This entire election cycle is proving the multi-dimensionality of the political spectrum. “Left and right” have been—and will continue to be—insufficient at explaining Bill Clinton’s successes in politics. It is a success that results from an intersectional understanding of how social progress and the economic Third…

Basic truth: Clinton is more qualified than Sanders at being the commander-in-chief. The only thing Sanders is better at is being liberal. Sanders would give us social democratic policies. He’d be crappier at leveraging political power through bargains with the corporate class and the Republican Party.

I’m a liberal, so I’m supporting Sanders until the general election.

That smug look is permanently etched into his shitty countenance, through years of facial surgery.

I’d love to hear an articulate answer on that one too. Would Sanders be able to find a way to break up the banks? Maybe not. Is that better or worse than someone saying they don’t intend to try?

Now whether this is good or bad is up for discussion, but they are perfectly within their rights to create a process for themselves to determine the candidate.

I don’t actually trust what Wasserman-Schultz will do with the party. So while you may agree that the people in these positions of power will necessarily pick better leaders than a populist front might, I’d disagree. Leaders selected by virtue of their status, ascendancy, and wealth are more often right-wing. These…

In 2008, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Barack Obama won the delegation. Why? Superdelegates. So, not only is there evidence of them being impactful; it literally happened the last time there was a primary.

Right. I think they should be more democratic.

Our party’s incremental movement has been rightward, even before Reagan took the stage. Now, the Democrats’ official lines include “no new taxes!” without any sense of historic irony.

I agree with the first bit. Democrats need to show up and vote in elections on all levels. Liberals need to show up and vote in the primaries and make demands of their candidates, to force the DNC away from the right. Every election, liberals give up. Every election season, centrists and conservatives tell the…

I think this is a bizarre argument. The liberals lose elections because they have scruples. But eschewing those scruples to briefly play by someone else’s rules doesn’t mean he’s not trying to save the democratic process. It just means that no one can win without playing by the DNC’s rules.

The superdelegate process is voter suppression.

When Wasserman-Schultz overturned Obama’s ban on lobbying within the Democratic Party’s own primaries, she quietly and effectively undermined what Obama was able to do in salvaging his own party’s electoral process.

“But when there was only one set of footprints across the turf, Lord? Where were you?”

It’s “forget about their supporters!” when it’s time to vote for Clinton. It’s “look at their supporters!” when it’s time to smear Sanders using identity politics, centrist wheeling-and-dealing, and other illiberal tactics.

A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. I’ve voted for her before, because she’s the most intelligent and principled candidate in basically every election.

Anyone who suggests Clinton is anywhere near as bad as any of thefar-right Republican entries is a nutbar. She’s just a centrist.

At least we occasionally have the power to influence people, even if it requires using our money instead of our voice.

I don’t think it’s about her “caving to demands”. Why would a corporation invest money, if it doesn’t expect a return on its investment? It’s definitely right-wing apologetics to feign that a corporation is morally-inclined in its decisions, and expects nothing in return for a multi-million dollar expenditure.