OrangeRKN wrote:Exactly the same arguments were made against sanders last time. He's the best candidate, who galvanises the most impassioned support, and he stands a good chance
Exactly. Current state and national polling puts Sanders at least equal to anyone else to beat Trump, if not potentially being best placed.
Sanders likely path to victory is to win back North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, with Florida and maybe Ohio going either way. There's even a halfway decent chance Texas might flip under Sanders but that's probably a longshot.
Biden (still the 'best' and certainly most popular centrist) would at this point have pretty much the same path but potentially with a better chance to win Florida and Ohio.
The real difference between Sanders and a centrist would probably be the effect on the senate and representative races, something I don't know much about and haven't really seen anyone analyse. Arguably Sanders broader appeal across minorities and general appeal as second choice might get those who didn't vote in 2016 back out, but I guess there's also the chance he wins the White House and leaves the Democrats losing both houses again.
Meep wrote:There is tremendous upside to Sanders winning and very little downside. Even if he did not win the presidential election, so what? There is going to be little material difference in the long term between another Trump victory and an establishment Democrat victory. Either way it would be the continuation of oligarchical corporate interests for the next decade or so. On the other hand, he might very well win the presidency, in which case thousands of lives are saved through the provision of universal healthcare and, a long overdue offensive against corruption within US politics and an end to western imperialist ventures overseas.
What? What's the upside to Sanders losing the general election against Trump? And yes, there is an obvious material difference between Trump and a shitty Democratic centrist.