The false dichotomy being promulgated

[zipplewrath]

I've watched the post debate deconstructions. There is a false choice being presented because they want to maintain the horse race aspect to the democratic primary. It's not a "left" versus "moderate. What will ultimately decide both the primary and the election is whether the candidate appears to be able to be president. Trump managed to convince people that he could be a good president because he appealed to their desire for someone who wasn't Hillary. Call it misogyny, call it race bating or fear in general, all of them are probably true.

It may be that we choose Biden, which is really an attempt to give the "Hillary wing" another crack at an election they should have won. It may go with someone like Pete, which suggests that people think that a "new generation" needs to take over. It could be a Warren which would be a surprise, or an Inslee because folks want a governmental executive. But I strongly suspect it will have little to do with actual policies and vastly more to do with convincing people, despite the GOP and the Russians interfering, that one can be an "effective" president.

Typically, it is an incumbents race to lose. This may be the one exception in modern politics where an incumbent can lose because the challenger is perceived to be a "better choice".

[Hortensis]

1. I agree. Tons of false spin. "Liberals and moderates" engaged

in a final battle for the soul of the party is a huge one, a seriously dishonest representation.

The talking heads ignore completely that the Democratic Party is the LIBERAL party, that an overwhelming majority of Democrats in congress are LIBERALS, and that we are united in our LIBERAL ideology on all the big issues. Disagreement across the liberal ideological spectrum is mostly over methods and extent, the usual among large groups contemplating action.

Even the tiny faction of radical liberals on the farther left (who the media are calling "liberals" ) and some of the more moderate conservative/sometimes-liberal-leaning blue dogs who constitute the house's caucus's right (the media throws these in with most members of two main liberal caucuses and calls us all "moderates" ) mostly agree with our 2 big main caucuses on the big issues. These groups are the ones who disagree more strongly about how and whether we should address issues, but with 27 blue dogs and not enough to need all fingers to count on the dissident left, there are big limits on the trouble they can cause. That's what Nancy meant when she tried to explain the reality behind what the media were calling a "badly divided party" -- that the "division" they were trumpeting was something like 4 votes versus the rest of the 235.

But spending the campaign season describing a highly diverse party with 3 main ideological caucuses and 3 main racial/ethnic caucuses that are solidly united on both main issues and against our giant external threats would at very best severely lack if-it-bleeds-it-leads value and at worst severely sabotage pro-RW agendas. Even if it is actually a huge story the nation needs to know. And not be lied to about a giant rift between "liberals" and "moderates" over which of 2 similar paths to the goal of universal healthcare should be taken.