And also, in more topographic terms, here.
As long as the supporters of Sylvester Turner are unable to acknowledge that many of the voters who put him in the runoff also voted 'No' on HERO, then we're going to have some cognitive dissonance about who Democrats are and what they stand for, who and what liberals are, and of course the meaning of 'progressive' and who qualifies by word and deed. And who do not. These are distinctions with great differences (as long as you're not a Republican, that is).
We've seen it already with self-described progressives (sic) declaring that Hillary Clinton is more liberal "than some think", and supporting her in the primary because of the 'Supreme Court', two facetious premises rolled into one. We'll see it again when Bernie Sanders supporters finally realize he's been defeated for the nomination, and then helpfully allow themselves to be herded onto the Clinton bandwagon. (Way back in the summer I offered a Plan B for them when this happens. It's time to at least start considering that, Berners.)
These things (HERO's defeat, the false choice of Clinton or Sanders, how each of these uses its version of our cash-corrupted politics to get what they desire, losing several times before finally succeeding) are, as my brother Neil says frequently, all connected.
We just don't need two major parties in this country when most Americans have no use for either one. Try as they might to distinguish themselves, they both still look alike to the vast majority of people who have quit voting, having all but given up on the "democracy" we thought we knew, loved, and that soldiers believed they died for. It would be best if the Tea Party hurried up and cleaved itself away from the Tories, and the Whigs finished pushing out the Progressives (or Democratic Socialists, or what have you). So that we could all better find our own way.
Hope I live to see it, but don't believe I will.