Politics

[MTV<=>Operator]

Right now the main thing is electability - who can beat Trump.
That rules out Pete and Warren, due to the high sentiments against them in America (it'll be kind of like Mitt Romney). Biden hasn't garnered too much support, and Bloomberg (right now) doesn't appear to have a large gathering yet.
Which leaves us with Sanders, though there is still room for other candidates to take the lead.
I do feel that Warren could take the lead, and to a lesser extent possibly Bloomberg and do well, but with the status quo, I'd say Sanders is the Democratic party's best bet, solely based on electability.

I would argue that Bloomberg is more electable than Sanders because he is closer to being bipartisan. Sanders too easily attracts the label "socialist" based on some of his ideas. You could be right though, Bloomberg has done a great job advertising, but he hasn't yet gotten on the debate stage and that's really a limiting factor in terms of support for him.

[EastStroudsburg13]

Right now the main thing is electability - who can beat Trump.
That rules out Pete and Warren, due to the high sentiments against them in America (it'll be kind of like Mitt Romney). Biden hasn't garnered too much support, and Bloomberg (right now) doesn't appear to have a large gathering yet.
Which leaves us with Sanders, though there is still room for other candidates to take the lead.
I do feel that Warren could take the lead, and to a lesser extent possibly Bloomberg and do well, but with the status quo, I'd say Sanders is the Democratic party's best bet, solely based on electability.

I would argue that Bloomberg is more electable than Sanders because he is closer to being bipartisan. Sanders too easily attracts the label "socialist" based on some of his ideas. You could be right though, Bloomberg has done a great job advertising, but he hasn't yet gotten on the debate stage and that's really a limiting factor in terms of support for him.

I disagree that being bipartisan is the key to winning this election. The key is going to be getting independents to vote for you. And despite attracting "socialist" labels, Bernie tends to do very well in the Midwestern states that were the key to Trump winning the presidency. I don't see many independents getting excited about voting for Bloomberg.

[Things2do]

I found this interesting...
https://medium.com/@karlyn/ive-been-a-d ... 9ddaaf6d07

[JoeyC]

I found this interesting...
https://medium.com/@karlyn/ive-been-a-d ... 9ddaaf6d07

That man legit went from one echo chamber straight into another.
While he does have some interesting points, especially the media bias, he leaves out some glaring factors that would make quite a few of his arguments less than foolproof.
In the end, while it is an interesting insight into the Trump campaign, his conclusion is this: I went to a Trump rally (more or less a hype fest) and realized that they're more united than the Democratic rallies (in which multiple candidates fight, unlike a Trump rally) therefore, because that small amount of people are excited, the democrats are screwed.

Again, good insights, glaring flaws in logic process.

[SciolyMaster]

The quality choice part or not ready for a woman president? Anti feminism is too strong in this country to allow Warren to win in an election against Trump. Many of the anti feminists are already on Trumps side so it would be a losing election for Warren. The time is not yet right to put a woman in the presidency due to this. If Warren was without a doubt more popular then it would more feasible. However many won't risk having this election lost to Trump. 2024 would most likely be a better opportunity for a woman president to take power. The Iowa caucuses reflect this as Pete an openly gay person had won Iowa. While Warren is lagging behind by quite a bit. Sad but it might be awhile before the nation as a whole is ready and willing to elect a woman president.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016...

[TheChiScientist]

The quality choice part or not ready for a woman president? Anti feminism is too strong in this country to allow Warren to win in an election against Trump. Many of the anti feminists are already on Trumps side so it would be a losing election for Warren. The time is not yet right to put a woman in the presidency due to this. If Warren was without a doubt more popular then it would more feasible. However many won't risk having this election lost to Trump. 2024 would most likely be a better opportunity for a woman president to take power. The Iowa caucuses reflect this as Pete an openly gay person had won Iowa. While Warren is lagging behind by quite a bit. Sad but it might be awhile before the nation as a whole is ready and willing to elect a woman president.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016...

Yea but she lost the electoral college. Remember while the whole nations mentality may not be anti feminist, the mentality of key battleground states is in many cases.

[PM2017]

The quality choice part or not ready for a woman president? Anti feminism is too strong in this country to allow Warren to win in an election against Trump. Many of the anti feminists are already on Trumps side so it would be a losing election for Warren. The time is not yet right to put a woman in the presidency due to this. If Warren was without a doubt more popular then it would more feasible. However many won't risk having this election lost to Trump. 2024 would most likely be a better opportunity for a woman president to take power. The Iowa caucuses reflect this as Pete an openly gay person had won Iowa. While Warren is lagging behind by quite a bit. Sad but it might be awhile before the nation as a whole is ready and willing to elect a woman president.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016...

Yea but she lost the electoral college. Remember while the whole nations mentality may not be anti feminist, the mentality of key battleground states is in many cases.

She also ran a pretty bad campaign... I wouldn't ascribe her loss (at least not wholly) to anti-feminism.

[TheChiScientist]

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016...

Yea but she lost the electoral college. Remember while the whole nations mentality may not be anti feminist, the mentality of key battleground states is in many cases.

She also ran a pretty bad campaign... I wouldn't ascribe her loss (at least not wholly) to anti-feminism.

No but I would definitely say it's a factor.

[PM2017]

Yea but she lost the electoral college. Remember while the whole nations mentality may not be anti feminist, the mentality of key battleground states is in many cases.

She also ran a pretty bad campaign... I wouldn't ascribe her loss (at least not wholly) to anti-feminism.

No but I would definitely say it's a factor.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure there were people who voted for Clinton simply because she was a woman. I won't try to estimate how these two factors offset and which comes out on top. The point is that identity politics goes both ways, which (in my opinion) is really rather unfortunate whichever way you look at it.

[PM2017]

Yea but she lost the electoral college. Remember while the whole nations mentality may not be anti feminist, the mentality of key battleground states is in many cases.

She also ran a pretty bad campaign... I wouldn't ascribe her loss (at least not wholly) to anti-feminism.

No but I would definitely say it's a factor.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure there were people who voted for Clinton simply because she was a woman. I won't try to estimate how these two factors offset and which comes out on top. The point is that identity politics goes both ways, which (in my opinion) is really rather unfortunate whichever way you look at it.