Let the American people know about all the relevant facts... then let them decide.

Knowing the facts requires Sanders/Warren on the national stage for the sole purpose of show and tell. They both know what they are talking about.

A free and fair election must include a well-informed electorate. — creativesoul

:up: (for this and for your other comments) Testify brother! (or sister!)...

I am (like you) tired of this reactionary, defensive position of “electability”. Which is both cowardly and complete bullshit. The DNC and its investors CLEARLY never had the slightest interest in Bernie Sanders rocking their yacht. They have got a good thing going, even playing second fiddle, and are not going to let some Old Testament prophet reincarnation or “Angry Old Man” screw it up. They would rather lose the WH to their crony Chump, than win with Sanders. In common parlance... NeverBernie. Well... forget that.

So when Bernie is denied the nomination, I truly hope he runs as an independent. And totally fvcks “the system” and everything else up. Including people’s minds. Maybe the virus shutdown (as unfortunate and tragic as it is) will give people time to really take stock of the situation and their lives.

Let it all hang out Bernie! No more pussyfooting. No more playing the Dumocrats hypocritical game, as a “yes man” for Neo-Libral almighty dollar power. Retool your message to show that you are the only true alternative to more status quo. Which is a choice between orange tapioca and beige tapioca. (Tapioca tainted with date-rape drugs so they can get their way.)

(If this perhaps sounds angry or bitter... this ain’t nothing! Compared to upheaval, riots, and looting... this is a polite kiss on the cheek. THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE USA IS ITS PEOPLE... AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS ROTTING. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. I am pacifist, so I’d prefer an equitable and peaceful solution. Though I’m guessing that the Pharaoh won’t budge until the plague hits his family. And this is about more than the virus, to be clear).

And Bernie... if you don’t win this time, then you cleared a path for someone else like you next time. Go out with a bang that will make a difference, and be a mentor to the new progressives.

Big picture, small moves.

Do we think it's even remotely likely that -- out of the blue -- they nominate Hillary Clinton? — Xtrix

Likely? No. Possible? Most definitely. Biden's not going to make it. They can't hide his cognitive decline much longer. They have to either replace him at the convention, or he has to pick a VP who would have credibility as president. Michelle Obama's been mentioned, as has Hillary. I'm sure if you follow political news you've seen the same speculations I have.

You think cognitively impaired Joe is going all the way? That the hope you're going with? The Dems HAVE to have an alternative. Hillary is in the mix.

Sometimes it's OK to just say "Yeah, that was silly." This is an online forum - no need to save face. Why go on defending the indefensible? Because I can't get myself to believe you actually believe what you're saying. You're smarter than that. — Xtrix

I couldn't find what this is referring to.

Where I see her showing up possibly is on Biden’s cabinet. — 0 thru 9

Why do you think Hillary specifically declined to endorse cognitively impaired Joe a few days ago? She knows the Dems will be looking for an actual candidate soon. They can't hide Joe forever.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-she-wont-endorse-anytime-soon-1282664

And where would I get such a crazy idea that Hillary still wants to be president? From She Who Must Not Be Indicted herself.

'I never say never': Hillary Clinton refuses to close the door on a 2020 presidential run

If it's not a woman, perhaps Joe should take Bernie as vice president.

Vice president isn't so important, but Biden should really get the progressives with him.

(And think of how scared that would make Republicans if Joe has health problems.)

If it's not a woman, perhaps Joe should take Bernie as vice president.

Vice president isn't so important, but Biden should really get the progressives with him.

(And think of how scared that would make Republicans if Joe has health problems.) — ssu

Only way Biden will get anyone under the age of 60 to vote for him.

Bernie's policies turn more people off than does Biden's. — Relativist

Even if that's true, it's far from saying he's "unelectable." But it happens that it's precisely the opposite: most people love his policies. Even the most controversial, and the one that's garnered the most attention, Medicare for All, has a slight majority support.

Bernie has plenty of liabilities -- like black voters, moderates, etc. He's got to address that. But as I said, if they weren't being told by their own party that he's "unelectable," they would vote differently. They're being told to vote for Biden, essentially, on the grounds that Bernie is unelectable. Which was originally the point -- you said you felt the same way and saw nothing to contradict that belief. I think everyone here, including myself, has provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. Which you've ignored.

So who's really putting on blinders here?

You ignored my response to you, which mentioned -- and I repeat -- that the only hard data we have (this does NOT include your "feelings"-based analysis of who has the better chance) shows that Bernie beats Trump, sometimes more than Biden, sometimes less. The question was about the electability of Bernie, which is in large part what the argument of the DNC was. That's shown over and over to be nonsense. The DNC simply wants to choose their person, and that was long ago made for Biden.

Side note: the fact that Bernie even came as close as he did is a shocker, given the party he was running in didn't support him. Worth keeping in mind.

But if it's Biden, fine. Maybe he wins, maybe not. He's got as good a chance as Clinton, I suppose. Hopefully he's smarter about his campaigning, hits the swing states more, capitalizes on his likability and Obama's association, and starts appealing to younger and more progressive voters.

And doesn't act senile for 6 months. "uh. Uh. You know the thing."

You're right about the hard data, and I admit I'm giving you my sense of things - my opinion. Nevertheless, I provided the reasoning behind my opinion. You may disagree with my analysis, but you haven't actually shown I'm wrong.

You believe the DNC is conspiring against Bernie by disseminating the notion that Bernie isn't as electable. What evidence do you have of this? Bernie's electability was an issue during the debates. Candidates like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steier, and Bloomberg made an issue of it. Trump has signalled a preference to run against Bernie- and it's not because he likes a challenge. So it's not some novel fiction that was invented as a last ditch effort to stop Bernie. It was made an issue early on. I think it's right and I gave my reasons for it. That shows I decided it on my own and that I'm not just parrotting a DNC official as a tactic to hurt Bernie's chances. I'm not anti-Bernie; I'd prefer him over Biden. But that preference doesn't blind me to what I consider the obvious.

Given that I formed my own opinion, and that it seems a reasonable opinion, I'm not all surprised others have drawn the same conclusion. Why can't you accept that possibility? You don't have to agree that Biden is more electable to recognize that it's not an unreasonable opinion. Given that, there's no good reasons to imagine a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do happen, but most conspiracy theories prove to be fantasy.

So when Bernie is denied the nomination, I truly hope he runs as an independent. And totally fvcks “the system” and everything else up. Including people’s minds. — 0 thru 9

I'm leaning towards liking the idea of Bernie running as an independent, if for no other reason than to have the chance to allow the American people to hear Bernie's ideas from his own mouth. I'm not at all convinced that that would fuck the system up, nor is that a worthwhile goal in and of itself. The political system needs corrected.

Correcting is fixing a system that is already fucked up.

You believe the DNC is conspiring against Bernie by disseminating the notion that Bernie isn't as electable. What evidence do you have of this? Bernie's electability was an issue during the debates. Candidates like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steier, and Bloomberg made an issue of it... — Relativist

All of whom immediately endorsed Biden after securing just about the same amount of delegates as Bernie found himself behind after super tuesday... or thursday if you're sleepy clueless Joe. A planned and coordinated attack could not have been performed any better.

Proof?

Look at the number of nationally televised debates that the DNC has always had when there is a close primary... before Sanders I mean. Compare those numbers to the amount of times Sanders was allowed to talk in front of a national audience in a debate that is supposed to be designed for explicitly that purpose.

Seriously... look at those numbers. Sanders support always increases after such events... There's very good reason for that. Hence, the lack of allowing him to be in a debate on national television when the viewer numbers are known to be high. That is intentional. Keeping Bernie from being heard by the American people is a politically motivated action.

Look at the coverage. Listen to the fearmongering regarding Bernie. Listen to how Bernie is portrayed.

Listen...

Switch stations...

Listen again...

Go back through history...

Listen...

Do you really think that all those different mouthpieces are repeating what a well informed electorate is saying? Of course not. They are rather - to quite the contrary - feeding disinformation into the electorate as a means to discourage people about Sanders. Much of it is downright false.

It's fraud. A tremendous public disservice.

...it sounds like you consider Biden and Trump as equally bad. — Relativist

Actually I don't. Not as people anyway...

The third party run would result in a Bernie presidency... as long as enough people were permitted and encouraged to actually watch and listen to what Bernie has to say to combat all of the misinformation...

I trust that enough people have enough common sense... that enough poor people are willing... that enough Americans will know truth when they hear it, particularly about how their lives have changed for the worse at the hands of the establishment. Everyone knows that that's happened. Very few know why and/or how. Everybody directly effected/affected would like to...

That's a guarantee.

I'm leaning more and more towards liking this idea of third party run...

I just want to see the man get a chance to speak to the American people on the stage along with Biden and Trump. I think enough people would think about it quite a bit differently, if they were certain that one of them was speaking sincerely, 'truly'(making true statements), and on behalf of everyday average Americans.

Bernie does that, and he is very polite... perhaps too polite... about calling falsehoods out when they rear their head.

The third party run would result in a Bernie presidency — creativesoul

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What do you think would happen?

A Trump win of course. Even so, that may result in an actual shift to the left in the Democratic Party, which in the long run could be good.

Hey Benkei! Three possible winners.

May I ask what grounds your prediction?

There's a psychological problem. There are Bernie voters, regardless, eg. Bernie or bust.

But there are a lot of people not core supporters. They will think their Democratic neighbour is going to vote Biden regardless and they will think then if I vote Bernie I will raise the chances of winning for Trump (because my neighbour doesn't have balls) and to avoid that I will also vote for Biden.

The converse for so-so Biden voters holds true as well. The only way it might not happen is when the core support for either Biden or Bernie is insignificant and the strategic voting fear goes only one way. Since we know it doesn't and core support for either candidate is significant, in every case it will result in a divided democratic vote, offering the presidency on a silver platter to Trump.

What if over sixty percent of eligible American voters could identify with the problems Bernie sheds much needed light upon? What if a much higher number than that really want to know what happened to all the good paying lifetime jobs/careers that used to be part and parcel to American life itself? What if nearly everyone becomes acquainted with the relevant facts of the matter?

What if they were shown?

A Sanders/Warren show and tell?

What if those conditions were to arise?

If people were used to voting based on policy, Hillary would've won. Your what-ifs don't relate to reality enough to be plausible I'm afraid.

You believe the DNC is conspiring against Bernie by disseminating the notion that Bernie isn't as electable. What evidence do you have of this? Bernie's electability was an issue during the debates. Candidates like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steier, and Bloomberg made an issue of it... — Relativist


All of whom immediately endorsed Biden after securing just about the same amount of delegates as Bernie found himself behind after super tuesday. — creativesoul

Which makes perfect sense if they truly believed a moderate had a better chance than Bernie, and they accepted the fact that they couldn't be the one.

If people were used to voting based on policy, Hillary would've won. — Benkei

Trump's promises were appealing to some: a wall paid for by Mexico, a Muslim ban, tax cuts, replacing NAFTA, withdrawing from the Iran deal, and most important of all: judges who would strike down Roe v Wade.

Trump delivered on all those (more or less). So the people who liked those policies then, love Trump more than ever. That's his base (roughly 35% of the electorate), and they aren't going anywhere. I bring this up to remind everyone that just because you and I like Bernie's policies doesn't imply they appeal to everyone. They won't appeal to Trump's base, and it's irrelevant whether they appeal to the (roughly 35% of the electorate) who will vote for any Democrat. The war will be won by battling for that middle. That's true regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.

It's how I view things too, Carlos. But, as you know, it's only one part of an important issue. The other part is to ask what effect the environment has on individual choices and responsibility. The environment includes: housing, income, access to healthcare, education, food, etc., and the quality of these resources, filtering systems, laws, discrimination, tax codes, judicial bias (if you're rich, it's a slap on the wrist; if you're poor [whether white or black] you get 10 years), drug polices (and others) that disproportionately effect poor and minority communities, and on and on.

We could spend a billion years on each one of these topics. The one that stuck out at me the most drug policies which I do have sympathy for. I've always been against the war on drugs and I do believe it disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. Yes, legislation can certainly cause damage.

When it comes to housing and income there is still a personal factor. I understand this is not the case with children, but when people buy houses there's a ton of decisions there that can either be made well or poorly. Income can also be changed. I don't feel like you're in disagreement with any of what I've said here, so I'll just go ahead and reiterate my point:

If we're looking to actually help individuals our focus should tend to be on microeconomic decisions as opposed to macroeconomic ones. If you're a financial advisor and a struggling person comes into your office it makes more sense to have them write up a budget and analyze their goals than to blame NAFTA or deregulation. I'm not discounting these... but again, start with the small first and then work your way up. Do not gloss over the small and immediately resort to the big when analyzing individuals.

you'll find that the game we're playing isn't equal or fair but, in fact, tilted in many ways towards certain groups.

Oh of course it is but so is life itself. There's no "system" on earth that's fair and I don't quite know what fair would look like. Sure, I'm with you that the war on drugs is unfair. Lets scrap it. But on a deeper level life itself absent any system whatsoever is horribly unfair. I think this could be an interesting point of discussion; what do you do with this fact concerning the unfairness of life itself?

You're right about the hard data, and I admit I'm giving you my sense of things - my opinion. Nevertheless, I provided the reasoning behind my opinion. You may disagree with my analysis, but you haven't actually shown I'm wrong. — Relativist

Of course you could very well be right. So could I. But, as you know, we settled things with the available information, with evidence. We can both speculate all day, I'm sure -- but that's like two people playing a game and neither knowing the probabilities of various outcomes.

In our case, I'm not basing my opinion on what I feel or believe on this particular topic (electability), but what the data actually says. Polling is that data -- it's the best data we have. If you want to talk about polling accuracy, history, statistics, etc., then that's a different topic.

But if you do agree it's the best evidence we have thus far (at least pertaining to the question of whether Bernie is "electable" in the sense of beating Donald Trump -- of being elected President), then you clearly see that Bernie is, in fact, electable.

You may claim that it's the voters who have decided, and that's really the best evidence. This is where I disagreed. But I'm only correct if, in fact, this "electability" issue is true. Much of the polling seems to suggest that it is -- i.e., that most Democratic voters were voting for who had the "better chance of beating Trump." Now "better chance" may be different than "who's electable" -- maybe these voters see that both Bernie and Biden poll well against Trump, and are thus electable, but Biden does better. If that's the case, that's a reasonable position if the polling in fact suggests it (and some of it does, particularly in Florida -- a very key state -- and Pennsylvania, although I hope someone corrects me if this has changed). But that's not what the DNC, media pundits, editorials, and even yourself seem to be emphasizing.

Given that I formed my own opinion, and that it seems a reasonable opinion, I'm not all surprised others have drawn the same conclusion. Why can't you accept that possibility? You don't have to agree that Biden is more electable to recognize that it's not an unreasonable opinion. Given that, there's no good reasons to imagine a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do happen, but most conspiracy theories prove to be fantasy. — Relativist

I've never proposed any conspiracy theories. You attributed that to me. What the DNC has done I suppose could be considered conspiracy, but in my mind that involves a group of people plotting things out secretly. The DNC has been very honest and vocal about their opposition to Bernie, and have stated their reasons. That's really not a conspiracy.

In terms of accepting the possibility of your position, see my prior response. It's not about whether it COULD be correct -- sure it could. But the rationale behind your decision or your position is very important. If based on clear reasoning and evidence, I have no problem with it even if it turns out to be wrong. But I think in your case the evidence is being ignored for a more speculative and "instincts"-based justification.

And I think you represent, unfortunately, a large group of like-minded individuals. I think it's a really big mistake, and I think it's a result of what's essentially DNC and media propaganda, not objective reasoning. But I hope the outcome turns out to be favorable anyway, even if the reasoning is, in my judgment, faulty.

If we're looking to actually help individuals our focus should tend to be on microeconomic decisions as opposed to macroeconomic ones. If you're a financial advisor and a struggling person comes into your office it makes more sense to have them write up a budget and analyze their goals than to blame NAFTA or deregulation. I'm not discounting these... but again, start with the small first and then work your way up. Do not gloss over the small and immediately resort to the big when analyzing individuals. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, but then the point is trivial - and I don't mean that disparagingly.

Yes, of course it's more helpful to give people concrete advice for their specific (microeconomic) problems. Also, like I said before, there's no sense in me giving lectures about macroeconomics or history or class struggles to someone who simply needs a job. My efforts would be much better spent helping him look for and find a job, in that case.

you'll find that the game we're playing isn't equal or fair but, in fact, tilted in many ways towards certain groups.

Oh of course it is but so is life itself. There's no "system" on earth that's fair and I don't quite know what fair would look like. Sure, I'm with you that the war on drugs is unfair. Lets scrap it. — BitconnectCarlos

Why scrap it? -- life is just unfair, and that's the way it is. No?

I think this could be an interesting point of discussion; what do you do with this fact concerning the unfairness of life itself? — BitconnectCarlos

I'll have to pull a Socrates and pick on the word "fair," in this case. You're sounding a bit like Thomas Hobbes to me, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I'd like to think that humans are fundamentally good, and I see a lot of evidence that suggests this. That we're sociable creatures, that we care for one another, that we wish to live good lives, etc. Of course, there's plenty of evidence that suggests the opposite, too.

But regardless, we're discussing politics, which is something we've created, not a factual claim about life itself. Within that specific domain, I just don't think we can observe unfair policies, laws, etc., and say "well lots of things are unfair." Sure, that's true, but no less true than it's simply unfair. All that means is that we have got to currently navigate a human-created, unfair system. We should do it with strength, hard work, courage, etc. -- not whining, not using the unfairness as an excuse to be lazy and victimized, but nevertheless with a clear understanding that the game has, in fact, been rigged.

We play anyway. There's not much of a choice, in my view. Nor is there much of a choice to play it rationally and aggressively. But by keeping this unfairness in mind, and understanding it clearly, we perhaps can change the game itself from the inside or, perhaps, eventually create an entirely new game altogether.

But I think in your case the evidence is being ignored for a more speculative and "instincts"-based justification. — Xtrix

What evidence am I ignoring? I haven't ignored the polling, I just don't think a raw reading of the polls tells the whole story - note how variable they are. This suggests a higher degree of error in them than the statistical analysis suggests. I'll give you more background on my position.

The 1st general election I voted in was 1972. I was a big-time fan of George McGovern. He was very liberal, and very popular among young voters like me. We believed he would change the course America was on. I was so enamored of his message that I was convinced he could win. Nixon trounced him election 520 to 17 electoral votes. There are parallels to Bernie: appeal to the young; ideologically far from the center. And supporters who think with their hearts instead of their heads.

It's hard for an extremist to win on either side (and I don't use the term pejoratively). Goldwater was an extremist Conservative, and he got trounced. I think it's because most people fear the unknown, and radical change entails lots of unknowns. I've heard from political scientists who back this up. This is the coventional wisdom. It could be wrong, but it makes no sense to dismiss it on the basis of wishful thinking - and I see lots of that in Bernie supporters (that comes out in some of the post in this thread).

Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. Consequently I know a lot of Republicans. Some of them aren't happy with Trump, but they're downright scared of Bernie. Most consider Biden safe and acceptable. This is consistent with what I've read and heard from never-Trumper Republicans in the news. I've heard no Republicans express the converse view, that they could live with Bernie, but not Biden.

Trump delivered on all those (more or less). So the people who liked those policies then, love Trump more than ever. — Relativist

And of course he actually hasn't delivered, but that doesn't matter. He has done enough to infuriate the liberals, which Trump voter absolutely love. And his "non-presidential" way of joking keeps them smiling. Above all, any criticism can be shrugged off as TDS.

And of course he actually hasn't delivered, but that doesn't matter. — ssu

Which of those items did he not deliver on at least in a qualified way? To be clear, I'm not a fan of the deliverables.

Start with the wall paid by Mexicans. Or North Korean nuclear weapons program going onward full steam.

But of course, people can say that the Democrats didn't let him to do it. Just like the reason given for Obama not to have closed GITMO. And anyway, who cares about the facts? And at least he makes the impression that things are done. Many politicians even don't do so much.