The patter of establishment calls for Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to end his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has built into a hailstorm.

“Bye, bye, Bernie,” the Washington Post editorialized prematurely, echoing numerous talking heads. Politico reports Democratic pols are quietly urging him to pack it in. Even President Barack Obama suggested to deep-pocket donors that it’s time to fold in behind former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (They already have, Mr. President, they already have).

Some of this is sowed by the Clinton campaign. But most is simple foolishness. It would be inconceivable for Sanders to stop now.

After all, he still has a chance to win the nomination. Sanders just swept through the West, winning five of six contests by stunning margins. In addition, he isn’t just a candidate — he’s a cause. Sanders seeks to build a movement that can make the political revolution needed to transform the country, not simply win the White House. That means a political movement powerful enough to both get big money out of politics and pass Sanders’ agenda. His supporters want and expect him to drive that effort right through the Democratic National Convention and beyond.

President Obama on Monday endorsed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, his handpicked Democratic National Committee chair, in her congressional race. What’s stunning about that is that Obama felt the need to endorse a six-term congresswoman running in a heavily Democratic district at all.

Tim Canova, a law professor and Federal Reserve expert, jumped into the Democratic primary in January, challenging Wasserman Schultz from the left. At that time, my Intercept colleague Glenn Greenwald interviewed Canova, revealing multiple contrasts between his opposition to bank bailouts, corporate-written free trade agreements and the Patriot Act and Wasserman Schultz’s support of those policies.

Populist primaries of entrenched incumbents don’t usually get the attention of the White House, because success for the challenger is so remote. Obama very rarely involves himself in House primaries. That he felt the need to endorse Wasserman Schultz suggests that Canova’s message is gaining traction in her district.

The endorsement comes fully five months before the primary– and days before the end-of-the-quarter deadline for Federal Election Commission reporting. While Wasserman Schultz has never needed help soliciting campaign contributions from wealthy donors, the presidential endorsement has the appearance of a vote of confidence to ensure the continued flow of money.

While Hillary Clinton waits for a heavy dose of conservative criticism on her email habits in the upcoming general election, American taxpayers will be stuck with a quickly growing bill as the FBI sorts through thousands of messages sent from Clinton’s private email account.

On Sunday afternoon, the Washington Post published a lengthy piece detailing the former secretary of state’s email scandal from start, noting that the first message to go through the email server was more than seven years ago in January 2009. Perhaps the most interesting tidbit to come out of the story though, was that an astonishing 147 FBI agents have been assigned to the case. Here’s how that was phrased:

“One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey.”

The average salary for a mid-level FBI agent is $68,993 ($264.34 per day). Assuming that all 147 are employed at the one time, that would mean $38,858 of taxpayer money gets sucked into the Clinton email investigation every single day. The Washington Post does note that FBI has accelerated the investigation in hopes of reaching a resolution well before the November election, but doesn’t specifically give a timeline of when the officers were assigned to the case. Even so, the potential cost of the investigation — which has already spanned 420 days — skies to $16.3 million, an amount of cash that could have provided VA benefits to 2,680 veterans this year or given a permanent home to 1,624 people living on the streets.

No matter your opinion on Hillary’s use of a private email server, one thing is certain: With almost $200,000 a week going into the probe, the most promising news is that it’s nearing an end.

On Sunday, Bernie Sanders challenged Hillary Clinton to debate in New York, her adopted home state and the state he was raised in, before the crucial primary there next month. The next day, Joel Benenson, Clinton’s chief political strategist, went on CNN and said that Clinton’s decision on a possible debate would depend on the “tone of the campaign” Sanders was running.

Statements like Benenson’s make it seem like Clinton and her supporters think she should be able to run for the Democratic nomination unchallenged.

We’ve seen this before, and it didn’t work well for Clinton. In 2008, Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the inevitable Democratic candidate. Many campaign watchers have argued this is why her team in Iowa wasn’t as sophisticated as Barack Obama’s, allowing Obama to win that state’s caucuses, which ultimately catapulted him to the nomination and the presidency.

Now, history seems to be repeating itself, at least partly. Clinton likely thought she’d have the nomination sewed up by now, if not much earlier in the primary race. She is clearly done debating with Sanders. But for one of Clinton’s main advisors to call out Sanders for his “tone” rings hollow. Sure, Sanders has been negative towards Clinton; he is, after all, running against her. But when you compare the tone on the Democratic side to that of the Republican race, or to almost any political campaign, it has been downright collegial. The Vermont senator has lobbed almost no personal attacks against Clinton. And Sanders hasn’t hit her on the e-mail scandal or Benghazi.

Clinton is still the frontrunner for the nomination and it is going to be a long and difficult general election. But as much as she may want the primary to be over, it isn’t.

If there’s one thing that supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton agree on, it’s this: When it comes to her work as chair of the Democratic National Committee, a position she’s held since 2011, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is bad and should feel bad. Consensus holds that she’s either in the tank for Clinton, incompetent — or both.

And when it comes to her work as a member of Congress, where she’s lately distinguished herself as a strong defender of the generally odious payday loan industry, her record is even worse. She’s against pot decriminalization, against an “open” Internet, against Edward Snowden, against refusing donations from corporate lobbyists, and skeptical (at the least) of President Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran.

It has been more than a year since the infamous news conference at the United Nations, at which Hillary Clinton falsely asserted, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” For a year the Clinton campaign has raised a number of specious excuses: “It was allowed”; other secretaries did the same (not true); the emails were only retroactively classified (not true); there was no risk classified information might have been compromised (unfounded); and her offenses were not serious (highly questionable).

If it was not previously, even the most loyal Clinton supporters should by now recognize the seriousness of her problems. The FBI does not assign 147 people to investigate something trivial, “allowed” or lacking national security implications.