Is there any silver lining for progressives?

[DanTex]

Bernie got beat soundly, Warren did even worse than expected. Even downballot, the anti-choice, pro-NRA Cuellar defeated a progressive challenger who was endorsed by Warren and Sanders. As a progressive, this isn't what I wanted, but I have to admit, centrism clearly won the day.

If there is anything good, it's that on issues, for example M4A, the majority of Dem primary voters support a progressive agenda. On the question of favorable/unfavorable view of socialism, even in TN it came out net favorable. Which is to say, voters wanted a progressive agenda, but voted against progressive politicians. The clearest explanation is that voters viewed Biden as the safe choice, probably aided by the smear campaign accusing Bernie of being a communist.

The "safe bet" continues to be a risky proposition, of course. Since 2000, all the "safe" nominees have lost and the "risky" one became president. Let's hope that history doesn't repeat itself, because compared to Trump, the difference between any of the Dems is trivial.

Another bright spot is that younger voters are overwhelmingly progressive, which means that people like AOC really do represent the future of the Democratic Party. But the future is probably going to have to wait. Which is unfortunate, of course, not only does it mean that we have to wait longer for universal healthcare, but climate change isn't going to pause until progressives become the present, rather than the future of the party.

Bernie will probably continue all the way to the convention, as well he should. It's never been about Bernie the person, it's always been about the issues, and the more he talks about them, the better for the party and for the nation.

Anyway, yes, progressives are disappointed, of course. But at the end of the day, if Biden beats Trump, I'll be dancing in the streets.

[beachbumbob]

1. the silver lining will be ridding our country of trump and begin to fix what he and gop have broke

if any progressive can't see that, they need to clean the crap off their glasses

[DanTex]

2. Yes, but, many progressives believed, and still believe, that Bernie or Warren

were the best candidates to accomplish that. But, yeah, beating Trump is the most important thing.

[beachbumbob]

4. sometimes you have to accept compromise, looked how 2016 worked out for progressives who

wouldn;t vote for the lesser of 2 evils or voted for Jill Stein, just to stick it to america

[DanTex]

7. Agree completely. You won't find someone more opposed to "Bernie or Bust" than me.

[el_bryanto]

12. While I am blue no matter who - accepting compromise is not a great strategy

Republicans aren't interested in compromise, particularly if McConnel stays in control of the Senate. The compromises the modern Republican party are likely to give us are "Instead of you giving us 100% of what we want, you can give us 99% percent of what we want."

Bryant

[ehrnst]

37. Compromise is the reality of politics. It's very appealing for people to hear that its's not

Especially from someone running for office.

'My way or the highway' leads to complete gridlock.

We can get 80% of what we want, and some purists will still stamp their feet and say it's not enough, and seem to prefer getting nothing at all if not 100%.

And before you start, not all compromise is capitulation. There is a spectrum, not just all or nothing.

[el_bryanto]

146. So you think McConnel will be willing to significantly compromise ? nt

[ehrnst]

153. Pelosi has had the most success with the GOP getting things at least partway passed.

I'll take some success over righteous ranting and failure any day of the week, because those are usually the only options there actually are.

Our primary candidates would do well to learn from her. It's one reason that I support Warren - excellent people skills, and the deep respect of her colleagues.


My way or the highway gridlock will do no one any good, even though it might make white straight male tea partiers and their white, straight male counterparts on the left feel like they won something.

See also my comment here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=627432

[el_bryanto]

154. Well I'll just say that I like Warren quit a bit too

Only shifted to Sanders after the nastiness directed against him and anybody who supported him became too much for me. I haven't voted yet though (we aren't for another month i don't think).

And I don't believe that the right wing will have any luck working with the Senate - look at how many good bills are sent up to the Senate to die on McConnels desk.

Bryant

[ehrnst]

160. You supported a candidate because of "the nastiness directed against him

And anybody who supported him became too much for me."??

And you weren't upset about the nastiness directed at others by his staff and supporters - especially at Warren and those who supported her over Bernie?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-staffer-mocked-elizabeth-warrens-looks-pete-buttigiegs-sexuality-on-private-twitter-account

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-iowa-caucus-democratic-meltdown-947545/


https://www.wired.com/story/elizabeth-warren-snakes-meme/

https://time.com/5681261/working-families-party-harassment/

And I don't believe that the right wing will have any luck working with the Senate - look at how many good bills are sent up to the Senate to die on McConnels desk.

What "right wing?" And what difference would any Dem POTUS make in the Senate if McConnell is still in charge?

[el_bryanto]

165. Yeah I misstyped that last line - should have read

And I don't believe that Biden will have any luck working with the Senate - look at how many good bills are sent up to the Senate to die on McConnels desk.

As for the nastiness against Sanders - I understand that people who aren't standing where I am see something different. If I had time I would work up a spreadsheet and compare attacks on Sanders on DU vs. attacks on Warren or attacks on Biden over the last 2 weeks.

[ehrnst]

166. So you made a decision to support a candidate based on who didn't support him on DU?

And I've heard fact checks on Sanders' statements called "attacks" by Sanders supporters, and I don't agree with that at all.

[el_bryanto]

169. Well to make it clear - i am a democratic socialist and am very frustrated by the

centrist policies of Clinton and Obama. That was one of the first things that drew me to Warren, that she was willing to stand up to Wall Street and fight to protect citizens. I also see Sanders as someone who is willing to do those things, and both would be good against Trump. I'm not picking Sanders over Warren per se, if we had the opportunity to cast multiple votes I'd vote for both of them. But we don't.

But I wouldn't, in a primary, vote for Biden or Bloomberg, as they don't seem as concerned with the issues I care most about.

And less this be unclear I will vote for Biden against Trump.

Bryant

[ehrnst]

171. So you were going to support Sanders no matter what you thought anyone was saying about

him, and not because of DU.

[el_bryanto]

172. No - I am saying I was on the fence between Sanders and Warren

I selected Warren but then was pushed to Sanders because of what I saw as an excessive hostility towards Sanders.

Bryant

[ehrnst]

184. So you choose a candidate because you perceive more hostility towards them?

[el_bryanto]

187. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

I chose Warren and Sanders because they more closely mirror my beliefs. I wouldn't support Biden or Bloomberg in the Primary, but I don't see a huge difference between what Warren and Sanders are fighting for, and so went with Warren initially, then with Sanders, largely because Sanders did very well in those early states, and because of the hostility towards him, and Warren didn't do as well.

I hope that is more clear.

Bryant

[ehrnst]

188. But you preferred the candidate you perceived had more hostility from Democrats

all other things being equal....

[el_bryanto]

189. That is the simplistic way to put it, but accurate.

[ehrnst]

191. So perceived rejection by Democratic rank and file is a plus for a candidate, in your opinion?

[el_bryanto]

193. Yes - if centrist, corporate, Democrats attack Sanders that pushed me

to change my selected choice on this website, which affects nothing, from Warren to Sanders.

If I didn't largely agree with Sanders policies of course it wouldn't have happened. Hey what will you do if Warren decides to throw her support to Sanders? I don't know if that's likely, but just as a thought.

Bryant

[beachbumbob]

139. unfortunately politics is always ABOUT COMPROMISE adnd if you are in a superior positon like GOP

they would dictate the terms. Same with democrats and primaries. Biden is the superior position and looks likely to remain. IF sanders/progressive want room at the table, they start acting mature about it

[el_bryanto]

148. By mature you mean Sanders should drop out now? Or he should accept the consequences of the

convention? nt

[TwilightZone]

155. Unless he can alter momentum

this probably isn't going to make it to the convention. I suppose he could try, as he did in 2016, to get the superdelegates to switch.

[el_bryanto]

156. Hey a week or so again when the momentum seemed to be in Sanders favor

would you have felt that was a good idea for him to drop out? Or if Sanders had taken Texas?

Bryant

[TwilightZone]

159. I don't see where I said he should drop out.

Should Biden go on to acquiring a majority of delegates, Sanders is free to stay in the race until it's mathematically impossible for him to win, then he needs to withdraw quickly and get firmly behind Biden and other Democrats.

He can look to Pete or Amy or even Mike for an example, if needed.

[ehrnst]

162. Sanders could have withdrawn the minute that Warren announced, and endorsed her.

After all, she is more accomplished as a legislator, and has a better resume. She is in better health, and his support would have given her a lot more momentum.

It would have shown that he really is a feminist, and that it's about "us" and not "him."

But he didn't.

[thucythucy]

205. This is absolutely so right on.

Senator Warren was and is by far the better standard bearer for everything Senator Sanders says he supports.

He could have withdrawn after his heart attack, thrown his support to her, campaigned for her, and we might be looking at a different landscape tonight.

I'm happy enough with Vice President Biden as our nominee, but would have been ecstatic with Senator Warren. Her takedown of Bloomberg was classic, and seeing her demolish Trump would have been a pure delight.

[seaglass]

211. Except she announced first. n/t

[ehrnst]

212. I stand corrected... he could simply have endorsed her, since he encouraged her to run before,

and at the very least he could have dropped out when his health issues became more serious.

As he said, he totally thinks a woman could be elected.

If his career is truly about Us and not Him, that would have been a great way to demonstrate it.

[LiberalFighter]

134. We need to stop using "Voting for the lesser of two evils".

It is the most qualified that is important. There is absolutely no candidate that will be 100% what people want. There are always flaws. And people need to keep in mind that circumstances may have been different years ago compared to current.

[Bettie]

215. Why is it only progressives who have to compromise?

"moderates" never have to. They get exactly what they want every time and those of us farther Left get told to pound sand, but vote for the moderate.

I guess it is because they know we have nowhere else to go, so they can just keep saying 'not now' until the end of time.

[beachbumbob]

216. because moderate position is a compromised between those more liberal and more conservative

and the democratic party has both.

ACA was what? A compromised that is and will help america and will be saved and improved by a biden admin 100% guaranteed.

[Bettie]

217. How will that happen if the SCOTUS declares the ACA unconsitutional?

That is likely to happen and it will be entirely gone overnight once it does. Then the insurance companies have the OK to do whatever maximizes their profits.

The thing is progressives never get a single drop of what we want, just a 'fuck you' and "vote for us anyway". Conservatives get nearly everything they want and moderates are happy with whatever the conservatives want.

I've got kids. I'd like them to have a decent shot at a life, but it becomes less likely with every passing year.

But, our government is run for and by Boomers and older, who all got up that metaphorical ladder and then, during the Reagan years, pulled it up after them.

Yeah, I'll vote for the old white dude who ends up as the nominee, but I will do so knowing that I'm expected to sit down and shut up, because the moderates and conservatives are the only voices that really matter to anyone with power.

I'll reach acceptance eventually, but it will mean I'll vote and do nothing else, because I'm not welcome in this party, they just want me to vote for whichever old white man is the choice of the most conservative elements in the party.

[ehrnst]

28. Well, it's up to the majority of the voters in the primary, not just Sanders/Warren supporters.

If Bernie or Warren can't get the support of the Democratic rank and file, it's done.

[DanTex]

40. I agree. But that doesn't mean that Biden is the most electable choice.

[ehrnst]

74. Apparently he's the most electable among Democrats, and that's what counts in the primary.

[DanTex]

76. What matters is the GE, not the primary. Getting rid of Trump is the most important thing.

[ehrnst]

81. No, the choice of Democrats to get rid of Trump is what matters in the Primary

and that doesn't change just because your guy isn't the choice of the voters.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. He's not!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[ehrnst]

84. Apparently to Democratic voters, he is.

[at140]

64. Regretfully Warren clearly has no path to nomination after super Tuesday

Super Tuesday was below expectations, especially in MA for her home state.
By staying in she will be helping Biden. If that is her goal stay in, to take votes away from Sanders.
On the other hand if her agenda is closer to Sanders than Biden, she needs to drop out soon.

[ehrnst]

77. If Sanders agenda is closer to Democrats, & opposing DT, then he'll drop out when Biden passes 1991

[mcar]

123. I thought Harris was the best candidate to accomplish it

Others thought Booker, O'Rourke, Klobuchar, etc were the best.

Sometimes your candidate loses. You deal with the disappointment and do what's best for the country.

[brush]

127. Let's be realistic. Thinking the coutry is ready to elect a socialist is a tremendous misread..,

of the zeitgeist of the nation. Even softening "socialist" to "democratic socialist" was a mistake as he contends it's in the "Nordic model".

He should've called himself a "social democrat" instead which is what the capitalistic, Nordic countries are but I guess he could never run away completely from his decades of labeling himself a just plain socialist—which is still just plain toxic to millions of voters.

[Doremus]

183. If you add Bernie's and Elizabeth's votes, they're more than Biden's.

Voters soundly rejected status quo. I think it'll be important to remember that as the election cycle runs its course.

[Demsrule86]

203. That is not true.

[Doremus]

206. Delegate count is approx equal if you add the progressive

votes. Number is higher when you add Warren’s and sanders’ raw vote totals.

My point is that this is hardly the mandate for centrism that the media is trying so hard to portray. Should Biden end up with the nom his campaign would do well to welcome this large voting bloc and stop the “Bernie bro” nonsense.

[Perseus]

22. You could have said something nicer beside cleaning the crap off their glasses

UNITY...WE NEED UNITY, and insulting people will not do it.

Do we want the "Silver Lining" of getting rid of the thieves and the creature? Then lets start being more civil, the original post was very civil, lets continue discussing are differences while understanding that we are one party, and our combined effort will help us clean up the trash that is roaming around in the WH.

[RobertDevereaux]

98. Thank you, Perseus.

[pampango]

99. "Win with humility, lose with class." As a high school baseball coach, it what I told my players

a million times. It is a hard lesson to learn whether you are a teenager or an older politician.

[JudyM]

181. Great quote.

[beachbumbob]

210. Not my problem to be nice, my problem is to call out those who put ego and idealogy first and

america second. I will never be silence by those who would willfully see trump reelected.

[BlueWI]

190. Election after election

after election, progressives (i.e. liberals) vote for Democratic nominees at a higher percentage than conservatives or moderates. Progressives peel off and vote for the likes of a Trump, Reagan, Nixon or Bush with much less frequency than moderates and conservatives do. In 2016, 63+ million votes for Trump and Gary Johnson mattered much more to the outcome than 1+ million votes for Stein. It's simple math.

And of course, it's white voters that predominantly prop up Republicans. The majority of your hectoring should go towards moderate and conservative white voters so maybe they'll stop sending the Jeff Sessions and Mitch McConnells to the senate, along with Republican presidents. Liberals are the most reliable Democratic constituency, despite the numerous DU posts on this subject that are uninformed by 40 years of exit poll data.

[Bettie]

218. Thank you!

And we're also the ones who get blamed for everything that goes wrong.

[Hassler]

201. +1

[Happy Hoosier]

3. Universal Healthcare (in some flavor) will be in the platform.

That's an important gain, IMO.

[Perseus]

25. I have not seen it in Biden's agenda, but I really hope you are right

What I have read in Biden's agenda is that he intends to solidify Obamacare, and make some changes, plus the "public option" many of them talk about, but no M4A do I see. Do I need to look elsewhere to find that? If you know please point it out and I will refresh my knowledge on Biden's agenda.

Maybe if he brings Warren as his running mate he would be closer to M4A?

[cilla4progress]

147. He spoke last night of favoring

a public option.

I think there is some merit in maintaining the ability of union employees - of all of us - to have choice.

I don't see why this is so complicated?

Maybe I'm naive.

[DiverDave]

27. No, it won't

Biden has already said he was against it.

[Happy Hoosier]

30. He's against M4A....

So am I. But that doesn't mean he against universal health care. Biden proposes a public option that includes automatic enrollment.

[DiverDave]

43. I guess

We will see.
I don't believe he will change anything.
He owes to many, you see.

[DiverDave]

179. And still paying the insurance industry.

I don't like him, but will vote for him.
And when he rewards all the large donors and blows the rest of us off
I will talk to you again.

[George II]

138. No he hasn't. He doesn't like Sanders' version of universal healthcare coverage. Obviously....

....a lot ofother people feel that way, too.

[Blue_true]

72. We are going to have universal healthcare. The current COVID-19 virus is

showing the foolishness of not having Americans have instant access to thorough medical care. Basically, if we ever get hit by a severe disease outbreak and the disease is transmissible, our current healthcare system will make it possible for us to get nearly wiped out and cause massive social and economic damage to the country.

We will get universal healthcare, fortunately South Carolina on Saturday and many Super Tuesday states put us on a more sustainable path to getting there.

[Perseus]

122. It doesn't work that way, this is what happens

A virus such as the coronavirus starts hitting at the entire World, the status quo government starts working with the pharma industry to develop a vaccine, tons of millions of tax payer money is funneled through to the pharma industry, once they finally come up with the vaccine more tax payer money is funneled to pharma to distribute free vaccination where the coronavirus is implanted inside patients in order to combat the corona virus, if it was tested accordingly not many deaths will occur due to the vaccines, but if it wasn't tested properly to please the creature so that he can say huge things about it during the campaign, then a lot of deaths will occur due to the vaccine.

Anyway, lots of money will be funneled to pharma, the medical industry and possibly the insurance industry, but no, there will not be "Universal Healthcare" due to a virus, in my opinion it is pure fantasy to think that a virus will prompt the status quo to try to implement "UH". Just lots of money will be given to pharma. Lets face it, Biden only intends to provide a public option and to make Obamacare better, and we don't know what "better" means. I am not going to discuss the merits of his agenda regarding healthcare, what will happen will happen, I am concentrating on helping the people I know understand the urgency of getting republicans out of office.

Now, if trump were to win, that is even worst because only those who can afford it will be able to get the vaccine, because they cannot fight the market.

[JudyM]

182. +1

[lapucelle]

140. It was in the 2016 platform. N/T

[mindfulNJ]

5. Yes

We have a sliver of a chance to keep this country from sliding into a dictatorship.

[rzemanfl]

6. Wishing for four this morning.

[DanTex]

9. Four???

[beastie boy]

8. There is a ton of silver lining for us progressives. We are strongly united behind Biden.

And it is about time we stop dividing us progressives with insisting on using the false definition of the word "progressive".

[beachbumbob]

13. unfortunately, progressives get mixed in the ultra leftwing who never care about what

happens to us or our country. As we "deserve it" because will not submit before their superior thoughts and ideology/

[squirecam]

21. Biden is a progressive

Nt

[Perseus]

29. No, he is not, but he is a good guy and much, much better than the crap on the WH today

I don't know that anyone doubts Biden is a good man, and that his legitimate wish to make things right is there, but he is not a progressive.

I feel that is what we will have as a nominee, so lets all put our efforts behind Biden, let us make sure we point out all the good in him, and there is a lot of that, to make sure he can clean the White House. If he wins we should make a donation and send him a few boxes of Clorox, like Klobucher said.

[beachbumbob]

196. since NO progressive has ever occupied the WH in nearly 90 years, Biden will come as close

as it gets.

There is a reason progressive idealism FAILS in america, we are NOT a liberal country, never have, never will be no much how much the left whines about it. Work within the system. Make compromise. If Hillary had been supported by the far left, we wouldn't be in the mess we are. students loan debt would be addressed, ACA would be improved, most likely with a public option and NO BATSHIT crazy conservative judges on Federal and Supreme courts.

that is what we have to deal with. Why should we have any faith in Progressives? THEY FAILED US in 2000 and 2016 with deep cost to our country

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. ...

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Blue_true]

75. Hallelujah!!!!!!! nt

[LexVegas]

10. ...

[IADEMO2004]

11. Being a Democrat with a future starting now.

[LanternWaste]

14. Giant silver lining for progressives like us!

Or not.

You see... neither you nor I are the Official Spokesperson for Progressives, and the best we can do is speak for ourselves rather than projecting our own political wardrobe as the gold standard for the flags we choose to fly (which would be both arrogant and dishonest, and I'm quite certain you'll allege to be neither of those).

But, if maintaining some pretense of More-Progressive-Than-Thou is your thing, have at it buddy. Just don't tell yourself that people will buy that bill of goods.

[Dawgman49]

15. The down ballot races

if Biden wins, the progressives can get on board in the fight to win back the senate,keep the house,then they have a much better chance of getting progressive legislation through

[blm]

16. Warren was the better choice all along but no, she was just an obstacle to

Bernie who had to be destroyed.

Talkers hate DOers.


DOers have little respect for talkers.

[Blue_true]

90. She is the better choice and if leftists had gotten fully behind her, they

would be in a vastly different world this morning.

It is really difficult to back or even stomach a person who craps on the Democratic Party and loyal democrats at every chance, Sanders does that, Warren does not. I was hoping that Warren caught fire and started winning, if she had, my choice at this point would likely be her because I am slightly more aligned with most of her politics than I am to most of Biden's - but I want Biden to beat Trump and we take all of Congress, then we start moving the country ahead again.

[democrattotheend]

119. I agree, Warren was the better progressive choice

In the unlikely event that she is still in it when my state votes, she's getting my vote. I decided that yesterday. I like Biden and Bernie too but I think she's the best compromise between the different ideological factions and she's incredibly smart and qualified. I'm really surprised she hasn't done better.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

135. I could have lived with Elizabeth... easily!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[seaglass]

131. Yes, if it was really NotMeUs then Bernie never would have entered the race after Elizabeth did and

would have put all his support behind her.

[Happy Hoosier]

143. I feel that.

Bernie showed his cards when he basically declared Liz wasn't good enough. Only Bernie can do it! All ego, that one.

[stonecutter357]

17. Lots of Progressives voted for Joe Biden Yesterday.

[Codeine]

33. I know I did.

I largely agree with Bernie’s views, I just couldn’t get behind him.

[Blue_true]

95. I wanted Warren to come through, I am closely aligned to most of what she

represents.

[Blue_true]

94. I don't vote until March 17, I will vote for Biden without a second thought.

I preferred Warren.

[R B Garr]

109. Yes, they sure did. Like lots of progressives that wanted Hillary's

universal healthcare decades ago when it was a political risk to be for such things, as well as climate change.

All or nothing isn’t progressive since you reliably get nothing.

[Freddie]

18. 2 things

A lot of us are really turned off by the Bernie tactics. And there’s probably a ceiling to his approval. I know Millennials love him but the rest of us? And we correctly blame his rabid followers for giving us Trump.
The other thing is taking away people’s employer plans. Before I retired I had a great plan, $180/month to cover DH and myself. No deductibles if you stayed in network, very low co-pays for doc visits and Rx. Take that away for something unknown and raise my taxes, and I’d be worse off. So would MANY people. Yes that’s selfish but people are selfish! A really good public option that employers could offer that would eventually morph into single payer is the way to go.

[Blue_true]

100. I believe that a good public option that employers can get behind

gets us to Single Payer real fast. One of the big issues employers have is finding insurance plans for employees that provide excellent coverage at an affordable price.

[CentralMass]

114. What plan do you have in retirement .?

[Freddie]

141. I'm 63 and went on my husbands work plan

Which is about as good coverage but premiums are higher ($600/mo vs $180). If there was an affordable public option available he could retire too, he’s working for the insurance. I retired because I have a pension (public schools employee) and I watch the grandkids all day.
Obamacare is absolutely not perfect and the biggest problem is the out-of-pockets/ridiculous deductibles. Any public option should have very little out-of-pocket.

[CentralMass]

152. I have a sister who just retired at 62. She had to purchase insurance and is looking forward to

Medicare n kicking at 65. At a high level I support MFA. There os a sound case to be made that it will save money overall by loweing costs and there will undoubtedly be supplimental insurance for those who can afford it. However we have a massive for profit medical industry lobbying against it.

[rampartc]

19. not for a few years .......

AOC 2028 !!!!!!!!!

[DiverDave]

34. This

My kids are disappointed, but will keep fighting for their, and their kids, future.

[Blue_true]

105. I am not sold on AOC.

She shows some of the very same myopia that I believe Sanders shows. She carries poorly outside a segment of democratic voters and she doesn't seem to care that things are that way. There are better young people now in the House and Senate to get behind, I just hope your wing of the Democratic Party realizes that and back people that all of us can be happy with.

[TexasTowelie]

168. No thanks. nt

[spicysista]

20. Lots of progressives voted for and support Joe!

Get your dancing shoes ready, DanTex. I'll see you in the streets!

[ehrnst]

23. "It's never been about Bernie the person, it's always been about the issues, and the more he talks

them, the better for the party and for the nation."

So he needs to go all the way to the convention in order to talk about the issues?

Why?

Why shouldn't he drop out when Joe passes the threshold? Sanders supporters are demanding that Warren drop out, why shouldn't Bernie if he loses?

If he really cares about the country, he will, and he'll get behind Biden in a FAR more enthusiastic way than he did HRC in the general.

[NYMinute]

55. Exactly

Everyone has memorized Bernie's one speech by now. No need to keep rehearsing it till the convention.

[griffi94]

60. For myself, it's about Bernie the candidate.

Bernie’s inability to build coalitions
is a huge liability.
Like it or not, politics is now and has always been, about the art of the possible
Bernie ignores that and refuses to compromise. When asked about his plans
to implement his policies he deflects the
Question and starts talking about the revolution.
I’m not interested in a revolution. I want
forward progress even if it’s only a couple
of steps.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. Getting rid of Trump seems pretty silvery to me.

[Laelth]

26. That had to be difficult to write.

I am having difficulty putting two words together this AM.

Yesterday didn't turn out as I expected it to. I am not unhappy about what happened. I am shocked, and I am processing that shock.

Thank you for the OP.



-Laelth

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. The race is far from over... in case you didn't know.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Laelth]

104. Sigh. No. It IS over.

I see no path, at this point, for anyone other than Joe Biden to be our nominee. Bloomberg dropped out. Elizabeth will soon.

American Democrats said, resoundingly, yesterday, "We ain't votin' for no Soshulist!"

I heard them loud and clear ... for better or for worse.

Thank you for fighting the good fight. I have been a member of the "left wing" of this party for a long time. It's often depressing. This is one of those times. Keep your chin up.

"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." - MLK Jr.



-Laelth

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

133. I understand & I'll try. Respect! IF you're right - & that's a BIG "IF" - I fear what happens next.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Blue_true]

110. You process it by looking ahead with optimism.

I often don't get what I want in life, but every night I go to bed with something on my mind that I WANT to do the next day, I look forward to doing that with optimism.

I don't know whether this primary is over, but unless Biden makes an enormous mistake, it most likely is. What all of us must start doing is set our sights on the next plateau, getting rid of Trump and soundly winning all of Congress and a lot of State Houses. If we do that well, I believe that all of our futures will be better.

[Laelth]

117. Joe is a good person.

With the right cabinet and the right Senate, he can be a great, liberal President.

It's regularly depressing to be a member of the "left wing" of this party, as I assume you know. We get over our disappointments, eventually.

Thanks for reaching out.



-Laelth

[Blue_true]

124. Hold his feet to the fire, without threats or bad conduct.

There is still a ways to go. People from your wing of the party need to open a dialogue with Biden, I truly believe the best person to do that is Senator Warren or one of the other more left Senators, like Brown. We need to look at defeating Trump and removing as many republicans from public office as we can this cycle, then we respectfully hold each other accountable for achieving the progress that all of us want.

[Codeine]

31. The same positions expressed by a better candidate

would be a blessing. Bernie is toxic — I’m still a bit amazed that his supporters don’t see this more clearly. He is a poor proponent for the progressive cause. I am in his ideological wheelhouse but I can’t stand the man and his obvious lack of political competence.

Progressives need a better champion than Sanders, simple as that.

[Blue_true]

111. Senator Warren was the person you mentioned this cycle.

I am disappointed that Senator Sanders backers didn't see that, if they had, I would be in their camp today and Senator Warren would be headed for the presidency.

[Codeine]

157. I'm inclined to agree. nt

[rownesheck]

32. People are scared of a trump second term.

This is an election in which people are looking to see how we avoid that horror first. I would prefer a progressive, but I understand the fear. If we end up with a Biden presidency, it will be on progressives to push for what we want and need. He's gonna need bugs in his ears to constantly remind him that Republicans aren't his friends. Then, maybe in 2024 (I'm assuming he ain't running for a second) we'll get a more progressive candidate.

Of course, I'm assuming this country makes it to 2024. Hell, I'm assuming we make it to November 2020.

[cilla4progress]

151. Eggs

exactly!

[we can do it]

39. Tired of this BS.

[we can do it]

48. You really need to get a grip on reality.

[Cha]

80. +1

[ehrnst]

61. Imagine if someone was to say that about Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Trump lost the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes and won the Electoral College by 77,000 votes*

* That was less than one percent of the votes cast in MI, PA, and WI. Can you elaborate on how Biden does worse? Thank you in advance.

[George II]

50. Clearly Biden has a better chance of beating trump than any other Democrat (or independent)

[Cha]

73. No way is trump beating Joe Biden! Why are you

thinking that asshole traitor is going to win?!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

91. I hope that doesnt happen but Bernie's still got some bearing on who goes against tRumpy The Clown.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[blm]

36. Yeah, because Warren will influence the platform.

[we can do it]

38. Yes how about saving our country from fascism first?

[Recursion]

44. Sure: more of Sanders's platform is likely to happen if someone other than him runs

If what you actually care about is the issues Sanders talks about, then anything that keeps Sanders away from the ticket is a silver lining.

[NYMinute]

46. +1,000,000 nt

[NYMinute]

45. Wait till NY 14 holds a primary

[robbedvoter]

52. during summertime, without publicity and GOP 🐀🔩 assistance

[NYMinute]

57. It will be different this time

[Blue_true]

113. What do you mean?

I really like Jose Velazquez in that primary. He seems to be a rock solid progressive without all the extraneous stuff that AOC brings to the table. Hopefully he comes through the crowded democratic field in that primary.

[ehrnst]

47. Cheer up. Bernie got his cheering crowds one more time, and I'm sure will be writing another book

which will sell very well at WalMart and on Amazon, like his other books do.

[robbedvoter]

53. plus, maybe additional real estate out of those donations

of the faithful (Russians, Republicans and naive youth)

[hlthe2b]

49. Bernie (and Warren) have some leverage to come to an accomodation with Biden if they

(especially Sanders) take the opportunity. This could be extremely positive for advancing some of their policies.

Not as VP, but an agreement that would benefit them and advance some of their objectives.

Think JFK and LBJ (but without the VP offer)...

I hope they take the opportunity

[robbedvoter]

56. Sure: like open primaries, cacases, NRA, limit immigrants,

Joe Rogan, Cenk Uighur and all that Democrat hating!

[hlthe2b]

58. what the hell are you trying to say?

Honestly, I have no idea...

[Blue_true]

116. Senator Warren is not into that type of compromise.

I truly believe Senator Sanders would push for that because then his side has a great chance to prevail as our primary process gets diluted by voters that have their own agendas.

[Blue_true]

115. JFK and LBJ is an excellent example. People really need to read up on how

that came about. Like you pointed out, a lot of compromise took place.

[Hav]

51. Yes

If progressives (and I don't like that it has become a label for a narrow group that excludes others with similar aims) cannot see the silver lining in the prospect of getting rid of Trump, saving Obamacare and building on it with the eventual aim of everybody being insured, tackling rising costs for education and healthcare and not regarding climate change as a hoax but the biggest challenge, then I don't know what the hell progressives are fighting for.
The other Democrats aren't the enemy but offer other ways to achieve improvements and are your only allies.

[betsuni]

200. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. That's rich. BS' strategy of running up the score with young voters didn't pan out. They stayed...

home in big numbers. Why can't you just admit that the people who actually got off their asses and voted for Biden were just more invested in his success? Standing on line to vote isn't quite as sexy as a raucous rally, or a Public Enemy concert, but it's what you do when you care about our democracy.

The better candidate won, and as disappointing as that may be for some, it was "We The People" who made the decision. And no one can claim that big money (Joe didn't have any) bought last night's results. The progressive won overwhelmingly last night, and I couldn't be more proud.

[DanTex]

59. I'm not denying that progressives got beaten yesterday. By voters, yes.

The people have spoken and they chose a centrist, rather than one of the two progressives in the race. That's why I'm talking about "silver linings".

[Tarheel_Dem]

63. You say centrist. I say progressive. Let's call the whole thing off.

I'm just ecstatic to know that just as in 2016, huge rallies & buckets of money can't buy you love.

[DanTex]

67. I'm not particularly ecstatic about comparisons between 2020 and 2016.

In fact, that's what I'm concerned about, trying the same thing and expecting different results. Last time we nominated the "safe" centrist, the most qualified candidate in history, instead of the progressive with the big crowds. It didn't turn out well.

I hope it's different this time, because we need to beat Trump. I'm not denying that the "people have spoken", and I will support Biden enthusiastically against Trump and donate to him and everything. Nobody will be happier than me if Biden beats Trump.

But I still don't feel that he's the best candidate to win in November. It's not up to me though, so Biden it is.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. And since BS hasn't improved on his 2016 performance, I have no doubt he would lose in a...

landslide in November. Enthusiasm works both ways.

[ehrnst]

86. One silver lining is that Russia and the GOP don't get their favored candidate as the nom. (nt)

[Blue_true]

118. Geepers!!!! If only I could state the gist of it as well. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

129. Thank you.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. Just an "on hold". Step one, rid us of trump. Step two

Fix trump damage, Step three back to our progressive policy push.

[blueinredohio]

65. I loved Warren, Mayor Pete, Bernie and Amy but

it got to the point I just wanted Trump OUT. So I voted Biden.

[ewagner]

66. At the convention...

If we're smart, we'll "balance the ticket" with a Progressive.

The party platform will be a compromise/peace-keeping document adopting key progressive issues as the official policy of the party. Biden and his chosen running mate (hopefully a progressive) will pledge to implement that strategy once elected.

and...

in a more perfect world...

Bernie and Joe will stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity on the platform. Bernie will UNEQUIVOCALLY endorse Biden and pledge to campaign vigorously for his election.

[Alex4Martinez]

68. When we vote safe, we get Trump

2016 all over again.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Wouldn't surprise me.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[frazzled]

87. If you can't win the primaries

It’s highly unlikely you could ever win the general. It’s that simple.

So if you’re worried about Biden winning, you should realize that a Sanders candidacy would be a bloodbath.

[Tarheel_Dem]

112. Biden has now run up nearly a million vote surplus on BS just from Super Tuesday. You have to...

ask yourself why Trump wants so badly to run against BS, and has put so much effort into trying to destroy Biden's primary campaign? My hunch is that they've got some very damaging oppo research on BS, and they're just waiting for him to sew up the nomination.

[Blue_true]

125. The majority of voters on Saturday, yesterday and I am sure to come soundly

disagree with you. Senators Sanders didn't excite people to turn out and vote, Joe Biden did. What does that last FACT say about their relative chances against Trump?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

145. Only if Bernie doesn't unilaterally supports Joe. Problem is he's

still trashing Biden. He's burning bridges. In that respect it is 2016 redux

[Blue_true]

70. The silver lining?

This morning we have a far better chance of achieving the progressive agenda that you listed than we were last Saturday morning.

Face it, Senator Bernie Sander is a very flawed candidate, the thing that gets me most about him is that he seem to have little situational awareness of the world outside of Vermont and the Senate. He simply doesn't understand African Americans and the issues that are important to that key democratic group, and he paid for that tone-deafness once again.

Pretty much everyone here on DU is a progressive, so please STOP trying to say that we aren't. You may be farther left than many of us are, but we care as much about the issues that you claim to care about as you do, we just disagree on the most effective way to accomplish them.

What should people like you do? Back leftish politicians that recognize the importance of people that disagree with them and don't constantly work to demonize those people, back people like Senatir Elizabeth Warren, a person who you regrettably failed to see carried your banner most effectively. There will be some excellent younger leftish politicians coming along, I for one am not sold on AOC because she shows some blindness toward people that have viewpoints opposite her's, but there are more quiet, less public young leftists that will stoutly carry your banner, if only you realize who they are and avoid chasing behind the ones that spin out whole-fully unachievable fantasies.

We will keep coming after Cuellar if he doesn't change, count on that. And if we don't take out Lipinski on March 17, we will keep coming after him until we do, or he will honestly change to a person that better represent the views of his constituents. Those things are a given.

[Happy Hoosier]

71. I do take issue with one thing you said

"Bernie will probably continue all the way to the convention, as well he should. It's never been about Bernie the person, it's always been about the issues, and the more he talks about them, the better for the party and for the nation."

I'm fine with Bernie going to the convention so long as he isn't an asshole about it and keeps his more rapid supporters in check. It's time for him to show he and his "movement" can work and play well with others.

It might be about the issues for you, but it's pretty clear to many of us that Bernie see the issues as inseparable from himself. And that's not good, IMO.

[DanTex]

89. The people who think the issues are inseparable from Bernie aren't Bernie supporters.

Yes, a lot of anti-Bernie people think it's about Bernie and not the issues. But I doubt you could find many, or any, Bernie supporters who feel that way. The reason progressives and young people are so fired up for Bernie is not because of his charisma. It's because he's been consistently promoting the progressive policies that those people support.

[Happy Hoosier]

97. When I really soured on Bernie...

... is when he chose to enter the race despite Elizabeth Warren already being there. She's plenty progressive, and she could pull in people a little to her right (like myself) where Bernie is not as good at that. At least IMO. It felt like a Trump-like "Only I can do it" move, and he lost a ton of my respect. He never regained it.

But I'm not just trying to bash Bernie here. I'm trying to frame what I think it takes for Bernie's continued presence to be a positive for the party, instead of the divisive mess it was in 2016. It is so, SO important that face Trump with a united front. And a continued "Bernie vs. The World" midset just isn't helpful.

[OneGrassRoot]

102. I'm not so sure about that...

I know this is strictly anecdotal and we all have our experiences.

I personally know quite a few people who are indeed Bernie or Bust -- not the policies, but Bernie. If another candidate embraced Bernie's exact platform, they'd still be Bernie or Bust. It IS about Bernie to them, likely for rebellious, "fuck everyone" reasons, not the least of which is the animosity as a result of 2016. They won't trust anyone but Bernie. Period. And a few (again, of the people I know personally) said they'll vote for Trump over a Democratic candidate other than Bernie. They consider themselves true progressives and leftists, yet they'd vote for Trump.

That seems very emotional to me, not rational at all, but I fear that's more common than many think.

[betsuni]

202. That's correct, it's not about policy.

Research confirms it.

I just saw a BBC reporter in Vermont talk to some Bernie supporters. One said Democrats are conspiring to stop Bernie and another said he was Bernie or nobody, even if that meant four more years of Trump. Not rational, but typical.

[ehrnst]

136. POTUS, when done well, requires diplomatic skills, teamwork skills, and

the ability to respect and listen to people who have differing ideas on the way to get things done.

Without those, issues are moot. One can't really accomplish one's goals.

[betsuni]

204. Not true. Not about issues.

"To many observers, the Democratic nomination was not primarily a story of social identity. The story was the fight between the progressive and centrist wings of the party. Sanders supporters were supposed to be well to the left of Clinton supporters on taxes, trade, healthcare, and so on. But that was not the case. Clinton and Sanders supporters were mostly similar on these and other issues. The choice between Clinton and Sanders depended little on policy battles and more on identities grounded in partisanship and race.

"Sanders voters were more likely to describe themselves as liberal or very liberal rather than moderate or conservative, even when asked five years before the primary itself. Although identification as liberal usually goes together with identification as a Democrat, the two factors worked in opposite directions in the primary -- with strong Democrats gravitating to Clinton and strong liberals to Sanders. But although Sanders voters tended to describe themselves as more liberal than did Clinton supporters, the two groups differed little on economic policies. This was true when VOTER Survey respondents had been interviewed yeas earlier, in December 2011. People who became Sanders supporters were no more likely than people who became Clinton supporters to favor government-provided universal health care or tax increases on the wealthy -- although they were somewhat more likely to favor government regulation of business.

"In the American National Election Studies Pilot Study, Clinton's and Sanders supporters did not differ much in their views of government spending overall, spending on health insurance or child care, or raising the minimum wage ... . Sanders supporters expressed somewhat less positive views of the economy than did Clinton supporters. Sanders supporters were also more likely than Clinton supporters to say that there was little or no opportunity for the average person to get ahead and that it was harder to 'move up the ladder.' ... The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels ... wrote that 'Mr. Sander's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues.' Achen and Bartels also located the origins of Sander's support in social and political identities."

From Sides, Tesler, and Vavreck's "Identity Crisis"

[Gothmog]

82. I am happy that Bloomberg is backing Joe

Link to tweet

?s=20

[ehrnst]

88. We'll have a Democratic candidate that will accept the help of Bloomberg. We need all the ammo

we can get.

[Blue_true]

128. Bingo. nt

[Demsrule86]

92. I understand your disappointment...but I believe it isn't enough to wait for a demographic

change...we have to get out in red and purple states and win hearts and minds. Consider the ACA, it was reviled the first year and we lost the house. But now it has changed the way people view healthcare...a right . That never would have happened without the ACA...we have to move forward no matter what and accept the compromises that must come along the way to get to our ultimate goal.

[Blue_true]

132. Good points.

Republicans got their heads handed to them in 2018 because they messed with the ACA and wanted to do more damage if elected. We need a nominee that can build on the momentum of 2018, 2017 and 2019, that person is not Senator Sanders, I believe that he would spend valuable time fighting people that are his philosophical allies.

[OhZone]

93. Hmmmm - I always thought it WAS about Bernie, the person.

Just my anecdotal evidence, but Bernie supporters I know personally seem to think "only Bernie" can do it.

My friend Tom at work, for example, only talks about how Bernie could win. Not the issues.

I wonder if he will be sheepish tomorrow or will dig in his heels and call Biden supporters idiots, like he did to HRC supporters.

Oh well.

[DanTex]

103. That's what anti-Bernie people think.

Bernie supporters were always about the issues, not the person. It's anti-Bernie people who say it's all about Bernie. If you ask Bernie people whether Bernie is more important than universal healthcare and free college, they'd almost universally say it's those issues and others.

Yes, a lot of people think that Bernie is the most likely to beat Trump, and for good reason. But that doesn't mean they care more about the man than the issues.

[OhZone]

106. Like I said

just anecdotal evidence about my friend Tom and another guy at work.

If I have time, I'll try to ask him about the issues next time.

I hesitate, cause i know he'll mansplain to me.

[Act_of_Reparation]

101. Yes.

The immediate silver lining is Trump losing, if the polls can be relied upon.

The long term silver lining is progressivism is ascendent. Once the ranks of older, moderate Dems start thinning, you will see the party move further to the left.

[OBrien]

107. Most don't want to tear down their house

to build a new one if it just needs more affordable improvements. Where will they live while this new expensive house is being built?

[ibegurpard]

108. Joe Biden does not share Hillary Clinton's negatives

We all knew that there had been decades of hatred formenting against Hillary Clinton. Fair or not... and most of it due to misogyny.
Despite his considerable flaws Joe Biden doesn't have that working against him. Yeah the Republicans are going to go into overdrive about Hunter Biden but they have an entire propaganda industry devoted to painting ANY Democrat however they choose. (Swiftboating John Kerry, Max Cleland, birtherism) That's why I just wasn't concerned about the socialism argument against Bernie. They'll throw that at Joe too and it will work with a lot of people. But we haven't had decades of hating on Joe Biden to settle in to people's bones.
As far as progressivism goes? The argument i made to my more progressive friends is you're voting for breathing room to continue working for the issues that matter most to you. You won't have that with Trump or any Republican. Obama and Clinton had solid judicial pick scorecards despite their spotty success in pushing for real progressive change.
And those are some reasons i can enthusiastically support Biden.

[Fiendish Thingy]

120. Warren is young enough to run in 2024

Should the opportunity arise.

[Blaukraut]

121. Silver lining: Bernie won't be the (self appointed) standard bearer of progressivism next time

Sometimes the problem is not the contents, but the packaging. No matter how much sense progressive policies make, it matters how they are presented. Bernie is abrasive, non-inclusive, and really not very positive in his attempt at getting the progressive message across. He surrounds himself (and attracts) people like Sirota, Gray, Turner - to name just his top lieutenants. While the Bernie bros are certainly in the minority, they are the loudest and most obnoxious followers of any candidate, and stifle any attempt to even constructively criticize. How is this in any way welcoming?

I'm a progressive. My ideology lines up 100% with Bernie's. Hell, they probably are to the left of his. I went with Warren because she spoke to me and made me feel like she would be much more effective in actually accomplishing what she set out to do.

The next progressive hopeful has to be someone who, while strongly advocating for what we believe in, has the ability to appeal to almost everyone with the presentation of his or her message.

So don't take this in any way other than my personal view and that of my personal acquaintances. But I know I am not the only progressive out there who feels this way about Bernie being our voice.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

137. I agree... AOC is next in line, no doubt!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[BidenBacker]

178. One big problem is...

that there just isn't a sufficient number of progressives in the country yet. They add up to less than half of the Democratic Party and roughly only 20% of the total population. And you ain't gonna win nationwide elections with only about 1/5 of the electorate behind you.

Gotta slowly pull and nudge the country to the left instead of trying to forcibly yank them there against their will. Biden is a lot more liberal than many progressives make him out to be. Joe will get the ball rolling in that direction.

[ahoysrcsm]

126. To answer your title.

Is there any silver lining for progressives?

Yes, Biden won 8 out of 12 states this primary. We Progressives have decided who will win the GE in November.

PS it's Biden, we Progressives support Biden.

[LiberalFighter]

130. The key is to elect them at the House and Senate level.

Take over the Senate and maintain the House. Add more seats.

Congress creates the legislation. They can nudge the direction.

The Senate is key also with appointments to cabinet and lower positions as well as for judges.


At the same time electing the right people at local and state levels is also important.

[BidenBacker]

142. Bernie should continue to fight the good fight...

but if he has one or two more really bad nights like last night then he really needs to read the writing on the wall and consolidate behind the presumptive nominee Biden like almost everybody else has in the last 5 days or so. And the sooner the better.

But if he continues to fall further behind and instead resorts to a scorched earth campaign all the way to the convention that would show that he's really in it more for himself than the millions of Americans who would benefit from some of his policies. If progressives truly want to make this a better country then they will eventually board the Biden Bandwagon because they will get a helluva lot better deal from Joe than Trump and his GOP. But those who refuse to do so will reveal that they really aren't true progressives at all but are rather merely run-of-the-mill anarchists.

We're gonna learn an awful lot about Sanders and his followers in the next month or so.

[dumptrump1]

144. the spin is incredible

Biden did a little bit better than the bare minimum. Just a few days ago his supporters were spinning a loss for biden today would be a win. Truth is, it took a lot to happen very quickly for this outcome. 2 candidates had to drop out quickly and endorse him And the party in their desperation began pushing anybody and everybody to do the same. Despite all this, biden is still likely to lead by a mere 50 or 60 delegates at best after the votes are counted. It is still up in the air and a lot is riding on what Warren decides, but I will not count Bernie out quite yet.

[BidenBacker]

149. You call it "spin"...

we call it "election results".

Warren doesn't have enough support to make enough of a difference even if she were to pull out and make this a head-to-head race.

In 2016 Hillary entered the convention with 55% of the popular vote and pledged delegates compared to about 43% for Bernie. That happens to be about exactly the same ratio of moderates/liberals to progressives in the Democratic Party, so I fail to see why Bernie supporters expected anything much different this time than the last go-around.

About the only real chance Sanders ever had of winning the nomination in 2020 was if the conservative/moderate/liberal wing of the party was fractured by having 5 or 6 candidates all vying for the same pool and allowing Bernie to garner a plurality but not a majority. Now that 4 candidates have left the field in just the last 5 days that is no longer the case. Bernie can't beat Biden in a head-to-head match any more than he could beat Hillary...and Joe is a helluva lot more popular than Clinton ever was.

It's still a little too early for Bernie to drop out but I hope he conducts himself respectfully until that day comes.

[TwilightZone]

158. Four days ago, Sanders was forecast to win ST by 150-200 delegates.

Perhaps you can put a spin on that.

[dumptrump1]

170. which would make biden completely unviable given the favorability of the map for him.

This fortified him as a strong candidate with a very good chance to win. But that hasn't happened yet, and what Warren decides will have a huge impact on the trajectory going forward.

[jcmaine72]

150. Only one..

If demography is indeed destiny, than we're the future of the party and this nation. The future is Left. The future is Socialism.

[wyldwolf]

176. Upton Sinclair, 1920.

[MH1]

161. Bernie should let Warren talk about the issues all the way to the convention

He should step back and acknowledge her great accomplishments in actually getting things done.

With the exception that she doesn't help the electoral map strategy (only probably, and do we need it with Biden?), Warren would be a GREAT running mate for Biden. And that would be a huge win for left-progressives. Bernie probably wouldn't take it if offered, and he'd be better off in a cabinet position working on the economic issues he cares about.

It's time to set squabbling aside and build a unity ticket that has something for ALL progressives.

[ehrnst]

163. +1000.

[BidenBacker]

167. I'm all for having a bonafide progressive on the ticket

Way too early for such talk but Warren would be an acceptable veep in my book. I'm also intrigued by Kamala Harris...she would balance a Biden ticket in damn near every way possible.

I also like Sherrod Brown a lot...I even sent him an email last year asking him to run before Biden got into the race. Joe puts him on the ticket and you can probably add Ohio to the resulting landslide.

But first things first.

[nolabear]

164. We ARE progressive. Y'all just want to jump into risky water.

Bernie’s goals for the most part aren’t bad. But burning down what’s there leaves a massive hole that’s currently being filled by a combination of measured progressives and right wing revolutionaries. They want everything we’ve worked for burned down too, and will be happy to use our arguing and lack of diplomacy among ourselves to take it away.

When people are afraid for their lives and rights against a true threat they are reassured by the trustworthy and familiar. It’s our job to help them help us and to then foster more and more progress. Progress. Not revolution. That leaves us out.

[DonaldsRump]

173. This is not an election where people want an outsider

The only folks who want an outsider are the 35% or so of the Deplorables. Until this election, I agree with you that US folks tend to like change and outsiders. Not this year. We have the quintessential "outsider" occupying our White House, and it is worse than anyone could have possibly imagined.

PEOPLE WANT TO A RETURN TO A SENSE OF NORMALCY. Revolution, or at least incremental change, can come in 2024 and thereafter. 2020 is about turning this ship around. Yesterday's results couldn't be any clearer.

Progressives have a real hero in Elizabeth Warren. If Uncle Joe is as smart as I think he is, he will pick her as her VP. The ONLY downside that I can see is we then have to defend a seat in MA without someone as strong as her.

[BidenBacker]

174. Let's check a few numbers

I just added up the current results for all the primaries to date (except American Samoa) to see how the progressive/socialist wing of the Democratic Party fared against the moderate/liberal wing. The former is Sanders and Warren...the latter being Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg & Steyer. Let's see if Warren dropping out really would make all that much of a difference as some Bernie supporters here seem to claim...

South Carolina:
Liberal: 71.1%
Progressive: 27.0%

Alabama:
Liberal: 75.3%
Progressive: 22.4%

Arkansas:
Liberal: 64.6%
Progressive: 32.4%

California:
Liberal: 51.4%
Progressive: 45.7%

Colorado:
Liberal: 44.4%
Progressive: 53.4%

Maine:
Liberal: 49.7%
Progressive: 48.8%

Massachusetts:
Liberal: 50.0%
Progressive: 48.0%

Minnesota:
Liberal: 53.6%
Progressive: 45.3%

North Carolina:
Liberal: 62.4%
Progressive: 34.6%

Oklahoma:
Liberal: 57.2%
Progressive: 38.8%

Tennessee:
Liberal: 63.0%
Progressive: 35.3%

Texas:
Liberal: 55.5%
Progressive: 41.4%

Utah:
Liberal: 48.2%
Progressive: 50.0%

Vermont:
Liberal: 35.2%
Progressive: 63.4%

Virginia:
Liberal: 64.5%
Progressive: 33.8%

Progressives didn't even win California or Massachusetts...probably THE two most progressive states of them all.

Case closed.

[wyldwolf]

175. None

Since 2000, all the "safe" nominees have lost and the "risky" one became president.

This is a fine example of progressive fundamentalism. You've twisted the facts to meet your narrative.

1. Was 2000 an arbitrary number? Why not go back to '92? or '48?
2. You don't acknowledge factors at play in each election.

* 2000: Safe nominee wins popular vote. Is hampered by a "progressive" running third party, is robbed by a SCOTUS decision with a craven caveat baked in: Bush v Gore cannot be used as a precedent in future similar cases.

* 2004: Wartime presidents are always popular, some evidence suggests shenanigans in Ohio.

* 2008: Barack Obama benefits greatly from a weakened Bush, just as Rahm Emanuel did when he flipped the house two years prior. It was a given that ANY Democrat in that field in '08 would have walked into the white house.

* 2012: While "progressives" thought Obama was one of them in 2008, he clearly wasn't and by 2012, all pretense of that was gone.

* 2016: Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote by literally millions of votes, loses by about 70,000 votes that swings the electoral college against her and Bernie supporter, of which 10% either didn't vote for her, voted third party, or just sat it out.

The "progressive" movement has been a loser factory since forever, only winning a handful of house seats and a couple of senate seats here and there in bluer than blue districts.

You want a silver lining? Be a goddamned team player. It was NEVER your policies. It was ALWAYS your entitled 'more liberal than thou' attitudes.

[NurseJackie]

177. Amen!

You want a silver lining? Be a goddamned team player. It was NEVER your policies. It was ALWAYS your entitled 'more liberal than thou' attitudes.

Amen!

[George II]

180. ...

[ehrnst]

185. Bravo!!

[ismnotwasm]

186. Thank you.

[sheshe2]

194. +1000

[JudyM]

195. Off topic a bit from the OP, but I'm curious about your assertion about the '16 GE...

How carefully have you looked at the rest of the demographics? Seems your ire might be better directed at actual DEMS who didn’t turn out, rather than independents Sanders brought in and whose.votes.we.dont.own. Where is the evidence that actual DEMS who liked Sanders voted for trump or stayed home in the GE? Maybe it exists and I just haven’t seen it, in which case I’ll stand corrected. But seriously, how about looking at actual Dems, since that data exists? Some self-reflection rather than blaming?

So about those demographics... here’s an example: black voters.
“At 59.6 percent, it was the lowest black turnout rate since 2000.” This is a FACT, even though it makes us all uncomfortable to look at it.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/

Maybe folks should stop with the shaming.

The black vote is important, and based on what we’ve seen this past week, it’s the strongest argument, IMO, in favor of Biden.

[wyldwolf]

199. My assertion has been widely reported since '16

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — a massive election survey of around 50,000 people.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

[JudyM]

207. According to this, Hillary's primary voters had more than TWICE the defection rate to McCain

as Sanders’ voters did!

While much was made of the so-called Bernie-or-bust phenomenon, the number of Sanders supporters who crossed party lines to vote for Trump in 2016 may not be that unusual. A 2010 study in Public Opinion Quarterly found that in the 2008 election 25 percent of those who voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary ended up voting for Republican John McCain, rather than Barack Obama, in the general election.

And here’s the kicker: Hillary’s primary voters were certainly not as independent-leaning as Bernie’s.

In the many states with closed primaries, voters would have had to register as Democrats in order to vote for Sanders. So the Newsweek author’s use of “registered Democrats” as the basis of his crossover analysis is fundamentally flawed. Not to mention that part of his analysis, which was done after people apparently called out his failure to show republicans/independents in the voter pool, only had n= 4,226. I’ll have to leave it to statisticians to address that but it looks problematic to me since over 13 million people voted for him.

If they were independents who liked his populism, like, perhaps they would’ve otherwise gone for Rand Paul, then trump’s (faux) populism was closer to what they were interested in than Hillary’s platform. Where is the evidence that their votes/non-votes were caused by Bernie, himself, rather than the voters’ own political preferences?

An excerpt from your NPR report:

But then, it's not as simple as that. First off, this counterfactual world in which these voters didn't vote for Trump rests on a few ifs. If the Sanders-Trump voters in these three states had defected and if nothing else had happened to somehow take electoral votes from Clinton elsewhere and if this survey is correct ... then yes, Clinton would have won. (Some would also argue that if Clinton had campaigned more in the so-called "blue wall" states, she also could have picked up more votes.)

Bottom line: Hillary primary voters in ‘08 had double the defections to McCain as Sanders’ did to trump. Moreover, this is one person’s study, it is flawed and doesn’t even show in the least that Bernie’s actions were the cause of the defections. I realize that’s a popular belief, but these articles you offered actually prove quite the contrary.

Moreover, as I pointed out in my prior response, she got the smallest number of black voters since 2000. You didn’t explain how that isn’t something that makes you pause from blaming her loss on Sanders, the guy who held far more rallies to support her than she did for Obama.

Your Bernie-shaming doesn’t add up.

ETA: I just saw this post... note that it appears, at least in VA, that based on the demographics of how he fared against Biden, it seems that a sizable share of Sanders’ original supporters were largely voting against Hillary (now they voted for Joe), and that was well before the issues that came up months later. And guess what? Looks like it was about 12%!

[Gothmog]

197. Great response to the OP

[betsuni]

198. Thank you!

[William769]

208. Tell him like it is!

[BlueWI]

192. Pretty minimal silver lining so far.

Trump is still in office. The election still has to be won.

Biden hasn't won yet either, and I actually think it's a net positive to keep the news cycle focused on the Democratic race rather than having an 8-month campaign for Biden against Trump.

It's a silver lining that people who are deeply disenfranchised and alienated have their voices heard by both Warren and Sanders in this campaign. It's also good that solutions were proposed, by some but not all candidates, that match the scope of our environmental and economic challenges.

It's a personal silver lining for me to cast my early primary vote for Warren, which I will do tomorrow. She stood up for the issues I care about, so it's my honor to stand with her.

[William769]

209. HOG WASH! A leopard never changes its spots. nt

[Bettie]

213. No. There isn't

I'll vote for the nominee, but I have no illusions that anything will change for anyone who needs it even if he wins.

[karynnj]

214. Wonderful post

I agree that the youngest voters are significantly more comfortable with very progressive ideas. I would say that that has happened with many "younger generations", including my baby boom generation. Though we are now seen by the younger generation as mostly in the moderate camp, many changes in society that our children take as status quo now were moved forward in that time.

It might be that the process of seeing how hard change is and seeing that taking a series of incremental positive changes - while frustratingly slow - leads to the gains that we got led to our generation being seen as mostly moderates. While many did turn on their youthful rebellion, most of us are proud of what we did. To some degree, many of changes methods and tactics, not goals.

Given where Congress most likely will be - even if the most optimist results that we should fight for happen, I doubt anything more progressive would pass under a President Sanders or President Warren than under a President Biden. (However, I also admit that even with all Biden's connections, I doubt he would get more than they as well. All of their administrations would include some of the same people.)

Two areas where a President can do things without Congress are executive orders and foreign policy. Yet in 2016, Sanders often praised things that President Obama/Secretary Kerry were doing - often seeming closer to Obama than HRC, who made a point of identifying her own somewhat more hawkish positions. I assume that Sanders, Warren and Biden would ALL argue strongly and convincingly for putting diplomacy as the main tool of foreign policy.

As an example of how ANY Democrat will almost certainly lead to progressive change - consider climate change.

On climate change, I think few have more credibility than John Kerry, who was instrumental in getting all the countries in the Paris Accord (once the US position becomes positive again when any Democrat wins). This is now the issue that he is concentrating on with World War Zero, trying to pull together everyone - progressive or moderate. I seriously doubt Kerry would have been a very early endorser of Biden if he was not convinced Biden was completely on board with this issue. The Obama team on this - from Kerry, Moniz to Gina McCarthy at EPA did a great job in doing things that were actually leading to real improvement, that Trump has partly destroyed. I would assume that a President Biden would likely have all of these people in his administration or as trusted advisers.

I KNOW that Bernie et al have claimed the Green New Deal is taking a stronger position, but to some degree, it just sets tougher goals. However, as far back as 2004, people like Kerry have pointed out that once the market sees that there is a coherent world wide effort moving to eliminate carbon, it will encourage funding of research for improving technology or creating new technologies. With any Democrat, the federal government will be used to work against climate change - starting with turning back to all the Obama executive orders.

Another difference with a Democratic President is that they would put things to help in the budget that Trump would not. I listened to a Yale conference that was online where Secretary Moniz spoke of pure research that he led Obama administration to fund were defunded by Trump - and they were too iffy for any public company to prudently fund. An advantage the new President would have is that, thinks to people like AOC, Greta, as well as people like Kerry, Gore and even Bloomberg, there is far more energy behind fighting climate change. Both Kerry and Gore have noted with frustration for decades that we do not have a national grid. Funding that as an infrastructure project could be a big part of transitioning to zero fossil fuel for generating electricity. Add to that infrastructure for electric vehicles. Here ideas that these establishment people have long spelled out a need for may gain traction because of the energy of the progressives and activists. We NEED the Senate, House and Presidency to get any of these - because even a Majority Leader McConnell could be a .road block

[uponit7771]

219. Sanders doesn't get to define what "progressive" means, that's the silver lining