An interesting question.

Biden.

Not even effing close. For one reason. Getting rid of Mitch McConnell as majority leader.

I reject the premise.  Joe Biden will never win the General.  He is too old, too conservative and just too damn stupid.

What's the point in encouraging conservative magical thinking?

Klinker said:

I reject the premise.  Joe Biden will never win the General.  He is too old, too conservative and just too damn stupid.

What's the point in encouraging conservative magical thinking?

 Ya can't reject the premise!

If we are going to be making wishes, I would rather wish Biden a well deserved retirement in some cabin where he can listen to his phonographs on the hi-fi and call his friends on the rotary phone.

Would you rather have Bernie be President or have it rain bagels every Thursday at 4:00?

ETA:  I would rather have Bernie be President.  The bagels would just pile up and make a mess.

It's not a question, it's an argument.

The argument is that either one, or any other Democratic candidate, will beat Trump.  However, the premise is that some voters will be more likely to want to balance a President Sanders with a GOP Senate, than if Biden was President.

So it's perfectly okay to challenge the premise, since it's really an argument.

Given a binary choice as outlined in the opening premise, I take Biden with a 51-49 democratic majority in the Senate. 

If you are paying attention to what's happening to the judiciary, it's not a choice. 

I need more information.

What kind of Bagels?

mrincredible said:

Given a binary choice as outlined in the opening premise, I take Biden with a 51-49 democratic majority in the Senate. 

If you are paying attention to what's happening to the judiciary, it's not a choice. 

 But its contrafactual.  Biden would get flayed alive and we would lose seats in both houses. Suggesting this is a possibility is irresponsible and could lead Dems to make suicidal choices in primary voting booths.

A vote for Biden in the primary is a vote for Trump in the General.

Klinker said:

 But its contrafactual.  Biden would get flayed alive and we would lose seats in both houses. Suggesting this is a possibility is irresponsible and could lead Dems to make suicidal choices in primary voting booths.

A vote for Biden in the primary is a vote for Trump in the General.

 I really don't understand how you or nan or anyone can be so sure of their position.

Klinker said:

 But its contrafactual.  Biden would get flayed alive and we would lose seats in both houses. Suggesting this is a possibility is irresponsible and could lead Dems to make suicidal choices in primary voting booths.

A vote for Biden in the primary is a vote for Trump in the General.

 You can't use the word contrafactual. You're talking about things which have not happened, and therefore cannot be fact. It is contrary to your opinion, no more, no less.

STANV said:

 I really don't understand how you or nan or anyone can be so sure of their position.

 I'm not sure of anything. But seeing Biden at the debates does make me concerned that Trump will steamroll him. 
And his continuing pleas for bipartisanship seem pathetic at this point. Is he that out of touch with what the GOP is today, or does he think we are?

Klinker said:

 But its contrafactual.  Biden would get flayed alive and we would lose seats in both houses. Suggesting this is a possibility is irresponsible and could lead Dems to make suicidal choices in primary voting booths.

A vote for Biden in the primary is a vote for Trump in the General.

 As the choice is posted on MOL and most of us will not be voting until June, we can probably make whatever suicidal choices we want because, as I am fond of saying, our vote won't count. And be forewarned I could get pretty reckless by then!

Morganna said:

 As the choice is posted on MOL and most of us will not be voting until June, we can probably make whatever suicidal choices we want because, as I am fond of saying, our vote won't count. And be forewarned I could get pretty reckless by then!

I predict right now there will be at least three candidates running in June, all of whom will be scrapping for delegates. Remember: delegates are awarded proportionately. Not winner take all.

I also predict ml1 will find this post next June. 

mrincredible said:

I predict right now there will be at least three candidates running in June, all of whom will be scrapping for delegates. Remember: delegates are awarded proportionately. Not winner take all.

I also predict ml1 will find this post next June. 

 3 huh, OK, that would be exciting. Biden, Warren and Bernie?  Can we all thrash it out caucus style at the Woodland?  

mrincredible said:

 You can't use the word contrafactual. You're talking about things which have not happened, and therefore cannot be fact. It is contrary to your opinion, no more, no less.

 True.  If you hold a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger, its not certain that you are going to die.  The gun could misfire, the bullet might bounce off a bit of bone.  That said, I would rather you not take the chance, particularly when the gun in question is pointed, metaphorically speaking, at all of our heads.

mrincredible said:

I predict right now there will be at least three candidates running in June, all of whom will be scrapping for delegates. Remember: delegates are awarded proportionately. Not winner take all.

I also predict ml1 will find this post next June. 

 I know how to use the search function

Morganna said:

 3 huh, OK, that would be exciting. Biden, Warren and Bernie?  Can we all thrash it out caucus style at the Woodland?  

 Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, and Pete Buttigieg.

mrincredible said:

Morganna said:

 3 huh, OK, that would be exciting. Biden, Warren and Bernie?  Can we all thrash it out caucus style at the Woodland?  

 Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, and Pete Buttigieg.

 So all Mayor Mike's $ won't get him ant delegates?

Can't believe we still have 15 candidates. Here's a list of who is in and who is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html

Morganna said:

Can't believe we still have 15 candidates. Here's a list of who is in and who is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html

 Do we really have 15 candidates?  I remember back in the 80s when Wavy Gravy would run every four years along with a dozen more like him.  Aren't Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard just today's Wavy Gravies?

The way I see it we have three tiers:

The jokes (Gabbard and the like), the mid tier walking dead like Cory Booker who's candidacy ended a couple of months ago but is waiting for the Iowa results to withdraw with grace, and then the Top Three.

Most of these people are no longer serious candidates.

Top three? Right now it seems we have a top 4.

mrincredible said:

Top three? Right now it seems we have a top 4.

 You are probably counting one of the candidates that I had relegated to the zombie category.

Klinker said:

Morganna said:

Can't believe we still have 15 candidates. Here's a list of who is in and who is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html

 Do we really have 15 candidates?  I remember back in the 80s when Wavy Gravy would run every four years along with a dozen more like him.  Aren't Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard just today's Wavy Gravies?

 don't write Tulsi off as a factor. I say it's 50-50 that she runs on the Green Party ticket.

drummerboy said:

 don't write Tulsi off as a factor. I say it's 50-50 that she runs on the Green Party ticket.

 You are probably right.  Its hard for me to write about her without my extreme dislike creeping in.  Nominating Gabbard would be a real blow to the Green Party's credibility.  Its been painful to watch their moral decline over the last 4 years.