Just a quick note. There are a whole lot of comments here castigating and demonizing Sanders for, essentially, continuing to follow the process of running for the nomination. There are diaries complaining that Sanders is, in effect, helping Trump, by continuing to run.
But, running is Sanders’ right. Sanders supporters, like myself, by and large, support his staying in the race. Sanders supporters, like myself, want to see Sanders stay in the race and then go to the convention, with his supporters, and offer his and his supporters support for Clinton in exchange for having a voice at the convention and in the convention rules and party plank. And again, just as it is with such things as closed primaries and superdelegates, this is all part of the process. So, to criticize Sanders for simply engaging in politics while doing just that, i.e., engaging in a political contest for a presidential nomination, particularly given the fact that Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing in 2008, strikes me as being completely disingenuous. It also strikes me as being harmful, ultimately, in that it alienates Sanders’ supporters. and Hillary is going to need at least some of their support, should she be the nominee in what will likely be an ugly and probably very close general election.
Remember, it’s an election and not a coronation. Or, at least, I didn’t think that it was.
And as to the argument that Bernie is doing a Nader and is helping Trump to win, what, may I ask, does it say about the weakness of Hillary as a candidate that she could possibly lose to a con artist, racist and bully like Donald Trump?
Addendum: For those wanting to argue against the use of the term “coronation” in this diary, or suggesting that the use of such term is somehow sexist, what does it say that there have been various comments by fairly high profile Democratic Party members, such as Barack Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, literally saying things like it is “Hillary’s turn” to be president?