Bernie Sanders discussion....

[Mithlomwen]

Thread for all things Bernie Sanders.

[Merah]

"This is what our wins from six of the last seven contests look like, with our expected delegate totals. I'll be blunt: I very, very much want to add Wisconsin to this list Tuesday night.

Democrats Abroad - 3/21
Bernie Sanders: 69% (9 delegates)
Hillary Clinton: 31% (4 delegates)
Idaho - 3/22
Bernie Sanders: 78% (17 delegates)
Hillary Clinton: 21% (5 delegates)
Utah - 3/22
Bernie Sanders: 79% (26 delegates)
Hillary Clinton: 20% (6 delegates)
Alaska - 3/26
Bernie Sanders: 82% (13 delegates)
Hillary Clinton: 18% (3 delegates)
Hawaii - 3/26
Bernie Sanders: 70% (17 delegates)
Hillary Clinton: 30% (8 delegates)
Washington - 3/26
Bernie Sanders: 73% (74 delegates)
Hillary Clinton: 27% (27 delegates)"

Me too, Bernie. And I have to say, if it wasn't for voter suppression by Republican election officials, we might have won Arizona too (Hillary does far better in mail-in, early ballots versus those trying to vote the day of). But yes, we have to win Wisconsin, then New York, and then take California by a landslide.

If we do that and gain a pledged delegate majority, we will have won the moral victory, regardless of whom the party deigns to appoint at the convention.

[Nachtmahr]

I think the backlash would be phenomenal if Bernie Sanders (Whom I support, although I am not American and don't live in the U.S.) won the majority but had the nomination snatched form him through undemocratic practices. He's faced a pretty brutal uphill struggle all the way to where he is now with what appears to be a pretty strong media bias for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is perhaps the least frightening alternative from a foreign point of view, but either potential republican candidate genuinely unsettles me. I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with the idea of another age of Clinton either. :/

[HannibalBarca]

Just the fact that we're considering the scenarios where the establishment in both parties upends the process in order to get rid of the upstarts and places their chosen candidates in the general is a good sign.  Just the fact that the establishment has to consider this is a good sign.  I hope the general is Bernie vs Trump.  Bernie has such a high approval rating, and Trump such a low one.  What Trump is doing is bringing to light the ugly realities within a lot of the Conservative base, to the point that the undecideds and moderates who swing votes to one party or other can't ignore it or claim it doesn't exist.  It does exist.

[Oniya]

We got Wisconsin.  :-)

Fivethirtyeight now shows him at 93% of where he 'should' be to take the nomination.  Oddly enough, this is exactly the same percentage-of-goal that Trump is sitting at.  Of course, Bernie is trending upwards, and Trump is trending down... 

Also, he's made a big gain in the PA polls, and is now only 6 points behind Clinton.  To put that in perspective, a similar poll in mid-March had him 25 points behind, and one from just before Wisconsin had him down 22 points.

[Merah]

His ability to massively beat polling predictions, thanks to his enthusiastic supporters and get-out-the-vote organization, is the primary reason I still think he has a chance to take the pledged delegate victory. You'd be a fool to count Bernie out, however long the odds.

[WhatLiesAbove]

We got Wisconsin.  :-)

Fivethirtyeight now shows him at 93% of where he 'should' be to take the nomination.  Oddly enough, this is exactly the same percentage-of-goal that Trump is sitting at.  Of course, Bernie is trending upwards, and Trump is trending down... 

Also, he's made a big gain in the PA polls, and is now only 6 points behind Clinton.  To put that in perspective, a similar poll in mid-March had him 25 points behind, and one from just before Wisconsin had him down 22 points.

ON TO NEW YORK!!!!!!

[Far eyes]

So for those of us who do not closely follow this and are in other countries, how likely is it that he gets to run for President?
Personally i am in the "Just anybody but trump" because while that would be funny, this is also maybe the worse possible time for an insane american president. 

[Oniya]

It depends on who you talk to, really.  There are loud voices on both sides.  Robert Reich pointed out earlier this week that Bernie's delegate requirements aren't as astronomical as one might think:

Total pledged delegates - 4051
Pledged delegates needed to win - 2026
Pledged delegates yet to be decided - 1662
Pledged delegate for Sanders - 1088
Pledged delegates for Clinton - 1302
To win Sanders needs - 938
To win Clinton needs - 724

What Sanders needs to win (938) divided by what's left (1662), 938 ÷ 1662 = 56.438. We'll round that up to 56.5%

So it's not 60 or 70, it's 56.5% of the remaining pledged delegates Sanders need to win.

[TFcommando]

So for those of us who do not closely follow this and are in other countries, how likely is it that he gets to run for President?
Personally i am in the "Just anybody but trump" because while that would be funny, this is also maybe the worse possible time for an insane american president.

There is zero chance, none whatsoever.  .  Apart from Hillary rigging the system in her favor from the start, such as having her good buddy in charge of the DNC, Sanders will have to somehow win New York, Hillary's "home" state, where the NYC press is savaging him on gun issues, by a degree that completely inverts her current lead.  He'd also have to somehow win California by an unlikely margin.  The reporting on Sanders is heavily biased towards him having a chance, because the big media outlets want a story... when he's out, they'll essentially have to stop reporting on Hillary completely. 

[Nachtmahr]

There is zero chance, none whatsoever.  .  Apart from Hillary rigging the system in her favor from the start, such as having her good buddy in charge of the DNC, Sanders will have to somehow win New York, Hillary's "home" state, where the NYC press is savaging him on gun issues, by a degree that completely inverts her current lead.  He'd also have to somehow win California by an unlikely margin.  The reporting on Sanders is heavily biased towards him having a chance, because the big media outlets want a story... when he's out, they'll essentially have to stop reporting on Hillary completely.

Not only do I disagree with your point that there is no chance for him to win, I also kind of got the vibe that this thread was kind of pro-Sanders?

While that could be a misunderstanding on my part, I definitely don't see your point either. I kind of feel like I'm going to have to ask for you to show me some hard facts to back what you're saying up, otherwise I'm going to consider it an analysis based entirely on your own opinion. It seems that a lot of people who do unbiased political analysis for a living strongly disagree with what you're saying.

I also strongly take issue with the notion that the media is biased "Towards him having a chance" as he's been receiving much less coverage than both his democratic and republican rivals.

So unless you have anything factual to back up this claim, I'll have to say I think it's very pessimistic and possibly even a bit inappropriate.

[Merah]

So... him winning an upset in New York, when he is known for stunning upsets in this primary and has closed the gap to 10 points in the last major New York Poll, and a large-margin victory in California (have you *seen* some of his victory margins?) is 'zero chance, none whatsoever'?

???

Look, disagreement and debate is welcome, of course. No one ever said this thread was only for Bernie cheerleaders. But as I said before, it seems foolish to make such a sweeping dismissal of Bernie's chances at this point.

[TFcommando]

The delegate numbers aren't there, pure and simple.  He's making some impressive wins, but they aren't impressive enough to narrow the gap in delegates to any significant degree. 

Looking at wins alone doesn't make for a good analysis.  Consider Hillary's campaign against Obama in 2008... she won a lot of states, she even won the popular vote, but still fell short the nomination by some 300 delegates.  Sanders isn't anywhere close to where Hillary was 8 years ago.

Now, New York is a closed primary, whereas Bernie has done well in open primaries.  It's the state Hillary served as Senator for, she spent a lot of time getting votes there and has a natural advantage from her service.  It's a primarily urban state, given the huge population of NYC, while Bernie is a rural candidate... the friction over the gun issue is a strong illustration of that.  Then there's his lower popularity with black voters, while New York City has a 25% black population. 

Polls aren't always accurate, for a variety of reasons, but flipping from 10 points down to 20 points or more up in a week and a half would require a sea change greater than any experienced so far... races simply don't shift that much in that little time.  He would NEED to shift it that much to start pulling even.

California would require an even bigger win for him, far bigger than any he's had.  Hollywood has always been for the Clintons, the "Friends of Bill" being a term with considerable cachet.  LA has a large black population too.  The Inland Empire is a very conservative region and his socialist leanings won't go over well in that part of the state. 

[ReijiTabibito]

The other thing to consider are the superdelegates.  The number presented by Oniya a few posts back posit only the undeclared candidates remaining, not the ones who have already pledged.  Hillary has a little over 450 supers right now, compared to about 30 for Bernie.  IMO, the Sanders camp strategy has always been to secure a significant portion of the popular vote.  Why?  Because if the scenario where 'Bernie wins popular, but loses nomination' happens, you could potentially see massive political upheaval.  If he gains enough in the popular, the superdelegates might decide to switch camps and go the way the wind is blowing.

Democrat or Republican, the political establishment wants one thing: for people to keep voting for them, the party.  The young, students, and the blue-collar - who are Bernie's primary bases - constitute a couple of the traditional blocs for the Democrats.  If Bernie loses the nomination because of establishment skullduggery, then the Democrats stand to lose those bases.  Bases the Republicans would be happy to take, or a base that might end up establishing a third party.

Hannibal, I'm gonna go one step further with something you've said.  Trump has broken open the seals of secrecy surrounding not just what happens in the Republican camp, but with the political establishment in general.  And call me a fool if you must, but I would rather have someone who upends the whole establishment, breaks their power and the stranglehold they've got on how governance is handled here, than someone that I largely agree with on policy.

Do I think Trump is a good candidate?  No, not really.  He's an egotist and a blowhard and he doesn't really know a lot of things outside of business (though that would make him good for working out economics and trade, on paper).  But I would consider him over Hillary, because Trump is at least honest about what he does.  Yeah, he gave money to candidates, he went to the Clinton wedding, he's a businessman looking after his own interests.  Makes sense to me.  Hillary - and in my opinion, most politicians - aren't.  If you're going to vote no on a bill for instituting student loan debt forgiveness because the private education lobby paid you a million dollars for your last campaign and asked a favor of you this time, then don't make noises about how you're saying no because it's somehow in the better interest of the country.

And that, to me, is the problem in the halls of power today.  It has made liars out of nearly everyone because they are treating it like a typical job, where your goal is to stay employed.  But governance isn't like those jobs, it's more like being a police officer, where it's nice if you get to stay employed and go home at the end of the day, but in the end, your real work is something higher than that.  The thing stopping honesty in the political sphere is that if politicians knew they were honest, they wouldn't get re-elected, and that is their goal, so why should they do it?

[elone]

All things Bernie, he is consistent. Go Bernie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYxZfksAyco&nohtml5=False#t=171.777267965

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Forewarning: This isn't a post of facts and statistics. I feel others have and will cover those better than I could at this point. This is just my stance and opinion on the current primary.



I'm a pretty hard and fast Bernie supporter. My state has a closed primary and I registered democrat, claiming a party for the first time after over 10 years of adamant opposition to belonging to any group, because I felt my vote would be better served by voting for whoever the best candidate is based upon the candidate and their values and not what color or leaning they end up under. I've voted for people on both sides of the aisle since I registered. I registered democrat a few months ago because this primary, more than any other I've seen in my lifetime, is too important to screw around with. Voter suppression is getting worse by the election, the status quo is being rubbed in the faces of the people even while huge leaks of information are showing that our government and the big businesses who own it are doing things none of us would be okay with if they didn't spin it to their advantage in the media. I have a child and am facing down the barrel of guns called Student Debt and Living Expenses. Every year both of those guns get bigger, but my income and ability to meet those rising demands is getting smaller.

That's why I'm voting for Bernie.

That being said... I recognize that it's a long shot (not impossible, but not overly likely, either) that he takes the nomination. Even if he wins the popular vote, it's unlikely he'll win it by more than 5-10%, and I'm not sure that will be enough to win over enough superdelegates to support him and even the odds. I'm still going to vote for him, though. Why? Because with the republicans falling apart at the hands of their own insanity (Trump and Cruz should never have made it far enough to even run a serious campaign, but the insanity the republican party has fallen prey to since the Tea Party became a thing has degraded them to the point where this is possible), the democrats are the only reasonable party left, and at this point the only group that stands a chance of overcoming the republicans while they're busy self destructing.

All that being said, even if Bernie doesn't the primary, he's done his job. Here's why:

Bernie has proven you can run against the establishment and do extremely well. He's proven that young people haven't been negligent in the political process because they don't care. The under 30 vote is almost exclusively in his camp, and it's the most enthusiastic camp out there aside from Trump's, though Sanders supporters (thankfully) take their enthusiasm in a less destructive and scary direction. Clearly they care, when you give them someone to care about. Young people have been uninvolved and negligent up until now because they've grown up in a system designed to screw them, and they didn't see anyone willing to stand up for them. If you don't stand up for them, why expect them to stand for you? Bernie does that. He stands for us, so we stand for him. He's motivated the young voters to get involved and to push back against the establishment and the status quo. He's given voice to views always shouted down or outright silenced before. That is a huge step forward.

It's also shown people that they don't have to vote for a lesser evil. They can demand something better. If Bernie looses the nomination, a huge chunk of the people who voted for him in the primary (myself included) will not vote for Hillary. Not because we want the republicans to win, but because we refuse to check our principles at the door. If Bernie doesn't win, especially in the face of the obvious way the DNC has screwed over Bernie, I guarantee the DNC will see something of a mass exodus, with people leaving in droves to become independent or even Green Party. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they fall apart just like the RNC likely will. The two party system hasn't worked in a long time, and it's not going to magically start working going forward. The best we can hope for is that both parties collapse in on themselves, or at least end up restructured in such a way that people can take the parties back from the political elite who run them.

[Mithlomwen]

Look, disagreement and debate is welcome, of course. No one ever said this thread was only for Bernie cheerleaders.

Exactly.  This thread was created to discuss all things Bernie.  The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Just a reminder for everyone....debate is welcome, just remember to keep it civil.  :-) 

[Cassandra LeMay]

So for those of us who do not closely follow this and are in other countries, how likely is it that he gets to run for President?
Personally i am in the "Just anybody but trump" because while that would be funny, this is also maybe the worse possible time for an insane american president.

This may be not something I should mention in a thread about Sanders, but it could be argued that there could be worse than Trump. Trump shoots off his big mouth all the time, but he could change his stance any time, if the wind blows from another direction. Cruz, on the other hand, is a "true believer". He's to the right of Trump, holds fast to his opinions about God, abortion, carpet bombing the Middle East - and might stand a a better chance than Trump to win against Sanders or Clinton.

Just saying this here so you don't miss the reply, but feel free to copy-paste this into the more general thread. I have that bookmarked so I'll see it.

[Far eyes]

The two party system always strikes me as a bit odd, i understand it partially because in the US such words as "Socialist" on a prty are viewed with extreme misunderstandings, but still it always struck me as kind of strange. A lot of places have a "green" party for example, often named other things not always wildly well represented but hey its there.

Now granted things can get a bit haphazard to here we have currently 19 parties, granted a large majority of those hold 5 or sub seats of 250 i believe. The vote was a cluster of names with some truly lovely alterations of democratic somthing somthing. But i could never escape the feeling that the US is doing it self no favors with the binary Dem/Rep system especially since i here from so meany people that they do not feel at home on either side, or that they are this or that but... and then they name a laundry list of things they do not agree with. 

@Cassandra
Trump reminds me in rhetoric and posturing a lot of some people like Milošević and his ilks personal views. I always distrust "big men" in power, its a position that demands responsibility not Putin like posturing and dick waving. Its all very nice and good especially because they safely know they are not the ones that will have to actually deal with anything there idiocy causes, for the most part.   

From life experience i have taken one thing, when ever some politician crawls out of the woodwork and starts crowing about simple solutions he needs to be viewd with untmoast distrust. If it was not for "big men" and there simple solutions, my little part of the world would not be in the hole its currently clawing it self out of. 

[Oniya]

I know that some of the superdelegates are starting to switch, and some of the undeclareds are starting to make Bernie noises.  At least two (who had districts whose votes went to Bernie) have said that they will go with their constituents and endorse Bernie over Hillary. 

The fact that superdelegates can and do switch their votes is why sites like fivethirtyeight don't count them in delegate totals.

[ReijiTabibito]

This may be not something I should mention in a thread about Sanders, but it could be argued that there could be worse than Trump. Trump shoots off his big mouth all the time, but he could change his stance any time, if the wind blows from another direction. Cruz, on the other hand, is a "true believer". He's to the right of Trump, holds fast to his opinions about God, abortion, carpet bombing the Middle East - and might stand a a better chance than Trump to win against Sanders or Clinton.

Trump and Cruz both scare the Republican Party - but they scare them for different reasons.  Trump scares them because he's essentially become a gigantic inadvertent whistleblower for the political process today, for all the corruption that goes on there.  That said, he is basically a political know-nothing.  He's avoided making any sort of major policy declarations and stuck to a very simple but also very shifting message throughout his campaign.  This is actually one of the places that he gets better than most Republicans, because most of them want to talk policy, and policy for the average listener is a gigantic turn-off.

That said, I would vote for Trump over Cruz any day.  Trump's problem is he's ignorant - that can be fixed.  Cruz' problem?  Keep reading.

The usual Republican rhetoric for years about small government, cutting waste, getting rid of 'moocher' programs, has largely been just that - rhetoric, things to say to the voters during an election cycle to get them back into office.  It's very, very manipulative, and their promises are devoid of meaning.

But Cruz?  He's demonstrated time and again that he actually believes the crap he's spewing.  Cruz thinks we should eliminate this program, or do this thing, or that, and when he says it to the camera he can say it with a straight face.  Cruz and the Tea Party - or the Freedom Caucus (which is House-only) - are dangerous, because they are advocating simply ripping out huge portions of the government for no reason more than a piece of paper says in uncertain terms that they should not exist.  Never mind the potential damage done to the country by it - even if there were not one single person on food stamps or welfare, you are at least eliminating all those jobs with the government: where are the people going to go?

People say 'Donald Trump could destroy America!'  You're right, he could.

But Cruz will, if he can.  That's why the Republicans are working to figure out how to stop Trump from doing anything once he's in office, rather than stop him at the nomination.  Because the alternative terrifies them more.

Forewarning: This isn't a post of facts and statistics. I feel others have and will cover those better than I could at this point. This is just my stance and opinion on the current primary.



AND THEN A LOT OF THINGS WERE SAID (to simply paraphrase).

I believe - though crazy it may sound - that Bernie represents one of the last, best hopes for the American state to continue.  And if he were to fail now, not because of a lack of support, but because the process was sabotaged by parties serving their own self-interest, then I don't think the US would last out the century.  It might limp along for a while, but in the end, it will collapse like so many other states before it.

You aren't the only one, BP, in a rough situation.  More and more Americans are starting to feel the crunch, the squeeze, call it whatever you will, as time goes by.  It can have a thousand different names - student debt, medical bills, food stamps, mortgages - but dollars are disappearing out of the pockets of working Americans and going to places that use the dollars in a never-ending cycle to make more.  (It's not a lie to say that there are business who spend more money in the government in the form of lobbying than in taxes.)

I remember Vekseid saying this once: the reason things haven't gone explodey already (okay, maybe I changed the wording a BIT) is because things aren't that bad.  Yeah, okay, money is tight, and we can't really do the things we want to do...but we still make ends meet, we can still do all the things we need to do.

The problem, the blowup, the demolition, is going to occur when that line gets crossed.  When it's not just about getting to order pizza on a Saturday night, but about being able to buy the ingredients at the market to make your own.  When it's not about getting to buy the new iPhone you wanted (even though the one you have is just fine), but about having to get rid of your cell phone period.  When it's about buying medicine for your sick kid today or getting them replacements for their busted 4-year-old sneakers next week.

People will put up with not having the things they want.  (Unless you're rich or in Congress, of course.  Then they have to get everything they want.  No questions asked.)  But threaten their ability to secure the things they need?  They will riot, they will tear down, they will do whatever they have to to ensure that that doesn't happen.

People are tired of hearing about companies like McDonald's posting billion-digit profits but moaning about having to actually pay their workers.  Or worse, threatening to fire them and replace with touchscreen kiosks if they are forced to.  You might have gotten away with that 15 years ago when most food workers were kids trying to get a few extra bucks in their pocket.  The mean age for fast food people these days is in their mid-late 20s somewhere.  Not kids.  People trying to scratch out a living.

The common rejoinder to this from the right is "Well, they shouldn't be working these jobs for more than a few years.  They get some skills, and then move on."  Which is all and fine, but where exactly are they to move on to?  We started de-industrializing starting in the 70s and moving up through today.  Manufacturing and the jobs that, for my parent's generation, you could do right out of high school are largely gone.  Fast food happened to evade the drain because it's not really fast food if you have to ship it all the way from India or China after it's been made.  Throw on top of that the minimum wage hasn't increased to keep up with inflation, and you see what you have now.

Some of the critics I've heard off-E about Bernie says that he wants to establish a socialist state, which is a failed economic system and all it will do is just make people miserable, even though it could provide for their needs.  And that may be the case.  But as I usually point out to such critics, people are miserable now, and their needs aren't being met.  So is it little wonder that people have stopped caring about whether or not they'll be happy and about whether or not they can live?

Things have to change.  Because to stay the way they are would be masochistic.  Bernie is promising that, he's giving us that.  He's promising - on a larger scale - to give us back the country that was stolen (and it was a theft, because we had no say in the matter) from us.

And frankly?  The Democrats and Republicans have coexisted as parties side-by-side for the last 150 years.  I think the scene needs a bit shaking up.

[TFcommando]

I know that some of the superdelegates are starting to switch, and some of the undeclareds are starting to make Bernie noises.  At least two (who had districts whose votes went to Bernie) have said that they will go with their constituents and endorse Bernie over Hillary. 

The fact that superdelegates can and do switch their votes is why sites like fivethirtyeight don't count them in delegate totals.

Article on 538.com http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/ that touches on that today.
 
"Sanders’s reliance on extremely low-turnout caucus states has meant the pledged delegate count overstates his share of votes. To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead."


With regard to shaking up the parties, it happens plenty.  The Democratic and Republican parties of 40 years ago are different from the ones of today.  They change and adapt to new ideas, to what the voters want.  Ross Perot's ideas resonated with a lot of the voting public and then both parties started adapting elements of them.  Even Obama uses some Perot rhetoric.

[elone]

I believe - though crazy it may sound - that Bernie represents one of the last, best hopes for the American state to continue.  And if he were to fail now, not because of a lack of support, but because the process was sabotaged by parties serving their own self-interest, then I don't think the US would last out the century.  It might limp along for a while, but in the end, it will collapse like so many other states before it.

This is precisely why Bernie supporters are hanging in there with the hope that some miracle will happen and he will get the nomination. We all know it is an unlikely scenario, but the hope of one chance for this nation to change it's ways and support an agenda that could produce a real change in the direction the country is headed keeps people going. Bernie as old as he is, represents the future, Hillary represents the past.

[HannibalBarca]

I worry about people voting for Trump if Sanders doesn't get the Democratic nomination.  Sure, a Trump election would shake up some establishment positions and backers.  But it wouldn't uproot them.  He's a billionaire, after all--a member of the establishment, even if his personal opinions differ from many of the more conservative establishment.  The Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment--what they have in common is power.  Trump already has power.  Remember, it isn't the establishment who cares about abortion rights, or LGBT rights--that's the conservative base.  Trump's base may be racist, homophobic, and anti-women, but they probably care most about their slipping position of power in the pecking order as middle-aged white males.  The establishment has no such fears.  They want to remain on top.

What I worry about is the selection of the next supreme court justice.  With Trump, we won't get a liberal.  If Hillary wins, at least the social aspects such as LGBT rights and women's issues will be backed by her choice.  We can't risk a loss of Roe vs Wade, or what LGBT rights have been won to be rolled back...or Obamacare scrapped, preventing the path to universal or single-payer health insurance.

The biggest issue with Bernie as far as the Supreme Court--rolling back Citizen's United--is only going to come with a justice he nominates.  Hillary is bought by the moneyed interests.  Cruz is bought by the moneyed interests.  Trump IS a moneyed interest.  So, if Bernie doesn't end up being nominated, I have to vote Hillary.  I don't see Trump bringing about anything positive by being elected, and a lot of negatives.  At least Hillary will put someone at least halfway decent on the Supreme Court.  And even if Bernie doesn't get nominated, what he has begun, in my opinion, will only get stronger the next election.  If he doesn't get elected, I can see Elizabeth Warren running and winning in four or eight years on the same platform, with the strengths of Bernie and Hillary combined.

[TFcommando]

I worry about people voting for Trump if Sanders doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

Very unlikely to happen to any significant degree.  The idea is covered because it makes for an interesting story... but the media was telling the exact same story about the PUMAs in 2008, female voters who wanted Hillary and wouldn't vote for Obama because of hard feelings.  That phenomenon failed to materialize and so will this one.  Passions are high because the primary season is going on, but it's going to come to an end, maybe by June, maybe before that.  All that passion and all the hard feelings will dissipate.  Sanders will make a speech at the convention and his supporters will vote for Hillary or else stay home.

Nor is Trump a lock.  Like Sanders, he's a novelty act that got too big, without the foundation to be a real candidate for the long haul.  Neither has competent campaign personnel (Bernie has Al Gore's campaign manager, the one who couldn't even win Gore's home state, who had millions of Democrats voting for Bush).  Both have made ill-prepared statements that are quite damaging to their brand, Trump with four positions on abortion in three days, Sanders with "I'll have the Justice Department dig something up" when pressed for details on his plan to attack banks.