Read on Twitter
Whenever someone says bernie voters are "threatening" to sit the general elections out, they're admitting they take the left for granted. In truth, these voters are like all others and must be attracted with comcessions. If they don't vote for Biden, that's his deliberate fault.
I'm sorry you have to hear this, but of course, if people should vote for a candidate (a massive if, when he's a rapist war-monger), everyone that doesn't vote for him did something wrong. There's no sense in picking out bernie voters over long-time non-voters or republicans.
Screaming "I was the most electable, if only people voted for me I would have been elected" is an asinine tautology and it's meant to cover up your own responsibility for the decisions that alienated some groups of voters and the refusal or failure to approach others.
Which, incidentally, is the only thing you actually have control over in light of voters making political decisions in a generalised and systematic fashion. The left probably should not be taken for granted (as plausible deniability for a right wing party) but also it can't be.
If you know endorsing a (good) key policy proposal of your opponent will secure a block of voters and you won't do that, you're consciously risking your election and all the good that would allegedly do to avoid committing to that policy. It's a fair trade off *for you too*.
If replacing RBG with a centrist is so important, it's Biden that's willing to give this up to avoid committing to the GND even on paper. The choice only makes sense if he attributes a lower priority to RBG's replacement than to crushing the possibility of a GND or M4A.
It's Biden's choice to accept the trade off, in a way that doesn't mirror the choice of any individual voter, who simply have far less control over the outcome of the elections. He controls one vote, and can maybe persuade a few people. Biden controls tens of thousands of votes.
