Liberals/progressives have to be honest with themselves

[zipplewrath]

We are a minority in the democratic party. We don't control it and if fact we cannot win without the support of moderates/centrists/establishments. The DCCC, DSCC, and elements within the DNC will work actively to suppress our candidates and to prevent them from being elected. I'm not sure where we go from here because of course 3rd party is a non-starter. The moderates ultimately will become "Reagan democrats" or "Obama/Trump" democrats to ensure that far left/progressive candidates don't win. Until we find the candidate that has the personality/image characteristics that overcome the fears of the centrists, we won't win. The preference of democrats is to pursue liberal objectives through conservative means. And election after election that is made clear.

[LaurenOlimina]

1. Yup.

[DURHAM D]

2. Drivel

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Ridiculous nonsense - Obama/Trump Democrats

Try joining something within the Party instead of trying to vivisect it for compartmentalization

[zipplewrath]

5. They exist

And they apparently are the "swing voters" that get to decide who our candidate should be.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. That is total nonsense! There are no Obama/Trump Democrats

You need to find a better label for them so they are accurately described if you can articulate their identifying properties.

I suggest you grab a copy of "The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State" so you can see how political changes can be made within the sysem, in this case the Progressive Era of the early 1900s.

[zipplewrath]

25. Um, they do

There are people that voted for both Trump and Obama and they are registered democrats in states like Wisconsin and Michigan.

[RazBerryBeret]

35. and KY

unfortunately, that would be my relatives.

[bucolic_frolic]

42. Oh. Democrats that voted for Trump

That is different name for what you are trying to describe. They are not a Obama/Trump hybrid, they are wayward Democrats.

Nomenclature is important for understanding.

[tarheelsunc]

41. There are FAR more Democrats...

who sit out elections if our nominees are unpopular or not liked.

[zipplewrath]

45. Roughly the same problem

Different population to the same effect.

[HarlanPepper]

4. ...

[brooklynite]

6. Some cheese with your whine?

[Cha]

7. +1

[onetexan]

12. LOL

[zipplewrath]

16. It's a call for acknowledging reality

For all the claims that liberals and progressives make, they are not the majority in any sense. They continually lose when the put forward "pure" candidates. AOC and Bernie have a really poor result in endorsing candidates. As many here have pointed out that the gains made in 2018 were due mostly to flipping red states to blue, not with strong liberal candidates, but with locally popular moderate candidates.

[squirecam]

71. Ok

The gains in 2018 were moderates in moderate districts. The party is moderate.

What do you learn from it? Work with the moderates to make everyone’s lives better. Make progress even if it isn’t what you wanted. Because the alternative is Trump being re-elected.

[Squinch]

8. WTF is an "Obama/Trump democrat"???

[zipplewrath]

10. People who voted for both

People who voted for Obama and Trump. They were registered democrats in states like Wisconsin and Michigan but voted for Obama (often twice) and then for Trump.

[betsuni]

44. That was because of race.

"According to the Pew Research Center surveys from 2007, whites were just as likely to call themselves Democrats as they were to call themselves Republicans. But by 2010, whites were 12 points more likely to be Republicans than Democrats (51% versus 39%).

"These voters were 'cross-pressured' -- with their partisanship and views on racial issues increasingly in tension -- and prior scholarship has shown that these are exactly the voters that a campaign can push into the opposite party's camp. Indeed, identity-inflected issues stand out for the sheer number of white Obama voters who seemed at odds with Obama's own positions and those of the Democratic Party. ... Many observers dismissed the role of race in 2016 by arguing that Obama voters could not have had unfavorable views of racial minorities. The liberal filmmaker Michael Moore said this about voters who had supported Obama and then Trump: 'They're not racist. ... They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein.' But this is just as inaccurate as saying everyone who voted against Obama was racially prejudiced. In fact, Obama even garnered support from whites with explicitly prejudiced views. ... Many whites with less favorable views of blacks would up supporting Obama because of partisanship or some other factor. Although many of those voters then left the Democratic Party during Obama's presidency, there were still plenty of white Obama voters who could end up voting for Trump, specifically because of a campaign centered on issues like race and immigration."

From "Identity Crisis"

[BlueWI]

9. The opposite is true too - centrists need liberals to win.

Liberals vote more consistently for Democratic tickets than their moderate and conservative counterparts, election after election.

Liberal voters are also the least appreciated segment of the Democratic vote, despite the fundamental role they play in electing Democrats.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. All of the Democratic candidates are liberals.

I don't know where all this "centrist" bullshit is coming from; there isn't a single candidate who isn't a solid liberal (well, maybe not Bloomberg, at least not consistently). All of them have devoted their careers to liberal causes - women's reproductive rights, universal health care (which doesn't have to be M4A to be "universal" ), fair taxation, combatting climate change, strengthening unions and collective bargaining, racial, gender and LGBT equality, a free press, protecting voting rights, and so on. The party platform isn't centrist; it's liberal. If I hear the words "centrist" or "establishment" many more times I might puke all over my keyboard.

[zipplewrath]

21. Through conservative means

It's why Gitmo still exists, it took democratic support to prevent Obama from closing it, even though he AND McCain advocated closing it. It's why we have the bankruptcy laws we have. The "Blue Dogs" were why we didn't have a Public Option. These people are "super delegates" and influence legislation as well as the choices and actions that the DCCC and the DSCC as well as the DNC take. Don't think for a minute that these people aren't making calls to Kolbuchar and Buttiggeg campaigns to influence them, which of course is their right and to some sense their obligation as part of doing what they believe is right. But the point is that this is the majority of the party, and possibly the electorate in general and Liberals have to start to acknowledge this.

[Codeine]

14. A dynamic personality with Sanders' agenda

but lacking Sanders’ baggage and his frankly-zero political acumen could run the tables. Warren has the policy and the brains, but she lacks that spark that connects with voters.

The world gets more progressive by the day as society evolves. The Boomers are about spent, and then a shift will happen.

[zipplewrath]

17. Could be

I do wonder where things will go when boomers are no longer a dominate feature of politics. It could even influence the GOP. But basically I suspect the underlying reality will always exist. Voters will tend to want to pursue liberal goals through conservative means.

[Codeine]

19. The urge to vote safely is a strong one.

And when you’re staring down the barrel of four more years of MangoMussolini taking a leap of faith looks even less inviting.

It’s a dilemma, to be sure.

[zipplewrath]

23. I'm of the belief it's Trumps to lose

Trump will lose because of who and what Trump is. If the country wants to change they will choose the alternative. We should nominate the candidate we want to be president. My point is that liberals have to understand that the majority of both the party and the country is that they don't want a candidate that supports their approach to governing.

[Azathoth]

15. Depends on how "progressive" you want to be. Dems aren't Labour

We aren't a socialist party and never have been. We range from social democrats on the left to centrist neo-liberals on the right. Overt Marxism and socialism are not our platform.

And we also tend to be a lot more pragmatic than modern Republicans. We just watched a more liberal country than ours elect Trump 2.0 because his opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, was an unabashed socialist. So proud socialism isn't a leap of faith many of us want to take right now.

[zipplewrath]

18. Sorta my point

We all claim to want liberal goals, but when offered the chance to pursue them, we tend to lean towards those who will tend towards conservative methods to achieve them.

[dansolo]

33. That is because the path you want to take will lead to nothing

Promising the world, but not being able to deliver, is far worse than actually accomplishing smaller gains. I'm annoyed with the attitude that if something doesn't benefit everyone immeditealy, then it isn't worth doing. All that does is ensure nothing gets done.

[zipplewrath]

52. Because the majority won't support it

Which is the point

[squirecam]

72. The majority of the country would not support it.

So, knowing that, what do you do?

Make some progress. Or this.

[kwenu]

20. BS! No one is suppressing your candidates.

You just have to make your own convincing argument like everyone else.

[zipplewrath]

22. Not exactly suppressing

What I'm saying is that it is the minority position and the majority will ultimately prevent ones candidate from succeeding.

[AGeddy]

26. That's the definition of democracy. The majority prevents the minority from winning elections.

...by definiton.

[zipplewrath]

39. Exactly

I suspect if you read the original post you'll see that this exactly what I'm saying. That there is a portion of the democratic party that needs to understand that they are both a minority in the party, and the country in general and they will never be the dominate vote in the party.

[AGeddy]

24. Complaining that it is unfair that you are minority of voters is a bad look

Democracies are about forming majority coalitions. If you can't get enough people to agree with you, then you have two choices:

1. Accept it.
2. Work to change enough minds so that a MAJORITY agrees with you


America doesn't want full-on soviet-style socialism that Bernie has represented his whole life. That is a fact. It is not likely to change in your lifetime.

So you need to work within THAT framework.


Your candidates are not being "supressed". They're LOSING THE ARGUMENT with the American people.

The moderate candidates flipped 39 red seats to blue in 2018. The very liberal candidates flipped 2. That's where America is right now. You need to make better arguments to convince people. And if you can't, it means your arguments don't sell.

[zipplewrath]

28. Kinda what I'm saying

Liberals have to understand that they are a minority both within the party and in the general elections in general. And expecting to nominate liberal candidates in national/general elections isn't going to win, either within the party or probably the general election. The population in general wants to achieve liberal goals through conservative means.

[AGeddy]

32. Ok, I misread your post

I thought you were complaining that majorities win in democracies.

[evertonfc]

27. Lolololoolol

Every one of our candidates are liberal. Your idea of liberal must be making us a coastal party only.

[zipplewrath]

29. Well, the difference between Biden and Warren

It is clear that the party, and the population in general is uncomfortable with people like Warren that want to achieve liberal goals through the kinds of means that an LBJ would have advocated. They prefer more conservative means of pursuing them.

[Moderateguy]

30. Simple. Run a candidate that make sense

Bernie just has a Stump speech with no realistic way to achieve it. You don’t get to be a stubborn old goat in D.C and get things done. Even Trump is finding that out the hard way. After Nevada, Sanders could have earned a lot of goodwill by acknowledging that the Democratic Party and moderates aren’t the enemy. Instead he choose to double down on his criticism of the party to the point where some of my very liberal friends switched from him to Warren. He’s demonstrated no tact for diplomacy, coalition building, collaboration etc.- qualities a true leader needs. Instead all he looks like is the left wing version of Trump.

[zipplewrath]

36. Well, that's an opinion

And sort of my point. The majority of the party doesn't agree with liberal means to achieve liberal ends. And liberals need to start to understand and acknowledge that.

[wyldwolf]

31. Please don't equate liberals w/ progressives. The difference is getting starker by the day

Your post is a prime example of my point.

[zipplewrath]

34. Point taken

This website argues alot about labels. I understand the problem. But the underlying point remains, that candidates that have solid left leaning methods to achieve liberals goals are not favored by the party or the electorate. And those that advocate for these methods are not going to win and in fact party will coalesce to defeat them.

[wyldwolf]

38. "solid left leaning methods to achieve liberals goals" - you want special treatment?

You want to attain public office outside the norms of, well, seeking public office?

[zipplewrath]

40. No

Re-read the original post, I'm acknowledging that there is a portion of the electorate that needs to understand that they are in the minority in terms of how to achieve certain goals despite the agreement on what those goals should be.

[mcar]

37. I'm a proud liberal

Not a minority in my party, thank you.

[zipplewrath]

43. I'm happy for you

There are people to your left that aren't.

[k2qb3]

46. It's true for anyone who doesn't fit neatly into one of the major popular narratives...

Doesn't really matter what sort of change it is or which party.

That's what a lot of people mean by the establishment, shit isn't gonna change.

Maybe a generation from now, when we're on the other side of a BOE and the boomers are fading away, we'll escape from the gravitational pull of the animosities of the 1960s.

None of the change movements have been very successful. The TP/Trump thing on the right is actually the result of a complete failure of Republicans to come up with anything better after Neoconservatism became a dirty word...and that was a vacuum begging to be filled. The narratives are sticky.

The Democratic party is still fairly happy with itself, it's still Obamas party, it doesn't want a revolution, it still believes Trump is an aberration.

The fringes are never particularly persuasive either, the sense that civilization is way off track isn't enough.

Trump locked down the nomination is SC too, by about the same margins. Of course, the south voted for him in the general.

[RandySF]

47. No one is making anyone vote against your preferred candidates

[zipplewrath]

51. But they do work to ensure they fail

Which is the power of the majority.

[RandySF]

53. Yes, I'm sorry, it does require more one gets more votes than the other.

[GulfCoast66]

48. Funny, the only place in my daily life I'm told I'm not a liberal...

Is DU.

I’m not a socialist, but the Democratic Party has always rejected Socialism. I am a social democrat.

[zipplewrath]

50. you're in the majority

Which is the point.

[Celerity]

57. A social democrat is what Sanders actually is.His foolish self labeling as a democratic socialist is

utterly damaging to our Party and even to his campaign.

Even worse, he does have actual real socialists (Jacobin, the DSA for the most part, and some of them are Trotskyist communists) who simply view him as a trojan horse to get into the deep gears of power and then actually try to expropriate the means of production. It is a dangerous game of chicken and bait and switch he plays.

[GulfCoast66]

58. I respectfully disagree. The DSA platform calls for the eventual collective ownership of industry

I have never heard Bernie disavow that belief. Sure he does not expound them on the stage. But the guy is nothing if not iconoclastic. If he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, I respect him enough to believe him.

The Democratic Party has never been in favor of socialism. We are social democrats who believe in highly regulated capitalism. Like Western European nations.

Because almost no Americans are socialist.

[Celerity]

62. This reply is in my own self-defence, and deffo should not be taken as some sort of Sanders support

I live in arguably (the main ones who would argue are my fellow Nordic neighbours Denmark, Norway, and Finland) the most social democratic nation on the planet, ie. Sweden. The American political axis has been tilted so far to the right that it is extremely hard to compare the American Democratic Party to other parties in the EU. Many current Democrats would be considered average Nya Moderaterna (the New Moderates aka the old Conservative Party) MP's here, or maybe the centre right Centre Party or the centre right Liberal Party (Liberal outside the US usually means centre right). The Moderates are boilerplate centre to centre right, with a few more a bit further.

The Blue Dogs for sure would not be out of place there at all, as would the No Labels crown, and even many of the New Democrat Coalition (yes they spelt it that way), the biggest moderate group in the House by far. All of the farthest left Democratic House and Senate members, even Bernie, and AOC, would be dead in the middle of the Sveriges socialdemokratiska (the Social Democrats) here. None would be (unless they radically changed what they have said and voted and argued for) members of Vänsterpartiet (The Left Party) ie. the actual Socialists. Democrats like Henry Cuellar, Manchin, Dan Lipinski, etc etc, would be on the farther right of the centre right Moderates, or, in Cuellar and Lipinski's cases, probably not even there, as they are too anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, pro gun, pr private prison, pro-life, etc etc etc. The average Rethug would be in the Far Right racist, nationalist Sweden Democrats or maybe, maybe, the few moderate Rethugs left would be in the centre right wing Christian Democrats (a tiny Party.)

Bernie would be laughed at by most of Vänster, I know because I talked to many many at uni here over the past several years. They think he is a lukewarm S (Social Democrat Party here, what I belong to) type.

so..

let's take a look at Bernie, specifically what you said here

The DSA platform calls for the eventual collective ownership of industry

I have never heard Bernie disavow that belief. Sure he does not expound them on the stage. But the guy is nothing if not iconoclastic. If he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, I respect him enough to believe him.

As I already stated, I think he falsely self-labels (or is lying through his teeth NOW) as a Dem Soc


this is why I say this:

Socialism's end goal is state/societal control of the means of production, ofttimes via nationalisation. I can assure you that that is not the endgame in any of the social democracies on the planet.

Bernie's inane stubbornness in terms of false self-labelling (as a democratic socialist) via to his futile attempts try to change close to 200 year old, pervasive, globally accepted (at both academic levels and in everyday informal parlance) political/economic definitions is not only suicidal electorally speaking, but has the spill-over effect of doing great damage to our Democratic Party as a whole. It feeds into bullshit RW messaging that falsely smears us all as socialists and thus (in the reactionary and woefully brainwashed USA) the even more false and loaded term, 'commies.'


What socialism is — according to Bernie Sanders

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been calling himself a democratic socialist since the 1960s.
Bernie's use of the word "socialist" has attracted both love and ire from the left.
His definition of socialism is vague, but is the basis for many peoples' understanding of the concept.

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/what-is-socialism-bernie-sanders?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3

snip

Luckily for us, Senator Sanders explained his political philosophy in a speech he delivered at Georgetown University in 2015. (The entire speech can be viewed here.)

He begins by referring to the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt and pointing out the good that it did for a country in the depths of the Great Depression:

"He saw one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. And he acted. Against the ferocious opposition of the ruling class of his day, people he called economic royalists, Roosevelt implemented a series of programs that put millions of people back to work, took them out of poverty and restored their faith in government. He redefined the relationship of the federal government to the people of our country. He combated cynicism, fear and despair. He reinvigorated democracy. He transformed the country. . . . And, by the way, almost everything he proposed was called 'socialist.'"

The senator then muses on several issues facing the United States, income inequality, unemployment, high rates of childhood poverty, the high cost of medical care, and a declining faith in our political system, among others, and decides that the concentration of wealth and power is both the root cause of them and the key reason why we have failed to solve them. His solution, of course, is "socialism." It is then that he gives us his conception of what that is:

"Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy. Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt."

He goes a bit into the particulars of policy and explained that his conception of socialism would require — this is what it would look like — universal health care, total employment, free college education, more public spending, a living wage, environmental regulations, and a robust democratic culture to come into existence. He flatly denied any interest in nationalization, telling the audience:

"So the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this: I don't believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal."

The contents of this speech were very similar to other statements he has made about socialism across his entire political career. The entire speech could have been summed up neatly in a quote he gave to the Associated Press back in 1997:

"To me, socialism doesn't mean state ownership of everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living."

Wait a moment, praise for the New Deal? No interest in nationalization? That definition sounds a lot like capitalism!

You might have noticed that this program focuses on making capitalism work better and not replacing it with an entirely new system based on social ownership. This has made his definition of socialism a matter of contention.

While "socialism" is a system based around replacing private ownership of the means of production with social ownership, which generally means having the workers own and operate them instead — either through cooperatives or the state — Bernie hasn't shown much of an interest in using the government to promote this change.

Bernie's explanation of "socialism" is, in fact, closer to what political philosophers refer to as "social democracy." This is a capitalist system, since the means of production are still privately owned, where the state heavily regulates the economy and has an active welfare system in place to correct for the worst problems inherent to capitalism like inequality, cyclic instability, or the profit motive encouraging people to do things against the public interest.

snip


and here are actual socialists who most definitely do not like Bernie
The Dem Socs are very fractured


No Bernie

https://cosmonaut.blog/2019/02/20/no-bernie/

Most of the pieces encouraging a DSA endorsement of Bernie Sanders in 2020 are quick to admit that his politics are not socialist politics. We want to abolish capitalism, to do that we’ll need a revolution, and clearly Bernie doesn’t support either of those things. Many of his policy positions are far better than those which any other liberal politician has on offer, but at the root of things Bernie’s policies are about getting friendlier managers in charge of capitalism, not abolishing the system itself.

Bernie Sanders Is No Socialist

Social democracy would have been an easier label to defend – and more accurate.

https://www.theglobalist.com/bernie-sanders-socialist-politics-elections/

Is Sanders actually a social democrat?
In the European – and particularly the postwar German – political tradition I come from, there would be no question that Sanders is, in fact, a “social democrat.” That is not a radical or controversial label in the least.

These days in fact, he would qualify on many (though not all) issues as a middle-of-the-road member of Angela Merkel’s CDU, the largest party in the German government (and supposedly right-of-center).

Germany aside, most of Europe’s major center-left parties have been social democratic – not socialist, democratic or otherwise – for nearly 70 years, if not well over 100.

Social democrats believed they could use government, selected by democratic elections, to achieve social improvements via reforms of (or expansions to) government aid programs and regulation of the marketplace and big business. Democracy, properly harnessed, and not a socialist state, would fix social ills.

Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist
Scandinavia is, by one measure, a freer market than the United States.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

Sanders is not a typical socialist. Sure, he believes in a highly regulated and heavily taxed private enterprise, but he does not seem to want the state to own banks and make cars. Considering the negative connotations of “socialism” in America, it is a bit of a puzzle why Sanders insists on using that word. It would be much less contentious and more correct if he gave his worldview its proper name: not “democratic socialism,” which implies socialism brought about through a vote, but social democracy.

In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.

A Socialist Case Against Bernie 2020

A left-populist campaign inside the Democratic Party will not get us closer to socialism.

https://www.leftvoice.org/a-socialist-case-against-bernie-2020

[CentralMass]

49. Voting for a status quo candidate like Biden is just a rubber stamp vote to many of us.

[Bluepinky]

55. I feel pretty disappointed tonight, seems like a rubber stamp to me too.

I’ll vote for any Democrat who wins the primary, no question about that. But I really don’t like the way the Democrats who have dropped out are all coalescing around Biden and saying unflattering things about Bernie and his ideas. And the media is complicit in this, focusing all attention on Biden (at least on MSNBC tonight). There’s no question about which candidate they want.

I’ve often felt like an outsider on the DU site, and definitely in the minority. I’m not a “Bernie Bro”, but I support Bernie’s progressive policies. Where’s a place for people like me? When a positive comment is made about Bernie or his policies on DU, it’s almost immediately dissed by multiple posters here.

[GulfCoast66]

59. Well, there is a place for if you want there to be.

Just Realize most Democrats, as reflected at DU, are social democrats not democratic socialist.

Democrats by and large believe that capitalism is the best system but needs tight regulation. FDR was not a socialist nor is Western Europe socialist. Those are the systems we believe in. Well, at least me. I can’t speak for other DU members. I am for universal healthcare but against Medicare for all. Which I consider a very Liberal position.

But most of the attacks against Bernie is because he continually attacks the Democratic Party and is really not a Democrat. Remember, this is Democratic Underground. We are mainly Democrats. Had Bernie spent the last 30 years as a loyal, super active democrat, it would be a totally different paradigm.

I hope you don’t see this as an attack. It is not intended as one. Just as an explanation according to how I see things.

[Bluepinky]

64. Thank you. I don't see it as an attack.

I’m not a socialist, either. I wish Bernie had called himself a Democratic Progressive rather than a Democratic Socialist, as he doesn’t want to throw out the Capitalist system, he just wants to create fairness. For instance, I love that he wants to take corporate money out of politics, and I wish all Democrats would commit to this. I agree with his position on increasing taxes on capital gains and the wealthy. I agree with his positions on Wall Street reforms and cracking down on foreign tax havens. I think we need a higher federal minimum wage. I don’t think we’re ready yet for Medicare for all, but we at least need a public option. His rhetoric inspires me and gives me hope that someone out there is fighting for economic fairness; other than Elizabeth Warren, no other candidate speaks very passionately about it.

I don’t have high hopes that Joe Biden will be fighting very hard to regulate Wall Street or increase taxes on the rich.

[GulfCoast66]

65. Politics of the possible is not sexy or exciting. But we have to deal with the reality we have.

Even if we win the Senate and presidency it will be pretty much impossible to do the things you want unless we eliminate the filibuster which even McConnell has been loath to do. Because we are not going to win 60 seats.

Promising the impossible is the best way to have your base turn against you. So Joe has not done that. Bernie should know better, but wants to win on emotion.

Even if we win the presidency, the Senate and keep the house we are not going to be able to sweep through transformative legislation no matter how much I wish we could. We had 60 Senators in 2008 and barely got the ACA thru and it cost us dearly. Although it was worth it. Americans now support healthcare for all, but only in an ambiguous sense.

I know this sounds depressing, but it is the real deal. Until an overwhelming majority of Americans support an active federal government we are where we are.

At the end of the day Bernie has decided to identify as a Socialist. No getting around it. Adjective-noun. Democratic Socialist. Americans will not elect a self avowed Socialist.

And while I don't like him, I respect Bernie’s intelligence and honesty enough to believe he is what he is actually what he calls himself. Although many of his followers don’t. They continually explain he is not really what he calls himself. I don’t buy it.

[Happy Hoosier]

63. And Bernie seem like the wishful thinking choice to me...

...so here we are.

[napi21]

54. There ere a lot of Dems who stayed home in 2016, but not so much for the reason you said.

Do you remember THE ENTIRE MEDIA claimed Hillary was the winner, for MONTHS before November! A lot of Dems just said "AH, Hillary's got it in the bag. I don'pt feel like going out to vote, and they don't need my vote anyway.

I HOPE the media doesn't do that again in 2020!

[Bluepinky]

56. Yup. A small fish in a big pond.

[NCProgressive]

60. If a certain section is a small minority

wouldn't the political strategy dictate to work with the majority and effect incremental change? That has always worked before.

How can a minority section have the whole enchilada in one swoop? Wouldn't that be a totally unrealistic expectation?

[zipplewrath]

68. Not sure

I really don't think that you can claim that Bernie is a "small " minority. It appears that they are roughly a 40% minority and to some extent because people fear a second term for Trump more than electing very progressive candidate.

[NCProgressive]

69. His proven ceiling is 28%

[kurtcagle]

61. By most standards,Biden is fairly progressive.

If you look at his policies and positions without a name attached, I think you'd find that Biden is far more progressive than moderate. However he also understands that for every ardent young progressive, there are two to three moderates and perhaps even a Republican or two who are looking for someone who isn't quite so Liberal with a capital L. Biden understands that a president is the leader for everyone, a fact that has escaped Trump and his minions. I think it's a strategy that will serve him well.

[wyldwolf]

67. DLCeeeeeeeeee! DLCeeeeeeee!

[NCProgressive]

70. ...

[LexVegas]

73. ...

[Blue_true]

74. Maybe you should get behind progressives like Katie Porter or Pressley instead

of firebrands that tick off 60% of the party by calling those less liberal than they are names.