Why is his image tarnished? He's as popular as he's ever been it seems to me.

A younger candidate would certainly be preferred, but who? Who can fill in Bernie's shoes who has the credibility and conviction that he has?

I think Sanders comes with too much baggage from 2016-- he'd shore up the bitter divisions that really came to the surface during those primaries (though they had been around much longer). And it's not like he's the Democrats' only hope for 2020-- Biden has as good a shot, if not better, and I think he's more popular all-around, including with independents and the moderate wing of the party, than Sanders. There are other good candidates too, and most of them are likely to win out against Trump come 2020.

I like Sanders and I do think he would have been a much better candidate in 2016. But if the Democratic Party wants to put the schisms of 2016 behind it, he's probably not the best option at this point.

For what it's worth, I've got a bunch of redcaps working in the same office as me, and they'd be quite happy to vote for Biden if he ran.

I think Sanders as a 2020 candidate is about as likely to turn out GOP and swing voters as he is to turn out the Dem base. There are plenty of voters who won't swallow the cost of his domestic proposals and either stay home or vote for someone else, even with Trump as the alternative. And Sanders supporters continue to not understand how increasingly hostile Dem voters are to the idea of "old white guy from rural state" as the standard bearer. Both the establishment and the grassroots have doubled-down on the idea that the party has no future with white voters and doesn't need them due to demographics. It didn't get as much traction in the mainstream press as the GOP primary shit-show but Sanders' struggles to win over women and minorities in the primaries were real, measurable, and often severe. Maybe some of those problems will lessen when he doesn't have to contend with the Clinton personality cult, but I doubt by much.

There is also a much more serious problem which a Sanders nomination would not only fail to address, but would essentially constitute the party sticking its head in the sand: an inability (and frankly, until recently, even a widespread unwillingness) to take natsec in general and Russia in particular seriously. How exactly nominating Sanders---who to this day still will not support sanctioning Russia, even after what happened in 2016---fixes this glaring problem is a mystery to me. Trump is a symptom, not an underlying problem. Electing people who don't understand this guarantees there will be more Trumps once he's gone.

I don't think I have any issue with Biden running, personally. I'm not clear if he'd be a great choice for the Dems, but he'd be clearly better than Sanders.

Why is he clearly better than Sanders? It's not clear to me. Do you mean in terms of chances to win nationally?

He's easier on the eyes than Sanders, is a better public speaker, already has hands-on experience, and the biggest thing is that his policies are more in tune with the moderate left that make up most neoliberal Dems.

Yes, he's more of a moderate. That's basically the only reason that I can see that matters (two of your reasons are very subjective). His policies are pretty much status quo and he's one of those 'insiders' that was so maligned in the 2016 election. I mean he was Obama's vice president for 8 years. I don't think this would play any better than Bernie, and might be worse. Even people like my parents who hated Hillary and considered her the devil, didn't have anything particularly bad to say about Bernie, and even considered him honest. They just wouldn't like his policies.

Bernie's policies (some of them) are better than what Joe Biden would do. I suspect he'd be pretty similar to Obama, pretty mundane a lot of the time. A centrist mainly. I personally think we need more than that.

The one thing I'll say about Joe Biden is I think he has the guts to stand up to Trump and 'hit' him where it hurts, based on some of those interviews I saw of him recently. He's definitely tough, and he's a fighter and he wouldn't let Trump bully him like a lot of other candidates would. But then again, so is Bernie.

I don't think Biden was all that maligned during the campaign-- or even now. If anything, I think he's one of the few politicians who largely bridges the gap: people in both the moderate camp and the progressive camp seem to largely like him. Sure, there are those in the latter who will holler that he's a 'corporate Democrat', a 'Republican wearing blue', but frankly, some people on the left in America will accuse any Democrat to the right of Hugo Chavez of those things.

I think the principal problem, as Earthcubed mentioned (albeit with regards to Sanders), is that he's an old white man in a party where 'old white man' has increasingly become a pejorative.

A "corporate" Democrat candidate whose policies would largely be a repeat of Bill Clinton and first-term Obama, might do well in 2020 - if he was likeable. But come on! The Trump campaign machine would absolutely feast on Creepy Uncle Joe Biden. That can't be the best the Dems have.

Big point: Biden does not have a dark cloud of the 2016 election hanging over his head.

Also: Sanders is divisive. He appeals less to moderates and can seem like, or be easily stereotyped as a "leftist extremist." That is not going to be helpful in getting people away from Camp Trump. Putting Trump's extreme right wingnuttery against Sanders hard leftist views just creates another messy election cycle that will turn people off.

I get that people like Sanders--the way people liked Ron Paul at one time--but at some point, it's better to throw in the towel and move on. When it comes to people like Hillary and Sanders, it's time leave them in the past. Democrats really cannot risk fucking up the next couple election cycles, and a part of that means taking the candidates with baggage and setting them permanently out to pasture.

At the end of the day, what's more important to Democrats? Supporting a tarnished Bernie because of Bernie fanboyism? Or actually defeating Trump? Because at this point, the only reasons to keep flying the Bernie flag are blind fanboyism and tired rage at the Democrats for "picking Hillary instead."

Joe Biden is likeable. He's affable. He'll remind people how much better it was with Obama, how good things used to be. He's got positive symbolism on his side, he's got a positive public image on his side, he has none of the 2016 nastiness hovering over him, and he's far more likely to appeal to moderates, which Hillary lost.

I'm just not agreeing with the criticisms I'm seeing here. Without Hillary in the way, Bernie may very easily win the democratic nomination.

The goal at that point is to persuade the moderates and reasonable people to see that they actually do agree with his positions. That his positions ARE the best way moving forward for the US, and that Trumpism is poison and a dead end. The majority of Americans actually DO agree with a lot of Bernie's positions. This is the job of Democrats at large to sell his message. To help sell Bernie's message, not to cave in to the stereotype (created largely by Fox News types) that he's some insane crazy hard/far leftist. I feel like people that do that are just giving into the Fox News type stereotype.

A lot of Bernie's ideas poll very well, and very high.

Again, why is there a dark cloud over Bernie's head in particular? I don't feel like it's hanging over his head in particular, but over the Democrats as a whole. Of which Bernie technically isn't even registered as.

I'm a little confused in one part of your post, did you actually compare Bernie Sanders to Ron Paul? I doubt you did, but it definitely can come off that way. Those two aren't remotely comparable in terms of their credibility and policies. Ron Paul isn't Bernie's right wing equal.

Biden is also just as old as Bernie. So any arguments about age go right out the window if choosing Biden over Bernie.

I'm partly just playing Devil's Advocate here, in that I think Democrats really do need to find a younger, more 'hip' candidate (like I think Resident said?), but my point I think is that none of the criticisms that anyone has so far come up with about Bernie not running seems sound to me (other than his age, but again Biden vs Sanders and it's a moot point), or there is an equal counter.

Bernie Sanders supporters operate in the same manner as Ron Paul supporters, I clearly did not compare the two individuals, but was referencing their fanbases. They are fanbases that could not let go, could not forgive or forget, could not move on, and could not side with the "greater goals" of the team they were adamantly supporting, to the detriment of the team as a whole. If Bernie supporters could let go, it's much more likely we wouldn't have Trump in office now.

Could Bernie have beaten Trump? I think it's possible he could have. But he didn't get the nod, and now it's too late. Move the fuck on. We don't move forward by clinging to the fucking past.

To my understanding, Bernie Sanders has even said he won't run in 2020, so the fans need to get the fuck over things already. Constantly asking "What ifs" about Bernie is the wrong fucking question, when it should be, "how do we stop Trump?" And yes, the former question is very much a interference of the latter. This clinging to Bernie at this point is very much how Ron Paul fanboys operated.

Biden is kind of a creep. I think both men are too old to run, but I'd probably prefer Bernie. That said, if Bernie himself said he won't run, so be it. 2020 could use new blood.

That right there is the key. I've noticed a few people in here praising Joe Biden because "he stands up to Trump." Wrong way to go! The Democrats will not win the 2020 election of they try turning it into a shit-slinging contest with Teflon Donald. They need their candidate to be somebody new(ish), with a minimal amount of baggage.

I'm thinking Gavin Newsom. Another white dude, but he's only 50 and sure is a handsome man. He could beat Trump on hunkiness alone. Although it looks like he's going for Governor of California.

So this happened.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump- ... ge-n876831

Odds on this somehow making it to the Supreme Court and said court ruling that politicians can't block people due to First Amendment issues?

Sure, but it's people we elect, not just ideas. In virtually every poll of the prospective Democratic field, Biden outpolls Sanders. And granted, polling alone isn't always accurate (and I'd be interested to see how the candidates poll specifically in swing states the Democrats need to win in 2020), but I think it does support the overall notion that Biden has broader appeal.


You're hitting on another potential issue with Democratic voters: some just don't view Sanders as a Democrat. Some view him as an outsider who used the Democratic Party to attract attention to himself and in the process damaged Clinton's campaign and empowered Trump. It's not a perspective I agree with, but it's not one you can necessarily ignore when you're looking at taking back the White House.


For me, it's two things. For one, Sanders is too closely associated with 2016, which was just a terrible year all-around for Democrats-- it exposed their deepest schisms and weaknesses, and Sanders was probably the most visible face of those schisms. And for another, he's too closely associated with a particular wing of the party. The Democrats direly need a candidate who's going to bridge the gap between the progressive and the moderate factions of the party, and I don't think Sanders is that candidate.


Well, I don't think anybody is proposing the Democratic candidate in 2020 start coming up with dumbass nicknames like Crooked Hillary or anything, but absolutely people want a candidate who will 'stand up' to Trump-- which is to say, take him to task and hold him accountable for all the idiotic things he says and does. Nobody wants a candidate who's going to pretend they're running against your run-of-the-mill Republican suit.

That's the very core of the problem, they don't see Bernie as a Democrat, yet he should be (should be able to be) and Democrats should be for his policies. There's a gap here, and the gap is the problem, not Bernie. The gap you point out shouldn't exist, based on what the majority of Democrats truly want and what Bernie stands for. That's why he was having success, having as much success as he was despite how little exposure (and funding) he initially got compared to Hillary.

Perhaps we are closer on this point than I'm thinking?

But the gap is there. Perception is a massive part of politics, and if a meaningful chunk of the Democratic Party has reservations about Sanders' legitimacy as a candidate for their party, that's a problem. That on its own wouldn't be so bad-- Sanders would have the opportunity to reach out to those voters and establish himself as a viable Democrat-- but you combine that with the baggage from 2016 and its schisms and the issues pile up.

I do think the Democratic Party needs to take a hard look at itself. I do think it needs to learn to communicate progressive ideas in a persuasive and effective way, because I really believe those ideas are the solution to many of the problems that drive disaffected voters to vote Republican. But that can't happen until somebody bridges the divide in the party.

The party isn't going to do that, though, because the entire leadership consists of Reagan style conservatives, not progressives. That's the reason they created the negative perception of Bernie in the first place, they genuinely oppose him on ideological grounds despite the fact that their own base agrees with Bernie's policies. The divide in the party will be bridged when the old leadership is forced out (and preferably executed) and replaced by others who are more in tune with the current political climate and the wants of their own voting base. Until that happens, they will lose at everything that matters.

As a comparison, Trump was ascendant because he was completely in tune with the thoughts and feelings of the Republican base and forced the party to re-align themselves with what their base was wanting, which was venom and spite (as opposed to "family values"). Because his actions and demeanor are in line with what his supporters want, they will continue to be energized and he'll keep winning at everything that matters. I also hope the republicans are executed too.


Someone finally posted the best argument for a Sanders presidency.

The best argument for an Oprah presidential campaign is they can save massive amounts of money by just re-using most of the symbols and slogans from the Obama campaign .

No. No. No.

This is the kind of hyperbole that makes the progressive wing of the party tough to take seriously. I mean, come on-- accusations of centrism may be accurate, but calling Democratic leaders like Pelosi, Schumer, or Hoyer conservatives and Reaganites just isn't right. Their voting records are largely pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-LGBT rights... The list goes on. It may not qualify them for the vaunted 'progressive' tag, but it certainly makes any notion that they're all conservatives in the Reagan tradition rather silly, considering Reagan was anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-affirmative action, and anti-LGBT rights (he did have some surprisingly not-crazy views on gun control, though).

I think for a lot of people it's enough just to accuse the Democratic leadership of being too moderate, there's not really any need to start claiming they're slightly to the right of Murray Rothbard.

Also... I agree with Morrigan on that one. Please, no.

The mere idea of having another celebrity without any kind of political experience running against Trump is nightmarishly dystopian. You might as well go full Idiocracy and have Terry Crews* run for president.

*disclaimer: Terry Crews is actually a beautiful human being. I just don't want him as a world leader.

Super fuck no.

And not just because she's "another celebrity" who doesn't understand the job (I believe a celebrity can understand the job as well as any seasoned politician, they just need to be less stupid and self-serving than someone like Trump), but because Oprah is bogged down with her own plethora of wildly stupid beliefs and assorted bullshit. She thrust fucking snake oil conman Dr. Oz on the world. She'd probably make him Surgeon General. We'd have the bullshit healing power of crystals and coffee enemas or some shit as national policy.

Donald Trump has canceled the summit with Kim Jong Un. (Source is from The Washington Post, filtered through Outline to avoid the ad stuff.)

Gosh, I'm like, so super duper surprised and shit. Trump lacks the ability to be the bigger person, even compared to a full-blown dictator.

Kim Jong-un organized a meeting with the South Korean president. He closed and dismantled the nuclear test side. He released several American hostages to show his goodwill. He traveled to China to improve and strengthen international relationships. He was ready to meet the American president on neutral territory.

Donald Trump destroyed all of his efforts with today's extremely disrespectful message. This reaction proves that Donald Trump is less mature than one of the world's most dangerous dictators. If there are going to be any hostilities between North Korea and the United States of America, you now know who should be held responsible: Donald Trump.

I mean, let's be realistic, it's not like North Korea was innocently doing everything it could to make this meeting work out and Trump just out of nowhere took his ball and went home. The North Koreans have been shooting their mouths off for the past couple of weeks like nothing else-- insulting American political officials, threatening to attack the US, claiming they were prepared to withdraw from the summit, failing to respond to US diplomatic efforts, the list goes on. I don't know if scrapping the meeting altogether was the right thing to do-- and Trump did it in his usual idiotic fashion, failing to notify South Korea in advance and blustering about how much better America's nuclear capabilities are then North Korea's, as if literally everybody didn't already know that. But let's not pretend Kim Jong-Un was strenuously working to bring about world peace only to be undone by Trump. He tried to play North Korea's usual game and this is what he got. Something had to be done to demonstrate that game wasn't going to fly anymore.

Trump doesn't know shit about North Korea. His aides admitted as much when they said they "Worry He Doesn’t Have Good Grasp on the North Korea Situation" I'm gonna make a wild guess and say that Trump cancelled the meeting just to make sure he won't be made fun of the fact that he's totally clueless. It would be in character for him to put himself above furthering peace between the two Korea's.

I don't know where you heard that, but I'm almost positive he has not yet said whether he is or isn't running, and his former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, has recently stated that he thinks Bernie might run.

Canceling the meeting with Kim was really fucking dumb. Leaving aside how important progress on this issue is for regional (maybe global) security; I at least thought we could count on Trump to take any opportunity to hog credit for anything good that happens. Going ahead and meeting Kim would have left Trump looking like the Great Peace-Maker, while Pence and Bolton's warmongering get sidelined. If nothing else, even if Trump bungled the summit, refusing to toe the neocon line would have played to his base... but somehow, they'll spin it as if Trump is "playing 3D chess" and we just don't get it.

It was the last thing I'd remembered, but it seems like a gray area now that I look at it.

Either way, it's time for the Democratic party and Bernie supporters to move on. I'd rather not have a bunch of angry Bernie supporters voting for Trump. Again.

I wouldn't be surprised if his withdrawal was more petty. In a "I'm gonna quit before Kim quits" kind of whiny bully mentality.

In the way he ended the corporate advice team before they could all quit on him.

Trump should have never agreed to such a summit in the first place but if (as a few sources now report) he really did cancel the meeting so that Kim couldn't cancel it first, then he made a doubly stupid mistake. If Kim was going to cancel the summit then fucking let Kim cancel the summit. NK would look like the unreasonable party in that case. He has completely undermined all future US negotiators on any international agreement, whether bilateral or multilateral, and we didn't need any more of that after what he did with JCPOA (a similarly harmful idea we should have never made but, having already signed it, still needed to maintain, if for nothing else than public image).

Wasn't Kim Jong Un's entire thing with nuclear weapons is that he wanted a "seat at the table" and he could only do that through building nuclear armaments? Unless this summit was supposed to actually be some kind of reform for North Korea (or at least moving in that direction), it always just seemed like a play from their standpoint. From Donald Trump's perspective, it definitely feels like a short-sighted power move, regardless of the intentions of the summit.

Does anybody know if the North and South will go back on their peace treaty? Not really keeping up on that end of things.

Next time I go into a bookstore, I'm moving all the copies of The Art of the Deal I see into the Fiction section.

Why not moving them where they really belong; in the garbage?