Who is, or was the best Democrat running?

[Elijah John]

Who is, or was the best Democrat running for President, and why?

What is your assessment of the remaining candidates, or your favorite ones who may have already dropped out?

[historia]

At this point, barring some major, unforeseen event, it looks like Biden will very likely be the Democratic nominee. Bernie's support is limited to the progressive wing of the party, while Biden enjoys broad support among other Democratic constituencies.

It's not clear which upcoming states Bernie can even win, let alone net large enough victories to overcome his initial Super-Tuesday deficit. At this point, Sanders is projected to be blown out in the largest remaining states: Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey. He needs something big to turn this around, and quickly.

[historia]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Which of the two remaining candidates is "best" might depend on your theory for how the Democratic nominee could win in November.

Generally speaking, the key to winning any closely-contested election is to turn-out your supporters while trying not to fire-up the other side. In the general election, Trump's base will be fired-up. But he is a deeply divisive figure, who cannot help but inflame the other side. The 2018 midterms made that abundantly clear.

Biden will benefit from a fired-up Democratic electorate, but is himself relatively innocuous to many suburban Republicans and Independents who would prefer a 'sleepy' Democrat as president to another four years of the Trump circus. He'll also have the benefit of Bloomberg's considerable coffers and sophisticated campaign operation.

Bernie has even more energized supporters, but not among demographics that consistently vote or in key swing states where it matters for the electoral college. He would also very likely turn-off many centrists, while firing-up the Republican opposition to his socialist "revolution."

Biden's weakness is that he's a marginally-coherent, non-stop gaffe machine. But much of that is already baked into the 'Uncle Joe' brand, much like Trump's own considerable character flaws are already priced-in to his support.

Most elections are a referendum on the incumbent. If Democrats can keep it that way, Trump probably loses, as his net favorability has been underwater his entire term.

Let's call this the Centrists Strike Back theory for the election.

[AgnosticBoy]

Who is, or was the best Democrat funning for President, and why?

What is your assessment of the remaining candidates, or your favorite ones who may have already dropped out?

It seems democrat voters are choosing between substance and what's most pragmatic. The voters choosing the latter are more concerned with beating Trump than on the actual views of the Democrat. Nevermind, potentially replacing one extreme with another extreme just as long as Trump is gone out of the White House. I disagree with these types of voters


based on the policies/views of the candidate or they're choosing based on practical reasons.

[AgnosticBoy]

Who is, or was the best Democrat funning for President, and why?

What is your assessment of the remaining candidates, or your favorite ones who may have already dropped out?

I would think that the best Democrat would be someone who can win while staying true to the values of Democrats. To do this, the politician should be able persuade the majority of Americans to accept the Democrat agenda.

[rstrats]

Elijah John,
re: "Who is, or was the best Democrat funning for President...?"

Actually, I don't think any of them are/were doing it just for fun. I think everyone of them are/were really serious about it.

[Elijah John]

Elijah John,
re: "Who is, or was the best Democrat funning for President...?"

Actually, I don't think any of them are/were doing it just for fun. I think everyone of them are/were really serious about it.

Clearly that was a typo, which I corrected in the OP. Thanks for pointing that out.

[2ndRateMind]

So, there are at least four dimensions to measure:

Who will defeat Trump? and:
Who will best govern America?

Next. the US president, by virtue of the size of the American economy, is the de facto leader of the free world. So we might also ask of the US President, is he capable of drawing together an effective alliance of free, democratic nations, in case of future difficulties?

Finally, our generation's mission, should we choose to accept it, is to eradicate absolute poverty, whilst simultaneously remaining comfortably within the ecological carrying capacity of space-ship earth.

Tick these boxes, and I will support the cause.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Purple Knight]

Finally, our generation's mission, should we choose to accept it, is to eradicate absolute poverty, whilst simultaneously remaining comfortably within the ecological carrying capacity of space-ship earth.

Tick these boxes, and I will support the cause.

Since some people absolutely will not stop making more children than anyone can afford, you can't tick the second without some form of population control.

Arguably if we just stuck to carrying capacity, poverty simply wouldn't be an issue.

Both myself and my spouse work full time, but we cannot afford the one child we want. Some people might see this as unfair, but I don't. The children already born simply need the resources, while it would be irresponsible to take in more resources to create an extra child.

However, you can't ride the responsible population forever in this way. It's unfortunate, but people who have ten kids aren't teaching their kids to reproduce less or not at all. And when the world has exhausted the resources of the responsible, there will be more poverty, not less.

It's absolutely morally right to expect the people who do work to just give up having kids to help take care of the extra children that already exist, but ultimately what that means is that without further measures, the problem will eventually worsen.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 7 by Purple Knight]

I notice that even moderately wealthy people, possessed of a reasonable level of education, tend to limit the size of their families without further prompting from government. So, if you want to limit population growth, it makes sense eradicate absolute poverty and send all children to school as a preliminary step.

Best wishes, 2RM.