Some of these criticisms are fair while others are rather vague, and a few are plainly wrong (ex: Buttegieg does support Medicare for All, just a slightly different version than Bernie), or occasionally painting things as negatives that are probably net positives (support for trade deals). But I think this statement sums up my real issue: “If we nominate a candidate plagued by a litany of disqualifying issues, Trump will win.” This implies that the reason Clinton lost last time was that she wasn’t progressive enough, even though she won the popular vote, and the swing voters who gave it to Trump were mostly midwestern factory workers who lean socially conservative (them + Jill Stein voters). It also implies that there are some candidates who have flawless progressive records, which I doubt is really the case (a similar list could easily be made for Sanders or Warren. Only one I can think of who doesn’t have much baggage is maybe Yang). You could also make long lists of positives for most of these folks (Beto’s immigration plan is one of the most liberal in the field — more important to immigration voters than him appropriating the name “Beto”). I worry more about stuff like this creating misguided “my person or bust” voters who ultimately help Trump more than an imperfect nominee would.