 

[sphagnum]

You're arguing mostly conceptually though. Hillary's more liberal than Obama, and Obama is certainly more liberal than Bush; we're moving left.

We're moving left socially but right economically. And Bernie supporters tend to view economics as the ultimate basis of society (the base/superstructure argument).

 

[Epsilon-delta]

I'm not an ideologue so I try to vote for whoever is best. Problem is, the GOP has moved further and further right so it's impossible this group of candidates would get me to vote for them.

Also, given that I have repeatedly stated how important this election will be for the balance of the SC, what do you think I'm gonna do? I'm not a fucking moron.

As usual, ideologues such as yourself want purity and blind followers so my response threatens you even though it's pretty clear what I would do in 2016. You want blood oaths and ceremony, I'm giving you pragmatism. Something that I assume you despise.

That's rich calling someone an ideologue for someone that gave a hypothetical if a Republican presidential candidate were to become super moderate, you would rather vote for them instead of Bernie. Yea, the hypothetical would never happen but it tells me a lot about yourself.

Just come out and say it, you don't like the man.

If I really wanted purity, I would sit at home in the general and not vote for Hillary if she were to get the nom.

When Hillary wins the nom, (which she most likely will), I'll vote for her with no regret.

You're trying to make me out as some ideologue which I'm not. I support Bernie now because I like his policies (save gun control and foreign policy) AND it's making Hillary more left.

I'm not the one with the problem, it's you and whatever you have against Bernie and his supporters.

 

[LaNaranja]

Webb had some interesting things to say and I really wish he could have been given more time to speak. Whenever he was finally given the chance to speak he was rushing through shit and a lot of it ended up being hard to follow. Sure the whining about not being given time to speak wasn't a good look but the dude had a point. The way the debate was structured Webb and Chafee got completely shafted and any fumbles they had seemed a lot bigger because they didn't have time to weigh in as much on other issues. That cyber warfare answer in particular made me decide to look deeper into Webb as it is clear that the dude isn't just there to blow hot air. Honestly, Webb seems like what the Republican party should be.

In terms of what they actually said, I would rank them:

Sanders > O'Malley > Webb > Clinton > Chafee

In terms of speaking skills, it is no contest.

Clinton > the rest

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

That's rich calling someone an ideologue for someone that gave a hypothetical if a Republican presidential candidate were to become super moderate, you would rather vote for them instead of Bernie. Yea, the hypothetical would never happen but it tells me a lot about yourself.

Just come out and say it, you don't like the man.

If I really wanted purity, I would sit at home in the general and not vote for Hillary if she were to get the nom.

When Hillary wins the nom, (which she most likely will), I'll vote for her with no regret.

You're trying to make me out as some ideologue which I'm not. I support Bernie now because I like his policies (save gun control and foreign policy) AND it's making Hillary more left.

I'm not the one with the problem, it's you and whatever you have against Bernie and his supporters.

lol, the only thing I'll admit is that I don't like his loudmouth politically ignorant supporters. I like Sanders and he seems like a real nice guy.

 

[ant1532]

What I actually meant re: "rhetorically" is that no matter who is elected in 2016, nobody is going to seriously do anything about Wall Street, the big banks, and the general fuckery of corporations for a very long time. One can say that Hillary has taken money from them and worked with them, and Bernie has not, but I don't see any compelling reason to think that a Bernie presidency would lead to the government having a substantially different relationship with Wall Street than a Hillary one would, given the present reality of Congressional gridlock and the GOP stranglehold on the House. There's only so much one can do with executive orders.

What your saying is what he has always been saying since thinking about whether he should run for president. Sanders consistent point he always makes in his speeches and rallies is that he, Bernie Sanders, alone can not do it. He speaks on how Obama played the solo card and tried to deal with the the GOP on his senate when they never wanted to deal at all. The GOP control and lobbying in the house is no secret. Sanders has been speaking about it and has been dealing with them firsthand in the house. His argument is taking the fact that democrat candidates win when there is a high turnout in votes, especially in youth who he resonates with, that he can have a "revolution" where he gets his voters to consistently support and vote on the issues after he would win the election. This is a major focus of his campaign.

 

[danm999]

That's rich calling someone an ideologue for someone that gave a hypothetical if a Republican presidential candidate were to become super moderate, you would rather vote for them instead of Bernie.

???

I don't really see how posing a hypothetical makes someone an ideologue...?

Seems like you're both willing to support the Democratic nominee in the General, be it Sanders or Clinton.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Sooo.... How did the debate go? Did Trump make a special appearance and drop stunners on everyone?

 

[ant1532]

???

I don't really see how posing a hypothetical makes someone an ideologue...?

Seems like you're both willing to support the Democratic nominee in the General, be it Sanders or Clinton.

I would say the vast majority of Sanders supports are voting for Hilary against any GOP. The notion that they wouldn't vote at all for another DNC is a extreme fabrication.

 

[Piecake]

That's rich calling someone an ideologue for someone that gave a hypothetical if a Republican presidential candidate were to become super moderate, you would rather vote for them instead of Bernie. Yea, the hypothetical would never happen but it tells me a lot about yourself.

I am sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you seriously calling someone who would consider voting for a super moderate republican an ideologue? Lol. do you even know what the word means? And he didnt even say he would vote for that mythical Republican over Bernie. He said that he would consider it, and it was mostly used as a rhetorical device to show that he would vote for Bernie because there really isnt any other legitimate choice.

Your whole attack against Bam has been one incredible reach.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We're moving left socially but right economically. And Bernie supporters tend to view economics as the ultimate basis of society (the base/superstructure argument).

Correct. Economically, we have been drifting right for time.

 

[ant1532]

Sooo.... How did the debate go? Did Trump make a special appearance and drop stunners on everyone?

He tweeted during it and did an interview with O'Reilly today. Probably other interviews too

 

[danm999]

I would say the vast majority of Sanders supports are voting for Hilary against any GOP. The notion that they wouldn't vote at all for another DNC is a extreme fabrication.

I would guess you are right.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

???

I don't really see how posing a hypothetical makes someone an ideologue...?

Seems like you're both willing to support the Democratic nominee in the General, be it Sanders or Clinton.

I wanted clarification, hence my initial post. I just want all of us liberals to be on the same page when it comes to the general, regardless of who the nom is.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

What your saying is what he has always been saying since thinking about whether he should run for president. Sanders consistent point he always makes in his speeches and rallies is that he, Bernie Sanders, alone can not do it. He speaks on how Obama played the solo card and tried to deal with the the GOP on his senate when they never wanted to deal at all. The GOP control and lobbying in the house is no secret. Sanders has been speaking about it and has been dealing with them firsthand in the house. His argument is taking the fact that democrat candidates win when there is a high turnout in votes, especially in youth who he resonates with, that he can have a "revolution" where he gets his voters to consistently support and vote on the issues after he would win the election. This is a major focus of his campaign.

He's going to effect a revolution without any kind of major campaign infrastructure, or the money to set up such a thing, and in fact probably siphoning money away from the DNC that they might otherwise spend on downticket candidates that would increase the Dems' margins in the Senate and give them a little more leeway to pursue their policy goals?

This is the thing with more hardcore Bernie supporters. There are so many layered contingencies that have to be fulfilled for Bernie to even have a shot at the general election, let alone winning it, let alone achieving very much at all as POTUS, let alone achieving his lofty policy goals. There's always a substantial amount of handwaving about how we're going to move from X to Y, from Y to Z, etc.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

For a big country, the United States is remarkably bad at regular, large sample-size polling. Very frustrating having to wait this long to have any quantitative data beyond focus groups.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

For a big country, the United States is remarkably bad at regular, large sample-size polling. Very frustrating having to wait this long to have any quantitative data beyond focus groups.

We know what reddit thinks. That's all that matters.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We know what reddit thinks. That's all that matters.

Man, you really are as bad as ErasureAcer.

 

[Chariot]

I would say the vast majority of Sanders supports are voting for Hilary against any GOP. The notion that they wouldn't vote at all for another DNC is a extreme fabrication.

Yup. Life is of compromise and most people will fall in line and vote if not for Hillary at least against the GOP. Same with a Bernie win. Most Hillary supporters will probably rather take the socialist democrat than whatever the republicans habe to offer. After all the Hillary won or Hillary didn't won, we may have overseen that Sanders wasn't seen as negative.

For a big country, the United States is remarkably bad at regular, large sample-size polling. Very frustrating having to wait this long to have any quantitative data beyond focus groups.

Even that is difficultto trust. I don't know how the track record in the US is, but I remember the polling of last UKs election.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Even that is difficultto trust. I don't know how the track record in the US is, but I remember the polling of last UKs election.

It wasn't bad - only 3% out from the real results. That'd be enough to call almost all Presidential elections correctly. It's just 3% is a big difference in a tight election. The UK is also 650 separate races, whereas the US is only 50 and is thus fundamentally easier to poll.

 

[loki 16]

The Young Turks analysis of the debate

 

[Republic of Ezo]

I mean, I like Hillary in many respects and think she is a reasonable candidate. My main problem with her is that she is absolutely, in every respect, low risk; which in the long run is more harmful to leftist policies and therefore the poor and underprivileged. You're probably aware of the concept of the Overton Window? Every time the left runs a very centrist candidate, and the right runs a rightist candidate, the left will probably win, but the parameters of the debate shift to the right - naturally, because in a contest between a rightist and a centrist the centre-right is the new centre. Hillary might do a whole world of good... but after several Hillary-type candidates in a row, America will be further and further to the right than ever before, because the left is always chasing the right. Look at Sanders - in the 1950s, he would have been an entirely unremarkable candidate in many respects, support for gay marriage and civil rights aside. Now, he's an extremist.

The only way ideas take hold is if you have people willing to argue for them in the public sphere. That's what Sanders does. This is the first serious public stage in a long while where any candidate has seriously called out the degree of inequality in America or the way the system is rigged in favour of an elite class. And that's why he's been dragging Clinton to the left. It's pretty clear to see all the occasions where that has happened - Keystone XL ("I'll take a position when I've taken a position"), TPP (the gold standard in trade deals), and so on. Even when it isn't Sanders, the general left movement has consistently pushed Clinton - she opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013 until an insurgent leftist movement forced her to do otherwise.

If you genuinely want to help the American poor, American minorities and American women, it's pretty important that you support Sanders at least until it looks like he might beat Clinton, because that's the only way we can in the long-run pull Clinton to the left and thus hopefully start pulling American discourse to the left.

I mean, in general, I think Sanders is more electable in the general than Clinton, for a number of reasons. But even putting that aside, there doesn't seem to me to be any strong reason for being a vocal Clinton supporter right now (aside from possibly gun control). Back her when she works for it and then maybe she will.

The notion that Sanders would have been an unremarkable candidate in the 1950's is nonsense. He calls himself a socialist, has come out in favor of marijuana legalization, gay marriage, and civil rights, wants single-payer universal healthcare, and is a massive union supporter. He would be BY FAR the most extreme candidate in the 1950's and it's a mark of how far we've come that he's the 2nd choice in the Democratic Party right now.