In 2 months, they've only raised $1500-someodd amount from 59 donations.

A far cry from the private chartered jet a la Bernie Sanders they probably thought they'd be funded to rent.

The gist of it:
SuperDs are good if they vote for Sanders and corrupt if they vote for Hillary
The 'citizens' are no parties and repugs
The voters, who support Hillary in higher numbers than Sanders, don't count

May as well strike the "democratic" part out of "democratic socialist." Add "authoritarian" instead as we find ourselves with a wannabe dictator running on the ticket of our party.

I still haven't heard an explanation for why the majority of votes should be discounted.

Sanders (and his campaign) has shown himself to be petty and vindictive. He actually wants to exact personal vengeance on liberals he feels have slighted him--not caring that it hurts the Democrat Party. He has a massive ego and apparently places himself far above the Party--not to mention, the progressive ideals of his own campaign platform. Behold the man.

It kills me that he became a Dem last-minute and now expects the red carpet treatment. How does that make sense?

...Lenin found it expedient to implement communism in a "noble" attempt to implement socialism...just saying.

Once all resources and power gets centralized everything stops before it is properly distributed to the People. Power corrupts. I think Bernie has been feeling his oats, too. He has never had so much attention before.

Growing up in the sixties I was programmed to think of Soviet communism as being a tragically flawed attempt to realize a utopian socialist state. In retrospect, considering Marx wrote "The Communist Manifesto", I have no idea how I came to make that distinction.

...left over from college. I remember being very surprised when I read it because I expected something sinister. The idealism of true capitalism hasn't been reached either. It was based on the presumption that human beings have inherent goodness and decency and so things would have balance. Maybe some do, but there will always be those that will take advantage and grab power--upsetting things for everyone else.
Louis Althusser's essays on ideological apparatuses nails down what happens in organized society.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm

Capitalism creates massive amounts of wealth but concentrates it at the top among the "wealth producers" who gain a disproportionate share of the wealth created while creating negative externalities that harm society. Socialism in its various forms (ranging from communism to social democracy/modern liberalism) seeks to rectify these imbalances for the greater good. The issue isn't the theory, the issue is the practice. Socialist movements tend to run on a dangerous combo of hope, idealism and righteous anger, and that often precludes the movements for acting in their own best interest to create positive change. Socialist ideals have advanced the farthest by grass roots organizing, consistent, conscious political action, consensus and coalition building and exploiting divisions between the more far-sighted and moral members of the 1% (think Bill Gates, FDR, John Mackey, etc) versus the immoral, mean, sociopathic members (Trump, Koch Brothers, the Bushes etc etc). Doing those things requires compromise and sometimes having to table certain things you want (for example if you need benevolent rich people to win then you have to temper your demands for wealth redistribution, but in return you get progress in other areas and more institutional power), but the lefties you see around the Bernie campaign are not inclined to do that for various reasons, they'd rather break everything because the system is unjust. And in many ways it is,but that path is dangerous because at best, you'll accomplish nothing and alienate voters who value stability and don't want to risk current incremental progress on a massive upheaval, at worst, the massive upheaval will hurt vulnerable people.

Anyway I rambled a lot but the the main point is that vulgar socialism is unproductive and alienating.

Your point about the "more far-sighted and moral members of the 1%" is important. When wealthy and powerful people recognize their privilege, and that it comes with a responsibility to society--why the hell should they be lumped in with others like Murdoch and Sheldon Adelson (as examples)--heck--Trump, too!

Protest WHAT exactly? that Sanders LOST???

It basically boils down to, "We will not accept that he lost." I'm not clear on what comes after that, or what exactly they mean to do. I just hope there's no physical intimidation and verbal assaults on HRC's people.

This will be one of the great non-events of 2016.