A top recc'd diary features a WaPo story declaring Bernie Sanders a "real threat" to Hillary Clinton. But not a threat to win, but to damage her.
This is nonsense. The only "damage" Sanders' candidacy can inflict on Clinton is by winning the nomination - and if he does, who cares if she is damaged? From the WaPo story:
Supporters have acknowledged privately the potential for Sanders to damage her — perhaps winning an early state or two — even if he can’t win the nomination. [My emphasis]
Here's how I interpret that line - Clinton supporters acknowledged Sanders can win states. The reporters think that means "damage." It doesn't. It's never meant that. You need look no further than the 2008 nomination contest, the most bitterly fought in recent memory. Obama was not damaged at all. Indeed, Obama was a much better candidate for winning that tough race.
So to would Clinton - if she wins. Indeed a tough challenge is much better for her than a coronation. (and so to would it be for Sanders.)
And it would be better for us. Enough of this ridiculous idea that candidates having to campaign for votes will somehow damage them. What's implicit in that idea is that Sanders will force (or keep if you prefer) Clinton to the Left. And of course, in the Beltway moving Left means "damage." (Notice the Beltway never sees moving Right as "damaging.")
We know this is nonsense. Let's not buy into it.
The Sanders campaign is good for progressivism and good for Hillary Clinton (if she wins the nomination.)
Don't let anyone use scare tactics like this regarding the Sanders campaign.