The left is losing perspective.
The chief objective of the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign has little — perhaps even nothing — to do with the two candidates' proffered, alternative policies. Should we, for instance, work toward single-payer, or build on Obamacare? Should we break up the big banks, or better regulate them? Should we guarantee free college education to all, or tame its costs?
The left might as well debate the relative merits of converting ISIS to either Orthodox Judaism or High Episcopalianism. In fact, such a proselytizing debate might possess more practicality in the real world; Obama's Democratic successor would have better luck in persuading ISIS to eat little crackers than she or he would have in passing single-payer or strengthening Dodd-Frank. For confronting Obama's successor will be roughly the same Republican gangsters of ISIS-like determination.
No, the chief objective of the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign is one of transcendent simplicity; it's the ultimate objective of all politics: to win the election. Subsequently, Obama's Democratic successor will do perforce much as President Obama has done: bemoan Republican obstructionism and block Republican malignity and issue the occasional, intelligent executive order.
Thus in a purely political presidential sense, it makes little difference if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders succeeds Obama. Let us put aside for a moment which candidate is more electable. I happen to believe that Clinton is the more electable, although others contend, as you know, that Sanders would best Clinton in that category. OK. Whatever. Let's assume the Sanders camp is correct, let's assume that Clinton would be a catastrophic nominee, let's assume that Republicans would fail to rip Sanders limb from socialist limb in the general election (which is one magnificent hell of an assumption).
But now let us turn from assumptions to present reality. Which candidate, Clinton or Sanders, is the almost certain nominee? (I say "almost" only because there are no absolutes in either science or politics; the sun is not absolutely guaranteed to rise tomorrow, and for that matter, Hillary could awake tomorrow and say "Fuck it, I'm going to take my speaking fees and go home.")
On this question — the rather undubious question of who is the likely Democratic nominee — I kindly direct your attention to this morning's NYT piece, "Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb." I'll be brief, as Obama's former campaign manager, David Plouffe, is: "Sanders would have to win by double digits, if not by 20 points, in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California to begin to crawl out of what seems like a small but, in fact, is a deep and persistent hole" in his chase for delegates.
To be even briefer: It's already over. It's about as realistic to imagine that the sun won't rise tomorrow as it is to speculate that Sanders can climb out of his delegate hole.
And that returns us to the matter of perspective, which means the Democratic presidential campaign's chief objective: to win the bloody election. And if the nominee — Hillary Clinton — is already decided, what pray tell is the point of bloodying her any further in the primary ring?
It's a simple question — yet it's also one that can be answered only through the most contorted of gymnastic obfuscations, all of which possess virtually no perspective.