@Lash,
I've been thinking of how to respond to this for a few days.
"Our time is now" sounds as if we have a date with destiny or something. This kind of thinking is useful for encouraging people to vote and making people feel historically relevant. But I think it's emptier than it sounds. For one thing, the "our" assumes that the speaker and the reader share the same political convictions. But I don't think anyone has shown that a clear majority of the voters favor Sanders. Different aspects of his plans may appeal to various voting blocs but that doesn't mean they support his whole program or that they have no misgivings about the candidate himself.
The other troubling thing is the "now". There is no "now" in something as complex as a political universe. The ebb and flow of power and influence is always in a state of flux. I can't even remember what the main topic of political debate was before the Ukraine scandal emerged — gun control? The hurricane? Epstein? The political universe is like a big bubbling septic tank with various bits of offal and crap rising to the surface, floating around a while, and then sinking back into the stew. How many times have we seen some political figure or policy rise up to the top for its fifteen minutes of fame, only to sink back into obscurity as some new piece of partially digested, now bloated, political material floats to the top and spins around in a weak eddy for a period of time? "Now" quickly turns to "then" and the masses cry for something fresh — and, sure enough, soon we detect some new lump of shimmering, slimy political material, festooned with promise and hope, slowly rising to the top to take its place in our collective political imagination for a week or two. "Now" is overrated in this game.
