Quote (fender @ 17 Mar 2020 22:22)
you're just scratching the surface of the issue though. go just one layer deeper: what is the reason the progressive platform has 'underwhelmed'? is it because progressive IDEAS and goals are rejected? hardly. bernie's 2016 campaign actually shifted the entire democratic platform to at least pander to progressivism.
i'd argue it's because of a massive campaign to discredit the policies to implement them. fearmongering about 'socialism', and suggesting bernie's ideas are 'crazy, too radical, and unrealistic' (even though they work fine in the rest of the world, and are accepted by both right and left wing parties) play a large role with such an uninformed and divided electorate. spreading the ridiculous 'electability' narrative, in order to dissuade people from supporting progressives out of fear of 4 more years of trump is also a big factor - as is, of course, the abysmal turnout from the generations that stands to lose the most. idiots.
is this primary a true vote on two equally specific and serious PLANS to solve the underlying issues, or is it much more a race between a relentlessly maligned candidate, promoting policies and values he's advocated for decades, going against the vague promises of someone acting like they had solutions that could unite the (artificially) divided country without any drawbacks (even though his political record unmistakenly illustrates that he will never defy his donors, who don't want ANY of that), who is being supported by his party's extremely powerful establishment, the media (that is controlled by and dependent on the same corporations), who never has his record and promises questioned and examined?
in order for your 'argument', which is exclusively about optics, to make sense, you'd have to assume that people who are fooled by / scared into / just used to voting like this, could be tricked the same way into supporting progressive causes, if they just avoided the look of 'losing'. what that talking point ignores, however, is that those causes simply don't have the infrastructure to run such a large scale misinformation and propaganda scheme. lobbyists made sure this corruption would be protected by those who craft and pass laws.
so i would argue that trying to win over those who actually care about substance, and want the system to change, to work for the people again, is the most promising approach. platforming progressive ideas on the national stage, and exposing the corrupt establishment and biased media, is the only way to open people's eyes and generate any meaningful support. just withdrawing and exclusively letting lobbyists frame the political discourse, does not sound like a long term winning strategy to me.
could you maybe describe the kind of person who you think would support progressive causes, but will not do so just because bernie doesn't immediately drop out when the dnc wants him to? that's what i meant by 'reality based argument' earlier. to me that just sounds like the figment of some spin doctor's imagination, just another dishonest way to malign a progressive candidate and push him out of the race.
just to further support this point:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/17/us/elections/exit-polls-florida-primary.htmlit clearly illustrates how on the ISSUES, voters are much more aligned with bernie, but they still vote for biden because of the idiotic "electability" myth (trump will relentlessly attack biden's mental decline, countless gaffes and lies, and his political record - all areas in which bernie would be vastly superior) and dnc / msm fearmongering, misinformation, and bias.
covid 19, its economic impact, and trump's incompetence in addressing it, is actually the only thing that gives biden a realistic shot. without it, trump would have obliterated him.