I like how your tagline and the content of the article you quote have nothing in common.
Yeah my eyeballs rolled out of their sockets reading that post.
Kindly examine the juxtaposition of these two sentences: "Then Hillary Clinton lost the general. All that shows is that our voters are interested in progressives and are done with the centrist moderate Democrat."
Saying "All [Hillary's loss] shows is that our voters are interested in progressives" implies a causal connection between Hillary's loss and her supposedly not being progressive.
Such a claim contradicts reality because Hillary ran a progressive campaign. She lost because of voter suppression, especially in heavily black areas of Michigan, foreign interference, the FBI director interfering, etc. Even then, she lost by an infinitesimal margin. El Sayed cites none of those factors and instead focuses on her ideology... and he gets that wrong.
Later, he says, "Even if you talk to Trump voters" they'll be in favor of Medicare for All. Again, he builds upon his previous comments to imply that Hillary and the Democrats could've reached these voters with progressive policy. This assertion can be easily disproved by all the studies that have shown that Trump voters chose him based on racism and white (supremacist) identity, not because Hillary failed to offer them Medicare for All. In fact, they rejected the progressive policies she proposed in favor of supporting a bigot.
So yes, I resent his slandering the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, and Gretchen Whitmer by suggesting they might not be progressive enough.
Rather curious how these types always seem to throw the "centrist, corporatist, shady" claims at women, isn't it? Almost as though they mean something else.
