Sanders just CRUCIFIED Clinton in Alaska and Washington

[gallantwarrior]

I fully understand why both Sanders and Trump are attractive to the electorate, both for the same reason. For my part, I cannot understand why any decent, thinking human being would even consider the Hildabeest a viable candidate to represent us (collectively) as a nation.

Looks like you contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.... how exactly do you get "both for the same reason"? If they were the same reason there would be no point in choosing one over the other.

First: the same reason is that each represents a departure from the mainstream of either party. Sanders is running on the Dem ticket, but is an avowed Socialist.

No, he's a Democratic Socialist, and he's never put it any other way. I don't get why some people need to keep changing it. It's somebody else's term; leave it alone.

His appeal as an alternative to the typical, run-of-the-mill, DC demoncrat for liberals/progressives is similar to the appeal Trump has for conservatives who would otherwise find any GOP candidate preferable to a liberal candidate. Both Trump and Sanders fail to fit into the mold of either party. I suspect the electorate of both parties is searching for some relief from the business-as-usual, bullshit dished by the establishment-approved shills.
No contradiction. Just a difference in ideology.

That I'll agree with. But being "not-something" doesn't make for common ground. You could say they're both "not-basket weavers" but that doesn't give them any kind of common ground.

We analyze a candidate based on what they are, not by what they lack. Sanders is an idealist who identifies with the common class and despises hierarchical class striations, while Rump is a narcissist who identifies with himself, manipulates everyone around him to that end, and believes with all his being in that hierarchy, with of course himself at the top. They are polar opposites.

Regardless, being "not something" seems most popular this election cycle. Idealist, narcissist...what is the difference? Neither is "run-of-the-mill", and both appeal to a base that rejects "run-of-the-mill", politics-as-usual. Both terrify the party elites who think they should determine who runs on their tickets.

"What is the difference"?? YUUUGE, that's what it is.

Again you're veering off to side effects of their relationship with the party they're running with. That's got nothing to do with who they are. "Both terrify the party" is simply not a basis for comparison. Running Pee Wee Herman and Ted Nugent would terrify any party too -- doesn't make the two "comparable".

You can't vote for a candidate based on a non-present trait. How would that work --- ""vote for me, I can prove I'm not Hitler"?

You're a Clinton supporter, are you?