Because I’ve heard it all before.
Sasha Stone

There’s a lot of hyperbole in your main article and your responses. For my part, I think that it is a waste of time to continue to ruminate over the general election or the Democratic Party primaries. If we are all serious about challenging the imperatives of the Trump administration and the present Congress, then we have to proceed from a sober assessment of how we as citizens can contribute to the fight to save universal affordable health insurance, to prevent any turn away from regulation of carbon emissions, and to impede denial of entry to refugees and expulsion of undocumented individuals. That said, it has to be acknowledged that the results of the Democratic primaries reflected, both, organizational preferences within the DNC for Secretary Clinton (after all, as you suggest in your contributions, she was a devoted party member rather than a newcomer independent) and scheduling peculiarities ensuring that Secretary Clinton would emerge from a set of primaries in relatively conservative southern states (in which she stood no chance of winning in the general election) as a favorite before more liberal states, potentially favoring Senator Sanders, held their primaries. Momentum means a lot in an electoral struggle as long as the presidential primaries and no one wants to go out of their way to back a perceived underdog in a contest that appears to be largely decided. I’m a Massachusetts independent who voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary and for Clinton in the general. Frankly, I find your over the top berating of Sanders supporters and of voters who cast their lots with Jill Stein in the general election bizarre under the present circumstances. Recalling that Clinton won the popular vote and that any serious critique of third party voting patterns needs to account for the particular ways in which third party votes impact individual electoral college outcomes, Secretary Clinton was a manifestly problematic candidate insofar as she lacked the capacity to appeal to working class constituencies that lost from free trade and from more aggressive environmental regulations (e.g. the folks in coal country). To say that Sanders would not have performed better with these folks in the general election is to posit a counterfactual that you lack the ability to validate. Rather, you need to acknowledge that the Democratic Party was advancing a candidate whose appeal was severely constrained within broad segments of the general electorate in ways that Sanders was not constrained. That isn’t to question Clinton’s humanity or the innate value and relevance of breaking the glass ceiling for the highest office in American politics, but it should suffice to say that it isn’t helpful to take Secretary Clinton’s loss as a personal affront under these circumstances.