That's a pretty large basket you have there. The wider a brush you use, the thinner the paint.

In regards to privatization, there are plenty of Reaganauts who call for privatizing as many government tasks as possible, (including the prisons you mention). So replace my word "all" with bunches and gobs.

If the Bushes , The Clinton’s, and Obama are all neoliberals, the term has no meaning. Voters see different messages coming from the messengers. You have an uphill battle arguing that they are all the same. Because they are lumped together, the neoliberal charge is not taken seriously. The argument made by people like Bernie Sanders and Cornel West is that capitalism creates racism and white supremacy. The main target for them is attacking the capitalist Empire. The focus is not on race. People who experience white supremacy on a daily basis feel abandoned. They are told things will get better eventually. On the other hand, people impacted by white supremacy have seen direct confrontation work. MLK addressed poverty and Empire, but knew race had to be dealt with simultaneously. Those who fight Conservatism and Neoliberalism have rejected King’s example.

Obamacare helped me. I'd likely have died this year if it didn't exist. I constantly wonder if I'm going to survive if the republicans end it. I wonder how many children or their parents think the same thing about SCHIP which was heavily pushed by Hillary and enacted by Bill. The difference between republicans and democrats and the harm republicans do is much greater than the difference between these center left democrats you demonize and the far left epitomized by Sanders.

I see from Wikipedia that it's a very messy word that has been used over 100 years to mean many  theories to different groups of people, so much so that they have a very long entry on it as school(s) of Economics and a separate one as school of International Relations Just guessing Hal is using the definition from the first entry that gets a small paragraph Another center-left movement from modern American liberalism that used the term "neoliberalism" to describe its ideology formed in the United States in the 1970s. According to David Brooks, prominent neoliberal politicians included Al Gore and Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party of the United States.[31] The neoliberals coalesced around two magazines, The New Republic and the Washington Monthly.[32] The "godfather" of this version of neoliberalism was the journalist Charles Peters[33] who in 1983 published "A Neoliberal's Manifesto".[34]

It's interesting to me to look this up because I distinctly remember that on TPM Cafe's early days, before 2008, during Bush years,, Josh Marshall had a section of the site where he invited a group of foreign policy scholars, like four or five, to post on foreign policy, along with some economics at times, in a special section. And they were all pretty much considered "neoliberal" by his audience at the time and routinely dissed by most of audience in comments as being too hawkish.And Marshall had come out of that circle, had written for Washington Monthly, and I presumed for that reason, and from some of his comments, that he was simpatico, and was embarrassed at the way they were treated by his small audience. With his turn to heavy horse race coverage of the 2008 campaign on TPM, there was a huge flood of Obamamaniacs with a smaller attendant cohort of Hillary fans overwhelming the TPMCafe site and the foreign policy section quickly ceased to exist. And lefties who didn't like what they said were basically silenced by the passionate noise of the Dem horse race crowd. Struck me that both Obama and  Hillary Clinton would have had no trouble with any of those scholar's theories. And how huge the audience was that was passionate about one or the other and how small the previous leftist audience was that was given to arguing with those "friends of Josh" policy scholars.

Times have changed of course, and will continue to. I guess the lesson, though, is to beware of presuming passion means greats numbers in support. And that larger numbers of people will get excited about horse race politics much more than policy. Marshall used to write about that, too, from a historian's point of view (and he was originally a scholar of history) in defending coverage of horse race over serious policy. He felt that all the noise of political campaigns was a great American tradition, something special about the U.S.

Exactly when did Sanders try to form a coalition? 

Edit to add:

How are West and Turner building coalitions. The message from Sanders, West, and Turner is that everyone has to agree with their point of view. Heck telling white people that race isn’t important is a very comforting message.

Fully expected you would agree with West on "all counts" Hal.

West is an arrogant self-promoting blowhard, who called Obama a "war criminal", the US "the George Zimmerman of the world" and voted for Jill Stein while blaming Trump's election on Obama, anybody but himself.

West lives and profits from the capitalist system he has made a lucrative career out of railing about, knowing he is immune to the damage caused by the current administration he helped put in place. He marched in Ferguson while "the war criminal" did the hard work of investigating and demanding civil rights reforms in the cities police department.

He teaches in universities that are funded by capitalists, and where the plutocrats send the next generation. He profits from filling a token role that achieves nothing for the people he claims to care for, while he blathers on and on with consistently obtuse or polemical verbiage, to further aggrandize his insatiable ego.