Democrats were furious and hungry for change. Then Biden jumped in.

[left-of-center2012]

In his opening weeks as a presidential candidate, Biden has rejected much of the conventional wisdom that drove the first stretch of the Democratic nomination fight, refusing to play to the party’s liberal wing, focus on the wrongs of the past or call for revolutionary transformation. To the surprise of many, he has been rewarded with a lead in the polls that, so far at least, has proven durable and steady.

“I know some of the really smart folks say Democrats don’t want to hear about unity,” he said. “They say Democrats are so angry that the angrier a candidate can be, the better chance he or she has to win the Democratic nomination. “Well, I don’t believe it.”

A January poll by the Pew Research Center found that 58 percent of Republicans wanted their party to become more conservative. In contrast, 53 percent of Democrats wanted their party to become more moderate. That raises the question of whether the party’s center of gravity lies less with vocal activists than with a quieter group of voters that is less likely to join Twitter. “His candidacy may be different,” says Biden’s campaign pollster John Anzalone, “But it is the one that is working.”

Primary voters ... want a candidate who can win. “The left makes a lot of noise. They get lot of press,” said Elaine Kamarck, a Democratic National Committee member who is neutral in the Democratic contest. “When people vote in primaries and they know the general election is competitive, there is plenty of evidence to show they make sophisticated judgments about who can win.”

“Joe Biden is not a risky choice,” said Patti Solis Doyle, a Democratic strategist who managed Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “Democrats are not willing to take a risk this time around.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-were-said-to-be-furious-and-hungry-for-change-then-biden-jumped-in/2019/05/19/6cfe2ad4-78a5-11e9-b7ae-390de4259661_story.html?utm_term=.7bee0496e2f3

[Scurrilous]

1. K&R

[Hortensis]

34. Really? Does it occur that, with our massive problems

and rampant social and technological evolutions, big changes are necessary and baked into our next few government majority platforms?

The growing fascism on the right means if we don't manage that there may be no Democratic Party. They're not kidding when they call for imprisoning political opponents, they're only lacking the power so far. Blatant theft of elections is only an early step to faux elections in a faux democracy.

Our Democrats are where the ones of FDR's day were during the Republican Coolidge and Hoover administrations. Facing increasing threat of fascist takeover, matching destabilizing extremism arising on the left, and impending national collapse then also, except they were between world wars and had the Great Depression instead of global warning.

Anyone who imagines there won't be huge change, who hasn't realized there must be, hasn't been thinking, or seeing. Everyone should be terrified at the real possibility that we won't win this enormous struggle for power and won't be directing it.

[brooklynite]

50. Does it occur that radical "big" changes may result in losing the election?

[George Eliot]

62. IMO, if people don't want change, they won't vote for it. Most candidates not pushing big changes.

Whoever gets nomination will be the choice of majority. I would prefer ranked choice voting however. I think that gets closer to the real candidate preferred by most.

[Demsrule86]

64. Yes...that is my fear.

[George Eliot]

124. Are you voting out of fear? Or is Biden your preferred candidate?

[Demsrule86]

129. Biden is my preferred candidate. I like the guy. He is a good kind man and smart.

He will be a good president. I always consider electability No candidate is worth a damn if he /she can't get elected. But there is reason to fear another Trump terms as they will gain at least one more Scotus seat.

[Hortensis]

93. ? ALL big changes have to wait until

after the election of course. It’s wonderful that we control the House, but the Republicans have the White House and the Senate.

There may be comfort in hiding heads in partisan bickering, but people really need to stand up and look around, scary as it is. There’s a real possibility we won’t win this time and that this could be our last chance.

[Demsrule86]

130. This is also true. I hear folks saying anyone can win...but that isn't true.

[Hortensis]

132. Reminds me that PA's having a special congressional

election today that the Republican is expected to win. Trump took the district by a huge margin, and nothing he's or other Republican traitors have done has changed its solid red rating. U of PA is there, and students were part of a big youth blue wave last fall, but they're gone on summer break. If red must win this one, let's hope the margin is at least lower than they want.

Btw, I read that PA's parties have been continuing their sorting out. More conservative Democrats registered Republican, but interesting that a lesser but in-the-same-area number of Republicans switched registration to Democrat, and twice as many indies registered Democrat as Republican, for a new Democratic Party gain.

[Demsrule86]

134. Maybe we get a happy surprise...

[Hortensis]

135. May be. :)

Not over until it's over, and then it's not again in 2020.

[comradebillyboy]

2. America's longing for a political revolution is seriously overestimated.

Especially not a 'socialist revolution' since those haven't worked out too well anywhere in the world.

[earthshine]

7. Oh, yeah. Finland, Norway, and Denmark are just hell holes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/03/20/finland-worlds-happiest-country-2019/3221328002/

For the second year in a row, the world's happiest country is... Finland!

Finland topped the list of 156 countries, which were ranked in the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network's 2019 World Happiness Report. The report ranks countries on several well-being variables including income, freedom, trust, healthy life expectancy and more.

Two other Nordic countries came in second and third place, Denmark and Norway, respectively.

Let's be clear, Bernie refers to the Scandinavia countries as the examples, not the late USSR.

[Politicub]

9. Wonderful countries, but they didn't form over night

It has taken nearly their entire history to achieve their social democracy. It is part of the culture there.

While I would love for the US to have a comprehensive Nordic-like system, it will take decades or more to get there, if ever. Instead I would like to see the US offer some of the basics such as universal healthcare, funding childcare, and offering tuition-free higher education.

[earthshine]

10. Instead?

Why can't we have "universal healthcare, funding childcare, and offering tuition-free higher education" on the way to a Nordic-like system?

Seems to me, your want list items are steps in the right direction. The sooner we get them, the better.

I agree that it could take decades to get all the way there.

The point is we need leaders who have this consciousness -- a desire to move in this direction.

Joe Biden, for example, offers to take us back to a time when Republicans were reasonable. He says that just be defeating Trump, they will become reasonable. He's not interested in making changes to our system of government -- just repairing some of the damage Republicans have done.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. That's what makes Bernie special... it's that vision thang!!

Still waiting anxiously to see if Joe has something to offer in that regard. I'm open to anything beyond platitudes and a "return to normalcy," as that leaves a vacuum that brings his past record sharply into focus... don't see how that helps Joe with the Democratic base.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[BannonsLiver]

15. There's no point in having vision when you can't get elected.

Bernie won’t be the nominee, and he wouldn’t be able to get elected even if he were so it’s all moot. Vision without the means to enact your ideas is just day dreaming.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Great, so if Bernie isn't going to get elected as the nominee, you don't need to worry...

and can stop posting negative comments about him. Unless, of course, in reality, you're actually worried that Bernie WILL get elected as the nominee, in which case, carry on!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[BannonsLiver]

21. I'm just here for the schadenfreude

As far as the rest of the candidates go (outside of Gabbard) they would all be excellent choices.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. It's okay to be worried Bernie's gonna be the Democratic nominee... it's perfectly understandable!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[BannonsLiver]

25. Bahahaha!

Sure. Sure thing.

[earthshine]

28. platitudes and a "return to normalcy,"

Centrism is full of platitudes, like "hope and change." I think centrism is a death knell for liberalism.

I'm sure others on DU will disagree. It's only my opinion, but I stand by it.

Many politicians are loath to criticize and change the system that brought them to power. They really can't see how a better world could be had.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Yes, but you can have platitudes along with vision... the two are not mutually exclusive.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[Demit]

32. I want Biden to identify the time when Republicans were reasonable.

Exactly what era was that, Joe?

[earthshine]

35. Lincoln's time, perhaps?

Teddy Roosevelt was a repub.

The missions of the parties was different back then.

[Demsrule86]

131. Obama and Biden gave us the only healthcare we have and or likely to have

For years. I am not in favor of Medicare for all. I do favor universal healthcare.

[floppyboo]

59. Actually, it did happen sort of over night in Norway.

There was a peaceful uprising that happened at the voting booth in the '30's, but the underlying conditions to bring it to fruition had been brewing. Just as they have in most of the world as power continues to consolidate itself on the few. It's very much like the stress on an elastic band that is old and frail, when 99% are tugging at one side and 1% hold the other. No matter how much money and nostalgic dogma you throw at that old elastic band, it is going to snap.

I saw a really good short doc on this election recently, but can't find it. Did find this good article on peaceful revolution though:
https://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/05/did-the-norwegians-have-a-revolution/
Now we come to the heart of the matter: What defines revolution? The Norwegian Labor Party and its farmer and middle class allies could fundamentally change the country’s course because they forced a power shift. The super-rich no longer ruled, as they had for centuries (sometimes in collaboration with the Danes and Swedes).

That power shift is what didn’t happen in the 20th century in the U.K., in France and in Germany, although the working class in those countries gained more concessions than were gained in the U.S.

How significant was the power shift? The crisis in the financial sector that is still wrecking Europe reveals the difference dramatically. When, in the 1980s, Norway took a temporary detour by flirting with neoliberalism, the economy headed toward the cliff: speculation on housing, a bubble, a crash. But the fundamental power arrangement re-asserted itself: The government seized the three biggest banks, fired the senior management, made sure the shareholders didn’t get a krone and told the other private banks that they could either recapitalize on their own or go bankrupt. No bailouts — period.

[George Eliot]

63. I think 2016 showed a desire for big change. Bernie's mass turnouts and Trumps victory.

Yes, Clinton won the majority. Unfortunately, we live under electoral system. No one can deny the turn out for Sanders was unexpected and massive. Perhaps we are ready. It may not be Sanders but at least one other candidate is ready to change our government fiscally. I'd be happy with her.

[shanny]

94. I think 2008 also showed the desire

for big changes...which we unfortunately didn't get

[George Eliot]

137. Hope and CHANGE. We got the hope but not the change. It was disappointing.

[shanny]

140. it was. imo that was the explanation for 2010

[Demsrule86]

133. He wasn't in the general so our voters did not choose revolution.

And they won't this year either. Trump eked out a win in three states running on fixing manufacturing...PA,WI and MI. The blue wall states. It really was that simple. I don't know if people actually look at the electoral college map, but I have...posted them also. We won't win the presidency if we don't get those states back and not just in 20 as there is no path without them in future presidential elections for Democrats... oh sure people opine that we can take Georgia, Arizona and Texas....maybe but when?

[beachbum bob]

40. We have states larger than those countries...you just can not

compare...

[earthshine]

43. We have the Nordic countries as models from which to start.

What's clear is that the current economic and health care system does not work for most of the people most of the time.

[comradebillyboy]

49. None of them are socialist states by any meaninful definition of socialism.

[earthshine]

70. What Bernie advocates for is what Scandinavia has.

And so, I wish he never used the word "socialism."

[comradebillyboy]

86. I take Bernie at his word, he''s a socialist.

He says so himself.

[GemDigger]

52. It's a lot easier to do when the population of the country is under 6 million people.

All three of them are in the 5.something million people. The US has 327 million plus.

[earthshine]

68. It's easier to do if our leaders have the consciousness to do so.

The present system of economics and healthcare does not work for most of the people most of the time.

Biden shows no desire for change. He wants to return to a time, perhaps a century ago, when Republicans were "reasonable."

[G_j]

118. that is the underlying reality of the discussion

the present system is failing miserably, and that’s an understatement.
It would be hard to find anyone who doesn’t agree with that.

[JI7]

60. There is a lot of hostility towards Immigrants who tend to be minorities in those countries

[earthshine]

67. Have you noticed? It's everywhere.

[JI7]

69. yes, people aren't so supportive of social programs once they see "those others" will benefit

[earthshine]

71. I thought, as liberals, we give a damn about others.

The present system of financial distribution and taxation, as well as healthcare, does not work for most of the people most of the time.

[JI7]

72. those who are truly liberals do care that's why we can see why majority of white people

vote the way they do. they don't want minorities to benefit . only themselves.

[earthshine]

73. You seem to be arguing without actually making a point.

I don't disagree with anything you state, but it doesn't go anywhere.

[JI7]

75. of course it does. the problem is the majority of white voters who vote for republicans

[earthshine]

76. Okay. You seem to not be on topic. Good night.

[JI7]

77. no, i'm very much on topic. Vermont got rid of their Democratic Governor that tried to get single

payer in the state.

[earthshine]

80. So, I guess the point you want to make is that YOU don't want it.

I believe the statistic is around 70% of Americans want medicare for all.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

[JI7]

82. Vermont didn't want it and Sanders himself did nothing to help the Democratic Governor get it

he just goes to other states to rant about whatever. but when he is asked questions about how he would do something he is clueless and has no answers.

[GulfCoast66]

61. Since none of the Nations you mention are socialist,

It really does not advance an argument for socialism.

They are all capitalist nations with a strong Social Democratic tradition. Something our last party platform called for.

[earthshine]

66. Bernie advocates for what you call "Social Democratic tradition" and Biden does not.

I vote for Bernie.

[JI7]

78. Sanders said he didn't think poor people from Mexico, China etc should come here

[earthshine]

81. This info is without context. Show me a link.

No one supports immigration without limits.

[JI7]

83. but it's interesting when certain ones are named

[earthshine]

84. Enough of your poor excuse for communications. Do not write to me again.

[JI7]

85. but you are ok wanting a president who is unable to answer when asked about policy

[JI7]

122. Why do you keep replying ?

[betsuni]

128. LOL

[Hekate]

88. Finland, Norway, & Denmark are orders of magnitude less diverse than America...

When a social policy regarding chldren's education or medical care is made in the Norwegian capital, it is not that difficult to persuade citizens in one part of the country that children in another part of the country are "their" children too, and should have the same benefits and tax dollars spent.

Just try that in Washington DC. You think the people in "the heartland" really relate to the children in inner cities as though they are their own?

We have our own strengths, and need to build on them. We have quite a way to go. But imagining a Nordic Socialist Paradise replicating itself in the US any time soon is folly.

[earthshine]

89. I take it YOU don't want it.

We have quite a way to go. But imagining a Nordic Socialist Paradise replicating itself in the US any time soon is folly.

It will take years to achieve. But, it will never happen at all unless we try. The present system of economics and healthcare does not work well for most of the people most of the time.

[Hekate]

110. We need to build on the strengths we have. Take that however you want.

[earthshine]

111. I take it YOU don't want it.

Let's all cheer on incremental change.

[pangaia]

12. They are Social Democracies, NOT Socialist.

Evan so, that comment is really disengenious (which I can not spell) because it pulls up pictures of Communist countries.

I have seen that phrase used many times, almost always by right wing republicans, which I am sure you are not..

[comradebillyboy]

51. You are correct to distinguish social democracy from socialism.

They are indeed different things. The former Soviet Union and it satellites were actual socialist states. Finland, Sweden etc are clearly social democracies, where the means of production including agriculture are privately owned. But they do have wonderful social services.

[pangaia]

54. They have great food, also.. :)))))))))

[comradebillyboy]

55. I visited Denmark, Sweden and Finland and found the cuisine to

be a bit too fish oriented for my taste. I did try reindeer in Sweden and it was pretty wonderful. My favorite food places were Italy and Turkey.

[pangaia]

58. I'm going to Kyoto Sunday..

My favorite food on all the planet..

[comradebillyboy]

87. I was stationed in Okinawa for 18 months way back

when I was in the Air Force. I learned how to use chopsticks there. I always found food that I liked but i also had mixed feelings about broader Japanese cuisine.

[pangaia]

98. hummmm. which broader cuisine were an issue?

[comradebillyboy]

99. Raw fish, sea weed and the like.

When it comes to food I am not so cosmopolitan.

[pangaia]

100. I must say, sushi is my favorite of everything in the world. But I understand your concern. :)

There are a gazillion types of seaweed , each used for different purposes..
Delicious...

Did you ever try either sushi or seaweed?

[comradebillyboy]

101. I've tried both and they are not to my taste. I have aalways been

a picky eater. My tour in the Air Force did introduce me to a variety of Asian cuisines and helped me to expand my tastes and my willingness to experiment with a bigger variety of foods.

[Cha]

90. Turkey! What kind of

cuisine does Turkey have, comradebillyboy?

I do love my Italian food and Mexican! Fact I'm having tacos right now!

[comradebillyboy]

97. Pide, a Turkish Flat bread with ground meat and vegetables

is one of my favorites:



They also do great sea food, lamb kebabs, lentil soups and an amazing variety of breads.

[Cha]

116. Looks interesting and

yummy!

Never even thought of Turkish cuisine before.. Thank You!

[Turin_C3PO]

17. I know what you're saying

but I’d hesitate to say that any of our candidates want a true socialist economy. Warren and Sanders are probably the furthest left and I’d say their ideal model is a very regulated “welfare” state that is still essentially capitalist.

[Triloon]

3. here we go again,

centrists flocking around a status quo that no longer exists. "..not willing to take a risk this time around.” Pffft. When have they ever.

[George II]

4. If the "status quo" no longer exists, it's not the "status quo"....

Think about it:

sta·tus quo
/ˌstādəs ˈkwō/
noun
the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.

[Triloon]

8. I dont need to think about it

What may have been the status quo in the past need not be the status quo of the present, nor of the future. Do you think nothing has changed during the Trump administration? Do you think the status quo at the end of the Obama admin remains intact? Of course not. America now needs something a little more vigorous than business-as-usual centrism.

[NYMinute]

22. hahahahahahaha

What may have been the status quo in the past need not be the status quo of the present, nor of the future.

"Status quo" by definition is something that doesn't change.

Your statement is like saying, "The rock of Gibraltar of the past is not the same as the one present and definitely not the Rock of Gibraltar of the future."

[Triloon]

36. You can't be more mistaken.

The status quo during the Roman Empire included the general acceptance of chattel slavery. Today it does not. The status quo has changed. Try harder to understand that dictionary you claim to have. Or at least use it.

[lapucelle]

39. "Status quo ante" is the correct term for your example.

It expresses the idea of a former status quo.

status quo (n.)
"unaltered condition," 1833, from Latin status quo "the state in which," hence "existing state of affairs." Also status quo ante "the state in which before, state of affairs previous" (1877).

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=status+quo

"The status quo needs to go because the status quo is different" makes no sense whatsoever. You may want to replace the status quo or shift its dynamics, but if someone is seeking change, then using "status quo" is non sequitur.

Precision in diction and usage matters.

[Triloon]

46. "The status quo needs to go because the status quo is different" is your usage, not mine.

Not at all. I stand by my statement, even though you didn't understand it. Precision in reading and quotation matters.

[lapucelle]

47. Inference and interpretation based on a series of statements

(even if those statements are, at best, garbled and simplistic) is known as reasoning.

Here you will find quoted the precise relevant statements in all their glory.

here we go again, centrists flocking around a status quo that no longer exists

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=126187

What may have been the status quo in the past need not be the status quo of the present, nor of the future. Do you think nothing has changed...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=126225

"The status quo needs to go because the status quo is different" is your usage, not mine.

Understanding inferences is difficult for some. It's a relatively high skill on Bloom's taxonomy. Not everyone can acquire it.

Have a donut.

[Triloon]

48. that's exactly what I was trying to tell you -

Your inference about the meaning of my original statement was lacking in understanding. Perhaps even vacant.
You tried to correct my vernacular use of the term status quo by introducing formal latin usage, and now you bring up Bloom's attempts to categorise the human mind from the 1950s.
These are both admirable examples of the meaning of my original statement, "..centrists flocking around a status quo that no longer exists". Especially the Latin. Thanks for the examples.

[lapucelle]

53. ...

My inference was "vacant"?
You were using "vernacular latin [sic]"?
Bloom was attempting to "categorise [sic] the human mind"?

What are you referring to when you assert with gusto: "These are both admirable examples of the meaning of my original statement"? The only antecedents for the word "both" in your exegesis are "[my] vacant inference" and "Bloom's attempts to categorise [sic] the human mind from the 1950s".

As for the grammar, there are two sentence fragments ("Perhaps even vacant." and "Especially the Latin." ) and a misplaced modifier ("Bloom's attempts to categorise [sic] the human mind from the 1950s.).

Have another donut.

[Triloon]

74. I believe we can both agree that

using an appeal to authority in the effort to insult, dominate, and bring to silence a political ally is peculiar behavior. I'm sure you can find a category for it. I'll defer to your expertise.

[lapucelle]

91. Ignoratio elenchi...

... and although bringing up the appeal to authority after having dismissed several posters by using that very tactic (i.e. "I am the authority on what my words mean, and I will dispute reasonable constructions that call into question my conclusion." ) might be characterized by some as peculiar, most would probably simply think it's funny.

Deferring to expertise is often a wise course. There are some people here with long enough careers to have worked as professional editors, instructors in logic, and teachers of world languages.

Interesting fact...the romance languages evolved from vulgar (also known as colloquial or vernacular) Latin.

[Triloon]

114. I regret that my faith in your expertise was misplaced.

Ignoratio elenchi is not the correct answer to the question I asked you. You dodged that question and instead chose to offer me fresh insults. A better answer to my question about your using an appeal to authority in the effort to dominate and silence me would have been Ad Hominem.
I do applaud your ability to drag the conversation away from the interesting bloom of support for Joe Biden towards the uninteresting topic of how complete my education might be. Well done.
Ignoratio elenchi indeed.

[lapucelle]

123. The reference was to let you know that your tactic was obvious. The answer to your question

is in the body of the post. It wasn't dodged. The fact that someone either doesn't like or doesn't understand the answer to a question doesn't obviate its having been answered.

This conversation began with your invective concerning "centrists", a word which has shifted pejorative for many. At no point in this subthread were you ever conversing about "the interesting bloom of support for Biden".

here we go again,

centrists flocking around a status quo that no longer exists. "..not willing to take a risk this time around.” Pffft. When have they ever.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=126187

"Interestng bloom of support for Biden", indeed. Pffft.

[George II]

56. But when there's a new status quo, what do we do with all those dozens or hundreds....

....of statements by many about the old "status quo"?

[Triloon]

115. I'm sorry, but I dont understand your question.

[ehrnst]

96. What would you describe as 'non-vigorous' "business as usual centrism?"

And what is this destructive 'status quo' you talk about?

All I ever hear is very vague, circular definitions, with no real examples.

[Triloon]

119. You're right, I need to be more clear and specific, thanks for your patience. I will try.

First of all, I have no beef with Joe Biden. I have campaigned for him in the past and have always thought he'd be a fine president, and I still think so. My issue is with the phenomenal outburst of support he has at the beginning of this campaign, as was being discussed in the OP.
What is it that has wowed the crowds so much at his entry in the campaign? Is it the way he dawdled around pretending to be undecided about running until he saw he could be the last one to jump in the pool with a big cannonball dive? That's savvy politicking, as we might expect from a seasoned pro, but it doesn't account for the big response.

Is it that he wants to extend the hand of collegial comity to the Republicans? The sunshiney notion of achieving bi-partisan consensus warms the heart of every good willed citizen, and maybe that accounts for his current blossom of popularity. But for decades the republicans have shown their contempt for comity and bi-partisan consensus, and the current crop of them is working every day to undermine the Constitution and disestablish liberal democracy as a whole. So what is the point of crowds throwing their hats in the air over Joe's commitment to fair bi-partisanship and anger-free politics? Such idealistic optimism is way premature and it is what I meant by "business as usual centrism".

So I wish Joe Biden the best of luck but I also hope this initial popularity he is enjoying deflates a little so that people will treat this current "status quo" with the seriousness it deserves.

I'll leave it at that, and hope that you understand me better, although I doubt that I've gained any agreement.

[ehrnst]

136. So essentially, you think that he hasn't earned the popularity that he has.

I get that.

I think that about another candidate in this race as well.

[Triloon]

138. No, that's not what I think.

His many years of good service have earned him plenty of popularity. But the conditions under which he has served have changed. Seeking bipartisan consensus no longer works. It is broken. Not just because I say so, but because the GOP has willfully broken it. It is an essential tool of democracy which is no longer operable. So, that good-will approach is no longer applicable, no matter how popular it is.
We can't afford to try and meet them halfway anymore. It only results in creeping further to the right. I've had my fill of that. That's what I think.

[Triloon]

125. i took another look at what you said and I think I understand it better.

Is it that my statement "the status quo has changed" would be more accurately stated " the contents (or, the particulars) of status quo have changed" ? If so, I think that is a broader perspective of the term than I was using and I thank you for pointing it out for me. That clarification may be what a couple of other posters were trying to impress on me as well.
Naturally, if I were to rephrase my original comment using this refinement the meaning of my opinion will not have changed. Right?

[earthshine]

11. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. This is no time to play it safe... that's for damn sure!! There's way too at stake!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[emulatorloo]

103. There is nothing "safe" about any of our candidates. All of them support the same set of goals

They may differ in implementation but they all want to lift up the 99%. Unlike Trump and Republicans who want to destroy us.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

107. Goals are goals. I wanna know what ACTIONS candidates will take, then we voters decide on a nominee.

I think that's how democracies are a sposed to work!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[emulatorloo]

108. All of them are talking about policy and implementation! It is exciting!

Warren has some fantastic details plans as you know!

Currently my short list is Warren, Mayor Pete, Harris, and Biden. I have faith in all of them. So far I have only managed to see Biden speak and he was really good. Going to see the rest of those amc others too. (I am in Iowa)

I think all of our candidates are great.

[shanny]

95. Well put.

A brave defender of the status quo is not what we need...and in the long run be the least safe choice.

[emulatorloo]

102. Trump, the Koch Brothers, and the Freedom Caucus are the status quo

I am ready for a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.

Most Democratic primary voters I talk to aren’t interested in the labels DU and twitter obsess over

We have great Dem Primary candidates and any one of them will fight for the 99%.

[LakeArenal]

5. I, for one, couldn't be happier.

But anyone who thinks Joe just “jumped in” are wrong. I knew he was going to run since last fall. I even said it here on DU and got tons of “old white guy” pushback immediately.

Besides, Joe didn’t jump. His entrance into the race was long anticipated.

[left-of-center2012]

20. "old white guy" pushback

Plenty of that still around.

[emmaverybo]

31. I, for one, am incredibly tired of it. Talk about old and tired. Mindless memes need retirement.

[snowybirdie]

6. American voters

want peaceful and competent government. We need time to heal and bring about change gradually I think after tRump.

[pangaia]

13. Before ANY of that can happen, we need to save the damn country from turning into I know not what !

[NBachers]

16. Joe Biden for president

Joe Biden for president

[colsohlibgal]

18. Any Change From Trump Is Good

But, again nothing wrong with democratic socialism...just a better sharing of the pie. Maybe not a gazillion dollars for Defense, maybe a more equitable tax system, which we had in varying degrees from Eisenhower to Reagan.

I also did don’t see too many of our candidates, minus Tulsi, who couldn’t beat that idiot in a fair election.

[NYMinute]

24. Democratic Socialism will NOT defeat Trump

Democratic Socialism wins only in places that are 80% Democratic - like Bronx.

[Turin_C3PO]

27. If it didn't have "socialist" in the title,

I think the ideas would go further. Because, really, none of our candidates are arguing for a true socialist economy. As I posted above, Sanders and Warren are really advocating for a very tightly regulated capitalist system with a generous safety net, sometimes called a “welfare state”, similar to the Nordic model.

[earthshine]

30. Bernie's biggest mistake was to use that word.

Bernie's policies are just the left side of mainstream liberalism.

He should have just said, "I'm an FDR Democrat" and stated his policies.

What liberal doesn't like FDR? FDR saved capitalism.

Thanks for your opinion.

[NYMinute]

44. He LIKES saying he is a socialist - for the shock value and attention nt

[Kahuna7]

92. It's like he wants to force feed "socialism" to America and be like..

Fetch. But America is like, fetch ain't gonna happen.

[Docreed2003]

33. I love Joe...I really do

(And here's the but) but he is a "safe" choice for a steady, experienced hand that has the ability to turn this ship and that might be exactly what we need right now, and that is clearly resonating with people. I welcome the primary because we have a ton of amazing voices sharing their visions, and when/if Biden has the nomination I'll gladly work my butt off for him.

[The Mouth]

37. Democrats were/are furious hungry for change

From Trump.

Joe is 'exciting' in the sense of being 'not Trump'.

Warren, Mayor Pete, several others are more ideal in terms of ideology, but Joe just might be the best chance to get rid of our current kleptocratic idiocracy.

[NRaleighLiberal]

38. I find this quite sad.

[George Eliot]

65. Too early to watch polls. America is full of invisible and unengaged voters. Give it time.

[TryLogic]

41. Safe choice. Like John Kerry? Like Bob Dole for the Republicans?

Those two come to mind immediately.

We have a national emergency. We have all kinds of emergencies: risk of losing our democracy, global climate disasters, loss of a middle class, crooked attorney general, government corruption run rampant, Russians controlling multiple politicians (Republicans), etc. We need serious, bold, leadership, not pussy foot caution.

[left-of-center2012]

45. ,

[jalan48]

42. Joe's the Goldilocks's choice. Not too hot, not too cold, just right!

[DonCoquixote]

57. playing safe

may not win this time, since the last thing many will want is Joe trying to make nice with the GOP, yet again, after they did all but hang people in the streets. Yes, America may be scared of left wing changes, but right now, we have someone who has ushed things so far to the right that people will want someone to lean left more just to have a hope of saving the ship.

[JI7]

79. Democrats wanted a Change from Trump. Not a Change from OBama

[emulatorloo]

104. Only at DU and Reddit do I see people claim that most Democrats hate Obama

And that running against Obama is a winner. Oh the twitterverse too.

I may be wrong but there is nothing reality-based about those sentiments as far as I can tell.

And thank goodness none of our primary candidates are following that advice.

[JI7]

127. once people realize and accept how popular Obama is then it's not really surprising to see why

Biden's numbers are high.

he has embraced Obama. i have a feeling if he tried to run by distancing himself from Obama that the numbers would not be as good .

[emulatorloo]

105. Biden is change though.

Look who is in the White House and look who controls the Senate.

Biden is the polar opposite of the craven crooks, thieves, White Supremacists, and wannabe Nazis that are in control of our government.

All of our candidates are great, and Dem primary voters don’t care about the “labels” the MSM is obsessed over.

Thanks for the article

[Amimnoch]

106. If they were really hungry they'd focus more on the House and Senate.

IMO, our standard bearer going into the general only needs to meet 5 criteria:
1. Will win the General.
2. Will repair our image abroad through good foreign relations work.
3. will make good cabinet and judicial appointment decisions.
4. Will sign any Democratic Party led legislation that makes it through the House and Senate to her/his desk.
5. Will veto any tRumpublicon Party led legislation that makes it through the House and senate to her/his desk.

For issues, I wish people would wake up and start focusing at least 1/10th of their energy on the House and Senate elections as they do on the Presidency. Bills that actually make policy HAPPEN are drafted, and passed in those chambers.. we only need a president that will sign off on the right ones. I believe all of our candidates will make #2, 3, and 5 happen.. #1 any of our candidates can make happen, but I want the one with the best odds. #4 I trust all of our candidates but Bernie Sanders to make happen.

[IluvPitties]

109. Democrats want Trump out and a proven leader in.

That person is Biden.

[Gothmog]

112. I want to win in 2020

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[aikoaiko]

113. Its true that not risky may win the primary -- but what about the GE

[Gothmog]

117. Washington Post-Analysis: How the Democrats' shift to the left indirectly aids Joe Biden

Link to tweet

Former vice president Joe Biden is embracing his role as the leading moderate in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary field. He has at times adopted an almost curmudgeonly tone about his opponents’ embrace of more progressive policies, preferring a nostalgia for the way things were back in the good old days of, say, 2015.

It’s an approach that, at first, seems at odds with where the party is going. We’ve noted previously that Democrats are increasingly likely to identify themselves as liberals, a trend that probably helps explain why so many of the 2020 candidates have embraced progressive positions — and why more progressive candidates have entered the race.

Polling, though, suggests that this may not be a foolproof strategy. For one thing, a crowd of more progressive candidates (an admittedly nebulous designation) will compete for the same voters, freeing Biden to vacuum up support from moderates. But polling also shows that Democrats overall aren’t necessarily prioritizing a candidate who espouses progressive policies. The data below are from a recent CNN-SSRS poll: More Democrats think it’s important for a nominee to work with Republicans than to support liberal policies.


.....

[mvd]

121. Well, I always wanted something more during the Obama administration..

and still want more of a change to the establishment. I strongly do and it is why I favor Sanders and Warren. But if Biden shows himself as most likely to beat Trump, we need to win badly. I am in the vote blue no matter who camp. My top 3 are Sanders, Warren and Harris.

[Mike Nelson]

126. Thereis a...

… different dynamic this time... "change" changed. Think about the average voter. The average voter does not post here and is not one of the FOX "News" Deplorables - they are not going to vote for the Democrat. The average American has seen "change" and wants a return to normalcy. They're disgusted - even the ones who might like the conservative/Republican direction... they privately wish he would shut up and stop tweeting; they would rather have Pence as President. The exhaustion of Crooked Donald has helped Biden, in my opinion. He's not my first choice, and I'm thinking of Harris or Buttigieg in the primary, but I'd be happy with Biden and believe it's possible to get Progressive thought and thinkers into his Administration.

[peggysue2]

139. Love these headlines

According to this headline, the electorate was looking for humongous, revolutionary change, and then Joe Biden entered the race and ruined everything.

Please!

The change the Democratic electorate is hungry for is the toppling of Donald Trump and his wave of deranged governance. Democrats are furious at the illegitimate nature of Trump squatting in the White House and the Republican Party's complicity in high crimes and misdemeanors.

Joe Biden was the first candidate to specifically call Donald Trump out, take the fight to him while clearly stating he intends to take the man to the woodshed. He also had the audacity to say that the biggest obstacle to any progressive movement was . . . Donald Trump squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. So, at the center of Biden's Climate Change proposal is the removal of Donald J. Trump. In fact, at the center of any and all policies, proposals and plans is ridding ourselves of the Mad King. Nothing will be accomplished without Trump's removal. Period, close quote.

Which is why losing 2020 is not an option. Despite all the naysayers and pundits, electability is driving this primary. Joe Biden was the first to take the reins of the bucking horse. And so far? He's managed to stay on and up in the polls.