Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: Greger
Sanders has been a front runner for awhile now.

I don't think hes been lower than third throughout the race. Seems to be safely in second place right now. Mayor Pete is taking billionaire money and so is Biden. Warren is begging right now, having contests and offering to personally phone small donors. I think she's struggling a bit. The media is shoring up Pete, I don't dislike him and he'd probably make a decent president but I'm just not interested in Republican Lite candidates like him and Biden.

Biden has been the "frontrunner" since the start, but no one actually likes him...Warren and Sanders have been right there with him and Pete has been included among the frontrunners out of kindness I suppose.

For most of the race if you added Sanders' and Warren's poll numbers they were roughly equal to Bidens. Says to me that about 50% of the voters want a progressive candidate. Progressive candidates are funding their race with small donations, the rest with corporate funds...so the pretty obvious conclusion is that Biden and Buttigieg are under the corporate thumb. The lumpen are okay with that, they have good jobs, nice cars and health insurance.

So the people who vote for Democratic candidates are as divided as the nation, with a 50/50 ideological split.

The folks on the far left are saying

Stop A Car Is Coming

the folks on the far right can't hear them.

There's a chance that the car might not hit them, so they needn't hear the warning.

There's a chance that they will see the car and dodge to the left and safety..

And there's a chance of getting T-boned.

If I were the only voter, Warren would be the next president. After her, it's Sanders. After Sanders, all the others in no particular order. I am not interested in Buttigieg, because he is in fact GOP lite. Biden is a dinosaur.

However, the only person I would actively oppose would be Gabbard.

I've been bouncing between pillar and post about Warren and Sanders but I'd be happy with either one as the candidate, and I too view Gabbard as almost the 2020 equivalent of Lyndon LaRouche, who by the way also ran as a Democrat.

But that's also the reason I know she will never have a snowflake's chance in a cyclotron. The problem is, she's just another interference factor, and fully open to manipulation.

I reached the conclusion a long time ago that Tulsi Gabbard is highly confident, even good at a few skill sets, but she's not especially intelligent. If she was, she'd already know she's being used as a tool.

The trouble is, she'll be back, again and again, just like Stein, just like Nader, just like LaRouche, just like a thousand other clowns.

My main worry is that we might just be setting ourselves up for a redux of Democrats 1968, except HHH was a much better candidate than Biden. I should be pleased that Sanders is getting a bit more recognition from the press, but then again so did Eugene McCarthy.
Didn't help him much in the end.

Obviously it's not like today is a carbon copy of Dems 1968 but there are enough similar patterns developing, patterns that I hope we manage to avoid.

Biden, in my humble opinion, is still very much a "generic" placeholder, a candidate who "isn't too far Left", which in and of itself is just a backlash against RW media descriptors of folks like Sanders and Warren. The cure of course, is more Sanders exposure where folks can get a little bit more accustomed to who and what he is.

Biden has been the "perceived front runner" only because he seems "safe" to a fairly significant portion of timid voters who fear change. But he should have busted way out in front with a dozen or more landmark ideas, and so far he's had bupkis on that score.

Safe candidates? I think clinging to safe candidates is a recipe for disaster when dealing with someone like Trump.
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD