... and why Clinton's selection of VP is so important.
John Atcheson writing at commondreams.org makes the case for Sanders staying in the race all the way: Why Democrats Don't Get Sanders' Endgame (and Why It Will Hurt Them in the End). The case is mainly all about Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is the second most disliked candidate and the least trusted candidate to run for the Presidency in the history of polling. That won’t inspire a big turnout, and Democrats desperately need a big turnout. In the disastrous mid-term election of 2014 in which Republicans trounced Democrats, the US had the lowest voter turnout in 75 years.
What the average person has figured out, is that neither Party represents them, and that we live in an Oligarchy. So they’ve stopped playing. This has been bad for Democrats, since the passionately ignorant show up to vote in disproportionate numbers.
All true, but how will Sanders staying in help?
Bottom line: Sanders’ values-based appeal to voters is in the best long-term interests of the Party, ...
But in the long-term, the Democratic Party and the people will suffer by nominating and electing another candidate who is indebted to – indeed, an integral part of – the Oligarchy.
Remember one fact: even ruling out the super delegates, Clinton won more votes and more delegates. Period.
Among the candidates for VP, Elizabeth Warren is the one candidate who truly understands those values and sees them in an even larger framework - see the accompanying post here today. The selection of VP is typically diminished in importance but this year it really does matter. If Clinton does pick Warren - a huge first - then the case for Sanders staying in becomes even less credible than it is now.
For you Hillary supporters: if we are going to get hammered by the right-wing machine anyway (and we will regardless of who is VP), then we might as well go big and bold with Warren. That will take away most of the sting from Atcheson's comments.