Washington Post: Bernie Sanders ‘has not ruled out another run’ for president if Biden doesn’t in 2024

[Tomohawk]

That option of yours isn't bared out by anything. The people had two chances to select Bernie as the Democratic Party's leader, and both times decisively voted against that.

Again, maybe that's true, but if it is those leaders hold the same option as the voters of the Democratic Primary.

Click to shrink...

What do you mean? polling showed Sanders policies being overwhelmingly popular but Biden being more electable, I don't think this is controversial.

No! Because that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works!

For starters, y'all can get 2024 out of your minds. That ain't on the table, and shame on Bernie for even fanning the flames.

But, at the end of the day, this is so much bigger than 2024 OR Bernie. This is about nurturing a young slate of progressive candidates to work for the party in the future...not have it be gifted to them; not taking it over out of "revengence."

It's just so clear that so many of y'all aren't looking at the grassroots. At local races. At ground-up progressives who didn't make a name off the Bernie mediasphere. Because those Progressives were here, are here, and will continue to be here. BERNIE SANDERS DID NOT BIRTH PROGRESSIVE IDEAS.

But what too many of y'all want is another kinging.

You want another chosen one.

You want another loud white man who'll "challenge the status quo" and give y'all an easy target to hate.

Y'all aren't looking for fresh progressives making a name for THEMSELVES by doing the work.

Click to shrink...

This is on point. I think it's a problem with Dem voters in general which is why state houses got obliterated after 2008 and so much prospective Dem leaders got chewed up and spit out by the party brass.

 

[Afrikan]

What do you mean? polling showed Sanders policies being overwhelmingly popular but Biden being more electable, I don't think this is controversial.

Click to shrink...

Pushed by the "allys" at MSNBC...and other mainstream media.

 

[Deleted member 43]

What do you mean? polling showed Sanders policies being overwhelmingly popular but Biden being more electable, I don't think this is controversial.

Click to shrink...

People don't elect policies, they elect people. It's perfectly possible to be more aligned with one person's policies, but believe someone else would be a better President.

Two times now, the people of the Democratic Party have picked someone else to be the leader of the party and their candidate for President. Bernie lost because fewer people wanted him to have the job. Twice.

Pushed by the "allys" at MSNBC...and other mainstream media.

Click to shrink...

I mean, he was less electable…he lost the election. Again, twice.

 

[danm999]

do card check and be legends.

edit: but seriously this need to come back, that used to be a mainstream democratic promise and they just kinda forgot about it, it wasn't in the pro union bill that didn't pass iirc.
it makes it easier to form a union and harder to do union busting. just do it.

Click to shrink...

I think card check was one of Obama 08 promises that just got completely memory-holed.

Not like closing Gitmo or the public option, where you could say he tried and failed because of Congress or the Courts or whatever.

More like the Abortion Guarantee Legislation, just never even discussed again after the election.

 

[Thisisme]

He gets less done than Biden did because moderate Senators have an excuse to push for less spending in the recovery bill, because it's socialist Bernie's bill, not good ole Joe's, and the withdrawl from Afghanistan is even more unpopular because it's the left winger who honeymooned in the USSR who turned his back on the troops by making them surrender, etc.

Ironically, because the recovery bill is smaller, there's probably less inflation and more unemployment, and Bernie's approval is likely the same or even lower than Biden, plus there are current Biden officials who can't get confirmed in a Bernie Admin because they're left-wingers being nominated by the Vermont socialist.

Yes, I know the pushback is Bernie would go to West Virginia and convince all those West Virginians to tell Manchin to vote for bill x, but that's now how politics works out of the movies. It's ironic so many left-wingers dislike Aaron Sorkin, because they both have this weird view of the world that some great speeches can reverse years of education polarization and stop people from listening to the right-wing media ecosystem they're ensconced in.

I would've happily voted for Bernie, but this view that he would've somehow managed to get more done than Biden or any other Democrat w/ the same Congress is a fallacy, unless you're using the even worse idea that Bernie would magically win a bigger election victory than Biden.

Click to shrink...

No, the pushback would be that Bernie would sit in the executive branch of government and tell the legislative branch (and even the judicial branch) that I'm not enacting any part of your legislation (military budgets, etc.) until you make some concessions. I think people are underestimating what controlling 1/3 of the government means. Look at what Mitch McConnell has done with the senate majority for reference.

 

[Chikor]

I think card check was one of Obama 08 promises that just got completely memory-holed.

Not like closing Gitmo or the public option, where you could say he tried and failed because of Congress or the Courts or whatever.

More like the Abortion Guarantee Legislation, just never even discussed again after the election.

Click to shrink...

I am really disappointed that he didn't close Gitmo, but there was a pretty serious bipartisan opposition for that. If he wasn't sabotaged on that by his own party I believe he would have got it done.

On card check I honestly have no idea what even happened. I mean I can guess in broad terms, there was much more money lobbying against it and for it, and in the US that shit talks, but I don't remember much public debate on that.

 

[Deleted member 43]

No, the pushback would be that Bernie would sit in the executive branch of government and tell the legislative branch (and even the judicial branch) that I'm not enacting any part of your legislation (military budgets, etc.) until you make some concessions. I think people are underestimating what controlling 1/3 of the government means. Look at what Mitch McConnell has done with the senate majority for reference.

Click to shrink...

That's not really a power the President has in most areas.

 

[Royalan]

No, the pushback would be that Bernie would sit in the executive branch of government and tell the legislative branch (and even the judicial branch) that I'm not enacting any part of your legislation (military budgets, etc.) until you make some concessions. I think people are underestimating what controlling 1/3 of the government means. Look at what Mitch McConnell has done with the senate majority for reference.

Click to shrink...

Bernie hasn't even been able to make his Senate chairship mean worth a damn.

Seriously. It flabbergasts me that so many of y'all love Game of Thrones but cannot realize that Bernie is Ned Stark.

 

[Afrikan]

People don't elect policies, they elect people. It's perfectly possible to be more aligned with one person's policies, but believe someone else would be a better President.

Two times now, the people of the Democratic Party have picked someone else to be the leader of the party and their candidate for President. Bernie lost because fewer people wanted him to have the job. Twice.


I mean, he was less electable…he lost the election.

Click to shrink...

Explain that Matt. What is a "better President"?

He lost to Biden in the primaries.... doesn't mean he would have lost to that Donald Trump at the Presidential election.

It was all scare tactics... like some try to do over here. It worked so good for yall.

 

[Thisisme]

That's not really a power the President has in most areas.

Click to shrink...

Bernie hasn't even been able to make his Senate chairship mean worth a damn.

Seriously. It flabbergasts me that so many of y'all live Game of Thrones but cannot realize that Bernie is Ned Stark.

Click to shrink...

Did you just not witness the Trump presidency? And what he was able to do just by holding the executive branch?

 

[Royalan]

Did you just not witness the Trump presidency? And what he was able to do just by holding the executive branch?

Click to shrink...

Ummm... Do you mean what he wasn't able to do because his presidency was a shit show from start to finish?

The only thing Trump was successful at was defunding shit and making the US look stupid.

Trump had very few legislative victories.

 

[Tomohawk]

People don't elect policies, they elect people. It's perfectly possible to be more aligned with one person's policies, but believe someone else would be a better President.

Two times now, the people of the Democratic Party have picked someone else to be the leader of the party and their candidate for President. Bernie lost because fewer people wanted him to have the job. Twice.


I mean, he was less electable…he lost the election. Again, twice.

Click to shrink...

I would say it's safe to say in 2016 more folks thought Clinton would be a better president than Bernie. However in 2020 it's a different story. All Dems cared about was getting rid of Trump, do you disagree with that? If not how can you confidentially say people thought Biden would be a better president when every single talking head rehashed the same can they beat Trump debate for rimary candidates.

 

[Deleted member 11252]

Trump's only real legislative victory was the tax cuts - very few of his major policy proposals (repealing and replacing ACA, building a wall, etc.) actually came to fruition.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Explain that Matt. What is a "better President"?

He lost to Biden in the primaries.... doesn't mean he would have lost to that Donald Trump at the Presidential election.

It was all scare tactics... like some try to do over here. It worked so good for yall.

Click to shrink...

Someone who will better lead the nation. What that means will very for each person you ask.

And I worked in politics, I'm not scared or confused by what they say on MSNBC. I have serious doubt Bernie would have ever won the Presidency. But it doesn't matter, because the people of the Democratic Party didn't want him to represent them.

Did you just not witness the Trump presidency? And what he was able to do just by holding the executive branch?

Click to shrink...

Trump's presidency was incredibly ineffectual in most regards.

 

[jph139]

No! Because that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works!

For starters, y'all can get 2024 out of your minds. That ain't on the table, and shame on Bernie for even fanning the flames.

But, at the end of the day, this is so much bigger than 2024 OR Bernie. This is about nurturing a young slate of progressive candidates to work for the party in the future...not have it be gifted to them; not taking it over out of "revengence."

It's just so clear that so many of y'all aren't looking at the grassroots. At local races. At ground-up progressives who didn't make a name off the Bernie mediasphere. Because those Progressives were here, are here, and will continue to be here. BERNIE SANDERS DID NOT BIRTH PROGRESSIVE IDEAS.

But what too many of y'all want is another kinging.

You want another chosen one.

You want another loud white man who'll "challenge the status quo" and give y'all an easy target to hate.

Y'all aren't looking for fresh progressives making a name for THEMSELVES by doing the work.

Click to shrink...

I mean, can you blame people for not being forward-thinking when the predominant rhetoric is Republicans can and will backslide America into permanent fascism within the next few election cycles? That's a "build your house from brick" solution to a "my house is on fire" problem - good advice, but it's not super valuable at the moment.

I agree that people should be focusing on their local elections, but that's because I'm not sure Democrats are in a position to actually do anything on nationally for the next decade. At least. Your best bet is to be in a state that can shore up its defenses and weather the storm as the right starts stripping away people's rights on a federal level.

 

[Deleted member 43]

I would say it's safe to say in 2016 more folks thought Clinton would be a better president than Bernie. However in 2020 it's a different story. All Dems cared about was getting rid of Trump, do you disagree with that? If not how can you confidentially say people thought Biden would be a better president when every single talking head rehashed the same can they beat Trump debate for rimary candidates.

Click to shrink...

Because he won the primary.

And the ability to be elected President is a pretty important part to being President.

 

[Tomohawk]

Bernie hasn't even been able to make his Senate chairship mean worth a damn.

Seriously. It flabbergasts me that so many of y'all love Game of Thrones but cannot realize that Bernie is Ned Stark.

Click to shrink...

So you admit the system was rigged against Bernie just like Ned!

Because he won the primary.

And the ability to be elected President is a pretty important part to being President.

Click to shrink...

Well I would distinguish between campaigning and governing, I think both Bernie and Biden are good campaigners, maybe Biden had a easier field but i don't care. That's reality. The discussion is about governance and I don't think that was on the forefront of people's minds during the primary.

 

[Thisisme]

Ummm... Do you mean what he wasn't able to do because his presidency was a shit show from start to finish?

The only thing Trump was successful at was defunding shit and making the US look stupid.

Trump had very few legislative victories.

Click to shrink...

You really think Trump didn't accomplish anything? Between lowering the corporate tax rate so that some corporations effectively pay nothing (or even get refunds)? Not to mention, 3 supreme court appointments. Why the hell then are all republican politicians trying to be the next Trump to win the RNC nomination?

Edit: BTW, I am not advocating that Bernie should run. Only that people are underestimating the executive branch and what it can do.

 

[Bengraven]

American democrats really don't have anyone that's exciting and progressive, has potential for winning, and under the age of 70?

 

[Royalan]

You really think Trump didn't accomplish anything? Between lowering the corporate tax rate so that some corporations effectively pay nothing (or even get refunds)? Not to mention, 3 supreme court appointments. Why the hell then are all republican politicians trying to be the next Trump and win the RNC nomination?

Click to shrink...

Actually read my posts and come at me correct like everyone else has, thank you.

 

[Deleted member 43]

You really think Trump didn't accomplish anything? Between lowering the corporate tax rate so that some corporations effectively pay nothing (or even get refunds)? Not to mention, 3 supreme court appointments. Why the hell then are all republican politicians trying to be the next Trump and win the RNC nomination?

Click to shrink...

What are you even arguing? You just said basically the one major price of legislation Trump was able to pass (because it was filibuster proof), and court appointments, which are important but Biden has done even more than Trump.

Other than the two examples you used, Trump was very ineffectual. But that's ok for Republicans, they they believe in weakening government, not using it to help people.

 

[Lothars]

Explain that Matt. What is a "better President"?

He lost to Biden in the primaries.... doesn't mean he would have lost to that Donald Trump at the Presidential election.

It was all scare tactics... like some try to do over here. It worked so good for yall.

Click to shrink...

Bernie will never be president because he's a terrible candiate that can't win a primary and certainly wouldn't have beat trump. He has good policies but there's a reason why he can't win and it's because he's a bad pick.

 

[OtterX]

No! Because that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works!

For starters, y'all can get 2024 out of your minds. That ain't on the table, and shame on Bernie for even fanning the flames.

But, at the end of the day, this is so much bigger than 2024 OR Bernie. This is about nurturing a young slate of progressive candidates to work for the party in the future...not have it be gifted to them; not taking it over out of "revengence."

It's just so clear that so many of y'all aren't looking at the grassroots. At local races. At ground-up progressives who didn't make a name off the Bernie mediasphere. Because those Progressives were here, are here, and will continue to be here. BERNIE SANDERS DID NOT BIRTH PROGRESSIVE IDEAS.

But what too many of y'all want is another kinging.

You want another chosen one.

You want another loud white man who'll "challenge the status quo" and give y'all an easy target to hate.

Y'all aren't looking for fresh progressives making a name for THEMSELVES by doing the work.

Click to shrink...

Grassroots is such a cop out. What's been stopping "grassroots" progressives from rising up for the past 20-30 years? I'm under no illusion it's easy and I'm not looking for some chosen one. I'm ready to vote for anyone that is a strong progressive. There are no progressives ready because the party isn't interested in nurturing such views or strongly arguing for them in a concerted way.

I'm simply pointing out that the are no young democratic leaders currently ready to receive the torch from anyone. And, yes, that is the fault of current democratic leaders and overarching strategy for the past 25-30 years to appeal primarily to white suburban soccer moms. The democratic party has shown it does not want a strong progressive wing of the party and won't give them much help. They're scared of being called "socialists", even though conservatives are going to call them that regardless, and anoint the so called most electable.

I'm less than hopeful some plucky progressive state senators are going to magically "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" as a conservative might say, and rise up in this party as it stands.

And, yes, it is a crisis because conservatives do have a few ready right now and elections aren't going to wait.

 

[Thisisme]

What are you even arguing? You just said basically the one major price of legislation Trump was able to pass (because it was filibuster proof), and court appointments, which are important but Biden has done even more than Trump.

Other than the two examples you used, Trump was very ineffectual.

Click to shrink...

Biden hasn't done more than Trump. He has passed little lasting legislation. Furthermore, he has 1 Supreme Court appointment to Trump's 3. And that supercedes any appellate and district court appointments.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Biden hasn't done more than Trump. He has passed little lasting legislation. Furthermore, he has 1 Supreme Court appointment to Trump's 3. And that supercedes any appellate and district court appointments.

Click to shrink...

We'll the SC appointments require people to, you know, leave the court or die.

It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're arguing for at this point. You started this by saying Bernie would basically magically be able to get stuff done, then when called out on that you made up the idea that Trump was able to do it, and now you are switching to talking about Biden.

 

[Thisisme]

We'll the SC appointments require people to, you know, leave the court or die.

It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're arguing for at this point. You started this by saying Bernie would basically magically be able to get stuff done, then when called out on that you made up the idea that Trump was able to do it, and now you are switching to talking about Biden.

Click to shrink...

I'm arguing for an executive that actually uses the full authority of his branch. Who will not rubber stamp military budgets unless he gets something in return.

 

[Royalan]

Grassroots is such a cop out. What's been stopping "grassroots" progressives from rising up for the past 20-30 years? I'm under no illusion it's easy and I'm not looking for some chosen one. I'm ready to vote for anyone that is a strong progressive. There are no progressives ready because the party isn't interested in nurturing such views or strongly arguing for them in a concerted way.

Click to shrink...

Nothing! You're telling on yourself.

Progressives have and will continue to be elected to office! That you don't know about them unless they come up through the Berniesphere says more about you.

Shout out to my good sis Lauren Underwood. Black nurse turned Illinois rep who has carved her OWN path and defined her OWN progressive ideals.

 

[Deleted member 43]

I'm arguing for an executive that actually uses the full authority of his branch. Who will not rubber stamp military budgets unless he gets something in return.

Click to shrink...

If he doesn't rubber stamp the military budget, it will get passed over his veto. So…what next?

 

[Tomohawk]

Honestly a Bernie presidency wouldn't have been that different from a Biden presidency with some trade offs and a lot more messy. Cannabis reform and Student loan forgiveness might happen but we'd probably lose other bills. But unlike the libs of era who don't like dem infighting I love it, Manchin and Sinema aren't the only bad Dems and current leadership are obsessed with the negative peace where bad actors in safe seats aren't excised because often times they themselves are the bad actors.

 

[grand]

Bernie: "if Biden dies before 2024, I'll jump in"

 

[Thisisme]

If he doesn't river stamo the military budget, it will get passed over his veto. So…what next?

Click to shrink...

How does Congress Override a Presidential Veto? (with pictures)

Congress can override a Presidential veto if a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress vote to approve the bill. The veto...

www.unitedstatesnow.org

 

[Deleted member 43]

How does Congress Override a Presidential Veto? (with pictures)

Congress can override a Presidential veto if a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress vote to approve the bill. The veto...

www.unitedstatesnow.org

Click to shrink...

…what? I know how a veto works, and how Congress can override it. That's what will happen if Bernie vetoed the military spending bill.

 

[Tomohawk]

Nothing! You're telling on yourself.

Progressives have and will continue to be elected to office! That you don't know about them unless they come up through the Berniesphere says more about you.

Shout out to my good sis Lauren Underwood. Black nurse turned Illinois rep who has carved her OWN path and defined her OWN progressive ideals.

Click to shrink...

I think Sanders has done more for uplifting young progressives in the dem party than Biden and other prominent Dems, which is a low bar sure. I understand your frustration with progressivism seeming to begin and end with Sanders for some folks, but Im curious if you think the Democratic party would be better or worse off with Sanders having more influence over it.

 

[lenovox1]

I think Sanders has done more for uplifting young progressives in the dem party than Biden and other prominent Dems, which is a low bar sure. I understand your frustration with progressivism seeming to begin and end with Sanders for some folks, but Im curious if you think the Democratic party would be better or worse off with Sanders having more influence over it.

Click to shrink...

For someone that isn't a Democrat, Sanders has and has had a lot of influence.

I don't think his picks haven't been publically popular.

How does Congress Override a Presidential Veto? (with pictures)

Congress can override a Presidential veto if a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress vote to approve the bill. The veto...

www.unitedstatesnow.org

Click to shrink...

One thing Congress will do is pass a military budget. And it would be a very bipartisan measure.

Democrats are not Republicans. There are not over a third of them that would stand with Sanders on something like that "just 'cause."

 

[Thisisme]

…what? I know how a veto works, and how Congress can override it. That's what will happen if Bernie vetoed the military spending bill.

Click to shrink...

Is the composition of both houses of Congress currently 2 parts republican to 1 part Democrat? To override a veto?

 

[Trigonometrize]

The time was 2016 and it didn't happen. I'm sorry.

 

[Tigress]

aim that message at the democrats, not at me

Click to shrink...

No, you deserve that message too. You decided doing nothing and allowing the fascists to win was better than allowing a meh candidate to win.

Yep, sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure the republicans think your actions are great. I certainly hope republicans would do the same and stay home too. Losing a vote for the side you don't want is just as good as getting a vote for the side you do (or at least the side that hasn't gone ti complete evil). In fact republicans are actively trying to make sure people who will not vote for them cannot vote. Congratulations on being willing to do that without them even trying.

You know I didn't want biden. He was one of my last choices. I still voted for him cause that was my option and it was the better option over trump. Just because they are not what you want does not mean they are just as bad as the other option.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Is the composition of both houses of Congress currently 2 parts republican to 1 part Democrat? To override a veto?

Click to shrink...

Why do you think Democrats wouldn't vote to override a veto that they don't agree with, think is bad politically, and would hurt the armed forces?

 

[Deleted member 11252]

Is the composition of both houses of Congress currently 2 parts republican to 1 part Democrat? To override a veto?

Click to shrink...

Democrats would not vote in lockstep to uphold a military budget veto.

 

[Royalan]

I think Sanders has done more for uplifting young progressives in the dem party than Biden and other prominent Dems, which is a low bar sure. I understand your frustration with progressivism seeming to begin and end with Sanders for some folks, but Im curious if you think the Democratic party would be better or worse off with Sanders having more influence over it.

Click to shrink...

Sanders has had a lot of influence over the younger/progressive wing of the party. I'm a hater and I'll admit that much.

My point is that Bernie himself has not done the work to create a pipeline for his would-be successor.

 

[Afrikan]

Bernie will never be president because he's a terrible candiate that can't win a primary and certainly wouldn't have beat trump. He has good policies but there's a reason why he can't win and it's because he's a bad pick.

Click to shrink...

No, it has more to do with the voters....but that's another discussion.

"Terrible candidate" who would have won the Democratic Primary if influential groups (like Comcast/MSNBC) didn't push Biden to run out of the blue in this last election.

"JOE KNOWS US....AND....WE....KNOW....JOE!!!!!" lol... fucking joke.

 

[Thisisme]

One thing Congress will do is pass a military budget. And it would be a very bipartisan measure.

Democrats are not Republicans. There are not over a third of them that would stand with Sanders on something like that "just 'cause."

Click to shrink...

You understand that takes 66 senators, meaning that, with the current makeup of the senate, 16 senators would have to oppose the president of thier party?

 

[Tomohawk]

For someone that isn't a Democrat, Sanders has and has had a lot of influence.

I don't think his picks haven't been publically popular.



One thing Congress will do is pass a military budget. And it would be a very bipartisan measure.

Democrats are not Republicans. There are not over a third of them that would stand with Sanders on something like that "just 'cause."

Click to shrink...

I would be curious to see his record vs 'establishment' picks that were not incumbents. Its an uphill battle for progressives so I think folks focus on losses too much. Not that losses are always bad if your building a movement in the area. Something I think party does poorly like in Kentucky where no dem was going to win the last Senate race so atleast invest in somebody who would build organizing infrastructure for future state level campaigns like Booker.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Democrats would not vote in lockstep to uphold a military budget veto.

Click to shrink...

You'd need 1/3 of the House or Senate Democrat's to override that veto.

Depending on the exact stats you look at, the 16th most conservative Democrat is Catherine Cortez Mastro, Senator for the swing state of Nevada, Jack Reed a former possible SecDef nominee, or Patrick Leahy, the most establishment liberal Senator there still is. All of those people and everybody to their right would happily override a non-sensical veto of the defense budget that would happen because Bernie didn't get what he wanted.

The good news, as seen by his actions, especially since Trump became POTUS, is that Bernie is a much better politician than many of his supporters and would never do anything that politically disastrous.

 

[Deleted member 43]

No, it has more to do with the voters....but that's another discussion.

"Terrible candidate" who would have won the Democratic Primary if influential groups (like Comcast/MSNBC) didn't push Biden to run out of the blue in this last election.

"JOE KNOWS US....AND....WE....KNOW....JOE!!!!!" lol... fucking joke.

Click to shrink...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

"He would have won if someone more people wanted for the job didn't run" can be said about every loser from every election.

 

[Deleted member 11252]

You'd need 1/3 of the House or Senate Democrat's to override that veto.

Depending on the exact stats you look at, the 16th most conservative Democrat is Catherine Cortez Mastro, Senator for the swing state of Nevada, Jack Reed a former possible SecDef nominee, or Patrick Leahy, the most establishment liberal Senator there still is. All of those people and everybody to their right would happily override a non-sensical veto of the defense budget that would happen because Bernie didn't get what he wanted.

The good news, as seen by his actions, especially since Trump became POTUS, is that Bernie is a much better politician than many of his supporters and would never do anything that politically disastrous.

Click to shrink...

Yes, say what you will about his age, but Sanders has been in the Senate far too long to try something that foolish.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Something I think party does poorly like in Kentucky where no dem was going to win the last Senate race so atleast invest in somebody who would build organizing infrastructure for future state level campaigns like Booker.

Click to shrink...

I mean, you could give Charles Booker a billion dollars and two decades to organize, and he'd still lose by 20 points to a random CEO because there are not enough people in Kentucky who are even close to what Charles Booker believes. Just like if you gave some Republican conservative 20 yeara and a billion dollars and they'd still lose by 15 in a Califronia Senate race. Non-voters nationally are basically 50/50, and that likely means they're strongly Republican in a state like Kentucky. Now, if Booker wants to run for a future urban seat, I'm all for that.

 

[Afrikan]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

"He would have won if someone more people wanted for the job didn't run" can be said about every loser from every election.

Click to shrink...

Jesus Matt.

Bernie vs the rest of those candidates (not including Biden) would have won that Democratic Primary.

Does that make him a "Terrible" candidate? That was my point.

I can still trust my gut feeling because I don't bullshit myself or try to bullshit others.

 

[Tomohawk]

Sanders has had a lot of influence over the younger/progressive wing of the party. I'm a hater and I'll admit that much.

My point is that Bernie himself has not done the work to create a pipeline for his would-be successor.

Click to shrink...

Agreed, I'm curious as to the reason why. I feel hes more pragmatic than his reputation let's on, but maybe it's the smaller pool or narcissism or something else, hard to say.

I mean, you could give Charles Booker a billion dollars and two decades to organize, and he'd still lose by 20 points to a random CEO because there are not enough people in Kentucky who are even close to what Charles Booker believes. Just like if you gave some Republican conservative 20 yeara and a billion dollars and they'd still lose by 15 in a Califronia Senate race. Non-voters nationally are basically 50/50, and that likely means they're strongly Republican in a state like Kentucky. Now, if Booker wants to run for a future urban seat, I'm all for that.

Click to shrink...

Ya that's true, my point was smaller races could be influenced even if Booker never wins. Kentucky is a stark example but in states like Maine the effect would be more pronounced.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Jesus Matt.

Bernie vs the rest of those candidates (not including Biden) would have won that Democratic Primary.

Does that make him a "Terrible" candidate? That was my point.

I can still trust my gut feeling because I don't bullshit myself or try to bullshit others.

Click to shrink...

I mean…maybe?

He couldn't beat Hillary either with all her issues. But sure, he might have won without Biden in the race.

My point was against the "influential groups pushed Biden to run" thing. Biden wanted to run, he thought he could beat Trump when others couldn't and the nation needed that. Plus, he had been trying to become President for 30 years.