I understand the logic of pushing for maximalist policies, hoping to move the Overton window and turn something as ambitious as a public insurance option (which Obama fought for) into the “compromise” position. What I don’t understand is the belief that a maximalist president will magically get more policies through just by willing them into existence.
As you said, you turned out for Obama because he made more ambitious promises than other Democrats were making. Yet his administration was only able to push a handful of moderate reforms through Congress. Do you really believe that’s because he simply lacked willpower or conviction? Or is it because new laws can only be as ambitious as Congress will allow, meaning the Joe Liebermans in Congress are the ones who really decide how much reform will pass? What reason is there to believe that a Sanders administration would look radically different, in practice, from an Obama or Biden administration?
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a Sanders or Warren or Yang would really be different. But in an election between a pragmatist and an ultranationalist, it should be no contest for progressives. The idea that a “progressive” person wouldn’t show up to vote for Biden over Trump is utterly baffling to me.