Here’s the hypothetical. Back in December of last year, both Biden and Sanders announce that they are not going to run for POTUS. They both say something to the effect that they are making way for the younger generation, and that while they will continue to work hard to advocate for the things they support, they won’t endorse any particular candidate until after the primary is over.
Would you have preferred this situation, so that in a sense all of the candidates would be “new blood” and the two frontrunners wouldn’t be setting up a seeming contest between the party insider and the self identified socialist while sucking up the oxygen from all the other candidates? On the one hand we wouldn’t have to worry about this potentially turning into a contest of the party insider vs. the outsider and how Sanders is getting cheated. On the other hand instead of the 20 or so serious contenders we currently have the number might be 30 or 40 had both Biden and Sanders announced that they were not running. Which would you have preferred? There is no option for just one of them to sit out, it’s either both or neither. It also shouldn’t need to be said, but Clinton is also not running in either scenario.
They should run. I’d prefer Sanders, because he’s divisive, but I’d rather they were both there and allow for a wide range of belief systems for voters to choose from.
My hope was that Bernie wouldn’t run, but would find some rising young progressive (Stacy Abrams?) and endorse her early. So, not quite the scenario you propose.
I like Bernie, so I voted for the status quo. I see “neither” is already ahead 4-1. I will be interested in seeing this result; Bernie and Biden supporters collectively make up about half the Democratic electorate, but I’m guessing “neither” will do better than you would predict based on that fact.
I don’t think that a lot of candidates are staying out just because Biden and Sanders are in.
All thinkg considered, I would prefer that Sanders not run. Hopefully everyone has learned their lesson regarding launching a protest vote, but I’m still a bit concerned about a Bernie or bust contingent forming, that decides to take its ball and go home if he doesn’t win the nomination, particularly if the vote is close or there is a brokered convention.
Also it may be ageist of me, but I would like to nominate a Democrat that could serve a full 8 year term, and I’m not sure that either of these men are up to it. Come 2028, Biden will be 86 and Sanders 88. Being president is not an easy job (unless, like the current one you don’t care) and past history has shown that it ages a person, so there is cause for concern.
If just one had run, I think Bernie has the better claim that he deserves to be in the race. He ran last time and did well, and clearly still has a good deal of support. I’m not fond of him and I wish he hadn’t run, but them’s the facts.
Biden, at best, is the right man for a different time, but largely out of step for this one. (I’ve been extremely critical of Biden in other threads, so I’ll just leave it at that in this one.) He’s only in this race because he was an affable sort as Obama’s veep, and that isn’t much of a credential, IMHO.
I don’t look at it as “deserves” to be in the race. They can do as they wish. Hell, Hillary could run if she wants (although I’d ***strongly ***prefer that she doesn’t.) It’s a fair system (i.e., not rigged) and someone will come out on top. I don’t have a favorite yet, but it’s unlikely to be Biden or Sanders. (goes without saying, anyone in the field who gets the nomination will have my full support)
I’m glad that Sanders, Biden and Warren are all running. If just one or two were running they might “suck up all the oxygen” but if they suck up each others’ oxygen, a lower-tier candidate has a chance to shine. Does this make sense?
There was a GOP Presidential candidates’ debate in early August 2015. Are we going to have a Democratic debate soon?
Not a Democrat but I think the more people that run the better, so far as beating Trump goes.
If there’s a good horse race between, for example, Booty-judge and Biden because they both look like real and decent people then that gets people invested in the election. People like a story. And if the big election story is which of the two major Democratic names got to go ahead into the main election, then the main election is just a tag-on tale and the story has already been decided.
You just need to make the Democratic primaries the bigger story. Don’t even act like the competition against Trump is a real one. Look at people like they’re stupid if they even suggest that Trump is a real contender against anyone other than Hillary.
Granted, there’s the chance that they all just drag each other down into the muck, but I feel like the Dems will realize that they need to avoid that.
I am not keen on Sanders’ age. He seems pretty spry for his age but still…
Biden I worry will lock-up the DNC ala Clinton. Although, given what a shit show that was last time I expect they’d be more circumspect this time around.
June 26 and 27. The plan is to host debates on two separate nights while the field is ginormous. They aren’t following GOP’s tiered model on the same night from 2016. Instead, candidates for two separate debate night will be randomly selected for which night from those that meet the qualifications to be included.
There’s a total of 12 currently planned debates. They are close to monthly. There’s a planned November or December debate so one of those months will be the first without a debate. Then there’s a January debate, and a January or February debate, and two more February debates as we roll into actual primaries/caucuses.
The current schedule only runs through April. There may be more if needed after April. The front loading of this cycle’s schedule has close to 2/3 of delegates awarded by March 17th, though. Things may be wrapping up before additional debates need to be added at the back end.
I will vote for either of them (ANY of them) in the general, but I don’t want either of them to get the nom for myriad reasons. I wished they both sat it out and the best I can hope for now is their cranky-old-man-ness intensifies towards each other and they take each other out.
New blood is great and all, but the Dems should all sit down now and say, “Okay. 10 of you have to drop out now!” I think that many nominees already only makes Dems look much more confusing to GOPers, having too many ideas and standpoints in comparison to the “Keep out all migrants/Screw the poor” Republicans who only want to discriminate.
55% of me didn’t want either (respectively) to run, 45% of me was okay with it. At this point, I’m not happy about Biden being in the race due to his personal baggage and I’m now split down the middle on Sanders because the other candidate who is generally considered progressive, Warren, isn’t a realistic option IMO.
Having an eliminatory stage 1 gets rid of high risk, high return candidates and leaves you only with milquetoast, inoffensive low risk, low return ones.
To answer the question, since a significant proportion if not a majority of the Democratic electorate wants Biden and/or Bernie as one of their top 2-3 choices it’s logical to me they both should be in the race. Certainly, their candidacies make more sense than those of say Beto O’Rourke, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, and many others.
I see what you mean, but saying it’s only for a term also could make Dems look weak. Plus, I’m guessing it will take about 11 terms of Dem executive branch to straighten out this mess.
I’m worried about electability above all else, and Biden is likely the best chance to make Trump one term, and he’s a genuinely good guy.
I thought of the B/B ticket too, but a two white guy ticket looks (and frankly is) bad. Love Buttigieg on every level, but he’s got plenty of time. One term of Biden to Make America Normal Again, and give Buttigieg a high profile position. If I knew Buttigieg could win, I’d be fine with Biden staying out.
And to directly answer the OP, I’d be happier without Sanders anywhere near this thing.