How can progressives enthusiastically support Booker in a Dem primary?

[uti2]

attacked Obama when Obama criticized PE, defend Bain, doesn't support Glass Steagal etc.

This is of course, the biggest irony, Obama won, because he ran as an economic populist and was anti-bain.

[uti2]

Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in 2016 because pretty much every other major Dem in the invisible primary decided not to run in 2016. Sanders ended up becoming the only real opposition to her nomination, because everybody else in the establishment didn't want to challenge her.

Yes, but isn't that the point? Sanders was her only opposition and it still wasn't enough to beat her. As for those saying Clinton's ''ground game'' was the reason she won the D primary, well, enthusiasm should trump (ha!) ground game, like it did in the general election. That didn't happen in the Democratic primary because the Sanders wing of the Democratic party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The Sanders wing is an extremely influential wing of the party, they're the reason why Gore lost, and why Obama won the 2008 primary. The Anti-war/anti-trade/anti-wall street, etc. crowd (remember obama's main street rhetoric?) coalesced around obama due to his triangulation on those issues.

[uti2]

They are objectively bigger than the "Trump wing" of the GOP, dude, but that wouldn't allow you to phrase our politics as an elitist Democratic Party vs. a Heartland Republican Party, would it?  They faced ridiculously centralized/organized support for his rival that is HIGHLY unlikely to be duplicated in 2020.  IMO, it is far more likely that the "Sanders wing" gathers around one candidate than it is that the "Clinton wing" (not sure such a thing exists, TBH, they just loved Hillary) does the same.

Nice try, but the only one who cares about that is you, since you desperately want the GOP to be an "Orange County style" party of rich White suburbanites. And no, the Sanders wing of the Democratic party is not "objectively bigger" than the Trump wing of the GOP, haha. Just look how badly Kasich (who I supported) did in the Republican primaries.

If the Sanders wing of the party is that strong, well.. why didn't he win the nomination? The fact that they loved Hillary tells you all you need to know about where the party is headed in the future. And while Booker could very well turn out to be a bad candidate, he would still be a lot better than Clinton or maybe even Warren.

The future of the Democratic party lies in states like Georgia, Virginia and Arizona and not in the Midwest, whether one likes it or not.

What's needed is a Green Tea Party, where the moderate dems and forced move close enough to the Sanders wing on the issues so that the Sanders voters are comfortable enough to reliably turn out for them.

This is what Obama tried to do in his rhetoric in 2008. Instead, Obama being a disappointment did 2 things, he burned all bridges with the blue dogs, and simultaneously alienated progressives, causing the downballot disaster for the dems. Hillary, at least, would've kept more blue dogs had she been elected in 2008, she would've been much better for the downballot.