Because Trump is so dangerous & insane shouldn't we be voting exclusively on who has the best shot

[Quixote1818]

at him this round? Even if that means rejecting someone you really love for someone who may suck but at least will be sane? We are talking about the Supreme Court, all kinds of corruption that is just going to get worse and worse. All I can say is that I will be thinking long and hard when I get into that booth and be voting exclusively on who I think has the best shot at Trump. I do want to see the debates with Bloomberg in them. That is going to tell me a lot.

I am not saying who has the best shot yet. I have heard good arguments both ways. My body aches worrying about us making the right decision and this post is only to get us to think about deciding ONLY on statistically who you think has the best chance to beat Trump.

When you have a potential Hitler in place, shouldn't we all become experts only on statistic chances rather than perfect policy?

Yes, my handle is Quixote but Sancho was a bit sharper than me. I love tilting at Windmills but not this election.

Yes this is a push poll.

7 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Absolutely
	7 (100%)
	No, it's worth rolling the dice on leaving in a potential Hitler for 4 more years
	0 (0%)
	Different take. Explain below.
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[abqtommy]

1. The fact that I can't trust the polls blows this whole thing up. I'll just have to follow my own

intuition. I did good in 2016 voting for Hillary...

[ecstatic]

2. Absolutely. I shudder to think of what

will happen if the courts and rule of law are basically disintegrated and we're at the mercy of ignorant white nationalists.

[CentralMass]

3. Realizing that polls are only so predictive and real world results

are required how would you weights the current candudates chances of winning the nomination based on their past campaigns ?

[PatrickforO]

4. Well...your premise is good, but there's no telling who has the

proverbial 'best shot.'

That is anybody's guess. I, for instance, genuinely believe that Bernie could have beaten Trump soundly in 2016. Some on here share this view. Many don't, and that is only my opinion. And we will never, ever know, will we? We cannot go back in time and re-run that election with Bernie as our nominee.

Do polls matter? Not really. We won't have any idea who our nominee will end up being until probably after Super Tuesday, regardless of what any polls now are suggesting. They just don't mean that much at this point.

So who has this 'best shot' in 2020?

Biden? I do not believe he can beat Trump, but again many on here will disagree with me. That is only my opinion.

Bernie? Probably not - to paraphrase one of my favorite musicians, "The time of his time has come and gone. I fear he's been waiting too long."

Warren? I really like Elizabeth a lot. A lot. Could she win? Maybe but it is increasingly doubtful she'll get the chance.

Buttigieg? He might be able to pull it off, for sure. Every time we've run a young person who has a strong message we've won. So Pete is a strong maybe, again in my opinion.

Klobuchar? I think she would have a very, very real shot of winning, and winning big. Not sure she'll make it through the primaries but in terms of electability over the piece of orange excrement, she'd win hands down. Again my opinion. I think she's the strongest in terms of electability.

Bloomberg? Well, you all know how I feel about the concept of us needing to be rescued from a billionaire gone bad by a good billionaire. God, I hate that whole notion. But Bloomberg could pull it off too. He certainly has more money than Trump, and doesn't need a big super pac bankroll - he is already running ads in 27 states. If someone can pull off buying the Democratic nomination and the presidency, Bloomberg is the one. And........as much as I hate to admit it, he probably wouldn't suck as president.

So there you have it - the opinion of PatrickforO in realpolitik and real time! For what it is worth, which is no more, nor less than anyone else's on here. Take us all with a big grain of salt.

[Quixote1818]

5. Of course, I have no problem with what you wrote.

This election is giving me ulcers! I just want us to get it right this time who ever we chose.

[uponit7771]

14. This is false, their have been a myriad of polls in every which way that says Biden has best shot

[2naSalit]

6. Two things...

We shouldn't make the mistake of choosing a charismatic somebody who doesn't have a big picture idea for getting beyond the trainwreck. And we need to back whomever is the best choice when the nomination is made.

We just need to trust ourselves on this because there's so much misinformation, including polls, that we need to hold our card close but keep our eyes wide open for the truth.

My preferences are quickly being carved away so I don't know how much my vote will matter in the end. I will still vote. What I don't like is the way everybody is so sure before more than two very white states have voted. I'll probably know by the time March fourth is here.

[CentralMass]

7. Two of the candidate have run in the past. Joe Biden has run 3 times and Bernie once.

Bernie got around 13.5 million votes and over 1800 delegates in what many believe was a biased contest. Currently he is by most metrics leading the race and is leading in the polls by double digits.

Joe Biden ran in 1984 and recieved 1 delegate. He ran again in 1988 and got 2 delegates . He ran in 2008 and received 0 delegates. Currently he is in 5th place with declining poll numbers.

[denem]

15. Candidates who have run in the past don't win general elections.

The last Democratic President who ran more than once was James Buchanan.

Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Gore, HRC, all struck out.

Bernie and Biden should have stayed out, rather than recreate the same poisonous divisions as 2016.

[h2ebits]

8. ???

I refuse the idea that the correct idea is to vote for the person who we think will beat Trump--it is a false premise for the primary. This is just another way to try to rope people into the false center. Another propaganda tool attempting to "help" people with a truly important decision--who they genuinely think will do the best job as the next President of the United States.

As I read comments on DU, I just shake my head. The Democratic Party honchos decided for all of us that Joe Biden was the man but he is polling poorly at this point. The Democratic Party decided to back John Hickenlooper for the Senate to replace Cory Gardner here in Colorado. (I think both of these men need to remove themselves from politics. Hickenlooper should consider registering as a Republican.) We cannot allow the Democratic Party to make our choices for us--we need to be telling THEM what we want and we do it by voting in the primary.

These are times of great anxiety. We need to focus, breathe slowly in and out to calm ourselves, and analyze each candidate using our standards to determine who would best serve our interests--all of our interests. We have a number of excellent candidates to choose from, which I find quite wonderful--it can also be stress inducing.

We EACH need to choose the person that we feel will best uphold our values and move our country forward. This is the PRIMARY and it is what we are supposed to be doing. Whoever gets the most votes will be the person who runs against Trump. Regardless of who becomes our frontrunner; THAT is when we need to support the person and fight for them.

[Squinch]

11. If you think this isn't about who can beat trump, you just aren't paying attention.

[Turin_C3PO]

18. The problem is

not everyone agrees on who can beat Trump. I think it’s Biden but you probably think it’s Bloomberg, who I view as not doing well in the GE. All we have are our opinions here.

[Squinch]

19. No question, but the poster was saying they "refused to believe" this was about beating trump.

It is about NOTHING else.

[Turin_C3PO]

20. True.

We have to get him out of office and undo everything he’s fucked up before we can get to our progressive goals.

[Squinch]

21. Ironically, my opinion is that we need that billionaire to

win and to bring in a lot of Congressional races, so we can overturn Citizens United, so we won't need the billionaire any more.



What a world.

[duforsure]

9. In the primaries

Many believe their candidate has the best shot and represents them best, but after the Democrats have a candidate everyone needs to vote for them over trump, period. No excuses to not vote to keep us a Democracy, and to have a rule of law not dictated by criminal trump. We also need to have an affordable health care plan, which trump and the GOP don't , Democrats want to increase Social Security to people and protect its future while trump and the GOP have cut Social Security , Medicare , and Medicaid and currently trying to cut them more now.

[jmg257]

10. Analytics - hey it works in football! (Sometimes). Nt

[pansypoo53219]

12. from what i have observed over the years. you gotta go for the IT factor. bill clinton had it, obama

reagan-barf, and then there are the bad candidates. the plodders. bernie has vim + vigor, unlike fat donnie. joe is 'safe'. the WEdia gave gW wdiot 'it'. the MEdia does hate bernie, but people like him.

[Orangepeel]

13. People don't agree on who has the best shot

[Baclava]

16. National polls dont mean much, we dont have a national election, we have 50 state elections!

Opinion polls are snapshots in time that change with a passing breeze, u cant trust them

[Laelth]

17. Sure, but we disagree about whom we think has the best shot.

My preferred candidate is intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, married, faithful, a veteran, a Midwesterner, inspiring, energetic, optimistic, and young. The past 60 years of history have shown us that Democrats win when we nominate someone who is young, energetic, and optimistic (JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama).

I think Pete Buttigieg is the unity candidate that we need. As an added bonus, he speaks Spanish.

See what I mean?

-Laelth

[thesquanderer]

22. I think that one should choose your favorite from among those who polls show...

...as very likely to beat Trump. If by the time my state's primary comes around, three candidates are polling as beating Trump outside the margin of error in the important swing states, I will vote for my favorite out of those three. I'm not going to vote for someone I think would not be as good just because he polls fractionally higher among multiple candidates with strong results. Though if someone is WAY ahead in this metric, it could sway me.