No.
A bullet has been dodged. There is no real reason to disbelieve the thrust of the Politico article. Much of it, in retrospect, was hidden in plain sight; people and groups with a history of working and knowing both Clinton and Sanders (Planned Parenthood for example) endorsed Clinton no doubt on similar understanding. There may indeed be a hint of the internal sabotage of Edwards’ campaign in 2008 and certainly the mess of all this will be fascinating reading.
Fish rot from the head. The ultimate ‘Berniebro’ it seems, was Sanders himself.
Progressive, ‘socialist’ movements built off the labour and money of thousands of volunteers have been here before the world over (see the rise and fall of Tommy Sheridan) when they become indistinguishable from and subservient to the leader of that movement. As a matter of self-preservation, you could argue the Democrats would be right to and entitled to let it die or cut it out like a cancer. Sanders will no doubt retain a loyal band of $27ers who will gladly pay off his campaign debt (and then some) keeping him flush in speaking engagements,
If Sanders does indeed choose to take it to DC he will leave his movement lying tattered on the convention floor. What then for the left/progressive cause? What leverage should it have? Who can lead it?
He ran a good campaign for himself, but he's pretty much destroyed the credibility of the progressive cause.
This is the point I disagree with. I think Bernie's run has made progressive policies more achievable, just not the "I'm a real progressive, if you disagree with me or my policies you aren't" ones. He's allowed the Democrats to shift to the left on broader economic narratives, tuition, entitlements, healthcare. He's made it easier for Hillary to advocate for her positions on those issues, which are still to the left of where she and Obama were in 2008 (except healthcare, where she was to the left of Obama and so is working through that paradigm) because they're not Sanders' crash or crash-through options. Because in contrast to Bernie's platform, Hillary's now looks moderate (as for US mainstream politics, it isn't).
Free college tuition was never going to happen, but reforms to that and the management of existing student debt CAN happen. Single-payer isn't going to happen, but ongoing improvements to Obamacare can happen that can expand access to quality healthcare (which is actually the practically more important point). A big part of this is because I've always thought Hillary had a much stronger chance of boosting Dems down-ticket where there are seats to pick up. So it's another reason why the Sanders campaign wasn't successful, it only superficially worried about the structures and mechanics of getting a Congressional support base, assuming that having Bernie up top and his army of agitated youngsters would be enough...
Poll
