>There's a clear difference between Sander's and Clinton's
>fiscal policies. Sanders reflects what leftist parties in
>other rich countries advocate. Clinton/Obama do not. They're
>sometimes more economically conservative than the conservative
>parties in other western nations. It doesn't make sense to me
>that recognizing this difference is damaging to the party.


Of course there is difference between Sander's and Clinton's fiscal policies....

I'm more concerned with history than anything else...And history tells us that anytime a party is taken over by the base on either side, the bottom falls out....But I'm not surprised this is happening. Whenever a party has the election success that the Dems have had on the Presidential level, u fall into that classic hubris....U start to think that the entire country would gladly pay a tax to pay for full on free health care...That the Middle class won't balk at having the health care that they are happy with being dramatically switched and having to come out of pocket to fund it....

This ^^^^ is hubris...

Republicans have become a victim of such fracturing hubris as well...Thinking just because they dominated the House and Senate that EVERYONE would go along with anti-abortion legislation....Or that EVERYONE hates Obamacare (aka Romneycare)...

The Tea Party mentality isn't just some Conservative reality...Shit is about to get real for the Democratic party...That slope be slippery...