Early voting open for me, need to decide now: pros and cons of Dem candidates

I'm still not completely decided, and I may go to the polls as early as tomorrow since early voting has already started in my state.

My idea is to support the candidate most likely to beat Trump.

I'm thinking Bernie Sanders, and I'll explain why. It's a question of thinking of how competitive a ticket with Bernie and a good veep would be.

Biden - imploding campaign. Senile. Disliked by Bernie fans. Probably will fade more and more and might be decimated by the Trump campaign if he's the nominee, given that he simply doesn't inspire enthusiasm and is low energy. Turnout might suffer. He's the Jeb Bush of 2020: liked by the establishment but disliked by too many to be able to beat Trump.

Buttigieg - almost no minority support. Can't win the general election as a Dem without minority support. Doing well now but it's probably a temporary blimp.

Klobuchar - decent but kind of bland. Some people fear that sexism hurt Hillary and it may have played a role; might hinder her too, and she is not really so enthusiastic, seems like amorphous, not really taking off in terms of a platform, probably too bland to take on Trump and to stimulate turnover.

Warren - imploding campaign. Other than some highly educated whites, it seems like she is just not liked by most Americans and might be seen, the liking factor-wise, as Hillary 2.0; seems phony and fake and untrustworthy most of the time, and seems politically naive on the field (a bad campaigner, like Hillary) although theoretically prepared.

Bloomberg - might very well win the nomination on sheer money power by hiring a huge army of campaign workers and buying a huge number of ads, but actually must be the least electable candidate in November because even if he wins the nomination fair and square, he will piss off Bernie fans who will probably never vote for him; much worse if he wins it through a brokered convention which is political suicide; can't win in November without at least 25% of the Dem electorate, which is about Bernie's very committed chunk.

So this leaves Bernie. I don't always agree with Bernie, ideologically. I'm a centrist and he is way too far to the left from me. But the problem is, the only way not to fracture out Bernie's base from the Dems, is if Bernie wins the primary, obviously. So be it, then, let's go with Bernie. And sure, he may alienate moderates and independents but his might be exaggerated, because the moderates and independents who are anti-Trump would still prefer Bernie (actually he polls well among independents), and the ones who are not anti-Trump, we probably won't attract them anyway regardless of who we nominate.

Besides, Bernie generates enthusiasm, represents real change (maybe the change that Obama promised but never delivered), and he can fix some of his weaknesses (in terms of being electable) if he picks a good veep that adds demographics to this ticket, like a youngish, energetic, strong female of color.

For me, the essential thing for Bernie to become the most competitive one against Trump is if he is not arrogant (thinking that his side of the party can do it all without any help from other sides) like Hillary was, and picks a veep who is not his ideological twin, but is a bit to the right of him. Maybe still progressive but not ultra-progressive. I mean, if Bernie picks as veep someone like AOC (not her of course because she is not of constitutional age to run, but someone like her) he will lose to Trump as he will indeed alienate moderates. If he picks a more moderate person his base will whine and complain but will forgive him in two months and will still vote for him. The other way around, if he goes far left, might not be true: moderates might not forgive him.

He shouldn't even pick someone from his campaign like Nina Turner or Ro Khanna. He needs to show ability to make some concessions (if he is too inflexible he risks losing to Trump, and even if he wins, might not govern so well and face too much obstructionism) by throwing a bone to the rest of the Dem field, and picking someone who is a bona fide member of the party and is not another ultra-progressive or his own campaign insiders. I'd say, someone like Stacey Abrams or Val Demings would do, or Sherrod Brown. Of course Sherrod Brown has the disadvantage of being another white male... and Ro Khanna is also a male. I think a female of color will add more demographics to Bernie.

Still, all things considered, Bernie is less likely to fracture the party therefore is more likely to win in November (which will be difficult to accomplish, and an uphill battle).

I'm almost decided to vote for him.

Klobuchar might be an alternative if she picks up more support and picks a progressive as veep, Warren or Sanders himself.

By now, I think the only two viable tickets would be Bernie for pres/someone like Stacey Abrams for veep, or Klobuchar for pres/Warren or Sanders for veep.

GreatNews2night said:

I'm still not completely decided, and I may go to the polls as early as tomorrow since early voting has already started in my state.

My idea is to support the candidate most likely to beat Trump.

I'm thinking Bernie Sanders, and I'll explain why. It's a question of thinking of how competitive a ticket with Bernie and a good veep would be.

Biden - imploding campaign. Senile. Disliked by Bernie fans. Probably will fade more and more and might be decimated by the Trump campaign if he's the nominee, given that he simply doesn't inspire enthusiasm and is low energy. Turnout might suffer. He's the Jeb Bush of 2020: liked by the establishment but disliked by too many to be able to beat Trump.

Buttigieg - almost no minority support. Can't win the general election as a Dem without minority support. Doing well now but it's probably a temporary blimp.

Klobuchar - decent but kind of bland. Some people fear that sexism hurt Hillary and it may have played a role; might hinder her too, and she is not really so enthusiastic, seems like amorphous, not really taking off in terms of a platform, probably too bland to take on Trump and to stimulate turnover.

Warren - imploding campaign. Other than some highly educated whites, it seems like she is just not liked by most Americans and might be seen, the liking factor-wise, as Hillary 2.0; seems phony and fake and untrustworthy most of the time, and seems politically naive on the field (a bad campaigner, like Hillary) although theoretically prepared.

Bloomberg - might very well win the nomination on sheer money power by hiring a huge army of campaign workers and buying a huge number of ads, but actually must be the least electable candidate in November because even if he wins the nomination fair and square, he will piss off Bernie fans who will probably never vote for him; much worse if he wins it through a brokered convention which is political suicide; can't win in November without at least 25% of the Dem electorate, which is about Bernie's very committed chunk.

So this leaves Bernie. I don't always agree with Bernie, ideologically. I'm a centrist and he is way too far to the left from me. But the problem is, the only way not to fracture out Bernie's base from the Dems, is if Bernie wins the primary, obviously. So be it, then, let's go with Bernie. And sure, he may alienate moderates and independents but his might be exaggerated, because the moderates and independents who are anti-Trump would still prefer Bernie (actually he polls well among independents), and the ones who are not anti-Trump, we probably won't attract them anyway regardless of who we nominate.

Click to expand...

I think this is the most important point of all. This obsession everyone has about whether moderates will support one candidate or another is misplaced. Either one is anti-Trump and believes he's horrifically unfit, or on some scale or another you can live with him - mostly because of the economy - should it stay strong.

Sanders and Buttigieg have the momentum. One or the other seems destine for the nomination at this point. You don't win Iowa and NH and beat all the people they've beat without being electable. I doubt there's going to be some Super Tuesday miracle comeback for Biden, or some incredible splash by Bloomberg.

The thing Sanders has done is beat everyone in the Democratic field. He outlasted O'Rourke and Harris, he's beaten Biden and Warren. With time he's likely going to beat Klobuchar. The only people that could take him down are Buttigieg or Bloomberg, and if he can beat them, how can anyone dispute he's the best candidate? I don't care if center left philosophy makes up more voters. If the establishment can't get a candidate worth a **** above 25% before Super Tuesday, then they clearly can't beat Trump, no matter how many litmus tests they pass to be supposedly electable for the general contest.

I'll vote for Buttigieg because I favor his approach policy wise, but will gladly back Sanders if he wins it all.

The Democratic party needs an FDR or Obama again, not another Kerry or Clinton.

GreatNews2night said:

<snipped for brevity>

For me, the essential thing for Bernie to become the most competitive one against Trump is if he is not arrogant (thinking that his side of the party can do it all without any help from other sides) like Hillary was, and picks a veep who is not his ideological twin, but is a bit to the right of him. Maybe still progressive but not ultra-progressive. I mean, if Bernie picks as veep someone like AOC (not her of course because she is not of constitutional age to run, but someone like her) he will lose to Trump as he will indeed alienate moderates. If he picks a more moderate person his base will whine and complain but will forgive him in two months and will still vote for him. The other way around, if he goes far left, might not be true: moderates might not forgive him.

He shouldn't even pick someone from his campaign like Nina Turner or Ro Khanna. He needs to show ability to make some concessions (if he is too inflexible he risks losing to Trump, and even if he wins, might not govern so well and face too much obstructionism) by throwing a bone to the rest of the Dem field, and picking someone who is a bona fide member of the party and is not another ultra-progressive or his own campaign insiders. I'd say, someone like Stacey Abrams or Val Demings would do, or Sherrod Brown. Of course Sherrod Brown has the disadvantage of being another white male... and Ro Khanna is also a male. I think a female of color will add more demographics to Bernie.

Still, all things considered, Bernie is less likely to fracture the party therefore is more likely to win in November (which will be difficult to accomplish, and an uphill battle).

I'm almost decided to vote for him.

Klobuchar might be an alternative if she picks up more support and picks a progressive as veep, Warren or Sanders himself.

By now, I think the only two viable tickets would be Bernie for pres/someone like Stacey Abrams for veep, or Klobuchar for pres/Warren or Sanders for veep.

Click to expand...

The whole prospect of this terrifies me.

For better or worse, Trump needs to go. The only problem is that if you are right about who it is that will be responsible for his being beaten, I fear that what happened on the right with the election of Trump will happen on the left with the election of Sanders.....a minority within the party holding the party hostage. Having to bend the knee to the ultra-progressive wing of the party could be a hidden curse in the end.

That said, the rebuke of Trump could indeed fracture the Republican party to the point that it would become two parties in the end, and I suspect the same could happen on the Democratic side in the end as well, as the center left supporters write off Bernie and his supporters in 4 years to try to reestablish themselves in whatever image they want to rise from the ashes in.

Four parties wouldn't be so bad, I guess. At least it would give people the chance to vote for someone who represents them most, right?

Yeah - I think Bernie's the best bet to beat Trump (though he won't), and also a way to avoid the Democrat Party imploding any further.

You're looking for a lamb; Bernie's the best choice for this.

So this is a bit off your topic but I have to assume you are participating in the Nevada Caucus. While Nevada has dumped the app that was a problem in Iowa, there is new technology being used in Nevada and it does not appear that volunteers are comfortable with it.

Be that as it may, my real question is about the early voting. It would appear to me that those "aligning" with a candidate early will not really be participating in the full caucus event. They would be tabulated as part of the first alignment. My guess is that their tabulated as part of the first candidate alignments and assuming their chosen candidate makes it through to the last alignment in their caucus location their selection is also carried through to the last alignment.

So what is up with that? If Nevada wants a Primary, then have a Primary. If it wants a Caucus have a Caucus. if I have this correct it appears to me that Nevada is turning its Caucus into a halfassed Primary or is at least trying to which is what got Iowa in trouble. The app in Iowa was just the cherry on top. The real problem was trying to turn a Caucus into a halfassed Primary.

Yeah - I assumed we were talking about Nevada.

Important Caucary or Primus or whatever the hell it is.

The winner there could well be the nominee; a microcosm of the country in many ways.

bullseyelqcs said:

Four parties wouldn't be so bad, I guess.

Click to expand...

I would loooooove to see the paralysis-inducing de facto two-party system (with one party always obstructing and undoing what the other party wants to do or did so that we never move forward) becoming four. Even more if possible but four would be a good start, and parties would have to resuscitate current fowl words like compromise, coalition, and working across the aisle. Parties would also represent much better their constituents. If each large party breaks down in two, wonderful. The problem is, each large party is afraid of breaking down, and the other party not breaking down and therefore becoming the perennial winner.

Yes, a minority within the Democratic Party is holding the party hostage; this is clear in the fact that even in the overwhelmingly white (with whom Bernie polls better) neighboring state of New Hampshire, the good senator from Vermont + the votes for his progressive former friend Elizabeth Warren amount to 34.9%, while the three moderates Buttigieg + Klobuchar + Biden amount to 52.6%. This, in a state that went in 2016 60.14% progressive with Sanders vs. 37.68% moderate with Clinton. Sure, there was the anti-Clinton factor as a very disliked candidate, and the 2-way race versus the 9-way race, and there were another 10% of votes going to another 3 candidates (Steyer, Yank, Gabbard) and if consolidated it's less clear where those would go, but even in the highly unlike idea that all of these non-viable candidates' votes went to Sanders after they all dropped out, this still wouldn't make up for the difference in favor of moderates.

But the problem is, if Biden drops out, his voters won't sit out the election, they will still vote Dem. If Warren drops out, same. If Buttigieg drops out, same. If Klobuchar drops out, same. But if Sanders is denied the nomination, no, it is absolutely not clear that his voters won't sit out or join the other side or a third party, especially if the ultimate nominee is Biden or Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is essentially non-electable due to the likely defection of ALL Bernie supporters if he wins the nomination, fairly or even worse, unfairly. Even if it is fairly (without superdelegates, but out of a straight majority in first convention ballot) they would still not consider it fairly claiming he bought his way in (actually they'd have a point) and Bernie is just too frontally opposed to Wall Street-friendly billionaires for his followers to support Bloomberg. They may see him as not so different from Trump, and while I'd disagree there (I still see him as less bad than Trump; nobody is as bad as Trump), they wouldn't.

I hear Moving Pictures but I actually don't think that Buttigieg is electable regardless of his good showing in Iowa and NH. He invested heavily there but he doesn't have the same structure elsewhere. Despite his best efforts, blacks still don't support him. I think he may collect bad losses in SC and the ST states, then fizzle out, spook investors, and run out of money. I think the fly over states won't have a huge turnout to go vote for a gay candidate. I think he is a flash in a pan and it will become clear, soon. Unless there is some huge change like Obama coming out and strongly supporting him before the convention, which Obama so far has been unwilling to do. If Obama goes to campaign stops with Buttigieg in the Super Tuesday states then he has a chance. Otherwise, no. I do believe that probably when Obama looks at the current field, he thinks that Buttigieg is the least bad (from Obama's rather moderate perspective) but it seems like he is not willing to mix himself up with any campaign, for now, which is a pity for Buttigieg and may doom him.

I can't even include Bloomberg in any calculation. Bloomberg will be a losing bet for the Dems. He effectively can't win in November (even though it's a lot less certain that he can't win the primaries, by now). If Bloomberg wins the Dem primary, it's not even excluded that in a last blast of glory, Sanders won't go independent and still run. I actually don't know if this is legally possible or logistically so - how does a losing primary candidate gets into the 50 states + territories ballots? Is it even allowed? Are there deadlines? Would he have to officially fund a party? Would that party still be able to run in short notice? Aren't there rules about signatures and the such? Not that I think that his supporters wouldn't be numerous enough to provide these signatures.

So, yes, it's a hijacking effect, where other party members and sympathizers although as a bloc they are more numerous, will have to appease the Sanders (+Warren - partially) supporters bloc if they want to keep the party united enough to have a chance (an uphill one, but a chance) against Trump.

Continues below due to character count

Continued from above due to character count


It's like the Bernie bloc leaves us no option but to support him this time, if we want to beat Trump. And again, it may even be good for turnover, actually. He certainly is the one with the most enthusiastic crowds.


If moderates want to have a fighting chance of expressing themselves without entirely bowing to the Sanders' side of the party, it would have to be with at least Klobuchar + Warren (the latter as veep), never with Biden or Bloomberg. This is actually not impossible, folks. I wouldn't be surprised if Warren dropped out but endorsed Klobuchar rather than Sanders. I think Warren is pretty pissed off at Sanders and her followers may be irritated too, or at least part of them, with the issue that the Sanders campaign instructed their activists to say that Liz's supporters are a bunch of elitists, and the possible statement that a woman won't win the White House. Elizabeth may very well say, OK, I'll show you if a woman can't win; let's go with my sister Amy; and this support might motivate Amy to offer the veep spot to Liz. Amy's best bet, though, would be to offer the veep spot to Sanders himself, motivating Sanders to stay in rather than go independent (again, if this is even possible). I could see the Sanders base pissed off at him if he accepts a moderate's invitation to be the veep, and it would take longer to forgive him than it would if he won the nomination but picked a moderate veep instead of someone like Nina Turner or Ro Khanna; it might take all the way up to November for them to calm down, but I think they idolize him enough to still come out and vote for a ticket that would have him as veep.


Whether he would accept the veep position or not is another matter. In his place, I would, though. He is 77 and post-heart attack. If he loses this nomination, what else can he do to stay relevant and to influence policy in his last few years of life? Going third party would be seen as petty, revengeful, spoiler-like, and imposing 4 more years of Trump on America and the world. Not the best legacy.


As for the terrifying part of a Sanders administration, we need to stop thinking like this. Most of his more extreme ideas won't pass Congress anyway regardless of what party controls Congress. Bernie would still nominate good judges and justices, and would still fight energetically for America's working class. The economy wouldn't class so badly; remember, changes in taxation would still need Congress approval so soon enough Wall Street, after initial panic, would calm down.

jnug said:

So this is a bit off your topic but I have to assume you are participating in the Nevada Caucus. While Nevada has dumped the app that was a problem in Iowa, there is new technology being used in Nevada and it does not appear that volunteers are comfortable with it.

Be that as it may, my real question is about the early voting. It would appear to me that those "aligning" with a candidate early will not really be participating in the full caucus event. They would be tabulated as part of the first alignment. My guess is that their tabulated as part of the first candidate alignments and assuming their chosen candidate makes it through to the last alignment in their caucus location their selection is also carried through to the last alignment.

So what is up with that? If Nevada wants a Primary, then have a Primary. If it wants a Caucus have a Caucus. if I have this correct it appears to me that Nevada is turning its Caucus into a halfassed Primary or is at least trying to which is what got Iowa in trouble. The app in Iowa was just the cherry on top. The real problem was trying to turn a Caucus into a halfassed Primary.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not in Nevada. My state is a Super Tuesday state, it's just that early voting has started already and for me it's hard to step out of work to go vote on a Tuesday, so I always take advantage of early voting.

Otherwise I agree with you. I hate caucuses. It's way time to do away with this archaic concept. Just let the voters vote, dammit! But it's too late for that; rules won't change this fast so we'll have to endure more caucuses.

Bernie does better with caucuses than with primary voting, though. In 2016 he won most caucuses but Hillary won most primary voting states.

3leftsdoo said:

Yeah - I think Bernie's the best bet to beat Trump (though he won't), and also a way to avoid the Democrat Party imploding any further.

You're looking for a lamb; Bernie's the best choice for this.

Click to expand...

Like I said, with the right veep, Bernie may be more competitive than a sacrificial lamb. Still an uphill battle and I still think that the most likely result of the November election is a Trump win, but it all comes down to turnout. If the Dems manage a coalition and get to motivate the voters to come out in force, they may just do enough to beat Trump, by keeping Hillary's states and flipping a couple of previous Trump states. I don't think turnout will be maximized if the Dem ticket doesn't contain an ideological mix and doesn't extend the demographic appeal.

Bernie + Michelle Obama as veep would beat Trump. I know she won't run. But this ticket definitely would win; just to show to you that a Bernie victory is not entirely impossible.

Maybe even something crazy like Bernie + Oprah as veep might win. I don't think he'd invite her, though.

Harder, but Bernie + Stacey Abrams or Bernie + Val Demings might have a hard time but might just squeak in enough votes to win. Probably not, though. Maybe Demings better than Abrams who has her vulnerabilities. Demings as a former police chief might attract unusual support for the ticket (the blue colar policeman / firefighter who is pro Trump might come out and vote for "one of our own"; she might deliver Florida, and would bring in the black vote by saying she would fight for fairer treatment of blacks by law enforcement and the Justice system. That might do it.

Bernie + Klobuchar is something I haven't mentioned before, but actually might be a very strong ticket if Bernie is willing to stomach her. He wouldn't necessarily rein in all the minorities but might attract enough moderates and Never Trumpers to compensate for it (those types would think, "Bernie is likely to die soon anyway, what the heck, I'll go with these two, my vote might actually end up being for a moderate president in the person of Klobuchar who will get the job after he croaks, and I'll vote for them but straight GOP ticket down ballot to provide checks and balances so that Bernie doesn't go berserk while alive").

I mostly agree with you regarding Trump's stronger situation, but I do think the veep might change the calculation. Veeps often do NOT change the calculation but this election is atypical enough to speculate that this time, the veep will.

GreatNews2night said:

Like I said, with the right veep, Bernie may be more competitive than a sacrificial lamb. Still an uphill battle and I still think that the most likely result of the November election is a Trump win, but it all comes down to turnout. If the Dems manage a coalition and get to motivate the voters to come out in force, they may just do enough to beat Trump, by keeping Hillary's states and flipping a couple of previous Trump states. I don't think turnout will be maximized if the Dem ticket doesn't contain an ideological mix and doesn't extend the demographic appeal.

Bernie + Michelle Obama as veep would beat Trump. I know she won't run. But this ticket definitely would win; just to show to you that a Bernie victory is not entirely impossible.

Maybe even something crazy like Bernie + Oprah as veep might win. I don't think he'd invite her, though.

Harder, but Bernie + Stacey Abrams or Bernie + Val Demings might have a hard time but might just squeak in enough votes to win. Probably not, though. Maybe Demings better than Abrams who has her vulnerabilities. Demings as a former police chief might attract unusual support for the ticket (the blue colar policeman / firefighter who is pro Trump might come out and vote for "one of our own"; she might deliver Florida, and would bring in the black vote by saying she would fight for fairer treatment of blacks by law enforcement and the Justice system. That might do it.

Bernie + Klobuchar is something I haven't mentioned before, but actually might be a very strong ticket if Bernie is willing to stomach her. He wouldn't necessarily rein in all the minorities but might attract enough moderates and Never Trumpers to compensate for it (those types would think, "Bernie is likely to die soon anyway, what the heck, I'll go with these two, my vote might actually end up being for a moderate president in the person of Klobuchar who will get the job after he croaks, and I'll vote for them but straight GOP ticket down ballot to provide checks and balances so that Bernie doesn't go berserk while alive").

I mostly agree with you regarding Trump's stronger situation, but I do think the veep might change the calculation. Veeps often do NOT change the calculation but this election is atypical enough to speculate that this time, the veep will.

Click to expand...

Some good points, but I don't see any path forward for any Democrat regardless of VP.

A Sanders/Obama ticket (which we both agree won't happen) would be viewed rather cynically, and an Obama/Sanders ticket also wouldn't win now after MO's self-slaughtering "whites still running from us."

I think the best Dem bet is to do what will most heal the party, and that's going with Bernie. It won't make up for 2016, but at least it shows some measure of, if not good faith, at least less than bad faith.

And many of us seem to agree that the two party system is a complete - though I'd say completely intentional - wreck.

Four or five = Ideal

But money must go.

And it won't.

So...

:hm

GreatNews2night said:

No, I'm not in Nevada. My state is a Super Tuesday state, it's just that early voting has started already and for me it's hard to step out of work to go vote on a Tuesday, so I always take advantage of early voting.

Otherwise I agree with you. I hate caucuses. It's way time to do away with this archaic concept. Just let the voters vote, dammit! But it's too late for that; rules won't change this fast so we'll have to endure more caucuses.

Bernie does better with caucuses than with primary voting, though. In 2016 he won most caucuses but Hillary won most primary voting states.

Click to expand...

With the moderate vote so split up this year it appears that Bernie is doing better in Primaries than in Caucuses. Caucuses have their complicated formulaic process for arriving at a final delegate count and the delegate count winner wins the Caucus.

So you are early voting in a Primary. That is pretty easy to understand. How the heck Nevada has talked itself into what amounts to early alignments in a Caucus is beyond me. I fear Nevada even without the flawed app is headed for an Iowa-like mess. In fact, I don't see how they can avoid it. Media will be all over them like white on rice. If they think they can screw this up and hide it, I would say they should think again. They might get a couple of days to bask in the glory of a "successful" Caucus before Media drops the hammer.

3leftsdoo said:

after MO's self-slaughtering "whites still running from us."

Click to expand...

I am not sure that an adoring crowd wouldn't end up forgiving Michelle Obama for that statement. But maybe she actually issued the statement on purpose, just to make sure nobody would want to twist her arm and make her run. She definitely dislikes politics and doesn't want to run.

Regardless of that damaging statement, Michelle Obama as a veep would deliver the victory to the ticket, especially the presidential candidate being a very old and frail man. Everybody nostalgic of the Obama era would flock to the ticket, thinking - "I'll be electing Michelle as president (and then even though she isn't experienced, Barack will advise her) because old Bernie with his bad heart won't survive for long."

Moderates would be reassured since the Obama era in the White House was actually a very moderate one. Bernie or Bust types would remain in, of course, because they'd be voting for their guy as prez. Whites would be voting for a white man as president anyway, and all blacks would be delighted with the ticket, thinking "as soon as the old man croaks we'll have our sister leading things." Women would see an opportunity to break the glass ceiling. Ultra-progressives would be reassured not only because of the head of the ticket, but also because Michelle is a bit to the left of her husband.

Regardless of some regrettable statements issued by Michelle on race relations over the years, or attributed to her out of context or distorted by the right wing, she remains a very popular figure.

Look at the blame for her "for the first time I'm very proud of the United States" - it's distorted because it doesn't necessary mean that she was never proud of the country, because she used the qualifier "very." Maybe she was proud before but just not VERY proud.

So, people piled up on her for this... but she remained popular. One statement doesn't sink a campaign.

I think you may be exaggerating the importance of the "whites still running from us" statement. People misspeak from time to time and get forgiven if they are popular enough. Trump does it all the time. Attack ads showing this sound bite from MO can be countered by attack ads showing countless distasteful Trump sound bites.

Still, I know, she won't run. Pity.

Oprah might, though!

jnug said:

With the moderate vote so split up this year it appears that Bernie is doing better in Primaries than in Caucuses. Caucuses have their complicated formulaic process for arriving at a final delegate count and the delegate count winner wins the Caucus.

So you are early voting in a Primary. That is pretty easy to understand. How the heck Nevada has talked itself into what amounts to early alignments in a Caucus is beyond me. I fear Nevada even without the flawed app is headed for an Iowa-like mess. In fact, I don't see how they can avoid it. Media will be all over them like white on rice. If they think they can screw this up and hide it, I would say they should think again. They might get a couple of days to bask in the glory of a "successful" Caucus before Media drops the hammer.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you, I even started a thread yelling in frustration about the predictable mess that Nevada will likely become, just like Iowa. I hate caucuses. First of all, they introduce a demographic shift. A lot of working class people, single parents, etc., are too busy to go to a caucus for several hours, rather than just rapidly casting a vote in a primary voting precinct and running back to work or back home to take care of kids. So, caucuses tend to be attended by activists and by people who have time to kill (like retired people, students, etc.); this distorts the representation of the state's population..

My state fortunately practices a Super Tuesday primary, and there is a site open right now for early voting, 10 minutes from my house (I'm off work today, recovering from a medical condition, and I'm tempted to drive there in a couple of hours to go vote - my convalescence makes it hard to immediately go back to work full time, but wouldn't hinder me from a short drive). I just would hope for more clarity... I know I can wait longer but early voting ends mid-day on the day of SC's primary so we won't have results from SC by the last opportunity to early vote, and like I said, I definitely don't want to vote on election day on a Tuesday in a crowded precinct with a waiting line. So, waiting would only give me more data from the Nevada caucus, but maybe not, if they get messy and don't report, and even if they do, it's a caucus. I don't entirely trust the predicting value of a caucus, even a more diverse one like the Nevada one.

So, if I can't have a lot of more reliable data to help me pick whoever has a better chance at beating Trump, I may as well just get done with it and head to the voting site today.

I know that if I do, I'll simply pick Bernie given the reasoning above. And it's not the only reason. I was an opponent of Medicare For All but lately warmed up to the idea, so this might be another (and better) reason to vote for Bernie.

I could, though, pick Klobuchar if I can believe that she can win the nomination and then pick a progressive veep to become stronger in November. I'm still a bit uncertain and the clock is ticking.

Hehe, funny typo, I said fowl words instead of foul words...

GreatNews2night said:

I am not sure that an adoring crowd wouldn't end up forgiving Michelle Obama for that statement. But maybe she actually issued the statement on purpose, just to make sure nobody would want to twist her arm and make her run. She definitely dislikes politics and doesn't want to run.

Regardless of that damaging statement, Michelle Obama as a veep would deliver the victory to the ticket, especially the presidential candidate being a very old and frail man. Everybody nostalgic of the Obama era would flock to the ticket, thinking - "I'll be electing Michelle as president (and then even though she isn't experienced, Barack will advise her) because old Bernie with his bad heart won't survive for long."

Moderates would be reassured since the Obama era in the White House was actually a very moderate one. Bernie or Bust types would remain in, of course, because they'd be voting for their guy as prez. Whites would be voting for a white man as president anyway, and all blacks would be delighted with the ticket, thinking "as soon as the old man croaks we'll have our sister leading things." Women would see an opportunity to break the glass ceiling. Ultra-progressives would be reassured not only because of the head of the ticket, but also because Michelle is a bit to the left of her husband.

Regardless of some regrettable statements issued by Michelle on race relations over the years, or attributed to her out of context or distorted by the right wing, she remains a very popular figure.

Look at the blame for her "for the first time I'm very proud of the United States" - it's distorted because it doesn't necessary mean that she was never proud of the country, because she used the qualifier "very." Maybe she was proud before but just not VERY proud.

So, people piled up on her for this... but she remained popular. One statement doesn't sink a campaign.

I think you may be exaggerating the importance of the "whites still running from us" statement. People misspeak from time to time and get forgiven if they are popular enough. Trump does it all the time. Attack ads showing this sound bite from MO can be countered by attack ads showing countless distasteful Trump sound bites.

Still, I know, she won't run. Pity.

Oprah might, though!

Click to expand...

If Oprah enters the race, it's all over for the Democrat Party.

A LOT of people REALLY don't like or trust her.

And it's not adorers like me MO would have to worry about.

First time proud = Free bite

Still running from us = Second bite

That dog won't hunt no more.

I honestly think Sanders can beat Trump.

There is a real groundswell of economic populism in this country. People have grown tired of hearing about how successful the economy is while all of the rewards are reaped by relatively few at the top. This is why Trump's economic message resonated so well in 2016, even if he was totally full of it and was just another trickle down con artist. Now, imagine a man who has spent decades pushing a consistent, pro worker message. A man who also doesn't carry Trump's baggage.

Give people a real choice in 2020. Enough of the Democrats crowing about how bad Republicans are and then tossing up a milquetoast choice who is basically a conservative on the economy and foreign policy, yet has center left social values. No more boring tickets that have been focus grouped to death and don't seem to stand for anything other than a vague notion that they should win. Give people a reason to actually be passionate...to come out and want to support someone.

3leftsdoo said:

If Oprah enters the race, it's all over for the Democrat Party.

A LOT of people REALLY don't like or trust her.

And it's not adorers like me MO would have to worry about.

First time proud = Free bite

Still running from us = Second bite

That dog won't hunt no more.

Click to expand...

First time VERY proud, is the nuance most people don't see or don't want to see. Like I said, maybe she was proud of the country before, just not VERY proud, given how her ethnic group was treated.

Look, me, I'd vote for Michelle Obama comfortably and even eagerly, regardless of these two statements. And just for clarification, I'm a white male. I'm quite sure a lot of other whites feel like me, and certainly all blacks would support her immediately and she would draw historical black turnout, maybe even bigger than Barack's.

The Oprah thing was more like a joke... See the winky smiley. I wouldn't seriously propose it. Look at what happened to McCain when he picked his veep poorly. I'm actually not up to date with whether or not Oprah is popular. I never watched daytime television and have paid no attention to Oprah in any way, shape, or form. It's just something people say so I included this bit more for humor.

But Michelle Obama, yes, I'd propose her; unfortunately she won't listen to this call of duty. I actually think it's regrettable and it diminishes a bit my good opinion of her; I see as almost an obligation to the country, to run when you are pretty much the only person who can beat the horrible incumbent. She could at least run as Bernie's veep, make sure Bernie got elected, then two years later after the midterm elections (to make sure the House remained Democrat so the House Speaker would be next in the line of succession if the president died or got incapacitated) claim the need to stay with her family and resign.

Come on, Michelle, do it for us! Just a couple more years in the White House which you can spend with minimum involvement if you don't like politics - the veep is often for decorative purposes anyway - but with you on the ticket we'd beat Trump! He destroyed your husband's legacy, so help us restore it!

Hello? Mrs. Obama? You there?

MovingPictures said:

The Democratic party needs an FDR or Obama again, not another Kerry or Clinton.

Click to expand...

It's funny, when Obama got elected, I said we need another FDR, not another Clinton, and felt we got another Clinton. Now, we need Bernie.

OK, I'm back from early voting. After months agonizing about this, and despite not really being a Sanders fan, I voted for Sanders after all.

I started my comments here this election cycle by calling Sanders a moron, a hypocrite, divisive, vacuously populist, opportunistic, partially responsible for Trump's win, naive, with pies-in-the-sky ideas, and called his followers hopelessly naive and arrogant. I said in my limited capacity of being just one common Joe, I'd do all I could to try and prevent Sanders from winning the Dem nomination.

And ended up voting for him. :shock:

I did it for the reasons articulated above, as the candidate who can generate the most enthusiasm, the most turnout, and can be competitive with a good veep and beat Trump (although it won't be easy).

Now, don't disappoint me, Senator Sanders!