I think the answer you'd hear a lot would be that Hillary was considered more electable than Sanders (who probably launched his campaign without much expectations of winning until he started nabbing delegates) and that progress made during the Obama years, meager as you may consider it, was still worth protecting especially since the GOP already dominates the parts of the government that aren't the White House and that not all voters feel they can afford the high risk-high reward option that many consider Sanders to be. (especially since a GOP-dominated congress wouldn't let Sanders fulfill any of the big promises he's making on the trail)

In general, people pick high risk-high reward options when they either:
- Have literally nothing left to lose and only desperation moves are what's left.
- Are sufficiently well-off for them to weather the consequences of the high-risk move going south. (i.e: a GOP that has a tight grip on all three branches of government plus many of the state governments)

It's not so much they think Hillary's an amazing candidate, they simply think Sanders would be in worse shape than Hillary once the republican mud-slinging machine, which has left him relatively untouched so far, had a couple of rounds with him.

There are already parties in existence that aren't the Democratic or Republican Party. There's reasons why nobody but the dems or the repubs has been in power since forever. Both parties have erected some very real obstacles designed to hinder 3rd parties from getting a true foothold in and those obstacles aren't easily removed. Whatever faction would walk out of the party would suddenly find itself homeless without the infrastructure needed to make a dent on a national level. I'm expecting the equivalent of a married couple without much money whose relationship has hit a major snag...at first they'll try to force the other person out and when that fails, they'll stick with each other since none of them can afford to move out and live on the streets.

So I've been looking at Bernard Sanders's wikipedia page, and it's an interesting read. Ran for governor in 1970s, city mayor since 1981, congress member for 16 years, senator for 10 years ... yeah man, totally not a career politician :D

i think hillary is a funny name. hillary... lol

OP,
while I appreciate the direction American political discourse has taken, personality-wise, the effective difference between HIllary and Bernie is very small, much smaller than the difference between either of them and the Dem center.

Second, Hillz is a Dem and works for Dems. Under FPTP, this is good. The superdelegate advantage she has over Bernie represents her working for the organization which is doing the nominating. Superdelegates also prevent the sort of ratfuckery happening on the Republican side.

Downticket is important. It's the difference between 4 years of progress and 4 years of decay and legislative lockdown which hurts the Dem brand.

Getting minorities and otherwise disadvantaged people to the polls is important. She's better at getting them to the polls now, she'll be better at getting them to the polls in November.

Also this. Hillz has survived decades of character assassination attempts. They haven't started on Bernie.

---

I'm a Bernie bro (except for his stance on GMOs, wtf is with that). I'd love for him to win, by which I mean the alternative reality in which he wins is a better reality and I'd love to live in it. But here and now is evidently not that reality.

This is an important distinction. Some of Hillary's supporters arguments are fallacious. "Hillz is better at [s]compromising[/s] [s]selling out[/s] forging alliances and actually doing shit, what's Bernie gonna do?" is a bad argument, because a Bernie victory would mean another America in which he won't have to compromise with the shitheads that Hillz is allegedly best buds with. However, if she's randomly taken out, especially by an effective controversy, it'll benefit the Republicans. Bernie doesn't want that ("the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails"), and no sane Bernie supporter wants that.

So keep campaigning for Bernie and his policies (except GMO labeling) in a positive way, keep turning the country into something that Bernie could have become president of. But don't shit on HIllary, and remember to fucking vote in November, unless you want to pledge allegiance to President Trump and his toupee.

I think the word you're looking for is "hilarious".

I think you are a covert Trump supporter. After all, everyone knows that if Sanders won the democrat elections, he'd be a much weaker opponent against Trump.

Sanders vs Trump => Trump wins (because Sanders is a radical hippie commie)

Clinton vs Trump => Clinton wins (because Clinton is less objectionable than Trump; I am pretty sure even many Republicans will vote for Clinton if Trump is the other option, or alternatively not vote at all)

As simple as that.

Fine then, you can have our Prime Minister, just take him and don't come back.

yes! hillary is hilarious

Ah, but you're forgetting that Trump is a covert Clinton supporter. So if supporting Sanders means that you're actually supporting Trump, then you are actually supporting Clinton. It's Clintonception!

"Your Mom" =))

what if she renames america 'clintonopolis?!'

This is getting too confusing. Can't we just cancel these elections? US doesn't need a president anyway.

YES WE DO!

How long do US elections last anyways? It's been like half a year and the semi-finals are still going on.

If Trump becomes the president, then I guess his memoirs will be called "The job I didn't really want in the first place".