Here's someone that is saying what I'm saying but far more eloquently and surgically.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspoli ... spartandhp

I couldn't get through it all.

Its the same old "rush to the middle" BS we've been hearing for decades. And all that really means is "move further to the Right".

Letting the Republicans get away with their BS, rather than calling it out for the BS it is, ultimately that simply leads to acquiescence in the long term.

As Gore Vidal once said "The problem with American politics is that its got one political party with two right wings".

Just consider. Do you think that the Democrats would have won if Bernie had been the candidate rather than Hillary?

All the Democrats have to run on to win is "anyone but Trump".

CM wrote: "All the Democrats have to run on to win is "anyone but Trump"."

I would like to believe that and rely on it - but I think that type of complacency is dangerous, and not a sure bet despite trump's behavior. I believe the dems need to focus on the issues and not on trump's foibles.

As an aside; In earlier comments CM said, "I think its interesting how people who are concerned about Democrats criticizing each other spend so much time criticizing Democrats for being critical of Democrats."

It is a different issue when politicians are criticizing their own party candidates in an especially important upcoming election, and another for the average person to criticize their strategy and actions as being divisive. There is a way to differ and a way to divide, imo.

AOC isn't the problem. Sanders, Warren and Biden are not the problem. Even Trump isn't the problem.

The problem is in the ignorance of the American voter.

All the Democrats have to run on to win is "anyone but Trump".

Yup! And puppies don't shit in the house, an angel gets it's wings every time a bell rings and pink unicorns bounce from cloud to cloud.

At some point, though, reality has to set in. Even the GOP had a "Never Trump" group in 2016 and they got their asses handed to them. Don't kid yourself. If the Dems come up with some namby pamby daydreamer with an agenda that goes way left, Trump's got it in the bag. It's all well and good to talk about the ignorance of the American voter, etc. but, like it or not, they're the ones who cast the ballots.

Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump.

And any Democrat candidate is liable to do better than her, particularly given what was done to Bernie - which pissed off a LOT of potential democrat voters. Its almost certain that the "far left" Bernie would have won it easily.

Which of the serious candidates would you consider to be "namby pamby daydreamer(s) with an agenda that goes way left"?

And I take it by "way left" you mean "only a little bit to the right of Nixon"?

What the "left" has been saying for decades is "move to the centre", while what the right has been doing is "moving the centre". Its been a ratchet effect.

she got 3M more votes, but Democrats need 100k more in (3) key states: PA, MI, and WI.

who wins those three states STILL depends on the nominee, i am sorry to say.
Buttigieg, for example, would have great difficulty winning all three.

It depends on the nominee AND the campaign.

Who would you think is a candidate who could win those states Macro? And couldn't there be other states that might be picked up to counter losses in those states?

right now, on paper, three out of four front runners would beat him.

of the four, only Kamala Harris would have trouble. and it is probably why her numbers are dropping (she is in 4th now).

Yeah. But its still early days.

I should add this caveat:

head to head matchups this early are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate.
without hearing the actual positions of the candidates, most responses
are based on their knowledge of Trump and their own party, not the
individual candidates. the error in this polling is on the order of 11%,
meaning that it is pretty much meaningless.

the primary numbers are more accurate predictors than the GE numbers.
we don't really know a damned thing about how the GE will go at this point.
it could be far better or far worse for Trump. we just have to wait and see.

edit: that is why I carefully said "on paper" in my reply.

I guess its also because I hope 2 of those 4 candidates will fall by the wayside as the primaries proceed.