I'd question the notion that going for an extreme progressive would be a recipe for success against Trump.  Or that Clinton lost because she was too moderate.

It's arguable that Trump won in large part because he was an unknown quantity in 2016.  In 2020 he's not.  He has a record he has to defend. 

It's arguable that Clinton lost in part due to her profound lack of charisma and the very extreme dislike a significant portion of the US public has for her.  It's arguable that sexism also played a role. 

The Democrats had two broad strategies they could have pursued this year:

1.  nominate a moderate candidate and attempt to reclaim the swing state Obama voters who switched to Trump in 2016.

2.  nominate a progressive candidate and attempt to generate sufficient excitement to attract the votes of progressives who didn't vote in 2016.

Given that the goal is to win states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida, I don't know that going progressive would be an effective strategy.  Are there great, untapped swaths of progressive voters in the swing states who would vote in sufficient numbers to offset the loss of moderate voters who would be scared by socialist labels?  I'm doubtful about that.

Voters may not be excited about Biden, but they are most definitely excited about voting against Trump. 

Didn't mean to imply that, Rebecca. When I said "you" I meant the Democratic Party not you personally, of course. I don't live in the US and I don't have a "side" either apart from knowing Trump as leader of the most powerful and influencing nation in the western world is definitely a bad thing. 

I agree with everything you're saying, my frustration comes from the Democratic Party's inability to counter Trump strategically in any effective way.

It's not about who's right or wrong, or Trump's voters "taking responsibility for their actions" (Pro Tip: they won't), not anymore. It's about winning the election. 

And the Democrats have chosen the wrong candidate, are largely missing in action and Trump's almost completely unhinged now and rising in the polls. Not a good look.

I'm gonna go ahead and play armchair political strategist now. The kind of thinking you're expressing there (which is largely the same of the current Democratic Party) is fundamentally wrong IMHO.

You're thinking of this as a math thing, counting voters in swing states and such like this is some super elaborate game of chess. 

It's not. Most normal people, the ones that aren't super informed on the issues and don't pay a subscription to 5 north eastern news outlets, vote with their guts.

The Democratic Party is supposed to defend the working man's interests, yet they can't or won't communicate that to them effectively. A candidate like Biden (the textbook definition of the Washington Democrat) won't excite them in any way.

Red and Blue states are not a given (save from some extreme examples like say, California or Alabama), they could've been swung with the right candidate announcing exciting, new policies beneficial to workers in a way they can understand.

I'm not necessarily saying that candidate was Bernie, but he definitely was the closest. A candidate like Biden means nothing to these voters, it means going back to the previous state of things that had them so frustrated in the first place that they voted for Trump.

People tend to vote excitedly FOR something not against something, even if that thing is the devil himself (in this case, pretty close).

While you and I and most in this forum probably think that the Trump presidency was so incredibly awful that the election is going to win itself, it will not. 

(Tennis metaphor: YOU have to win the game, there's no clock, you could be 2 sets up and 5-0 in the third but you still have to win the game and score the last point. The other guy won't lose by himself. And if you don't finish him, that means the other guy is scoring the points and eventually will come out the winner)

I'm not seeing Biden and the Democratic Party in general taking this game home. 

I'm not saying "extreme progressive" necessarily but I do think it's a matter of intensity. You do need someone that can go toe to toe with him on a debate and call his bull***t on the regular. 

Trump has upped the rhetoric ante and nobody has challenged him, and the Democratic establishment made a considerable effort to give the most bland candidate the nomination. 

The most frustrating thing is going to be seeing him win the election legitimately with no need of foul play, which is what I had guessed would be his only option of getting that second term.

 

 

Hmmm.  A Bernie Sanders dictatorship? 😂 

I gotta admit,   I’d give it a shot.

Trump won the election. Clinton won the vote.

Trump was president by gracious endowment of the Electoral College, damn them anyhow. We may have the crisis in that once again, even if Mr. Biden wins the popular vote - even by a huge margin - it's still up to the E.C.

As much as we want to vote for Biden/Harris, as much turnout as there may be against Trump - the E.C. votes for president.

538 electors, and a candidate needs 270 votes to win (just over half.) And while it is assumed that electors will follow the state's votes, it isn't required. The were seven "bad faith" electors in 2016; who knows what this year will bring?

But we have to assume that the electors WILL follow their states and vote as the citizens vote. We DO need to get out and vote - and then hope like hell that we get an honest result out of the Electoral College.

ENDNOTE: Yes, I know, it would be much better without the Electoral College - but it positively will not be abolished within the next 60 days, so we have to play the game by whatever rules are in place.