This is a highly inaccurate representation of Sanders’ position. For one thing the crowds are a mix of all ages, and many people in each age spectrum see the appeal of his message. The other point is that he wants the people engaging with his campaign and contributing to become involved in the political process, not just for this presidential campaign, but as an ongoing way of being in this democracy. He stresses again and again that he can’t do this on his own, but needs everyone to turn out and vote, not just for him, but for all the downstream candidates on the liberal-ish Democratic ticket.
I have been very moved at the Washington State caucuses to see how many people had never before participated in politics and were just now, inspired by his campaign to show up, to register to vote, and to get others to vote. Yes, it is vital to raise campaign cash for other candidates running, but if the people don’t get out to vote it doesn’t matter, they still won’t get elected. His aim is to build an enduring movement for social justice and change working within the electoral system.
I agree with the comment here on Medium requesting your sources. As we all know, the news feed is hot and heavy with memes, lies, distortions and rumor on all sides. You make many assertions of fact here with no footnotes. The issue of where Clinton’s speech money goes is just one of many. What does it mean to say all her speech money goes to charity? And does it matter that the main charity is the Clinton’s own foundation? Here is just one of dozens of links addressing this: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/16/occupy-democrats/liberal-group-claims-all-hillary-clintons-speaking/
I agree with you on the recent tone of his campaign, and I am very frustrated by the bluster and vehemence of the louder members of his supporters. I think Sanders could and should be doing a lot more to speak to his campaign directors and followers and let them know that loutish and rude behavior and commentary just hurts the candidate and the cause of electing a Democrat.
When it comes to Sanders’ efficacy in congress, I will re-post here the quote from one of the other comments:
“ Well, actually, I was there! I mean, I was Secretary of Labor through some of those years. I saw how effective Bernie actually was. He was tenacious. He kept getting changes, amendments, and very large pieces of legislation … his name was often not on those pieces of legislation. He did not have a, and does not have, a huge ego, so he didn’t hold out for his name to be highly placed on pieces of legislation, but he did hold out for amendments and for changes that almost, in every case — virtually in every case — helped working people, and helped the poor, and I saw it again and again and again. He was an effective legislator — in fact, one of the most effective legislators, because the more you work behind the scenes and don’t try to push yourself out there and don’t try to get the limelight, the more effective you can be, which, ironically, invites the complaint from some people that he was ineffective because he was not in the limelight. He was behind the scenes, enormously effective.” — Robert Reich
I have been thinking a lot about the difference between the campaign personality and the governing personality of politicians. I do not like Sanders’ shouting, or his gruff manner, or his voice, any more than I like Clinton’s steely, patronizing and smug delivery. However: when I watch either of them in normal one-on-one sit-down interviews they are thoughtful, intelligent, respectful people, either one of whom I would be happy to have as my president. Just something to keep in mind if you are going to “dig deep.” A great deal of what we are seeing now in both candidates is a veneer of showmanship crafted to get votes, that may have very little to do with the real person beneath.