Bernie says he'll vote Clinton, doesn't suspend campaign.
Wow. Think of the clear and decisive leadership we could have had.
Well, that's sort of an endorsement, even though Bernie, who dropped the I'll-vote-for-her-grumble-grumble-bomb on "Morning Joe" this this morning, then walked it back to a "I'll-probably-vote-for-the-grumble-grumble" a matter of minutes later on "CBS This Morning," implying that if she took his positions on minimum wage, free college and universal health care, he might then also endorse the grumble-grumble for whom he will, probably, vote, dedicated, as he is, to doing everything humanly possible to defeating Donald Trump.
Well. So. It appears that Bernie is in the process of gradually grasping a math problem just about as simple as any math problem can be: either Hillary or Donald will be the next President. It will be this one, or that one, the most any other one can do is to screw things up for this one, or that one. Which leads us directly to the math problem of turnout and its role in deciding who the next President will be, as it decided the UK's vote on Brexit yesterday -- that problem, too, seems exceedingly plain and simple to me, as does Bernie's potential role in the turnout in November. But by now it has become completely obvious that I, along with millions of others, am on an entirely different plain of mathematical comprehension than the Bro-in-chief.
One of the things which has annoyed me most about Bernie's campaign is its success in selling the bullshit about him being way, way to the Left of Hillary. On minimum wage, on college costs and on health care, Bernie isn't all that far to the Left of Hillary. And Hillary has constantly been focused on what she thinks can be done, and not just on what she wants. Holding positions that will get tens of thousands of idiots to come out to a rally and scream undying loyalty to you is completely different than taking positions which you actually plan to get through a Congress voted in by tens of millions of Murrkins. Really making changes is completely different than just yelling about what you want changed. If you want to measure how much better Hillary's supporters understand this than Bernie's do, look at the number of each one's supporters who plan to vote for Trump if their candidate isn't nominated.
Hillary would love for the US to have a $15 minimum wage and free college and universal health care. But she looks at the Republicans who are going to get close to half of the votes in November, and has decided that, in spite of all of those Republican votes, $12.50 an hour, major reform of student loans and major expansions of Obamacare, not to mention major expansions of Social Security and Medicare, and 500 million solar panels in place and working by the end of 2020, are all do-able, and she has detailed plans for doing all of the above.
There's nothing wrong with being realistic. There's a direct connection between realism and actually accomplishing things.
You want an example of something that's not realistic, that's not reality-based? Continuing to run for President, and at the same time saying that you're going to vote for someone else for President. That's not realistic. Claiming you want to do everything possible to defeat the Republican Presidential candidate, and at the same time continuing to be a huge pain in the ass to the Democratic candidate, is not reality-based action. It's not clear and decisive.
And it shows why we're fortunate that Bernie is not the Democratic Presidential nominee and will never be President.
You go, Bernie. Say you will or won't vote this way or that. Endorse or don't endorse whoever you want. Fewer and fewer people care what you do or say.