Firstly, it looks to me that Bernie says there were 6 occasions where he did vote to weaken the death penalty laws and/or the assault weapons ban. That doesn't seem to be recorded anywhere I see other than the votes you've posted. Are we ignoring everything else he's stated on the record?

Secondly, the medium.com piece you've posted seems to be written like a hit piece. The whole 5% growth aspect can be explained here (essentially it looks like different models are being used):
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/gerald-friedman-responds-to-the-romers-on-the-sanders-plan-different-models-different-politics.html

The argument that he only got 3 bills through congress seems not to be very nuanced in that he has been called the "ammendment king" while in the House:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

Thirdly, in the medium.com I'm looking at links to sites like http://thepeoplesview.net that seem to be purely biased in their reporting and don't even try to write anything about Hillary or anyone else in the campaigns. I don't know if I can take places like that seriously, especially if every headline is going to be anti. With everything negative there is to say about Hillary, including the fact she is being investigated... again, it's very disconcerting to see "news" outlets focusing on things like "Bernie Math". His policies have been outlined and verified by many economists:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

Fourthly, Bernie has supported several down-ticket Dems and has the potential to support more.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-progressives-fundraising-221887

What I find interesting is how the Hillary Victory Fund appears to be funneling money back into Hillary Clinton's campaign:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/19/3770542/bernie-hillary-dnc-fundraising/


Fifthly, I'll just leave the excerpt about Bernie's apparent sexism from his "writings"(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-freeman-sexual-freedom-fluoride) in the sixties and early seventies. The author from the medium.com article doesn't really give any context but writes this:

"Sexist:
I went back and read several of Sanders’ writings from the 70s. I realize these are from quite a few years ago. However, he was in his early 30s when he wrote them. And I found them to be pathetic — not just poor and embarrassing writing you might expect from an oversexed sophomoric boy, but very limited, reductive, lazy thinking. He bought into the idea that repression causes cancer, and illustrated that through a hypothetical in which he argued that if some nice young boy “has an old bitch for a teacher (and there are a lot of them)…” who tells him what to do, the boy will repress his feelings; a lifetime of repression will give him prostate cancer. Why do I care about this idiotic piece he wrote at the age of 31? I’ll tell you why. He assumed that the supposedly repression-causing behavior came from women telling boys what to do — he could have picked a male teacher to be the one instilling discipline in his hypothetical — but he assumed years of specifically female teachers would cause boys to repress themselves and lead to prostate cancer. And he had no problem referring to them as “bitch.” He wasn’t 16 when he wrote this.

He was 31.

He’s basically the same age as my dad. My dad at 31 had three children and a job and didn’t refer to our teachers as “bitches” and didn’t blame women for for the actions, thoughts, or health of men. Sanders’ writing reveals an adolescent and sexist mindset, not to mention very limited capacity for analysis and scientific reason. Sanders also wrote about the dangers of sexual repression in other ways, including through a hypothetical about based around women’s supposedly fantasizing about being “raped simultaneously by three men” and men fantasizing about raping women. Yuck. He also wrote that because girls reach puberty by 13, they ought to be sexually active as teenagers. Putting aside the ick factor, his writing and analytical capacity aren’t as good as most high schoolers’. This is not my idea of a champion for women."

I think she was definitely reaching by going back to the man's late 20's and pulling this without any context.

That's all I got for now. If you've made it this far then I commend you okayplayer lol