On the Twitter machine and in personal conversations, I’ve heard quite a few people hoping Sanders stays in to push Clinton to the left on economic issues. Leaving aside Sanders’ campaign ineptitude, his views to seem to be popular:
Here’s the thing: for Sanders to exert pressure on Clinton at the convention–maybe get a public commitment to a $15/hour minimum wage and an executive order for a $15/hour federal contractor/employee wage–he is going to need a substantial delegates. The Sanders campaign already made Clinton move to a $12/hour minimum wage (however tepid her support for it might be), declare that she won’t cut Social Security (which should have never been needed to be said in the first place), and come out in favor of a public option with no additional federal funding support (which is pretty meaningless, but baby steps…). Still, there’s a lot more to be done, and the bill is at least a quarter century overdue.
That doesn’t happen if people don’t vote for Sanders. Admittedly, it’s standard procedure for progressives to fuck over the ‘economic left’–which is to say, lower-middle class and poor people (since class privilege is the Privilege That Shall Not Be Named)–but if you really want to push Clinton to be much better on economic issues, there’s something you have to do.
Because talk is cheap.
> Majority said [Sanders’] views were right, still voted for Clinton.
That’s a tough nut to crack.