so the party is most, at the very least or of total, importance. They must be in the Party to be a good candidate.

He is not running as independent in the general, much as some people try to conflate the two.

If you don't have allies, and a party behind you, none of your ideas can ever be implemented. One person yelling at clouds can't change anything. A party of like-minded people voting together can.

are described here. Surely not showing up as a very FDR style Democrat. Not for single-payer, or says it can't be done, etc.

And Bernie has shown up as this kind of Democrat, whatever label you or he use for him, for years, for decades even. We believe that he is the solid, consistent choice that fights for the values we hold as Democrat.

It's that simple.

Unable to see the big picture? Can't see the forest for the trees?

So you have to cozy up to the party or its grand pooh-bahs won't help you.

They are a Punch and Judy show functioning in effect to fascinate and distract from what's really going on--

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Jimmy Carter Tells Oprah America Is No Longer a Democracy, Now an Oligarchy

"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.

For those who need a quick civics refresher, an oligarchy is a system of government where the leadership is held in the hands of a small group of elites. According to Carter, shifting systems of political influence have made it so that a rich few basically control the political process.

...valuing team loyalty over the lives of fellow spectators.

Including ones contrary to your claims (for example a majority of Dems support free trade agreements and the ACA has greatly improved access to health care) but to address this more on a hypothetical level as the question was at least implicitly couched:

1) Party success and victory empowers all wings of the party. Climate deniers like Inhofe and thecratic loons like Cruz get to have the decisive power in committees thanks to the success of Republicans who are neither. Similarly the Progressive Caucus would have more influence with a Dem majority and POTUS, rather than being completely impotent under Trump/Cruz.

2) Only the party in power wields the veto and the appointment pens. So you (not most Dems, but most DUers probably) get all poutraged if Clinton signs a trade agreement. But you'd get more poutraged, if you were being honest and forthright, when Cruz not only does the same but also signs tax cuts specifically for billionaires and elimination of the estate tax (no, she won't, don't try) or vetos equal pay and protection bills. Clinton, for all I think she lacks the fire and inspiration of Sanders, tacks exactly with the Democratic Platform, which calls for equality, reproductive choice, and the right to form unions. So will her judicial nominees. No Republican's will.

3) Only with party support are agendas achieved even in part. A President who is a lone voice however powerful can achieve little and engender much animosity in both parties (Ventura, exhibit A). We have atripartite government and a bicameral legislature with a POTUS who must work with both to get their desires safely into law. Without both good rapport and substantially similar goals to one of those parties, ther will be no support or action on any presidential priorities.

We can whine about it all we want. We have and will always have absent massive constitutional overhaul a 2 party system. In a century the parties may be Thinkers vs Prayers or Earth Firsters vs Galaxians, but our political system will inevitably generate two opposing parties. Pick the closest, try to move it in your direction, or remain utterly irrelevant.

I never seem to get tired of it. It says so much with so little words.

The worst Hillary supporter on DU flat out stated that she and many others support Hillary because it was good for business.

Union leaders endorsed her so they could have a seat at the table. They would have that with Sanders regardless, so it was good for business.

Clintons raise money for other Democrats. It's good for business.

Have you ever asked yourself, how does a professional Civil Rights activist get paid? The DLC ran Think-Tanks that employed Civil Rights activists. It was good for business.

The list goes on. There is a vast array of industries that make money off politics. Political Parties are good for business.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]