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

[KaiserDave]

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.

[KaiserDave]

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.

[KaiserDave]

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.

Alright, but you're "amazingly" ignoring the core swing states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. I don't disagree that Bernie does better than Biden with Latinos in CA, AZ, TX, (though not as well as Clinton) but these gains would be nearly erased or potentially even erased and then some by losing ground compared to Biden in Orange County, Maricopa County, and Collin-Denton-Tarrant, which are far more relevant to winning CA, AZ, and TX.

Not to mention that Perdue almost certainly cracks 50% with Bernie as the nominee.


Edit: Also, what. Biden didn't bomb in WOW and SEPA. That's the whole point.

[KaiserDave]

Again, I'd prefer President Sanders to President Biden, but I'm not going to ignore the electoral realities at play here.