I'm glad you called out the pre-compromised position Obama often took. He should have seen them for what they were far earlier.

I suspect most Democratic voters will as well.

Which translates to approximately 35% (Bernie wing) vs 65% (the rest).

was hinted at as well with the nepotism point.

This post should be flagged. The proper answer is Biden is better equipped to deal with charges of nepotism than Sanders.

But I'll still point out that you talk about flagging other posts while you are the one trying to take advantage of rightwing ratfckery. You aren't being clever with this shit.
On the other side, it's this kind of antagonistic nonsense why the Democratic base has rejected BS.

but whatever.

Really - it is time that we evaluate Biden with our eyes open, now that the party leaders have picked him.

Or we all sheep?

Seriously offensive line of thinking there.

would probably disagree with you on that. They believe that they, the voters, picked their candidate. That is rather insulting.

WTF are you talking about? Democratic voters are picking.

the proper response is "Biden speaks more sharply and with more clarity than Sanders".

Otherwise, you aren't supporting Democrats.

Just saying.

as well as "nepotism" are veiled criticisms of Joe Biden based upon right wing smears.

Those are not the policy differences. You can highlight policy differences all you want but what you did was pick things from a right wing playbook.

has been trying to reduce Social Security for decades, that that post wouldn't be flagged and pulled down in 5 minutes?

There is nothing veiled in what I wrote. This is a great chance for us to actually compare and contrast the two candidates - strategies, policies, and personas.

Another right-wing and David Sirota smear.

It proves that Sanders' campaign has no positive attributes to tout whatsoever in order to win. Their only chance is to smear Biden with falsehoods and RW talking points.

see https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/biden-vs-sanders-on-social-security-and-medicare/ for a good start

It's one of my big concerns about Biden. I started rewatching his 2012 debate with Paul Ryan to be sure I wasn't imagining things, but so far, from what I've watched it confirms my recollection that he was sharper back then. He stumbled a little bit and he's always been gaffe-prone, but I don't remember him sounding like he couldn't remember what he was saying halfway through a sentence like he does now. Will watch the rest of the debate this weekend for more clarity.

I like Joe, and I will happily support him if he is the nominee. I may even vote for him in the primary. But I have questions about whether he is up for it mentally, and even assuming he is, will he inspire enough confidence in voters and be able to effectively challenge Trump on competence when he is bumbling and stumbling so much? I don't see how this is any less valid of an issue than Bernie not releasing his cardiologist's records.

I support Joe (not my first choice but my choice now), but I am concerned about his mental acuity and I don't think it's a right wing smear either. I think almost everyone who's watched the debates, town halls or his televised interviews is thinking the same thing: is he alright and can he make it through the debates with Bernie, then Trump? And of course, if he is elected and he's experiencing a mental decline, how will he be in two years, or four?

It is concerning and shouldn't be ignored or run away from - the stakes are too high and our choices too few.

She could have drawn such a stark competence contrast with Trump in the debates that I don't think either Bernie or Biden can to the same degree. I know that didn't work for Hillary in 2016, but it did work for Obama in 2008 during the financial crisis (although McCain was nowhere near as inept sounding as Trump), and I think it could work now with the corona virus crisis calling Trump's leadership ability into question on something that effects everyone.

for the reason you mentioned as well as I really felt that she would make the best President from all on offer.

I actually see her as a nice blending of both Bernie and Joe, progressive enough to really move the needle forward but pragmatic enough to work within the system to get it done: and tough as nails.

I would have been SO proud to pull the lever for her in November, now I'll just be pulling the lever marked 'D'.

I get why she dropped out, but I really think she should have soldiered on for a few more primaries and one more debate with just the three of them. She would have really shined in that situation and probably increased her margins going forward in a smaller field where the two remaining choices were both old white men, one of whom is a good man and clearly knowledgeable but sometimes seems incoherent, and the other who just keeps pivoting to the same talking points without always addressing what's actually being asked.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

His failing as a candidate and politician is his inability to expand his coalition. Is it policy? Is it the candidate?

A bit of both, IMO. But in the end, if Bernie can't build support among potential political allies, and can't actually deliver the electoral "revolution," then what is his case for leadership?

I'm glad he ran in 2016 and showed that someone as unapologetically progressive as he was could mount a serious campaign, and that it was possible to raise enough money to mount a credible campaign without doing any high dollar closed door fundraisers. Cringeworthy supporters at the convention aside, I feel he changed the party for the better and I was proud to be a part of it.

But this year, Elizabeth Warren offered the opportunity to nominate someone equally progressive (or pretty damn close) without being hampered by the socialist label and without burning so many bridges. I wish he'd let her carry the torch and represent the progressive viewpoint (which is what he wanted in 2016 when he encouraged her to run, only running himself when she refused) instead of splitting the vote with her and turning some of his supporters against her (though I don't think that was necessarily his intent, since from what I recall, they were mostly civil to each other except that one little spat over whether he said a woman couldn't win).

It's disappointing because I think once upon a time, he cared more about advancing the progressive agenda than his own ambitions, but the allure of being in the spotlight and having some real power in and after 2016 after being mostly on the sidelines for so long went to his head, unfortunately.

is in the 30s. He never improved it either. And he's not a true Dem.

Just asking...

Add this to the "Who stands a better chance to beat Donald Trump?"

1 - How can a candidate be viable when they promise to "bring out the youth vote" in the General Election, yet spectacularly failed to do so in the Primaries ?

2 - How can a candidate be viable when they did a worse job at attracting Black voters, than they did 4 years ago ?

Add this to the "Who has backed economic policies that help more Americans?"

1 - Who delivered the biggest tax increase on the wealthy, since the 50s ?

2 - Who delivered Healthcare for millions in the last 10 years ?

3 - Who has costed their Health proposals, and not plucked it out of the air ?

Trump has gutted the staffing at Federal agencies. Those agencies need to be restaffed . Which candidate will be able to hit the ground running and has experience with putting quality people into place.

And which one has hired people like Sirota, Turner and Joy-Gray.

Sid

since he hired his stepson to run the Sanders Institute. It also doesn't help that while Jane Sanders was president of Burlington College, she diverted $500K to her daughter's woodworking school. There might also be some questions about how much Bernie has paid Jane for her services in previous election campaigns.

Trump will tear Bernie apart if the issue of nepotism is raised so I can't say that Bernie has an advantage there.

Some of these are points that weigh in Bernie's favor, but on the other hand, this post is pretty one-sided and doesn't ask questions like which candidate:

- Uses a label that scares a lot of people even assuming (big assumption) the policies themselves don't?
- Has spent so much time attacking the party establishment (sometimes with justification) that they may go through the motions of nominating and supporting him but not go all in the way they would for any other nominee?
- Hasn't shown the ability to connect with black voters who are vital to the party?
- Hasn't convinced people he can be effective by making deals and working with people who disagree with him (I believe Bernie can and would do this, but he's chosen to downplay his ability to compromise and either hasn't tried or hasn't been successful at getting a lot of endorsements even from progressive leaders)?
- Has pretty much taken Florida out of contention with his statements about Castro (even though I personally agree with him to a point)?

FWIW, my post is only one-sided because yours is. I haven't decided who I am voting for now that Warren's out. There are a lot of things I do like about Bernie, but the list above are some of my concerns and some counterweights against your electability arguments.

Won't work.

the math is the math...Sanders is done...he only hurts our efforts to oust Trump by staying in...I look forward to watching Sanders creamed next Tuesday...particularly in Florida...