Centrism in an Overton window heavily shifted to the right is not good for everyone. Certainly wasn't good for Iraq, or Libya, or Yemen, or any of the countries in which both parties have supported our military efforts. It wasn't good for anyone affected by the 2008 recession. It's not good for anyone who's homeless, unemployed, uninsured, or still in poverty because of the neoliberal political program. As for the Democratic party, I wouldn't worry. They're just as resolutely liberal as the GOP, if that's what you're into. To me those aren't examples of nuance. The existence of any private prisons (especially in cases where they can sue states if prisoner quotas aren't met) is absurd. Imprisoning people for using drugs is unethical. Merely "loosening sentencing" when we have the highest per capita incarceration rate is not a more nuanced position, it's a worse position. Anything that isn't a step towards full decriminalization is a retrograde, barbaric policy that belongs in the 20s along with Prohibition. Nuanced doesn't mean "less disruptive" when something desperately needs to be disrupted. By executive order, Sanders can do extremely important things Obama would never do. He could stop drone strikes and military action abroad. We all know Obama loved his drone strikes. He could force the CIA to stop assassinating people, engineering coups, torturing people, trafficking drugs, training and arming terrorists, destabilizing the Americas and the Middle East, etc. Our foreign policy has been nightmarish for a long time. He can shut down private prisons and migrant detention centers. He can legalize marijuana and end mandatory minimums. He can even take a huge chunk out of student loan debt. Admittedly, executive actions are all reversible, which is an issue. But they're also hugely important, and his track record suggests he'd follow through. Unlike Obama, who was never going to do anything that wasn't approved by both parties, regardless of popular support. And that's not even considering the idea of bottom-up pressure. Sanders is center-left economically. Although he describes himself as a socialist, his policies construe him as a social democrat, which is a center-left position in most countries, if not a centrist one. I don't think it's productive to have the "is he or isn't he" debate. I do think he has strong connections to American socialism. But his stated policy goals are not innately anti-capitalist, and he's not running on a socialist platform. It's bizarre to say he's trying to co-opt the Democratic Party. It's a two party system. He has no other choice. He either runs as a Democrat or as a spoiler candidate. As far as I understand it, he's proposed multiple possible options for financing M4A. The one I've seen most commonly is a progressive tax that would, for the vast majority of Americans, be much cheaper than paying for insurance, but would still raise taxes. Either way, it's clearly something we can fund. It's essentially emulating the Canadian system, and if Canadians can do it... Characterizing him as an isolationist is a bit misleading. He's openly described himself as an internationalist, but his opposition to trade deals is based on his claim that they'll negatively impact US workers. I don't know if I would agree in all cases, but it's certainly not blanket isolationism. As for his populism, backing the working class isn't a bad thing unless, again, you're Chuck Schumer. Ultimately, Warren is a progressive democrat. I don't think her platform is bad full stop. It's true that they agree on a lot of policy issues. But Sanders is a unique candidate in the US. He's been committed to the labor movement, activism, civil rights, and economic reform his whole career. He's proved himself over decades, and he's always been vindicated by history. Warren is a former Republican who is committed first and foremost to markets, by her own admission. She might not be a neoliberal, but she's certainly a social liberal who doesn't advocate for fundamental change. She's in no way more substantive, just more conciliatory to established powers. As for the idea that Sanders is just another angry white man, I think most people will see that that criticism is skin deep. As a bonus, Sanders has never pretended to be a minority to further his career goals.