Democrat 2020

[Strike For The South]

So a few days ago Kamala Harris threw her hat in the ring and I am pretty excited. She is the perfect intersection of someone I support and someone I think can win. A lot has been made of her past as prosecutor but I think that makes her the perfect person to push the kind of criminal justice reform this country needs.

Things that she has expressed support for and that I think are very achievable:Ending cash bail, Legalizing Pot (ideally you would free and make whole those incarcerated on pot and related charges, also further dismantle the drug war). These are two things that have established beach heads on a federal level that a president could influence. There is much more that needs to be done but that would be a start.

General Democrat party discussion to ensue.

[Hooahguy]

All I hope is that Bernie doesnt run again. I think Kamala has the best shot at winning at the moment. I think she could use her experience as a prosecutor to make good changes like you said, but she would have to be careful how she goes about it as it would be pretty easy to frame things in a really bad light.

No idea why Tulsi Gabbard even bothered to run, her track record is horrendous and wont be looked upon kindly.

[Montmorency]

Sanders (if running)
Warren
Gillibrand/Harris
No other Democrat is going to be nominated

Why? So far just the simplest fundamental political calculations. I'm withholding further comment because this is a better discussion to have at the end of the year, when every candidate should have deployed a full platform, have had a chance to influence one another, and we can begin modeling the electorate in the proper contest.

Leaving aside one's feelings about Sanders, most Dems probably agree that all candidates within Warren-Harris-Gillibrand are ~ and acceptable (other than the ones who hold Gillibrand responsible for Al Franken resigning).

Important to remember that if the election were held now, almost any Democrat would likely win. Also important to remember that nothing today should be held a priori as applicable 1.5 years down the line. Wait for the primaries. They have yet to determine my state's primary schedule, may wind up pretty late. Hope y'all can handle it.





Interesting tangent to rile the thread: In 2016 African American turnout for Dems was noticeably depressed. The turnout margin between 2012 and 2016 Democratic African American votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and perhaps Florida and Pennsylvania was higher than the margin of Trump's victory in each of those states. (N.b. Black turnout was higher under Obama than pretty much ever)

Increasing the turnout of voters of color to Obama-level numbers, particularly among African Americans, would have turned the election narrowly in the Democrats’ favor. If black turnout and support rates in 2016 had matched 2012 levels, Democrats would have held Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and flipped North Carolina, for a 323 to 215 Electoral College victory.

[Kagemusha]

Nancy Pelosi.

[Hooahguy]

Nancy Pelosi.

Well if both Trump and Pence are rolled up, then that might actually happen. Though the likelihood of both of them resigning is very small.

But back on topic-

Interesting tangent to rile the thread: In 2016 African American turnout for Dems was noticeably depressed. The turnout margin between 2012 and 2016 Democratic African American votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and perhaps Florida and Pennsylvania was higher than the margin of Trump's victory in each of those states. (N.b. Black turnout was higher under Obama than pretty much ever)

Part of this is why I think Harris might be the best choice. Sanders has already shown that he does terrible with minorities, Warren kinda ruined her chances with the whole DNA test, and Gillibrand I think just doesnt have that pull that Harris does.

[Husar]

Nancy Pelosi.

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

[Kagemusha]

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

She is by far the most accomplished Democrat at this point. Two times elected speaker of the house. First since 1955. A woman and yes from establishment, they dont vote commies in office at US Hus, now do they? She trumped Trump hands down with the border wall issue and Trump cave in at this favorite idea. Me thinks this struggle between Trump and the democrats ruled house will increasingly personalize into these two, but lets see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SraasldX-4

[Hooahguy]

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

LOL Pelosi isnt going to run, shes happy being speaker, and the only way she becomes POTUS through the line of succession. Though to be fair she would probably make a good president, judging by how she handled the shutdown.

Sanders wont find the going as easy as it was in 2015-16. He is much more of a known quantity and the other candidates wont have any qualms about tearing him down like Hillary was afraid to. Bernie does terribly with minorities, and the 2016 primary shows that, and if the Dems want to win, they need to appeal to minorities. My personal belief is that Sanders has a pretty good chance of getting Trump re-elected, considering that it seems as if he attacks Democrats more vigorously than he attacks the right. He did the same in 2016 and theres a good chance it will happen again in 2020.

And if not Bernie, this guy will get Trump elected again if he runs as an independent.

[Kagemusha]

LOL Pelosi isnt going to run, shes happy being speaker, and the only way she becomes POTUS through the line of succession. Though to be fair she would probably make a good president, judging by how she handled the shutdown.

Sanders wont find the going as easy as it was in 2015-16. He is much more of a known quantity and the other candidates wont have any qualms about tearing him down like Hillary was afraid to. Bernie does terribly with minorities, and the 2016 primary shows that, and if the Dems want to win, they need to appeal to minorities. My personal belief is that Sanders has a pretty good chance of getting Trump re-elected, considering that it seems as if he attacks Democrats more vigorously than he attacks the right. He did the same in 2016 and theres a good chance it will happen again in 2020.

And if not Bernie, this guy will get Trump elected again if he runs as an independent.

I think you are right and she might not want to run at her advanced age, she is 78 years old . Still cant think of a better candidate at this point, but like you said, maybe she will will inherit the office.

[Husar]

yes from establishment, they dont vote commies in office at US Hus, now do they?

That's exactly why they have all these problems. And they continue to (not) do that, expecting different results. Wasn't that the definition of insanity?

You can't just expect certain results as givens in politics if you actually want to change politics. To change, change something and stop talking about how nothing will change. They teach that at every elite university in the US! But when it comes to politics, then it is all despair, retreat and defeat?

[Montmorency]

Since keeping mum is hard for me...

Well if both Trump and Pence are rolled up, then that might actually happen. Though the likelihood of both of them resigning is very small.

But back on topic-

Part of this is why I think Harris might be the best choice. Sanders has already shown that he does terrible with minorities, Warren kinda ruined her chances with the whole DNA test, and Gillibrand I think just doesnt have that pull that Harris does.

Aha, but as far as I can tell this was always something of a myth. In a recent Gallup poll Sanders had a favorability lead among non-white voters of 15 points, and it's nothing new. Sanders was handicapped in the primaries because of lack of name recognition. That won't be a problem anymore, as you say below.

Not many will hold Warren's ancestry gaffe against her besides Republicans, pundits, and some activists who were already dissatisfied with her policies. Men hate Warren, but most of the plausible contenders are women. The one notable aspect is that it signals a certain lack of acumen - but we don't need to speculate, we're about to see everyone's decision-making on display.

Exactly why I said, don't hold your assumptions too dear. Wait for primary season for matters to unfold. Don't feel locked into a candidate yet (preferences are OK).

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

Warren-Harris-Gillibrand are ~ as candidates. It's just a matter of competing niches.

Warren: Taxation and finance reform with an aperitif of class warfare
Harris: Criminal justice reform
Gillibrand: Gender issues

By "niche" I mean marginal emphasis. Of course all of them are offering something on all of the above. Gillibrand appears to support slightly stronger bail reform than Harris does, Harris proposes middle class tax credits on a scale Warren doesn't, etc. They all support Medicare for All at least. Otherwise, Warren is pretty center-left. After all, she does admire capitalism and exited the Republican Party in the '90s because she didn't think they were correctly supporting the market. Don't credit Republican glib provocations like "The Kulaks Must Be Liquidated as a Class." (Billionaires aren't kulaks, they're royals.)

Everyone will go further left as the season advances. So, wait and see.

[Hooahguy]

Since keeping mum is hard for me...



Aha, but as far as I can tell this was always something of a myth. In a recent Gallup poll Sanders had a favorability lead among non-white voters of 15 points, and it's nothing new. Sanders was handicapped in the primaries because of lack of name recognition. That won't be a problem anymore, as you say below.

Not many will hold Warren's ancestry gaffe against her besides Republicans, pundits, and some activists who were already dissatisfied with her policies. Men hate Warren, but most of the plausible contenders are women. The one notable aspect is that it signals a certain lack of acumen - but we don't need to speculate, we're about to see everyone's decision-making on display.

Exactly why I said, don't hold your assumptions too dear. Wait for primary season for matters to unfold. Don't feel locked into a candidate yet (preferences are OK).

I definitely agree, its way too early to tell but according to a very recent RCP average, Biden wipes the floor with everyone else. But thats because name recognition is king at this stage. Again as you said, way too early to make any real judgement. I will vote against Trump whoever it is, even if its Bernie. And for what its worth, my analysis is coming from 538 who I think does a pretty good job at judging strengths and weakensses. As he says in the Sanders section, its not about overall favorability, its about how that compares to other candidates. I recall an article saying that had minority turnout in 2016 been nearly equal to 2012, Clinton would have won.

Right now my biggest worry is that Sanders is going to cause as much hurt as he did in 2016. At precisely the time when the opposition to Trump and the GOP needs to unite, Sanders is out there right now saying stronger words against the Democrats than the GOP.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Once again, California liberals gonna bring the rest of this country back to civilization.

Harris 2020.

[Husar]

Once again, California liberals gonna bring the rest of this country back to civilization.

Harris 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...cop-prosecutor



If she really was the first south asian woman in congress, then she can't become president anyway, because....eh nevermind. Either way, the USA are so far away from civilization...

It's almost as if Democrats were aiming for the compromise from the start again, didn't Monty make a thread about why that is a terrible idea?

[rory_20_uk]

Especially in the USA, the President is a figurehead to inspire hope and the soft power of the USA. So persons such as Pelosi are definitely required to work mainly behind the scenes in counting votes and (when required) making back room deals and twisting arms since the democratic process is far from perfect.

I would hope that the next president can try to drag both sides back closer to the centre and manage to get things doe rather than beating their chests and blocking "the other". The USA has significant issues to address at home (such as Infrastructure and prison reform - perhaps spend money from the latter on the former) for two relatively non-contentious ones; a coherent foreign policy might be a nice change as well which stops turning taxpayers dollars in to brown corpses.

[Montmorency]

I definitely agree, its way too early to tell but according to a very recent RCP average, Biden wipes the floor with everyone else. But thats because name recognition is king at this stage.

Amusing poll reflecting the information level of voters:

I recall an article saying that had minority turnout in 2016 been nearly equal to 2012, Clinton would have won.

lol that was in my first post. The major caveat is that Obama drew record turnout among black voters; a tall order for anyone to replicate.

Right now my biggest worry is that Sanders is going to cause as much hurt as he did in 2016. At precisely the time when the opposition to Trump and the GOP needs to unite, Sanders is out there right now saying stronger words against the Democrats than the GOP.

What in your opinion are Sanders' recent egregious transgressions? When I see his statements they're attacking Republicans and corporations.

Don't get bothered over "unity", it's healthy competition. Animosity is understandable when organizational power is at stake, but that doesn't mean we should take it seriously in those terms.

Our process is exceedingly simple:
0. Don't hold grudges.
1. Vote your best candidate (whatever that means) in the primaries.
2. Vote Democratic in the general election. Anyone who refuses to vote Biden/Sanders/whomstever in the general because they're "not a real Democrat[/leftist/whatever]" needs to stop being such a purity pony. Unless you hate Trump but want to see him re-elected as part of an overarching process to "accelerate" civilizational collapse or "heighten the contradictions" - in which case, you do you I guess.


I agree to an extent with someone like Sean McElwee on the importance of lobbying plus grassroots compared to the Great Man/Woman:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Abraham Lincoln had the abolitionists at his throat, Franklin Roosevelt had labor unions pushing for the New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson had civil rights leaders prodding him toward reforms of racist laws.

“Maybe we can make Joe Biden into a Lincoln,” he said.

So whom do young leftists want as their 2020 candidate? And what role will their movement have throughout the campaign?

“I want the left to really think seriously about the fact that the core of our strategy right now is if we endorse the right person, they will owe us,” McElwee told me. The left, he said, should take a page out of big businesses’ book and not care what candidate is ultimately chosen. “Knowing what the fuck you’re talking about, having the right contacts with the right staffers who you need to call to make sure the right amendment is passed at the right time — we’re much worse at that. We don’t actually have that capacity built up.” For an idealist, McElwee has a tendency toward Machiavellian realism.

[...]

“I’ll clearly support whoever the nominee is,” McElwee told me. “I think all of these people can be moved. They’re pieces on a chess board that’s so much larger than them. And I want to be helping move those chess pieces.”

Then again, Lincoln, FDR and Johnson were all... those people. Biden is not. Sanders' advantage is his openness to a variety of fundamental societal reforms, which is ultimately why I see him as the best option.

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

Warren-Harris-Gillibrand are ~ as candidates. It's a matter of competing niches.

Warren: Taxation and finance reform with an aperitif of class warfare
Harris: Criminal justice reform
Gillibrand: Gender issues (family leave, workplace equality, sex crime)

By "niche" I mean marginal emphasis. Of course all of them are offering something on each issue. Gillibrand appears to support slightly stronger bail reform than Harris, Harris proposes large money transfers through tax credits in a way Warren hasn't, etc. They all support Medicare for All at least. Otherwise Warren is pretty center-left on issues like the others are. After all, she does admire capitalism and exited the Republican Party in the '90s because they weren't correctly supporting the market.

The whole field can be expected to move left as the season advances. So, wait and see.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...cop-prosecutor

It's almost as if Democrats were aiming for the compromise from the start again, didn't Monty make a thread about why that is a terrible idea?

I think they just like Harris.




Re: Pelosi, she may not be the hard-left demagogue some of us desire, but she is left of the average House Democrat, and there is no denying her relative skill and competence since the Bush Era.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The vindication of Nancy Pelosi
How Pelosi delivered Trump the most humiliating loss of his presidency.

Second, Pelosi correctly read Trump’s personality and had the steel to act on that read. For years now, members of Congress have divided on whether Trump is strong or weak, whether his political success shows an intuitive tactical genius that needs to be respected or a hollow showman who connects to conservatives but is easily flummoxed.

Only centrist milksops still think Trump knows what he's doing. Thankfully, the leadership knows better.

She's not an engaging small-s speaker, but she's a good rhetorician.



I especially liked:

She was asked whether there’s any scenario under which Democrats would accept “even a dollar” for new construction of Trump’s border wall.

“A dollar? A dollar? Yeah, one dollar,” Pelosi told a group of reporters just off of the House floor.

Such a parent joke.

Random: It's scary how similar to each other Fragony and Tucker Carlson are in thought process.

[Hooahguy]

Amusing poll reflecting the information level of voters:

Is there a version of this from the past few weeks or a month? A lot has happened since then.

lol that was in my first post. The major caveat is that Obama drew record turnout among black voters; a tall order for anyone to replicate.

Certainly would be hard for Sanders.

What in your opinion are Sanders' recent egregious transgressions? When I see his statements they're attacking Republicans and corporations.

Well he recently went off on the Dems for being too focused on diversity so theres that.

The quote itself: "“My main belief is that we need to bring together a coalition of people—of black and white and Latino and Asian-American and Native-American—around a progressive agenda which is prepared to take on an extraordinarily powerful ruling class in this country. That is my view. Many of my opponents do not hold that view, and they think that all that we need is people who are candidates who are black or white, who are black or Latino or woman or gay, regardless of what they stand for, that the end result is diversity.”

Sure at first it might not sound as bad. But taking it into context of Sanders' previous statements? Like this one from 2017:

"Yes. I mean, I think we’ve got to work in two ways,” Sanders answered. “No. 1, we have got to take on Trump’s attacks against the environment, against women, against Latinos and blacks and people in the gay community, we’ve got to fight back every day on those issues. But equally important, or more important: We have got to focus on bread-and-butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans.”

By juxtapositioning minority issues with "ordinary Americans" I think you would understand why a lot of minority voters do not like him very much as they correctly believe that he doesnt truly understand issues relating to their communities and views them not being as important compared to "ordinary Americans."

Anyways, Bernie took a shot an unnamed 'opponents,' literally none of whom believe what he's accusing them of.

It's important to push progressive policies. It's also important to have diverse viewpoints and have elected officials that reflect what America looks like. Other things can be important at once. Bernie is acting like it's one of the other.

Don't get bothered over "unity", it's healthy competition. Animosity is understandable when organizational power is at stake, but that doesn't mean we should take it seriously in those terms.

Our process is exceedingly simple:
0. Don't hold grudges.
1. Vote your best candidate (whatever that means) in the primaries.
2. Vote Democratic in the general election. Anyone who refuses to vote Biden/Sanders/whomstever in the general because they're "not a real Democrat[/leftist/whatever]" needs to stop being such a purity pony. Unless you hate Trump but want to see him re-elected as part of an overarching process to "accelerate" civilizational collapse or "heighten the contradictions" - in which case, you do you I guess.

Yeah but Sanders didnt do nearly as much as he could have to get his followers to vote for Hillary in 2016. The whole "Bernie Bro" thing wasnt just made up, there was a large and active faction within his supporters that ended up doing a lot of harm. To me it feels like Sanders sees the Democrat party more an opponent than an ally. I understand why of course considering how the last primary went. But I already I see calls on Twitter for "Bernie or bust" again. Are they bots trying to sow conflict? Who knows. Point is he was used as a cudgel to attack Clinton. The GOP even had a page called "The Top 15 Sanders Attacks On Clinton." The 2020 primary should aim to avoid things like that. And I simply do not have faith that he will.

Then again, Lincoln, FDR and Johnson were all... those people. Biden is not. Sanders' advantage is his openness to a variety of fundamental societal reforms, which is ultimately why I see him as the best option.

I would be somewhat surprised if Biden runs. We need new blood. Sanders is 77 years old right now which would make him almost 80 when he was sworn in. And he isnt exactly the picture of elderly health, lets be honest.

Warren-Harris-Gillibrand are ~ as candidates. It's a matter of competing niches.

Warren: Taxation and finance reform with an aperitif of class warfare
Harris: Criminal justice reform
Gillibrand: Gender issues (family leave, workplace equality, sex crime)

By "niche" I mean marginal emphasis. Of course all of them are offering something on each issue. Gillibrand appears to support slightly stronger bail reform than Harris, Harris proposes large money transfers through tax credits in a way Warren hasn't, etc. They all support Medicare for All at least. Otherwise Warren is pretty center-left on issues like the others are. After all, she does admire capitalism and exited the Republican Party in the '90s because they weren't correctly supporting the market.

The whole field can be expected to move left as the season advances. So, wait and see.

One could argue that Sanders fills his own niche too, could you not? Considering that a bunch of candidates have been doing things like disavowing corporate PAC spending I think there is a definite shift to the left. Which is a good thing.

I dont think Sanders is a horrible person. I think he has been a very important voice for progressives. But I think that he should not run in 2020. I think he can have much more of an impact helping rally progressives and not being a potential focus for conflict like he was in 2016.

[Montmorency]

By juxtapositioning minority issues with "ordinary Americans" I think you would understand why a lot of minority voters do not like him very much as they correctly believe that he doesnt truly understand issues relating to their communities and views them not being as important compared to "ordinary Americans."

He's saying that women and minorities are "ordinary Americans" - part of his spiel since at least 2016.

'The Democratic Party should do X instead of Y' is not in itself an attack on the Democratic Party. It's perfectly mild and civil. Mitt Romney has harsher things to say about Trump and the Republican Party, yet he's all in with them beyond the signalling.

Yeah but Sanders didnt do nearly as much as he could have to get his followers to vote for Hillary in 2016. The whole "Bernie Bro" thing wasnt just made up, there was a large and active faction within his supporters that ended up doing a lot of harm. To me it feels like Sanders sees the Democrat party more an opponent than an ally. I understand why of course considering how the last primary went. But I already I see calls on Twitter for "Bernie or bust" again. Are they bots trying to sow conflict? Who knows. Point is he was used as a cudgel to attack Clinton. The GOP even had a page called "The Top 15 Sanders Attacks On Clinton." The 2020 primary should aim to avoid things like that. And I simply do not have faith that he will.

Why do you put it on Sanders if his supporters and Clinton supporters spar? Do only Sanders supporters have agency? "Bernie Bro" was indeed a coinage of the Clinton campaign. At any rate, how do you respond to the figures long making the rounds that Sanders primary voters voted the Democratic nominee (Clinton) at a higher rate than Clinton primary voters in 2008? And Sanders himself unequivocally campaigned for her after she gained the nomination.

One could argue that Sanders fills his own niche too, could you not? Considering that a bunch of candidates have been doing things like disavowing corporate PAC spending I think there is a definite shift to the left. Which is a good thing.

I mean relative to each other. Sanders' niche is "broad-spectrum social democrat". It wouldn't be right to say that Sanders is equivalent to Harris or the rest in politics, except from perspectives like that of a Communist who genuinely views all non-communists equally.


All this still seems capricious to me. Every single one of these people and organizations - the Democratic Party included - is nothing more than a tool for our interests. They don't need our love or inspiration, only our confidence. We'll pick this subject up again if Sanders decides to run.

[Hooahguy]

He's saying that women and minorities are "ordinary Americans" - part of his spiel since at least 2016.

'The Democratic Party should do X instead of Y' is not in itself an attack on the Democratic Party. It's perfectly mild and civil. Mitt Romney has harsher things to say about Trump and the Republican Party, yet he's all in with them beyond the signalling.

I edited this in after so you might not have seen my response why this is important:

Bernie took a shot an unnamed 'opponents,' literally none of whom believe what he's accusing them of.

It's important to push progressive policies. It's also important to have diverse viewpoints and have elected officials that reflect what America looks like. Other things can be important at once. Bernie is acting like it's one of the other.

He might not have intended it to be that way, but this comments like these which makes a lot of people skeptical he understands the issues that are outside his economic inequality shtick.

Not to mention this recent comment about racism that just is very tone-deaf:
"There are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American."

Why do you put it on Sanders if his supporters and Clinton supporters spar? Do only Sanders supporters have agency?

A very common criticism during the 2016 primary was that Sanders wasnt doing nearly enough to try to stop the vitriol, especially online, especially the misogyny and racism.

Side note: I recall seeing a study done where it showed something like half of the Bernie-Trump defectors were motivated in part by racial issues. Not saying it wasnt the same thing in 2008, but the political environment was different, and the impact of the internet wasnt nearly as large in 2008 as it was in 2016.

"Bernie Bro" was indeed a coinage of the Clinton campaign.

Nope, it was coined by a reporter. Picked up by the campaign for sure, but that was to be expected.

At any rate, how do you respond to the figures long making the rounds that Sanders primary voters voted the Democratic nominee (Clinton) at a higher rate than Clinton primary voters in 2008?

This is true, but I think its critical to look at where they were lost in 2016. Losing a bunch of voters in places like Georgia or Tennessee, which would go Republican anyways, isnt nearly as impactful as losing them in Pennsylvania or Florida.

And Sanders himself unequivocally campaigned for her after she gained the nomination.

I dont know about you, but to me it felt as if he was doing it grudgingly. Maybe that was the doing of the DNC. Maybe Im just too cynical about Sanders. Im not saying that Sanders is solely to blame at all, Im just saying that he is enough of a polarizing figure within the party that I think he would do more harm than good in 2020, especially if he loses the nomination again and people resurrect the "DNC rigged the primary" thing.

I mean relative to each other. Sanders' niche is "broad-spectrum social democrat". It wouldn't be right to say that Sanders is equivalent to Harris or the rest in politics, except from perspectives like that of a Communist who genuinely views all non-communists equally.

All this still seems capricious to me. Every single one of these people and organizations - the Democratic Party included - is nothing more than a tool for our interests. They don't need our love or inspiration, only our confidence. We'll pick this subject up again if Sanders decides to run.

Whats that line? "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." People fell in love with Sanders. Which is good. But this is why I keep stressing unity. Undoubtedly, people are fired up to defeat Trump in 2020. But I am cautious about people like Sanders who I believe care more about their own brand than actually doing what is best for the country.

[Kagemusha]

Here is a good article from The Guardian about how Pelosi have been trumping Trump so far:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...trump-shutdown

I think she is the first one in years of Trump´s reign, who has actually figured him out and is ready to go to distance with him and forcing the bout on her own terms, rather then Trump´s. This reminds me a bit like a grandmother schooling an angry toddler.

[Husar]

By juxtapositioning minority issues with "ordinary Americans" I think you would understand why a lot of minority voters do not like him very much as they correctly believe that he doesnt truly understand issues relating to their communities and views them not being as important compared to "ordinary Americans."

Anyways, Bernie took a shot an unnamed 'opponents,' literally none of whom believe what he's accusing them of.

It's important to push progressive policies. It's also important to have diverse viewpoints and have elected officials that reflect what America looks like. Other things can be important at once. Bernie is acting like it's one of the other.

When I read this, I want to vote alt-right. Why is it important to have elected officials that reflect what America looks like? Should there be color-quotas in parliament?

As for trying to understand blacks, useless: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorra...l?guccounter=1

IMO this is just a continuation of the racial divide, but now it is partially driven by blacks themselves and "liberals". If you tell me that I can never understand you because of my skin color, then why should I give a **** about your issues in the first place? If you want to end discrimination based on skin color, stop dividing people into groups based on skin color. You're just reinforcing the idea of separation for **********....

As Monty said, "ordinary Americans" already includes everyone, it's not necessary to include every subgroup by name like you're some anally compulsive liberal who goes "LGBTQWEAKJASJGSKJDGADGLKADSGKALÖGLKA" because he's afraid someone could shed a tear if their snowflakeness is not being mentioned with a special name.

The problem with this extreme form of "grouped individualism" is that it leads to conformity in other areas because these other areas are not getting enough focus. Yes, you can work in two fields at once, but no, you can't achieve anything in the economic sector if you don't use more focused force there. This should be quite obvious given that you didn't get anything done there. You couldn't even get Hillary elected because some thought Trump had the better economic agenda. If that is not sign enough for you that you need to focus your efforts on changing the economic system rather than debating about who can use which toilet (I know the repubs like to bring that up, but that's probably because it undermines all economic debate).

Your entire political system is currently run by rich people precisely because you don't get any economic change done. The liberals are celebrating that one gay couple has a right to get a wedding cake while the republicans run the entire other 99.9999% of the country.

I'm not saying the other issues are unimportant, I'm saying you keep fighting very hard, small little uphill skirmishes now and then, act like they mean the world to you, but you let the other side keep the top of the hill, even when there is a democrat president.
The power in your country is not concentrated where people get a wedding cake or where they successfully stop white people from appropriating their cultural haircuts. The power is where the money is concentrated and you're getting absolutely NOTHING done in that department.

If you think any black lives are improved the moment some white girl doesn't wear dreads....well, go on... If you think the discussion about dreads does not take away peoples' focus and energy from fighting for a fairer distribution of money and power, then your days have to be longer than mine.

The democrats are using "divide and conquer" on themselves, that's how I see it. They're acting like a barely coordinated group of special interests who are more concerned about superficial issues than anything that's actually substantial. And in their words, they constantly divide their own people into very distinct, very special subgroups much like the racists of old tried to divide humans into very distinct, very special subgroups. Stop trying to be special and get something done together! And then focus on the actual issue, not on the fact that you can stand next to one another without killing eachother, that should be a given!

[Hooahguy]

Wow. If those few sentences made you want to vote alt-right, then maybe you should look into why you are being triggered over the idea that having a diverse range of viewpoints and backgrounds is important for effective governance? Also, who mentioned anything about quotas?

Society isnt colorblind as we might wish it was. Sure in an ideal world it would be, but we dont live in an ideal world. Having voices within the government who can advocate for important and meaningful policy changes that would impact their communities to me is important. Pretending that we are all colorblind ignores systemic issues that might not impact you, but impacts others which ends up continuing injustice. For example, dont you think its best that when legislating to fix the prison industrial complex that at least a portion of the people trying to deal with it are African American especially considering they are disproportionately affected by it? I never said we should have every single group represented in the government. But I dont think its a bad idea either to have a more diverse group of legislators. For example, there are currently 21 female Senators, a record number. But women make up 50% of the US. Im not saying it should be a perfect 50/50 split in the Senate, but dont you think that governments should at least to some degree reflect the societies they are governing?

Every day I work with organizations which deal with a myriad of social issues ranging from social justice to climate change. There are organizations which I work with which also deal with income inequality. I will tell you that nobody is focused on bakers and white people wearing dreads. Dont strawman. People yelling about dreads and bakers might just be the loudest on the internet (or perhaps its just the anti-SJW who are the loudest which is why you think its an issue), but the people doing the actual work on the ground care about far more important things and are doing far more important things than freaking out over a cake or whatever you might think is a silly issue.

I agree, income inequality is of vital importance and I definitely agree with you and Sanders in that regard. But is it too much to say that there are other problems which need to be addressed in tandem?

[Husar]

Wow. If those few sentences made you want to vote alt-right, then maybe you should look into why you are being triggered over the idea that having a diverse range of viewpoints and backgrounds is important for effective governance? Also, who mentioned anything about quotas?

Please don't take the hyperbole too seriously.
Also, I mentioned quotas. They're required to "represent what America looks like". But maybe that was not entirely what you meant.
The point was that different viewpoints and backgrounds should not be a goal in themselves. Otherwise you will want someone who sees the world like Stalin as well or you end up with very biased viewpoints, defeating the purpose of different viewpoints.
If the districts in your country are diverse, your representatives should be, too, without specifically making diversity a goal during an election. Provided your voting system isn't terrible.
I for one wouldn't vote for yellow Hitler just because I haven't voted for a yellow guy in a while and need my diversity fix. That's what dicversity as a goal often sounds like. If you have a diverse country, but representation is not, fix your voting system, then diversity should come by itself. Or in other words, don't call for a fix to the symptom, fix the problem.

Society isnt colorblind as we might wish it was. Sure in an ideal world it would be, but we dont live in an ideal world. Having voices within the government who can advocate for important and meaningful policy changes that would impact their communities to me is important. Pretending that we are all colorblind ignores systemic issues that might not impact you, but impacts others which ends up continuing injustice. For example, dont you think its best that when legislating to fix the prison industrial complex that at least a portion of the people trying to deal with it are African American especially considering they are disproportionately affected by it? I never said we should have every single group represented in the government. But I dont think its a bad idea either to have a more diverse group of legislators. For example, there are currently 21 female Senators, a record number. But women make up 50% of the US. Im not saying it should be a perfect 50/50 split in the Senate, but dont you think that governments should at least to some degree reflect the societies they are governing?

So in other words, the school system should be fixed by those with the lowest IQ, because they're most affected by the "intelligence problem"? If the entire system is biased against African Americans, denying them education and money, then how can they have:
a) the money/power required to actually change it?
b) the insight necessary to make meaningful, lasting change to it?

This is why I said you have to grab the power first. The prison system is the way it is because other powers want it to be that way. As long as these other powers are in fact in power, you may narrowly get some change, but in the long term, it is unlikely to have lasting effects. And in the process, you alienated other voters by preferring people based on skin color. See how Obama did some things and Trump rolled a lot of them back already, made some things worse even. The power is with the money and the money has not changed hands. So all the democrats who don't want the money to change hands, do not really want to grab the power. If you help the poor, you automatically help blacks. They will have more time to vote, they will have better healthcare, they will have better education, and so will everybody else who happens to be poor. Why does it matter whether a white man or a black man gives people healthcare? Is black healthcare somehow different?
The prison system is similar, but will already be improved by helping the poor, given that many are in prison because of the conditions of their poverty. It is, in part, also a symptom, but also a cause. It is not the first priority, because it does not give anyone power, and grabbing the power requires a lot of focus. If you take away that focus by paying too much attention to dozens of symptoms, you gain nothing. That is why rich people only ever became richer and more powerful since the 70s.

I'm not saying forget the other issues, I'm saying grab the power first, then use that power to fix all the dozens of problems you identified. So far you're two or three SCOTUS judges and several hundred billionaires behind.

Every day I work with organizations which deal with a myriad of social issues ranging from social justice to climate change. There are organizations which I work with which also deal with income inequality. I will tell you that nobody is focused on bakers and white people wearing dreads. Dont strawman. People yelling about dreads and bakers might just be the loudest on the internet (or perhaps its just the anti-SJW who are the loudest which is why you think its an issue), but the people doing the actual work on the ground care about far more important things and are doing far more important things than freaking out over a cake or whatever you might think is a silly issue.

I agree, income inequality is of vital importance and I definitely agree with you and Sanders in that regard. But is it too much to say that there are other problems which need to be addressed in tandem?

Well, that's good for these people and organizations, and I know they exist, they just don't seem to be getting anywhere near the traction they should get and should have gotten in 2016. Hillary was not the candidate to fix wealth and income inequality, she was too focused on special interests. Obama obviousl didn't fix any of it either and Trump's tax reform only made it worth. So my point is, you're currently going backwards on that issue and some candidates put it way too far down on their list for my taste or for what I would think would bring actual change. The only bright side is that all of the (also quite colorful) Berniecrats who just got into congress, all have it quite high on their agendas. Now they just need a president and even more Berniecrats in congress to actually make some of it happen.

The usual democrat approach of "we will change a percentage here and in two years a percentage there and in the meantime we focus on lots of feel-good-laws for smaller special interests" is not enough, especially not with climate change breathing down our collective necks.

Saying that Sanders is not focused enough of special interests doesn't help, he can get an entire cabinet and a huge staff of advisers for that, and I'm sure he will. But prison reform won't save any black people from the next heat wave or the next flood caused by global warming. Prison reform will be a natural follow-up once the power of the oligarchs is broken, the same oligarchs who own your prisons and many of your politicians in both parties.

An example would be: A thunderstorm went through your backyard and cut down 30 trees, do you:
a) remove all thirty trees by yourself, very slowly, one after the other, fighting the force of gravity for weeks
b) fix your crane first and use its power to effortlessly remove the trees in a matter of hours?

Fixing the crane does actually require your full attention though, it's not so simple that you can do it while you're already carrying wood around. The carrying would in fact distract you and drain your attention. You might make a mistake and fail the repair, leaving you in the less fortunate situation for longer (like when Trump got elected in 2016...).

So don't ask who is more electable (compromise), ask how you can convince people to vote for the one with the best agenda.

[Montmorency]

I edited this in after so you might not have seen my response why this is important:

Bernie took a shot an unnamed 'opponents,' literally none of whom believe what he's accusing them of.

It's important to push progressive policies. It's also important to have diverse viewpoints and have elected officials that reflect what America looks like. Other things can be important at once. Bernie is acting like it's one of the other.

He might not have intended it to be that way, but this comments like these which makes a lot of people skeptical he understands the issues that are outside his economic inequality shtick.

First of all, let us note that Sanders literally said "I think we’ve got to work in two ways".

Be careful with declarations like "literally none" believe something; many ideas exist. I have myself read several pieces arguing that doing both general economic reform and addressing particular group issues is actually racist and sexist, and can only come from a tonedeaf white man that does not understand the urgency of dismantling white supremacist patriarchy before all things.

Not to mention this recent comment about racism that just is very tone-deaf:
"There are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American."

And Hillary Clinton said only "half" of Trump supporters were "deplorables". It became a whole meme, despite her attempted grace and gentleness. Sanders is a politician, and he learned from the event. He understands you can't just condemn the white majority to their faces and expect to remain effective. So he couched it in a 'politically correct' way. Look at DeSantis and Gillum in Florida, in fact. The latter a black man and the former an open racist, but Gillum refused to call him that. In what became another meme, Gillum said in a debate, "Now, I'm not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist, I'm simply saying the racists believe he's a racist." Declaring DeSantis a racist outright would have made the ultimate defeat more convincing. TLDR: Politicians can't afford to talk like keyboard warriors, not even when they are keyboard warriors (like AOC).

Should they? It's arguable that it needs to happen. But the first ones that do openly pontificate on "white complicity" and the like to a mass audience are going to be taking one for the team, electorally speaking.

Side note: I recall seeing a study done where it showed something like half of the Bernie-Trump defectors were motivated in part by racial issues. Not saying it wasnt the same thing in 2008, but the political environment was different, and the impact of the internet wasnt nearly as large in 2008 as it was in 2016.

Many Sanders supporters were Republicans or Republican-leaning independents (arguably a factor in his favor against Trump, by the by...). Dovetails with majorities or pluralities of Republicans consistently polling in support of left-wing policies or ideas. For example, from the tweet you link:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

% of Sanders -> Trump voters who identify with ___ party...

Dem: 45%
IND: 26%
GOP: 29%

% of Sanders -> Clinton...

D: 94%
I: 5%
R: 1%

7 replies 46 retweets 136 likes

Sanders could never have convinced conservatives who voted him in open primaries to vote a Democrat woman they loathed over a Republican man many of them admired. 0 demerits for Sanders on that score.

Im not saying that Sanders is solely to blame at all, Im just saying that he is enough of a polarizing figure within the party that I think he would do more harm than good in 2020

Possibly, but I would suggest this conflict largely exists among Extremely Online people, and diehard party loyalists. "Regular" people don't know or care about it too much for it to distract them.


-------------------------------------------------

When I read this, I want to vote alt-right. Why is it important to have elected officials that reflect what America looks like? Should there be color-quotas in parliament?

Stop. Don't be a Dummkopf.

Of course it is preferable for a single group not to dominate a diverse society. Would it be a good sign if 40% of the members of the Bundestag were Koreans and Cameroonians in heritage, and another 40% French and Turkish? The point is that a healthy and relatively egalitarian society should naturally see a result where demography is roughly represented in positions of power and influence. If you're comfortable with white men running everything forever, you should ask yourself whether that's consistent with your other beliefs. A concrete example is, I recall reading in one article on German politics that there is a sarcastic saying about German women these days: [something like] German women can be anything they want, such as hairdresser, waiter, or Chancellor.

If you tell me that I can never understand you because of my skin color, then why should I give a **** about your issues in the first place?

Because they're people? That's really it.

With study and experience you can learn a lot about any person or group, but not everything. If a black person has an experience that a white person doesn't (and this can be correspondingly normalized across groups) - or vice versa - then logically a white person qua white cannot have that 'black experience'. That's far from saying that people or groups can never communicate or learn anything about each other, but there are qualitative gaps.

If you want to end discrimination based on skin color, stop dividing people into groups based on skin color.

Different groups exist. That's OK. It's possible that not all groups are treated fairly and that this needs to change. The problem doesn't go away if you ignore it.

The rest of what you say, well, it is indeed a form of privilege. Namely, that you de-emphasize certain accomplishments that did lead to improvements in the lives of millions. It's easier to do because you don't personally benefit (see: privilege). If "special subgroups" don't lobby for themselves, clearly you won't.

You're not speaking as though you really believe "I'm not saying the other issues are unimportant", see? Maybe it would help if all of the "special" movements were subsumed into the concept of 'achieving fairness'. Thereby moving economic power into more hands becomes part of the same battle as accepting more individual expression. Et al.

The point was that different viewpoints and backgrounds should not be a goal in themselves. Otherwise you will want someone who sees the world like Stalin as well or you end up with very biased viewpoints, defeating the purpose of different viewpoints.

That's a pretty weak argument, similar to right-wing people who say that even though Sanders-style policies were one mainstream/in practice in the United States, he should be vilified because it's only one step away from Stalin or Mao. Do you really need a case for why viewpoint diversity is desirable in itself? Hint: the lack of viewpoint diversity in economics over the past 2 generations across the Western world is part of how we got into this mess.

If the districts in your country are diverse, your representatives should be, too, without specifically making diversity a goal during an election.

Yes, as I say above. This is desirable. If it is desirable, and it isn't being achieved, then it's perfectly sensible to ask why this is so and what might be done about it (even if there are not many specific or direct, as opposed to overarching and indirect, policies that will achieve it).

I for one wouldn't vote for yellow Hitler just because I haven't voted for a yellow guy in a while and need my diversity fix. That's what dicversity as a goal often sounds like. If you have a diverse country, but representation is not, fix your voting system, then diversity should come by itself. Or in other words, don't call for a fix to the symptom, fix the problem.

What if the white people and their position and society are more the problem than the voting system?

So in other words, the school system should be fixed by those with the lowest IQ, because they're most affected by the "intelligence problem"? If the entire system is biased against African Americans, denying them education and money, then how can they have:
a) the money/power required to actually change it?
b) the insight necessary to make meaningful, lasting change to it?

Think about what you're saying here: If the system is biased against African Americans, then they're too poor and stupid to do anything about it and just have to wait for a solution to be delivered from white people.

In fact, there are plenty of intelligent and/or educated black people, and the left has always lacked for money, so the issue is more people, organization, and ideas. If black people participating = more people, ideas, and organization, then they measurably add to the movements to help themselves.

Civil rights weren't attained by the action of benevolent whites. It involved hundreds of thousands of black people in the streets, and thousands of black people, educated or otherwise, speaking out to the country and to other black people on their behalf.

This is why I said you have to grab the power first. The prison system is the way it is because other powers want it to be that way. As long as these other powers are in fact in power, you may narrowly get some change, but in the long term, it is unlikely to have lasting effects.

But this isn't really true. You're thinking like a Marxist, where all the bad effects and ideas are coming from a select group in power who run everything. That's not how the world works. Culture and institutions play a much bigger role than you acknowledge. So if both conservative and liberal white people believed that it's a good idea for many black people (or people in general) to be locked up, it's not because they rule the world and have some master plan and this is their plan - it's because they learned these ideas and values. So changes ideas and values is absolutely complementary to putting the right people in the right positions.

(If you're a radical leftist you may believe that the structure of law enforcement breeds the same styles of thinking and creates path-dependent results, so in fact the ideal for them is to abolish police and prisons, because there will never be good police or prisons in their theory.)

I'm not saying forget the other issues, I'm saying grab the power first, then use that power to fix all the dozens of problems you identified.

There may be independent problems, again, that don't simply stem from "power" or poverty. What if doctors are less skilled at treating black patients for various reasons, or black people have less geographical access to health care than white people even in the same class, or black people have unique health problems or even unique bad practices? Your view on how and where change comes from is too simplistic. We can agree perhaps that "seizing the power" is a good priority because it will put us in a better position to address the special problems than we are in presently, but the special problems do still exist as such.

Well, that's good for these people and organizations, and I know they exist, they just don't seem to be getting anywhere near the traction they should get and should have gotten in 2016.

Again, please don't forget about the many people directly benefiting from this, such as services providing shelter for trans teenagers or the clinics that send volunteer physicians into poor rural areas. Most of these groups aren't aiming to dramatically resolve the issues on a national or global scale, but to provide relief to people who need help NOW. If you don't need help NOW, and so don't care - that's privilege.

It's like passing a homeless person on the street.
Homeless: Hey, could I have some change, maybe a job interview?
Husar: No way, I can't give you that. However, I will support a politician who promises to confiscate billionaires' wealth and use it to build whole neighborhoods of cheap housing in our city. Hopefully you can take advantage of that someday. Power to the people!
Homeless: Have a nice day.

The usual democrat approach of "we will change a percentage here and in two years a percentage there and in the meantime we focus on lots of feel-good-laws for smaller special interests" is not enough, especially not with climate change breathing down our collective necks.

I do agree. But why do you think this downgrades achievements like gay marriage, which btw were the result of years of public outreach and activism from the grassroots? Most mainstream Democrats steadfastly opposed it, until it was popular enough that they acquiesced? Until the anti-gay Democrats got voted out when enough people decided for themselves that they wouldn't accept it anymore? Hey, that almost sounds like the process that economic issues in the Democratic caucus could be undergoing right now...

Saying that Sanders is not focused enough of special interests doesn't help, he can get an entire cabinet and a huge staff of advisers for that, and I'm sure he will.

In fact, that's just what Sanders seems to have been spending the last 2 years doing, to build his portfolio on "special issues".

But prison reform won't save any black people from the next heat wave or the next flood caused by global warming. Prison reform will be a natural follow-up once the power of the oligarchs is broken, the same oligarchs who own your prisons and many of your politicians in both parties.

Climate reform will take a long time and is in fact liable to be a permanent feature of life from now on. Same for de-oligarching the economy. Prison reform is something that can help millions in a short time, and is something that we can start doing immediately. When in many places huge proportions, even majorities of the black population have been put through the system, do you really think they can afford you saying it's not a priority? Indeed, successful prison reform means many more votes, which in turn enables continuing reform on long-term projects related to climate or economy. For example, Florida in the midterms passed a referendum to restore voting rights to most felons. That means potentially 0.5 million more reliable Democratic votes (out of something like ~1.5 million felons eligible, ~1/5 of all potential black voters) - no wonder that the people in power, through their Republican lackeys who narrowly beat the Dems to retain the state government, tried to find a way out of implementing the referendum results despite its plain language. (I'm sure they'll still find a way to slowtrack applications in the bureaucracy.)

Speaking of which, how did Republicans keep the Senate and governor seats in Florida by less than 1% of votes in 2018? And the same with the governor seat in Georgia, where the Republican candidate was the officer overseeing the election? Oh yeah, by committing a whole lot of fraud and suppressing the votes of black and poor people, who mostly vote Democratic. Hmmm, maybe these special issues DO matter toward the big picture...

An example would be: A thunderstorm went through your backyard and cut down 30 trees, do you:
a) remove all thirty trees by yourself, very slowly, one after the other, fighting the force of gravity for weeks
b) fix your crane first and use its power to effortlessly remove the trees in a matter of hours?

In the time it takes for (b), the trees will be rotten and full of vermin and the crane will be all rusty. Better to get a whole bunch of people together who can tell you how best to move each tree, then have some teams moving some trees while the mechanics and engineers and various others take a look at the crane.

Husar, I'm not the best one to discuss this with you since I lean more overall in the direction you describe, but there are many important concepts you dismiss or aren't aware of (such as identity issues typically being ignored by Dem politicians until activists make their positions popular enough that the politicians are forced to support them - as opposed to Dem politicians stereotypically being obsessed with identity politics and "forcing" them on the public). I'll try to find some good articles that show you what you're lacking, or at least need more sophisticated arguments to contradict.

[Husar]

It's like passing a homeless person on the street.
Homeless: Hey, could I have some change, maybe a job interview?
Husar: No way, I can't give you that. However, I will support a politician who promises to confiscate billionaires' wealth and use it to build whole neighborhoods of cheap housing in our city. Hopefully you can take advantage of that someday. Power to the people!
Homeless: Have a nice day.

That's exactly the point. My change will just be spent on booze or given to his mafia overlords, further encouraging the problem.

[Strike For The South]

Class is not the main driver of inequality in the United States, race is.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All I hope is that Bernie doesnt run again. I think Kamala has the best shot at winning at the moment. I think she could use her experience as a prosecutor to make good changes like you said, but she would have to be careful how she goes about it as it would be pretty easy to frame things in a really bad light.

No idea why Tulsi Gabbard even bothered to run, her track record is horrendous and wont be looked upon kindly.

I would guess she is seeking the VEEP nom, especially if the eventual Nominee is a white male. She's got a foreign policy and defense track record that will suggest "balance" and "emergency President" to a fair number of Dems.

[Husar]

Class is not the main driver of inequality in the United States, race is.

You mean race defines the class. You can end the race problem now either by replacing the race-based underclass with a whiter underclass, or by ending the problem of an underclass entirely. I find the second option preferable, it helps everyone and it includes the same attempts to end racism. You could argue that getting support for option two includes convincing people that their racism is wrong, otherwise they will not vote for option two in the first place.

Ilhan Omar addresses homelessness: https://www.facebook.com/IlhanMN/pho...type=3&theater

You could make her president with my blessing (not that you need my blessing, but we're discussing here...), if it weren't for the 40 years of age minimum I guess.
It's not wrong to help people now, but applying a bandaid for 500+ years is not a great solution, or is it?

[rory_20_uk]

Class is not the main driver of inequality in the United States, race is.

I disagree. Race is a corrolate, not causative.

[drone]

if it weren't for the 40 years of age minimum I guess.

35 years of age is the presidential minimum.

Whoever it is will get my vote, but the cynic in me says the Dems will screw this up somehow. Harris doesn't exude the right vibes for president, she talks like a lawyer and doesn't sound like she is relatable, I'll have to see her kissing a few babies and interacting with the common man before I think she can win. Warren's heart is in the right place, but she seems a bit naive for the job. Bernie is too old at this point, and probably too radical for the general election. Biden is also too old, but otherwise a solid choice. Don't know enough about Gillibrand to comment. I'm still waiting for Hillary to announce...