General Discussion

with a solid resume, some proven leadership, and likely better name recognition without obvious baggage.

Calling someone the safe choice is a misnomer. Although the media, some historians and many ordinary people want to ascribe the winner of the election as the "better choice",this is a comforting mythification.. Now, Trump having won twice should end that spurious logic.

You can always HYPOTHESIZE that a different choice might have changed a Democratic loss to a win, but it is not possible to know. You mention 2016, but Bernie NEVER went through the scrutiny that candidates considered potential winners are given in either the primaries or general election. It is true he might have won people Clinton lost, but he might have lost people who she won. Your best argument might be that it was a good year to appear to be an outsider.

In 2024, the process for Harris becoming the nominee was as bad as any in my life .. and I remember McGovern dropping Eagleton. Had Biden announced he was not running, the primaries would have given her or any other nominee some lift. Biden did some remarkable things, but he should have given Harris the type of high profile, important and likely successful roles Obama gave him. Additionally, after the midterms, he should have seriously considered announcing he wanted to concentrate on being President - if only because it was clear the media had already labeled him too old.

I think one major element in Harris losing was the war in Gaza. There was no politically good US role. The US did negotiate getting many hostages out and ceasefires that were quickly broken. We limited some weapons, but still supplied enormous amounts of bombs. People on both sides disagreed with this position.

It might have been if there were primaries no candidate, including Harris, would have been as connected to current policy.