Ok, OP's post is full of so much hyperbole and lack of understanding of progressive politics that I just had to bite.
Personally, I'm all-in for Kamala (though I wouldn't mind a Warren ticket). She's mostly progressive, she's relatively young, she's an incredibly potent speaker and debater, she has a fantastic history, most of the common attacks on her (especially by bernie supporters) are easily debunked, and she is a great choice for "first black, female president".
Kamala Harris's record is anything but "progressive". It is evident that you don't really understand the term.
I am sure Harris suffers plenty of attacks that are not fair as Clinton did, but there are many fair criticisms to be made too. In particular, how could we trust her to stand up to the little guy when she deliberately chose not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin (who is now Trump's secretary of treasury)?
She has failed to explain why. Or how about the fact that she is
courting wealthy donors in the hamptons, just as Clinton has? Please go ahead and "easily debunk" those for me.
I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primaries, but I preferred Hillary by the end of the primaries once I finally stopped blindly believing the memes and other pro-bernie, anti-hillary propaganda.
So is the fact that Bernie Sanders rejected large donations from corporations while Hillary Clinton didn’t "propaganda"? What about the fact that Sanders supports implementing a single payer health care system just as the rest of the industrialized world does, while Clinton gleefully insists that it will "
never, ever come to pass"? It’s a fact that Clinton has consistently supported wasting huge chunks of our tax payer money for wars which have killed and displaced millions of innocent people around the world, and Sanders has not. I could keep going on and on, but it’s as clear as day which candidate was with the 99%, and which one was with the 1%. Those among the 99% who understand in what ways the 1% has and continues to screw them over are the ones who gave the most support to Sanders. This point alone really makes me question if you are being truthful about voting for him in the first place, and if so, why?
imo, he has little significant experience and few accomplishments, is unable to articulate any actual plans to accompany his great ideas, and doesn't have the temperament and mindset for the job.
First of all, your point is
not even true at face value. And in fact even a fact checker with a notoriously pro-Clinton bias has at
least acknowledged his accomplishments as a legislator. But more importantly, it’s relevant because “experience” is highly correlated with how good of a job the president does in office, right? And let’s not forget the Clinton campaign constantly praised Barack Obama’s presidency, even though they also smeared his inexperience in
extremely cringey ways in the 2008. On a personal note, I don’t believe any of Obama’s failings as president are due to his lack of experience. In my opinion, Clinton’s only major distinction from Sanders in terms of experience is her tenure as secretary of state, which I would not rate very highly due to promoting military interventionism in Libya. It’s like Clinton supporters view the position of presidency the same way a corporate HR department views job positions when they shouldn’t be since only one person at any time can ever be the POTUS, and therefore can never truly be "qualified" in resume terms...
From an electability standpoint, he's too old and far too easy to attack
You say this even though Clinton is also old and even easier to attack…
(he has never faced intense scrutiny, including from the hillary campaign.
On what planet are you living on? The Clinton campaign attacked him relentlessly in 2016, which included some incredible falsehoods such as
Chelsea Clinton telling people that Sanders was going to take away their healthcare. The mainstream media outlets were also
overwhelmingly ant-Sanders. I particularly remembered when a video of him praising Fidel Castro for implementing universal healthcare in Cuba
was played during a debate in an attempt to alienate him with Cuban American voters in Florida.
So what, are you one of those people that thinks a progressive candidate like Sanders would fall apart in the general election because they’d constantly be called a socialist? That happened to Barack Obama and he won decisively in both 2008 and 2012. And his opponents were not evil scary crazies like Donald Trump, but “moderates” very much like Clinton.
I truly hope he doesn't announce a run and instead throws his support behind another candidate who shares his values, especially because his particularly rabid supporters (ugh don't get me started on the absurdly ignorant, delusional, and toxic portion of his fanbase) will turn this into another 2016.
And this my friends was perhaps the biggest anti-Sanders smear of all. You can’t argue that he is further to the left of Clinton even on social issues, so instead attack his supporters. I’ve got news for you: every single candidate has “ignorant, delusional, and toxic” supporters. They are easy enough to find on any mainstream political subreddit and other major social media platforms. This is a perfect example of guilt by association, which is a known logical fallacy. And like many of the other points I have mentioned so far, this is yet another
strategy that the Clinton campaign employed in 2008 to label Obama and his supporters as sexist. As someone who voted for a female candidate in the last two presidential elections, it comes off as extremely disingenuous.
I think he mirrors Sarah Palin in that he is a great state-level representative, doesn't know how to handle large-scale issues,
I debunked these two points a few paragraphs earlier.
and is more of a celebrity to his fans than a serious political force (if you haven't seen it, "Game Change" is a super interesting movie about the mccain/palin campaign!)
Once again, I’d argue that applies more to Clinton than Sanders. In most discussions I have seen about Clinton, most of her supporters emphasize padded attributes that look strong on resumes (eg, experience, intelligence, debating skills, perceived electability) and identity (a powerful female politician) rather than her policy positions. In contrast, Sanders supporters are mainly excited by his policy positions, and genuinely believe he supports them because of his authenticity. And this in turn means many have perceived Sanders as caring more about the every day problems being faced by voters. Exit polling from several primaries has confirmed this distinction. See this example from the Michigan primary, which was a close one:
tulsi gabbard is garbage, and i think it's fucking hilarious that her rise in popularity was almost exclusively a product of publicly supporting bernie.
Her rise in popularity is due to her anti-war foreign policy positions which are in stark contrast with virtually all of the other candidates in the running so far. She actually exceeds Bernie Sanders in this respect, and Warren doesn't even come close (she supported Trump's bloated military budget). She also doesn't take corporate PAC money, which is a huge plus, and partially explains her positions since military contractors have a massive influence on congress. I think her stance on LGBT issues in the past might hurt her in a primary election, but then again plenty of gays supported Clinton in the 2016 primary election despite being against gay marriage until as late as 2013. Meanwhile, Sanders has been a staunch supporter of gay rights for decades, even when it wasn't mainstream to do so. But that's not a surprise though since he wasn't a democrat!
I also find it ironic that you emphasize how great it is that Harris could be the first president to be a woman of color, even though that would also be true for Gabbard. Not to say I don't think there would be even better choices like Nina Turner who also possesses many of the same qualities you like about Harris, but sadly she probably won't run.
my one (unobtainable) wish for this election is that we stop focusing on "vibes" over political qualifications, but oh well
My one (unobtainable) wish for this election is that we stop focusing on "political qualifications" over policy positions and voting records, but oh well.
I pick which candidates I support based primarily on their policy positions, and analyze their record to determine how trustworthy they are. This is probably the greatest strength of Sanders since he has been extraordinarily consistent on the issues, even though the political landscape has greatly changed throughout his tenure. While I supported him in 2016 and most likely will continue to in 2020, I will probably do so with a bit less enthusiasm than before as I feel his foreign policy positions aren't as strong as they should be. I still consider him to be better than the other candidates though I'd probably be alright with Gabbard and Warren too despite some reservations I have with them.