So "the debate" is more important than 17 million people having health insurance?
Yes, that's how these people really think. They are wildly unrealistic and living an a bubble of their own.
Voting for Bernie Sanders is fine and well, but actually nominating him would be an unmitigated disaster and it's foolish to deny it. It's hardly a "convoluted and contrived hypothetical."Of course it is. You're suggesting that these people are selfish jackasses (your words, not mine) because they're supporting someone who you think would not win. You're fearmongering, which is no better than what Republicans do.
I'm not trying to be a surrogate for Bernie here, I'm trying to be a surrogate for rational thought. Bernie speaks to issues which many candidates don't speak to (or, they don't speak to them as forcefully as he does). You're assuming that people won't watch the debates, won't listen to what he has to say, and will simply hear "COMMUNIST!!" and vote Republican. Given, some people will, but those people were never going to vote Democrat anyway. Those types of people probably think Obama is a socialist. You can't write off his chances as the nominee for a major political party. In today's America, you are guaranteed 45% of the vote if you run as a Republican or Democrat, and his message is one which you hear from no other candidate.
Again, I want to make clear that I'm an O'Malley supporter, not a Bernie supporter. I'm trying to return rational thought to this discussion.
