On the one hand, we have those who are in favor of the established norms of government in a representative democracy as spelled out in the US Constitution and the law, and on the other hand we have those who are in favor of a more populist approach, governing primarily in the name of the people rather than under the authority of established institutions. There is a fundamental and existential difference between the two. The former is clearly defined and codified, the latter is more amorphous and flexible, inviting constant and unpredictable changes contingent on, among other things, the definition of "people" itself. Based on this difference, the issues, however similar, may be approached and resolved in very different ways with very different results.

so they get a self-fulfilling answer as a result.

So what?

That's the whole point.

The very limited perspective obfuscates the degree of ideological differences between Bernie Sanders and the liberal Democrats in the race.

So there is a fundamental flaw in the method, in my opinion.

That's basic political science.

Fear of losing the election, or fear that the nominee will maintain the Status Quo/normalcy/business-as-usual, rather than push for substantive changes.

Getting a Trump out is a shared ideal. Making a social revolution is the numero uno ideal for some while others, myself included, just want to have a restored normal where I can be left alone to live out my life that I worked hard for. I’m just a Democrat. No additional explanation like socialist, centrist, is necessary. Seems that those who do think it is are divisive. We can have John Bel Edwards and Bernie Sanders in the family. A functional one.