Who will challenge Trump? Who you like?

[ericpmoss]

[...]
After the 2016 convention, the Sanders camp had say in both the party platform and in the nominating rules for the 2020 election, including changes to the delegate and super delegate system. While it will happen if he loses, it's tough to credibly play the victim when you had a say in creating the rules of the game being played.

No. Our position was and is that superdelegates are anti-democratic and should have been eliminated entirely. We were opposed by powerful people in a registered corporation who told a judge "we can pick our candidate any way we want". So we were only able to get the compromise that lets the well-connected have a back-door to getting their way -- flood the field with candidates that have no chance at rising above say, #3 or #4 , in order to stop the progressives from getting a majority on the first vote. Then bring in the superdelegates and take it all back. That is exactly what they did.

Saying that we can't credibly complain about this is like saying blacks can't credibly complain about stop and frisk because they "had a voice in the process".

[theflashunc]

No. Our position was and is that superdelegates are anti-democratic and should have been eliminated entirely. We were opposed by powerful people in a registered corporation who told a judge "we can pick our candidate any way we want". So we were only able to get the compromise that lets the well-connected have a back-door to getting their way -- flood the field with candidates that have no chance at rising above say, #3 or #4 , in order to stop the progressives from getting a majority on the first vote. Then bring in the superdelegates and take it all back. That is exactly what they did.

Saying that we can't credibly complain about this is like saying blacks can't credibly complain about stop and frisk because they "had a voice in the process".

The compromises made at the 2016 convention and for the 2020 campaign rules are ones the Sanders camp entered into freely and know what they were on the ground. I would argue those were good faith, hard won compromises on all sides after an extremely vigorous debate. If the progressive bloc was large enough to eliminate the superdelegate structure, it would have happened, but it's not. If Bernie dislikes superdelegates that much after the agreement that was struck then, he could have always run as an independent.

And to imply somehow Warren and others were parts of some vast Establishment conspiracy to dilute Bernie's voter pool is, frankly, exactly the kind of stuff that drives people away from wanting to support the guy. It's 1968 absolutist New Leftism all over again.

[lumpy]

flood the field with candidates that have no chance at rising above say, #3 or #4 , in order to stop the progressives from getting a majority on the first vote. Then bring in the superdelegates and take it all back. That is exactly what they did.

They brought in the superdelegates already?

All sarcasm aside, Bernie's whole narrative has been that he, uniquely, can bring out a wave of young, progressive voters and former nonvoters. So far in this primary he hasn't done it - he got half as many votes in New Hampshire this time around.

[zachateseverything]

The compromises made at the 2016 convention and for the 2020 campaign rules are ones the Sanders camp entered into freely and know what they were on the ground. I would argue those were good faith, hard won compromises on all sides after an extremely vigorous debate. If the progressive bloc was large enough to eliminate the superdelegate structure, it would have happened, but it's not. If Bernie dislikes superdelegates that much after the agreement that was struck then, he could have always run as an independent.

And to imply somehow Warren and others were parts of some vast Establishment conspiracy to dilute Bernie's voter pool is, frankly, exactly the kind of stuff that drives people away from wanting to support the guy. It's 1968 absolutist New Leftism all over again.

In my opinion the "democratic establishment" can't simultaneously be both capable of running a vast conspiracy to keep Bernie away from the nomination AND be incompetent enough to largely ignore PA, MI, and WI in the 2016 general election.

Bernie's message resonates strongly with young people but not so much the electorate as a whole. If he doesn't win the nomination it's because of that.

[davids]

WaPo updated their quiz for seeing which candidates you agree with most to just the remaining candidates (as of yesterday) and their latest positions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...grees-with-me/

Since most of us don't completely fall in line with every position of a given candidate, it continues to be an interesting way to see how we align with those in the race. I'm now tied for both Biden and Warren and Bernie is just a point back. I guess my vote will come down to which of the 20 issues surveyed matter most to me.

That quiz is well worth taking for everyone, as much to see that there's no single candidate who you're likely to agree with on everything as to identify your favorite policy-maker.

I hope the democrats tread lightly with Bernie Sanders. If Biden continues his momentum, Sanders' fired up base might turn off and the democrats need that demographic to win. With the dropout of Klobuchar and Buttigieg, there aren't any candidates to take votes from Biden, I think this sends Sanders towards martyrdom. His party is denying him again even though Biden has the greatest chance of beating Trump. If the democrats handle this poorly (again), I think some voters will stay home. I'm in AZ, we haven't had our say yet.

I'd argue that the Democratic party needs to treat Sanders fairly, and do its best not to create a schism between progressives and centrists. That fact, however, is that the race has come down to a progressive vs. a centrist and only one of these old white guys (sorry I couldn't help myself there...) is going to get the nomination.

How do you see this "martyrdom" playing out? It seems the rules for selecting delegates have been clearly laid out. Do you think that, if neither Biden or Sanders gets a clear majority, the nomination should simply go to the guy with the most delegates?

absolutely. if biden is the nominee his supporters may well come to that realization too late to have done anything about it. imagine if the republican party had nominated ted cruz or Jeb! in 2016 out of sheer distaste for trump. i would have preferred that to happen in terms of preserving civility in politics but hillary would also have won an election against any other candidate but trump

2016 should have been a revelation for the democratic establishment that nothing is owed them and a dedicated base that is genuinely excited for a candidate can upset the coronation of a career politician. now they'll try it again, saying "you bastards had better get in line this time around, you saw what happened last time you didn't." well i'm not so sure that I intend to reward that sort of thinking. perhaps i'll say well, tough luck, if you wanted my vote you ought to have given me something to vote for.

people like to vote for something, not just against the other guy. you saw that with trump. the only compelling argument for biden is that he isn't trump. sanders and warren both promise real, material improvements for their constituents and, by some miracle, both also manage to be not trump.

I'm going to offer my personal opinion here. I am an enthusiastic Warren supporter and voted for her yesterday. But my candidate isn't going to win the nomination. I am sad about this, but this is how elections work. And I am a big boy and know I don't always get my way.

So given my general policy position I should be shifting support to Sanders. But I am less than enthusiastic about him. Not because of his positions, but because of his temperament and my perception that he's an ideologue. I worry that his presidency would be a massive failure, because he sees enemies where others would see potential partners. Where Warren sees massive inequality in wealth, Sanders sees evil billionaires. I find it easy to imagine another horrific Trumplike presidency, with the small consolation that Sanders' enemies fall more into line with my values...

So I see my support shifting toward Biden, an imperfect candidate who has the great advantage of being a reasonable human whose values I share and whose accomplishments are real.

One thing I will say for Sanders. He's a politician, and I can see him trying (already) to expand his appeal. So maybe there's hope for him to become the kind of politician who can actually move the needle in the right direction? We'll see.

And if these young Bernie Bros fail to vote in the general election if their guy doesn't get the ball, I will be so fucking furious.

[JJohnson]

And if these young Bernie Bros fail to vote in the general election if their guy doesn't get the ball, I will be so fucking furious.

Because voting for "the lesser of two evils" is such a great reason to go vote...

[lumpy]

Because voting for "the lesser of two evils" is such a great reason to go vote...

It's a pretty good reason, actually.

[guido]

I'm a Warred supporter who voted for Bernie because I wanted to do what I could to prevent the moderates from screwing it up again.

Biden will have a massive target on his back during the general. The gop senate is already cranking up the Burisma hearings. I'm pretty confident that similar smears are on the way about Hunter's China board tenures.

How someone who got passing marks for not making a fool of himself in the debates is now the favorite is mind boggling. Expecting him to defend himself from the trump slime machine is optimistic.

[davids]

Because voting for "the lesser of two evils" is such a great reason to go vote...

Yes. It. Is.

I'm honestly shaken that I even have to say this. But I see I do: If the Sanders supporters do not vote for the Democratic candidate Trump will be re-elected. Any Democrat (and at this point we can say that if the D nominee isn't Sanders it will be Biden) will be vastly better for our nation than Trump. Regulations. Legislation. Federal judges. Supreme Court justices.

Government, when it works, is not a winner-take-all sport. It's a process of advocating for your values, your programs, and your constituents in conversation and argument with people who you don't always agree with. People who are advocating for their values, their programs, and their constituents. You work with people who have different goals. You negotiate. You compromise. You govern.

[theflashunc]

Yes. It. Is.

I'm honestly shaken that I even have to say this. But I see I do: If the Sanders supporters do not vote for the Democratic candidate Trump will be re-elected. Any Democrat (and at this point we can say that if the D nominee isn't Sanders it will be Biden) will be vastly better for our nation than Trump. Regulations. Legislation. Federal judges. Supreme Court justices.

Government, when it works, is not a winner-take-all sport. It's a process of advocating for your values, your programs, and your constituents in conversation and argument with people who you don't always agree with. People who are advocating for their values, their programs, and their constituents. You work with people who have different goals. You negotiate. You compromise. You govern.

1,000 times this.

I disagree with Steve Bannon about pretty much everything, but he's spot on with one point: Elections have consequences. Clinton wins in 2016, Neil Fucking Gorsuch and Brett I Like Beer Kavanaugh are not on the Supreme Court swinging it in a clear conservative majority.

That reason, and that reason alone, should be enough to have gotten progressives and Jill Stein voters and whoever the hell else wrote in Mickey Mouse to support Clinton. And it alone should be the reason Bernie's supporters get behind Biden if he's the nominee, or Biden's supporters if Bernie is the nominee. The entire system is built on basically everyone being unhappy all the time. As John Lewis so astutely says on the regular, the struggle never ends. There's no end point where there's no more work to be done.

You vote for the lesser of two evils and who most closely aligns with your values -- even if that alignment is a Grand Canyon chasm -- because it's the reasonable thing to do. And who knows, that politician you supported might just start getting dragged to your policy positions because of that support.

[rwsaunders]

^ Yep...remember when Ross Perot split the ticket and essentially handed the White House keys to Bill Clinton? Let’s hope that neither Bernie nor Biden does something similar and allows the Trump family et al to continue to divide this country within itself and within the global community...because they will and they don’t even bother to try to hide it.

[guido]

Yes. It. Is.

I'm honestly shaken that I even have to say this. But I see I do: If the Sanders supporters do not vote for the Democratic candidate Trump will be re-elected. Any Democrat (and at this point we can say that if the D nominee isn't Sanders it will be Biden) will be vastly better for our nation than Trump. Regulations. Legislation. Federal judges. Supreme Court justices.

Government, when it works, is not a winner-take-all sport. It's a process of advocating for your values, your programs, and your constituents in conversation and argument with people who you don't always agree with. People who are advocating for their values, their programs, and their constituents. You work with people who have different goals. You negotiate. You compromise. You govern.

Sure at the end of the day beating trump is the goal. But why do we hear so few moderates saying "Sure I'd vote for Bernie to get rid of trump"?

The progressives are starting to feel more than a bit ticked off that they are once again the ones who are asked to make the sacrifices...

[JJohnson]

Sure at the end of the day beating trump is the goal. But why do we hear so few moderates saying "Sure I'd vote for Bernie to get rid of trump"?

The progressives are starting to feel more than a bit ticked off that they are once again the ones who are asked to make the sacrifices...

Exactly this. We will never experience progress in this country if we continue to maintain the status quo and let big money dictate the elections. It's too bad that we didn't realize this until Trump was elected.

[JJohnson]

Yes. It. Is.

I'm honestly shaken that I even have to say this. But I see I do: If the Sanders supporters do not vote for the Democratic candidate Trump will be re-elected. Any Democrat (and at this point we can say that if the D nominee isn't Sanders it will be Biden) will be vastly better for our nation than Trump. Regulations. Legislation. Federal judges. Supreme Court justices.

Government, when it works, is not a winner-take-all sport. It's a process of advocating for your values, your programs, and your constituents in conversation and argument with people who you don't always agree with. People who are advocating for their values, their programs, and their constituents. You work with people who have different goals. You negotiate. You compromise. You govern.

Tell that to Republicans who never compromise. Democrats are the best at compromising. So good that they never make progress.

[davids]

No. Our position was and is that superdelegates are anti-democratic and should have been eliminated entirely. We were opposed by powerful people in a registered corporation who told a judge "we can pick our candidate any way we want". So we were only able to get the compromise that lets the well-connected have a back-door to getting their way -- flood the field with candidates that have no chance at rising above say, #3 or #4 , in order to stop the progressives from getting a majority on the first vote. Then bring in the superdelegates and take it all back. That is exactly what they did.

Saying that we can't credibly complain about this is like saying blacks can't credibly complain about stop and frisk because they "had a voice in the process".

You might not want to hear this, but your comments reek of paranoia and persecution.

Sure at the end of the day beating trump is the goal. But why do we hear so few moderates saying "Sure I'd vote for Bernie to get rid of trump"?

The progressives are starting to feel more than a bit ticked off that they are once again the ones who are asked to make the sacrifices...

Substantiate these statements, please.

Here's one datum: I'm a progressive moving towards supporting Biden. My candidate isn't going to win and I want a Democrat in the White House.

[davids]

Exactly this. We will never experience progress in this country if we continue to maintain the status quo and let big money dictate the elections. It's too bad that we didn't realize this until Trump was elected.

Tell that to Republicans who never compromise. Democrats are the best at compromising. So good that they never make progress.

I could get all snarky and dismissive - because you began this by suggesting it's acceptable not to vote at all rather than for a less-than-ideal candidate - but instead I'm seriously asking:

So what's your plan? How do you enact your political program?

Bring me around to your point of view. Convince me, and others.

[ides1056]

I want a functioning government, someone who knows how to drive the damn car in the road rather than the ditch.

Sad to say, this low bar is what we will vote for.

Ideals just are about as likely as pigs flying.

[lumpy]

Exactly this. We will never experience progress in this country if we continue to maintain the status quo and let big money dictate the elections. It's too bad that we didn't realize this until Trump was elected.

Joe Biden is not the status quo. Donald Trump, a Republican Senate, and a right-leaning Supreme Court is the status quo.

[zachateseverything]

Would any Bernie Sanders policy proposal be a hard veto by a President Joe Biden?

[theflashunc]

Tell that to Republicans who never compromise. Democrats are the best at compromising. So good that they never make progress.

We have evidence just within the last 10 years this is demonstrably not true. Democrats passed a landmark healthcare law that, explained to voters of both parties absent pejorative titles, people love. The Democrats won back the House in a landslide mid-term election because of it. Is it Medicare for All? No. Is it perfect? Of course not. But is it a step in the right direction? Absolutely. And it was done by a lot of Democrats knowing it'd be the end of their political careers, not necessarily their ideal plan, and hard won through a lot of compromise.

And again, affecting real, systemic change in the party -- overthrowing the establishment to crib the progressive line -- takes time. It's not one election and all's done and we can all go home. The only way to affect that change, to crib Hamilton, is to be in the room where it happens. Within 4 years we've gone from Medicare for All being seen a looney tunes idea to one being credibly debated on the Democratic primary debate stage. The bright shiny future progressives want is there, but it involves going out, getting involved in the process, voting all the damn time, and affecting change from within.

Want an easier row to hoe in national elections? Vote for statewide offices. Jesus, this election is critical because of redistricting off the 2020 census. Hate your gerrymandered district? Vote for local reps and state offices that will determine those new electoral maps. Fill out your friggin census when it shows up. Want more candidates who look like you and share your ideals? Vote for them on the local level. We just had a someone who I find to be a mild dipshit of a mayor of a shitty Midwestern town credibly run for President. The next wave of progressive standard bearers in the party are running for House seats and city council offices and friggin dogcatcher this year.

Sitting on the outside and not voting will not change the system, nor does diminishing the good, though imperfect, work the party has accomplished.