George W. Bush told Jim Clyburn he was “the savior” for endorsing Biden and helping beat Trump

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Unsurprising that Dubya didn't want Bernie to be President.

I think it’s less that and more that he thinks (correctly, in my view) that Bernie could not have beaten Trump.

Bush would obviously have been rooting for Trump in that matchup, but prefers Biden because he never criticized his brother on the Iraq war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He will go down in history as the man who defeated Communism.

Communism doesn't really exist in the US. The Peace and Freedom party is the largest socialist party, and they're not that big and aren't communist.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He can say he was "the savior," I really don't care.
But any help he gave, to defeat and remove the Orange Buffoon ... then I am 100% grateful.

This about the primary obviously. SC still voted for Trump.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He can say he was "the savior," I really don't care.
But any help he gave, to defeat and remove the Orange Buffoon ... then I am 100% grateful.

This about the primary obviously. SC still voted for Trump.

The argument at hand here, of course, is that only Biden winning the primary would've resulted in Trump losing the general. You don't have to agree with that argument, but at least acknowledge that that's the argument that's being made.

The story here is that Bush much prefers Biden to Bernie and the electability argument is bogus. Kerry, McCain, Romney, and Hillary were supposed to be electable and lost.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He can say he was "the savior," I really don't care.
But any help he gave, to defeat and remove the Orange Buffoon ... then I am 100% grateful.

This about the primary obviously. SC still voted for Trump.

The argument at hand here, of course, is that only Biden winning the primary would've resulted in Trump losing the general. You don't have to agree with that argument, but at least acknowledge that that's the argument that's being made.

The story here is that Bush much prefers Biden to Bernie and the electability argument is bogus. Kerry, McCain, Romney, and Hillary were supposed to be electable and lost.

You can be electable and lose. The other leading "Dems" at the time (Bloomberg and Bernie weren't even really Dems) were unelectable.

Bernie - Way too divisive. He could've peeled off a few Trump supporters, but most Bernie-Trump people left the Democrat Party for good. Having "black friends" like Killer Mike or Nina Turner never helped him make inroads to the African-American community, and he always deflected racial justice questions into the same old tired class warfare rhetoric. His ceiling was Hillary 2016, and down-ballot races could've been a total slaughter.

Bloomberg - Arrogant, asshole moderate Republican from New York (sound familiar?) famous for nanny statism and gun-grabbing. You can't beat Trump with someone people would see as an elitist version of Trump.

Pete - Plays extremely well with the graduate degree or higher crowd and maybe with the LGBT community, but those people already turn out and vote Dem. Zero appeal to women, minorities, or blue-collar workers.

Amy - lol

Bernie would have won the black vote if there wasn't someone running who was a VP for 8 years to a black President. Bloomberg would have been his only real competition for the minority vote if Biden didn't run.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is Clyburn aware that Biden probably doesn’t want to be associated with Bush?

Really? Bush has now been more or less rehabilitated, what with the Iraq war being forgotten (not to mention that Biden was never really against the war) and him speaking out against Trump.

Biden was more than never really against it. He didn't allow anyone to testify to the Senate foreign relations committee that quested the Iraq had WMD narrative. And he had said we needed the Iraq war back in 1998. Today was a great day for Iraq war supporters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie - Way too divisive. He could've peeled off a few Trump supporters, but most Bernie-Trump people left the Democrat Party for good. Having "black friends" like Killer Mike or Nina Turner never helped him make inroads to the African-American community, and he always deflected racial justice questions into the same old tired class warfare rhetoric. His ceiling was Hillary 2016, and down-ballot races could've been a total slaughter.

Can't say I agree that Bernie couldn't have won (though it's not a guarantee he would have either) but this is a very fair point. Given the ticket splitting we saw, there's a high chance the GOP would've controlled both houses of legislature.

There's no evidence that down ballot would have been worse. Historically Democrats used to do much better down ballot. And if Bernie was the nominee, I'm sure Shalala would have blamed him for her losing, claiming that she would have won with Biden. And it's certainly not crazy to think that Democrats would have held IA-02 with Bernie.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess even Biden becoming President isn't going to stop us from rehashing the primary again, is it?

Yeah, call progressives (the overwhelming majority of whom voted for Biden in November) your “enemy”, that’ll help...

Establishment Democrats are the biggest sore winners I've ever seen.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He can say he was "the savior," I really don't care.
But any help he gave, to defeat and remove the Orange Buffoon ... then I am 100% grateful.

This about the primary obviously. SC still voted for Trump.

The argument at hand here, of course, is that only Biden winning the primary would've resulted in Trump losing the general. You don't have to agree with that argument, but at least acknowledge that that's the argument that's being made.

Kerry, McCain, Romney, and Hillary were supposed to be electable and lost.

They were electable. You are confusing electable with unbeatable.

Electable means you have a pathway to winning 270 electoral votes. Kerry and Hillary did. McCain and Romney could have in another year. But being electable means you can still lose. No one is truly unbeatable unless your FDR in 1936 or Reagan in 1984.

Who is unelectable?  Rick Santorum in 2012. Micheal Bloomberg in 2020.

Trump 2016 was supposed to be unelectable. Anyways, the polls showed that Bernie was a strong general election candidate and Biden's win was overwhelming. It's one thing to admit that you prefer neoliberal Democrats. It's another thing to hide behind this bogus electable argument. We're talking about Bernie as the nominee, not some joke like Tim Ryan.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He can say he was "the savior," I really don't care.
But any help he gave, to defeat and remove the Orange Buffoon ... then I am 100% grateful.

This about the primary obviously. SC still voted for Trump.

The argument at hand here, of course, is that only Biden winning the primary would've resulted in Trump losing the general. You don't have to agree with that argument, but at least acknowledge that that's the argument that's being made.

Kerry, McCain, Romney, and Hillary were supposed to be electable and lost.

They were electable. You are confusing electable with unbeatable.

Electable means you have a pathway to winning 270 electoral votes. Kerry and Hillary did. McCain and Romney could have in another year. But being electable means you can still lose. No one is truly unbeatable unless your FDR in 1936 or Reagan in 1984.

Who is unelectable?  Rick Santorum in 2012. Micheal Bloomberg in 2020.

Trump 2016 was supposed to be unelectable. Anyways, the polls showed that Bernie was a strong general election candidate and Biden's win was overwhelming. It's one thing to admit that you prefer neoliberal Democrats. It's another thing to hide behind this bogus electable argument. We're talking about Bernie as the nominee, not some joke like Tim Ryan.

2016 is one thing, but there's no evidence to suggest Bernie would have done better than Biden this year. In fact there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is this? Bernie easily could have done a fair amount better than Biden. If we assume the worst case, he loses AZ and GA but still wins.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He can say he was "the savior," I really don't care.
But any help he gave, to defeat and remove the Orange Buffoon ... then I am 100% grateful.

This about the primary obviously. SC still voted for Trump.

The argument at hand here, of course, is that only Biden winning the primary would've resulted in Trump losing the general. You don't have to agree with that argument, but at least acknowledge that that's the argument that's being made.

Kerry, McCain, Romney, and Hillary were supposed to be electable and lost.

They were electable. You are confusing electable with unbeatable.

Electable means you have a pathway to winning 270 electoral votes. Kerry and Hillary did. McCain and Romney could have in another year. But being electable means you can still lose. No one is truly unbeatable unless your FDR in 1936 or Reagan in 1984.

Who is unelectable?  Rick Santorum in 2012. Micheal Bloomberg in 2020.

Trump 2016 was supposed to be unelectable. Anyways, the polls showed that Bernie was a strong general election candidate and Biden's win was overwhelming. It's one thing to admit that you prefer neoliberal Democrats. It's another thing to hide behind this bogus electable argument. We're talking about Bernie as the nominee, not some joke like Tim Ryan.

2016 is one thing, but there's no evidence to suggest Bernie would have done better than Biden this year. In fact there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is this? Bernie easily could have done a fair amount better than Biden. If we assume the worst case, he loses AZ and GA but still wins.

How, exactly?

Millions voted Biden/GOP down ballot who are a real question mark with a Bernie nomination, and it's clear at least in Miami Dade that the "scary socialism" were working against Biden, and probably would have been slightly more effective again Bernie. There's reason to believe Bernie doesn't do well in WOW enough to win Wisconsin, or that he doesn't perform strongly enough in SEPA to win Pennsylvania.

I don't know how you could say that Bernie would have done better than Biden when there is no evidence to suggest that. Bernie could have won, but saying he'd do better than Biden is completely unfounded.

Amazing how you're using areas Biden bombed in as an argument that Bernie would have done worse. Biden also bombed in South Texas and did a fair amount worse in places like Imperial county California. He just was't that great of a candidate for Hispanics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He can say he was "the savior," I really don't care.
But any help he gave, to defeat and remove the Orange Buffoon ... then I am 100% grateful.

This about the primary obviously. SC still voted for Trump.

The argument at hand here, of course, is that only Biden winning the primary would've resulted in Trump losing the general. You don't have to agree with that argument, but at least acknowledge that that's the argument that's being made.

The story here is that Bush much prefers Biden to Bernie and the electability argument is bogus. Kerry, McCain, Romney, and Hillary were supposed to be electable and lost.

Losing an election doesn't mean the candidate was "unelectable". Grow up.

The "electable" candidates have a poor track record that show that "electable" really is a red herring.