2020 Presidential Election 2: The Primaries are upon us

[Cleopatra7]

I’ve become very disillusioned with electoral politics and the discourse surrounding the election is a big part of the problem. I feel that with many, perhaps even most, white liberals, the focus is just on getting Trump out without giving people any reason to vote Democratic. The goal is to go back to the way things were before Trump without acknowledging that for a lot of people, those weren’t good times either. I feel that black people in particular are constantly being asked to sweep our concerns under the rug and “suck it up for the team” so (white) moderates and independents don’t get offended and vote for Trump. We are told not to demand anything more from the Democratic Party, because winning the election is the most important thing. So if your family member lost a job and now has a record because of a bogus charge under Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” regime? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. Did you feel disrespected by Mayor Pete’s tenure in South Bend? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. Do you have objections to the centrist takeover of the Democratic Party? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. And so on. We are constantly told to put our interests on the back burner and when we do try to speak up, we’re told that we’re being “divisive” by using “Identity Politics.” It’s like being Oliver Twist, where even meekly begging for more gruel is seen as an affront to those in power. Our expectations are so low that we might as well not even have any.

Compare this to the Republicans, where no idea from their base, no matter how racist or fascist is rejected as far as candidates go. Want to execute women and doctors for having/providing abortions? Okay, sure. Do you think you should be allowed to open carry an Ar-47 in the park where Little League and soccer practice are? That’s American right there? Do you think Mecca should be nuked so the world’s largest Chik-Fila can be built? That sounds both logical and doable. Want to stone gays? All we need to do is reallocate money from public schools to build the gravel pits. The fundie families discussed on here are extreme, but their views are heavily reflected in government, whereas even mild social democratic ideas like single payer healthcare are too shocking to even contemplate. They ask and they get, we plead and get nothing.

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I’ve become very disillusioned with electoral politics and the discourse surrounding the election is a big part of the problem. I feel that with many, perhaps even most, white liberals, the focus is just on getting Trump out without giving people any reason to vote Democratic. The goal is to go back to the way things were before Trump without acknowledging that for a lot of people, those weren’t good times either. I feel that black people in particular are constantly being asked to sweep our concerns under the rug and “suck it up for the team” so (white) moderates and independents don’t get offended and vote for Trump. We are told not to demand anything more from the Democratic Party, because winning the election is the most important thing. So if your family member lost a job and now has a record because of a bogus charge under Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” regime? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. Did you feel disrespected by Mayor Pete’s tenure in South Bend? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. Do you have objections to the centrist takeover of the Democratic Party? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. And so on. We are constantly told to put our interests on the back burner and when we do try to speak up, we’re told that we’re being “divisive” by using “Identity Politics.” It’s like being Oliver Twist, where even meekly begging for more gruel is seen as an affront to those in power. Our expectations are so low that we might as well not even have any.

Compare this to the Republicans, where no idea from their base, no matter how racist or fascist is rejected as far as candidates go. Want to execute women and doctors for having/providing abortions? Okay, sure. Do you think you should be allowed to open carry an Ar-47 in the park where Little League and soccer practice are? That’s American right there? Do you think Mecca should be nuked so the world’s largest Chik-Fila can be built? That sounds both logical and doable. Want to stone gays? All we need to do is reallocate money from public schools to build the gravel pits. The fundie families discussed on here are extreme, but their views are heavily reflected in government, whereas even mild social democratic ideas like single payer healthcare are too shocking to even contemplate. They ask and they get, we plead and get nothing.

All of what you say is true. All of it.

And yet.

And yet, the need to hold your nose and vote blue no matter who is paramount in these elections. Knowing your political system is rotten to the core is very important and pointing it out is laudable. It’s the first step to changing it. That said, preventing a dictatorship is key in November. If Trump wins, and even worse, the trumplicans hold on to a majority in the Senate, America will turn into a dictatorship.

No matter how bad your system is, no matter how undemocratic, you still have a voice, and the ability to stop a Trump dictatorship. After you’ve done that, after you’ve safeguarded your freedom, then it’s time to change the system.

Please, don’t get me wrong, @Cleopatra7, I agree with your points, and I understand your disillusionment. And the time to address those concerns shouldn’t be postponed and they shouldn’t be ignored. But if they are, please don’t let that be a reason to allow the trumplicans to get a stranglehold on your country. Not voting would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Note: my last point is addressed to people in general, not to @Cleopatra7 personally; they never said they wouldn’t vote.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[SassyPants]

Bernie wins the NV caucuses, Biden a distant second and Pete in third.

[formergothardite]

I think Bernie is going to win the nomination.  I'm not convinced he can beat Trump. If he gets a really good running mate who appeals to the people who he doesn't appeal to, then maybe, but I'm worried Trump is going to win easily. 

[nausicaa]

12 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Bernie wins the NV caucuses, Biden a distant second and Pete in third.

Ugh. The moderates split too many votes between them. One or two of them needed to take one for the team and drop out. This is going to be such a shit show. 

[front hugs > duggs]

@fraurosena I’m really impressed by your knowledge and interest in our political system. Can I ask what got you so involved in learning about it? I can’t recall where you’re from (or if you’ve mentioned it!) but for some reason I am thinking you are from Scandinavia, am I way off with that?

My husband moved here from England in 2013. While I majored in PoliSci and was always adamant about voting, it’s been during this administration that I’ve started to REALLY pay attention. I read the news daily like I’ve always done, but I listen to many political podcasts for the bulk of my news and information. I’ve started playing them in the mornings as I get ready for work, and throughout this time my husband has been slowly picking up on all the fun intricacies of our democracy. 

He’s currently a US permanent resident, not yet a citizen, so he can’t vote. I feel like in the past, this has almost held him back in terms of his interest (I can’t vote so what’s it even matter). However, he’s definitely been paying a bit of attention as he hears some of my podcasts and has now watched an entire debate. I love that he’s formed his own opinions! 

[BernRul]

I used to think that appealing to the perfect moderate establishment democrat was the way to go. But in times of political extremes and polarization, going for the safe bet doesn't work. 

I can't stop thinking about my democrat dad, telling me trump will get re-elected because people are angry at the establishment, at the politicians who don't do anything, at the status quo. He said the only way to beat that is with a democrat who can get people fired up and bring young people out. He was right.

Sanders won by a large margin in Nevada. For such a polarizing candidate, he won diverse groups: millennials and gen  z of all races, the working class, Latinos, and a significant percentage of African Americans (though I think Biden has more) people identifying as "very liberal" and "somewhat liberal". 

How can people still say he only appeals to his narrow base? Nevada is more reflective of the country as a whole than New Hampshire or Iowa. Latinos are the largest minority group. Sanders has the most diverse coalition of all candidates, including Biden. 

People said trump was too polarizing to win the general. They said clinton would easily win. They were wrong then. There's a good chance they're wrong now.

[SassyPants]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I think Bernie is going to win the nomination.  I'm not convinced he can beat Trump. If he gets a really good running mate who appeals to the people who he doesn't appeal to, then maybe, but I'm worried Trump is going to win easily. 

Yep. It all depends on the youth vote and yes, the VP choice. Now is the time for those under 45 to get out and make their wishes known. They are the future of this country and they must make their beliefs and standards known. I am old and ready to pass on the baton. Bernie was not my first choice, but I did vote for him ( Super Tuesday absentee) because it is time for the younger generation to be heard. He is better than Trump. I don’t want Bloomberg, and all the other candidates also have a perceived flaws. Biden is the only other candidate that might give Trump a run for his money. As I said before, HC must be reformed. If Biden or Pete or Amy is the candidate, will the youth vote? If the superdelegates come into play, what will happen if Bernie is denied ? What does this say about the state of our democratic republic? 

I also think that there’s an “effect” in play here, and I’m not quite sure what it’s called, but I think many people are steeling themselves against a Trump win and so they default to “ I don’t think s/he can beat Trump.”  Because of what happened in 2016, when literally next to no one thought Trump could beat HC, there are now many folks who are convinced that NO ONE can beat him! IMO, “Can’t beat Trump has become a default”, and I think many believe that if we collectively say it over and over, Trump will not be re-elected. 

[AmericanRose]

21 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Because of what happened in 2016, when literally next to no one thought Trump could beat HC,

I think HC thought that as well.

As a 'youth voter', I have to say Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar don't evoke any feelings in me (well, I wonder why Biden is even running and Buttigieg annoys me). Bloomberg is a non-starter. I prefer Warren, but I would vote for Sanders.
I see a lot of hand-wringing on Twitter about how Sanders can't attract the 'moderate Republicans', and ugh, I hate that so much - I know I've said this before, but Republicans never worry about attracting any sort of Democrat! And if there are any moderate Republicans (what would those be, even? Conservative fiscally and liberal socially?) they've had 4 years (actually longer; I remember reading about him in my grandma's tabloids in the 90s...) to see what they get with Trump, and make a choice. 

The GOP has been poisoned. Those who still consider themselves Republicans have to make a choice, but we shouldn't have to cater to them. I really don't see how any sane person could look at Trump and think 'yes' or even 'eh, not too bad'. Just watching his rallies should be cause for concern over his health.... and those moderate Republicans (do they even exist??) probably don't actually want a theocracy.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 minutes ago, AmericanRose said:

And if there are any moderate Republicans (what would those be, even? Conservative fiscally and liberal socially?)

Yes.  And we existed for years before we were forced out of the party.  

I am no longer a Republican and can't imagine ever being so again.  I am however only a Democrat by default because it's the only other option atm.  That we still just have a two party system is insane.

[anaandrade]

I'll vote for Bernie if it comes down to it, but I'm worried that he won't be able to get much done if he does become president. He just seems so unwilling to compromise with anyone and you can't go with that attitude and expect Congress to follow. I also do have real concerns about his age and health. I also wish he was transparent about his plans and what they would entail.

I do think that the Nevada results show he can bring a broad coalition of voters. If he's the nominee, who would be his VP though? I think he'll need someone who'll bring in those voters he doesn't connect to, but who is that? Any ideas?

[SassyPants]

16 minutes ago, anaandrade said:

I'll vote for Bernie if it comes down to it, but I'm worried that he won't be able to get much done if he does become president. He just seems so unwilling to compromise with anyone and you can't go with that attitude and expect Congress to follow. I also do have real concerns about his age and health. I also wish he was transparent about his plans and what they would entail.

I do think that the Nevada results show he can bring a broad coalition of voters. If he's the nominee, who would be his VP though? I think he'll need someone who'll bring in those voters he doesn't connect to, but who is that? Any ideas?

I’m far less worried about what Sanders can’t get done versus the havoc that Trump has and will continue to cause!! It’s a process, for sure.

[SassyPants]

On 2/21/2020 at 8:08 PM, Cleopatra7 said:

I’ve become very disillusioned with electoral politics and the discourse surrounding the election is a big part of the problem. I feel that with many, perhaps even most, white liberals, the focus is just on getting Trump out without giving people any reason to vote Democratic. The goal is to go back to the way things were before Trump without acknowledging that for a lot of people, those weren’t good times either. I feel that black people in particular are constantly being asked to sweep our concerns under the rug and “suck it up for the team” so (white) moderates and independents don’t get offended and vote for Trump. We are told not to demand anything more from the Democratic Party, because winning the election is the most important thing. So if your family member lost a job and now has a record because of a bogus charge under Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” regime? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. Did you feel disrespected by Mayor Pete’s tenure in South Bend? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. Do you have objections to the centrist takeover of the Democratic Party? Shut up about it, we need to win the election. And so on. We are constantly told to put our interests on the back burner and when we do try to speak up, we’re told that we’re being “divisive” by using “Identity Politics.” It’s like being Oliver Twist, where even meekly begging for more gruel is seen as an affront to those in power. Our expectations are so low that we might as well not even have any.

Compare this to the Republicans, where no idea from their base, no matter how racist or fascist is rejected as far as candidates go. Want to execute women and doctors for having/providing abortions? Okay, sure. Do you think you should be allowed to open carry an Ar-47 in the park where Little League and soccer practice are? That’s American right there? Do you think Mecca should be nuked so the world’s largest Chik-Fila can be built? That sounds both logical and doable. Want to stone gays? All we need to do is reallocate money from public schools to build the gravel pits. The fundie families discussed on here are extreme, but their views are heavily reflected in government, whereas even mild social democratic ideas like single payer healthcare are too shocking to even contemplate. They ask and they get, we plead and get nothing.

I think much of what you are describing has its roots in American exceptionalism. The Rs believe that being bold is the answer because this is the greatest country ever, and some Ds are reluctant to embrace some changes because America is the greatest country, ever...why change anything?

Guess what America, while many have been busy patting themselves on the back for being the greatest and best, other countries have passed us up. In the words of Jeb Bush, “ the only thing America is #1 at is saying we are #1.”

Edited February 23, 2020 by SassyPants

[JenniferJuniper]

I can't imagine Bernie beating Trump in the electoral college.

If mainstream Clinton couldn't do it, no way can someone who will be painted continuously as a Commie be able to pull it off. 

I may be closer politically to Sanders than most other candidates, but Democrats are being foolish if they think he can win the general.  He's Putin's choice for a reason.

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, anaandrade said:

I'll vote for Bernie if it comes down to it, but I'm worried that he won't be able to get much done if he does become president.

This is actually something I soothe myself with. He won't get much of his policies pushed through, especially with his reported inability to compromise. I think his foreign policy will be fairly inoffensive. 

I suppose after four years of constant tumult, four years of stagnation will be somewhat welcome.

2 hours ago, AmericanRose said:

And if there are any moderate Republicans (what would those be, even? Conservative fiscally and liberal socially?) 

Those would be libertarians.

I'm confused as to your question. There is a political spectrum and people fall across all points on it. Moderate Republicans fall to the slight right. Many support affirmative action, gay marriage, limited gun control laws, and limited legalized abortion. Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Phil Scott are all examples. 

And it's not about catering to moderate Republicans or independents with the Dem nominee--it's about winning an election. Young people don't ever show up in reliable enough numbers to depend on in a general election. You have to get to 270. That's it. That's the whole show. 

I'm always bewildered about how many don't acknowledge this. Is it because I'm in the D.C. area where politics is in the water and we're just less idealistic via exposure and more aware of how campaigns work?

3 hours ago, BernRul said:

He said the only way to beat that is with a democrat who can get people fired up and bring young people out. He was right.

We don't know he was right. There hasn't been a general election yet. A Democratic primary swings way farther left than a general. 

And young people are so unreliable of voters I feel very uneasy basing a candidate's success on them. 

Yes, this could go Sanders's way. But Dems are really taking a chance with this one. A chance, imo, it was really irresponsible to take if Trump is as terrible as they claim he is. 

Also, we're really glossing over Sanders's very serious health issues. There's a possibility he might not even survive to the general election. It's very unlikely he will survive his term.

Though, it very well may still be Bloomberg. Losing early primaries/caucuses matters to candidates because the early losses cost fundraising momentum.  Bloomberg can outlast everybody because he has unlimited funds.  And he's been spending his money in states that will matter later (and is actually doing very well with African-American voters, and will probably gain Biden's African-American support once Biden drops out).  He's already burned over $300M of his own money and seems happy to keep doing it. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by nausicaa

[JenniferJuniper]

4 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

And young people are so unreliable of voters I feel very uneasy basing a candidate's success on them. 

Young people hardly ever come out in large numbers to vote.  Bernie's supporters certainly include a lot of young people, but this does not mean that young people as a bloc will come out and vote for him.  Entirely different thing.  

[AmericanRose]

13 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Those would be libertarians.

I'm confused as to your question. There is a political spectrum and people fall across all points on it. Moderate Republicans fall to the slight right. Many support affirmative action, gay marriage, limited gun control laws, and limited legalized abortion. Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Phil Scott are all examples. 

And it's not about catering to moderate Republicans or independents with the Dem nominee--it's about winning an election. Young people don't ever show up in reliable enough numbers to depend on in a general election. You have to get to 270. That's it. That's the whole show. 

I'm always bewildered about how many don't understand this. Is it because I'm in the D.C. area where politics is in the water and we're just less idealistic via exposure and more aware of how campaigns work?

We don't know he was right. There hasn't been a general election yet. A Democratic primary swings way farther left than a general. 

And young people are so unreliable of voters I feel very uneasy basing a candidate's success on them. 

Yes, this could go Sanders's way. But Dems are really taking a chance with this one. A chance, imo, it was really irresponsible to take if Trump is as terrible as they claim he is. 

Also, we're really glossing over Sanders's very serious health issues. There's a possibility he might not even survive to the general election. It's very unlikely he will survive his term.

It was mainly rhetorical, though now that I think about it some guy who calls himself a 'Rockefeller Republican' follows me on Twitter.

It might be! I'm from the rural rust belt - I remember my Grandma telling me who she voted for was private, and no one ever discussed it (even my mom was pretty quiet about politics until Trump).

I still take Trump's election as a sign that people are tired of the status quo. I also think a lot of those people have realised that he isn't delivering/is worse than they thought he could be/is mentally unfit to be president... but they still need that change.
He really wouldn't have been as bad as he is if he hadn't been enabled by the Senate. I wonder if some of those voters thought they might act like a check (or a complete roadblock) on him, as they typically do for presidents.

I would rather have Sanders' VP pick than Pence, that's for sure! They do say evil never dies, but with Trump's current health and his diet...

Edited February 23, 2020 by AmericanRose

[nausicaa]

3 minutes ago, AmericanRose said:

It might be! I'm from the rural rust belt - I remember my Grandma telling me who she voted for was private, and no one ever discussed it (even my mom was pretty quiet about politics until Trump).

...
I would rather have Sanders' VP pick than Pence, that's for sure! They do say evil never dies, but with Trump's current health and his diet...

I always hear that this is the most distinguishing thing about the DC area--politics is always the topic of conversation. I grew up here and lived here so long I don't think I understand how weird it is. 

Believe it or not, for DC, I'm not really into politics. I know people who can recite every single swing district election in the entire country off the top of their heads. We probably aren't entirely healthy and could learn a thing or two from the rural Rust Belt.

I agree people want change. Unfortunately, there just isn't a candidate of the same caliber as Obama in 2008 who can excite people, appeal to POC and younger people, while also not alienating moderates and the fuddie-duddies. I know who my favorite candidate is, but I still couldn't confidently say who is the candidate most likely to win the general.

I'm not too concerned if Sanders dies in office (not that I wish death on the guy), but I do worry how disastrous it could be if he died right before the general election and his VP stepped in as the pick. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by nausicaa

[Rachel333]

 

7 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Young people hardly ever come out in large numbers to vote.  Bernie's supporters certainly include a lot of young people, but this does not mean that young people as a bloc will come out and vote for him.  Entirely different thing.  

And at least in the first two states, the youth vote has actually been lower than expected so far. He didn't get as many young voters out there as his campaign said they would.

I'm not surprised a populist candidate is doing well, but the general election is different from primaries. It would be nice to think that Democrats shouldn't have to try to get moderate voters, but the fact is that we do need them to win. Look at 2018. If the Democrats had done what the far left wanted then the Republicans would still have the House. Progressive candidates did terribly, while moderate Democrats won.

I think Bernie will drive up Republican turnout, since he literally calls himself a socialist and has a history of praising dictatorships. Plus they won't be wrong when they turn the Russian interference argument around on the Democrats! It's very clear that Trump and the Republicans want Bernie to win the nomination. My fear is not only that Bernie would lose in the general, but that he'll take the party down with him because he's bad for down ballot races in more conservative areas, and we'll lose the House, making another 4 years of Trump even worse than it would already be.

[BernRul]

50 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

We don't know he was right. There hasn't been a general election yet. A Democratic primary swings way farther left than a general. 

Not about the general election, no, but he's right about the primaries. There are a slew of moderate candidates who cannot unify the moderate wing. Sanders is unifying just about everyone but moderates and over 65, including people like me, who were former Warren supporters who only recently went for Sanders.

Sanders is definitely a controversial figure--no doubt about it. But let's not pretend that there's any other candidate that's a safe bet. Buttigieg is gay and inexperienced, Warren is liberal and a woman, Klob is a women, Biden has been making a lot of gaffes that make him seem senile, and Bloomberg is a Republican billionaire. Everyone has flaws, and whoever wins, they'll be aggressively attacked by the conservative media and trump regardless. Obama was called a socialist. Hillary was called a socialist. 

But who are Sanders supporters anyway? People act like it's just a bunch of "Bernie Bros" but that's not actually the case.

Quote

 

In the entrance polls on Saturday, Mr. Sanders led the field across many demographic groups: men and women, whites and Latinos, union and nonunion households, and across education levels.

The breadth of his appeal amounts to a warning shot at those in the moderate Democratic establishment he often rails against, many of whom have staked their hopes for a “Stop Sanders” effort on the idea that he has a political ceiling within the party and could not grow his base of supporters.

 

That's from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/us/politics/how-sanders-won-nevada.html

Seems like a pretty diverse coalition. He also had about 27% of African Americans, per 538. That's not the majority, but he is taking support away from Biden, and showing that it isn't impossible for him to win over the black vote.

While there's clearly debate about whether Sanders can beat Trump, this article explains why some populist conservatives see Sanders as the worst possible candidate to face Trump.

Quote

 

As one conservative pundit told me, “of course” Sanders could win; “the fact that Trump won is itself proof.” The Washington Examiner’s editorial board made the same argument, writing, “It’s possible that Sanders-style populism would bring out more voters in a general election than is obvious to political pundits. After all, we’ve seen this movie before.”

And while Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be more different political figures, Trump’s projected response to Sanders — a purportedly booming economy and stock market, for example — would be eerily similar to her response to Trump himself back in 2016 (Remember “America is already great”?).

While Trump had the advantage of arguing in 2016 that low unemployment numbers were fake and a rising stock market was a “bubble,” he must now argue that those same numbers are now both real and reflect true improvement for the majority of Americans (when a lot of Americans, particularly working-class Americans, don’t own stocks).

Coupled with Trump’s general unpopularity (as David French put it, “Yes, Trump’s behavior is ‘baked in,’ but it’s baked in both directions, and a majority of Americans don’t like it, or him”) economics could prove the linchpin of Sanders’s argument against Trump.

As Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson argued in the Washington Examiner, Sanders could prove effective for “pressing on some populist notes that could woo back working-class voters who might not be feeling the full benefits of the economic boom.”

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/3/21083839/bernie-sanders-trump-conservatism-iowa-2020

[Icea]

2 hours ago, anaandrade said:

 

I do think that the Nevada results show he can bring a broad coalition of voters. If he's the nominee, who would be his VP though? I think he'll need someone who'll bring in those voters he doesn't connect to, but who is that? Any ideas?

Stacey Abrams. Her as Sanders’ VP is the only ticket with Sanders at the top that I think would have a chance against Trump, sadly. 

I’m happy to see Sanders bringing in people who might not have voted otherwise and that his base is fired up, but I don’t think a President Sanders administration would really accomplish anything. He comes across to me as very unwilling to compromise, and if he were to consider compromises a lot of his supporters would feel let down, which will let the GOP take the White House back in 2024. Many of the most vocal Bernie supporters online seem to have the same ”Our way or the highway” stance that I see in a lot of Trump supporters and I don’t think that will solve anything. 

And just to be clear, I’m a Swedish leftie who generally votes for the Swedish Left Party in our elections, so I have nothing against Bernie’s vision for the US or his policies. I just don’t think him taking this pure ideological stance and not (seemingly) being open to compromises is something positive.

[nausicaa]

Just now, BernRul said:

Not about the general election, no, but he's right about the primaries. There are a slew of moderate candidates who cannot unify the moderate wing. 

I would argue that the fact that there's a slew of them is why they can't unite the moderate wing--they are dividing too many votes between them. 

And Sanders still isn't polling very well among POC. They likely won't turn out in the general election for him; something that really hurt HRC as well. 

 

Just now, BernRul said:

Sanders is definitely a controversial figure--no doubt about it. But let's not pretend that there's any other candidate that's a safe bet. Buttigieg is gay and inexperienced, Warren is liberal and a woman, Klob is a women, Biden has been making a lot of gaffes that make him seem senile, and Bloomberg is a Republican billionaire. Everyone has flaws, and whoever wins, they'll be aggressively attacked by the conservative media and trump regardless. Obama was called a socialist. Hillary was called a socialist. 

Agreed, there's no clear safe bet here. A year ago, I thought it would be Joe Biden but he has proven, uh, not exactly up to the cognitive and intellectual challenge let's say? 

And yes, Obama and HRC were called socialists. But Sanders actually is a socialist. Who has praised the Soviet Union on video. And never apologized for it. Like @Rachel333 said, I worry about how much he is going to mobilize Republicans to come out and vote for Trump who would have otherwise stayed home.

If people want someone who speaks for economic change, then I do think Warren is the safer bet. She doesn't have the decades of baggage, doesn't have serious health issues, and she's pretty damn good on her feet, especially with sound bites that go viral. (And I'm saying this as someone who disagrees with Warren as well as Sanders.)

I do have this question for Bernie supporters: If Bloomberg wins the nom, as some say he inevitably will because he can just outspend everybody and is focusing on later states, how will you feel if Bernie Sanders runs third party and splits the vote? I worry he is basically holding the Dems hostage at this point, and his recent tweet only confirms those concerns. 

(Though he did diligently campaign for HRC after she secured the nom in 2016. So maybe he will surprise me.)

[Rachel333]

11 minutes ago, BernRul said:

Sanders is unifying just about everyone but moderates and over 65, including people like me, who were former Warren supporters who only recently went for Sanders.

So there's one guy with a cult of personality and a bunch of moderates (who are all quite progressive themselves, actually). That means that the circumstances favor him, not that he's uniquely unifying. (And even so, he under-performed in the first two states.) Most voters do not want him, and if it were a two person race again he would probably be losing, so I'm sure he's grateful there are so many other candidates.

Moderates and over 65 are probably the most important voters to get on your side, so to say he's unifying "everyone" but the majority of Democrat voters is really not that impressive.

And anecdotally, there are a lot of people like me, who are former Sanders supporters but would never vote for him in the primary now.