RJ consensus worst Democratic candidate?

[Teenwolf]

So you're saying that Klobuchar is your second favorite candidate. We're not as far apart as I thought.

I figured you'd get a kick out of that.

[Stephen]

um...the candidates themselves are a bit negative. There have been negative comments about each candidate. I wondered if there was a consensus of the Democratic RJers?

Nice seeing you back.

I appreciate your answer.

That's fair and I wasn't directing that specifically at you, but rather the general trend of divisive politics where we tear down candidates we don't like, rather than build up the ones we do. The wording wasn't the best, I admit.

There is a such a fine line in the primaries for me - because on one hand this is literally the time to nitpick and point out very minor differences between relatively likeminded people, but there is such a culture within the more vocal minority of fellow progressive (and often times younger) voters where it's like "We agree on 99% of things, but because there is 1% we don't agree on, you're the enemy!" type thing.

I find that exhausting.

[Teenwolf]

That's fair and I wasn't directing that specifically at you, but rather the general trend of divisive politics where we tear down candidates we don't like, rather than build up the ones we do. The wording wasn't the best, I admit.

There is a such a fine line in the primaries for me - because on one hand this is literally the time to nitpick and point out very minor differences between relatively likeminded people, but there is such a culture within the more vocal minority of fellow progressive (and often times younger) voters where it's like "We agree on 99% of things, but because there is 1% we don't agree on, you're the enemy!" type thing.

I find that exhausting.

Sanders' platform is in 99% agreement with the other candidates?

Uh, no.

[Gregg]

That's fair and I wasn't directing that specifically at you, but rather the general trend of divisive politics where we tear down candidates we don't like, rather than build up the ones we do. The wording wasn't the best, I admit.

There is a such a fine line in the primaries for me - because on one hand this is literally the time to nitpick and point out very minor differences between relatively likeminded people, but there is such a culture within the more vocal minority of fellow progressive (and often times younger) voters where it's like "We agree on 99% of things, but because there is 1% we don't agree on, you're the enemy!" type thing.

I find that exhausting.

Yes it is exhausting.

I hated the choices in the last election. Doesn't seem to be getting better.

[Teenwolf]

Yes it is exhausting.

I hated the choices in the last election. Doesn't seem to be getting better.

Gregg, why would you start a discussion about a topic you find exhausting?

Please tell me how any of my critiques are unfair, if that's indeed what you think.

[Stephen]

Sanders' platform is in 99% agreement with the other candidates?

Uh, no.

No, but that isn't what I said and even if I had the statistics were clearly a generalization within a hypothetical quote.

[Gregg]

Gregg, why would you start a discussion about a topic you find exhausting?

Please tell me how any of my critiques are unfair, if that's indeed what you think.

RJ is my Cliff notes. I also expect there to be more intelligent conversation in here than what I get in my walking around life.

I seriously would not try to argue any of the points you made off the top of my head as I am not equipped nor do I have the desire. I appreciate you taking the time to write them. If there is something blatantly unfair I would assume some of the other Dems would correct you or call you out.

I am almost jealous of your passion for politics. I do not have it.

[B-Fly]

I think each of the candidates presents a unique set of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats with respect to first electability, second policy/platform, and third judgment/execution effectiveness.

I think your question is focused on policy/platform/judgment/execution, not electability, but I'm looking across all of them. If I'm setting aside electability, then I think Warren is still my first choice. Adding electability back in, I think it may be Sanders. He's just proving better at connecting with voters and their concerns. I think Bloomberg is very strong on execution and his resources certainly help electability. Biden is my least favorite of the top five, but he could still turn me around if he can get his act together.

[nots]

Maybe the question should be: who do you think will win the Democratic nomination? I would be more interested in those responses than who is the worst
(No disrespect at all Gregg, I greatly appreciate your point of view and don’t want to step on your toes)

[The Feral Slasher]

I think each of the candidates presents a unique set of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats with respect to first electability, second policy/platform, and third judgment/execution effectiveness.

I think your question is focused on policy/platform/judgment/execution, not electability, but I'm looking across all of them. If I'm setting aside electability, then I think Warren is still my first choice. Adding electability back in, I think it may be Sanders. He's just proving better at connecting with voters and their concerns. I think Bloomberg is very strong on execution and his resources certainly help electability. Biden is my least favorite of the top five, but he could still turn me around if he can get his act together.

You can't teach on old dog-faced pony soldier a new trick.

[B-Fly]

Maybe the question should be: who do you think will win the Democratic nomination? I would be more interested in those responses than who is the worst
(No disrespect at all Gregg, I greatly appreciate your point of view and don’t want to step on your toes)

Sanders

[Gregg]

Maybe the question should be: who do you think will win the Democratic nomination? I would be more interested in those responses than who is the worst
(No disrespect at all Gregg, I greatly appreciate your point of view and don’t want to step on your toes)

No problem.

I don't think RJ has one yet. I thought there might be unity in the worst one. I am surprised that this question was much more complicated than I imagined.

[Don Quixote]

No problem.

I don't think RJ has one yet. I thought there might be unity in the worst one. I am surprised that this question was much more complicated than I imagined.

The question to me is, do you want to win, or do you want ideological purity? And if the latter, whose ideology?

As far as I'm concerned, all the right ideology (whatever that is) mean nothing if you can't gain power. If your platform is good, and you lose the election, what does the platform matter? Look at the recent experience of the Labour Party in the UK. Some of their "manifesto" is very good stuff (as well as some of it being left-wing tripe), but their "leadership" was totally tone-deaf and unconcerned with the day-to-day lives of the electorate. They got their tails kicked by the Conservatives (led by a man with about as much morality as our President), and the good of the defeated parties' platforms will be as irrelevant as the bad.

If I'm as against President Trump as most here seem to be (and indeed I am), my concern is about winning--period. Perhaps some get some pleasure out of being right in principle, but I'd rather be right and in office. And while I don't see a way as of now for any of the remaining Democrats to win the general election, I'm also aware that (a) it's over eight months until Election Day, and (b) no one saw a way for the eventual Republican nominee to beat the "inevitable Clinton landslide" four years ago.

[onejayhawk]

There are only two remaining with more than one delegate, so who is worst now?

J

[B-Fly]

There are only two remaining with more than one delegate, so who is worst now?

J

Still Trump