It's not gonna be Pete. He's polling at 9% nationally lmaoo

the day he drops out will be a happy day but am i wrong to say that the party favors him over bernie

Is it really happening today?

True.

Americans elect presidents for literally only two reasons: The economy and charisma. It's so easy to tell who is going to win just by who is more charismatic and in this election cycle it's none of the Democrats.

bernie charismatic in an old grandpa way, he just too serious (understandably so,) unfortunately, which won’t really win over the “Id like to have a beer with that guy!” crowd, who i am sure will vote Trump regardless

Bernie is old and fragile, Trump gonna win and he's gonna make it look easy af

that's how modern politics work, nobody wants to see these grumpy snobs anymore

trump a snob too it’s just in like a populist boomer type way

Yea, that's what matters, Trump is a cool snob for people and he isn't detached from the new generation like these oldhead motherfuckers, you wouldn't believe Trumps over 70, his mindset is very youthful

I don't think he will either, but Kerry was at 4% in polls in December 2003 and he won so ya never know

your daddy going down, are you ready?

You wouldn’t believe Trump was over 12 if you saw how he writes

gonna vote for Trump if dems refuse to give Bernie the nomination

You’re not far off, his level of English isn’t much higher

The true president for the uneducated, maga I guess

I only care about my 401k/stocks being affected tbh. They shot up since he took office.

dam

this all may very well be true but as observers we should not applauding a rigidness to stand by the current failed status-quo and discount standing by beliefs that are actually progressive and for the betterment of the country

as much as Bernies resilience wit certain issues may take points away from the average voter, we shouldn’t act like that’s inherently wrong or a product of current establishment standing

i realize you are prolly moreso speaking about the general sentiment and “electability” of a candidate but just talking generally we should not act as if a candidate has to inherently compromise just to appease a tired standard. he’s not necessarily doing anything wrong - whether that helps or hurts him politically remains to be seen, but i would rather politicians stand by their stances (unlike the RNC, who had completely backtracked in unanimous support of trump)

damn just peeped that was first page and not last page my b

yes stocks will tend to rise when allowing huge tax breaks for the individuals who largely mitigate the stock market

i would normally bash you but even before trump got elected i figured he could be a cleansing fire to take all of this bullshit down with him, so carry on

it's been a bit since i made that post, but iirc i less talking about my own positions on these issues and more the issues candidates face when trying to get elected.
one of the harder questions regarding democracy imo is this question about action vs representation though, which is related. supposedly candidates are there to represent the people who elected them, but does that include if they were elected by people with immoral intent? For example you point to the RNC, but the approval rating of the RNC among republican voters is near cult-ish (disclaimer: i am not anywhere near a republican, i simply mean this from an observatory perspective). Even if what they're doing is immoral, are they not representing the people who voted for them? Similarly, should you ignore constituents to vote per morality or ideology, rather than representation of voters? If so, why have a democratic process to begin with if the decision is detached from the representation? Just some thoughts