Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (423189)	11/11/2019 11:09:16 AM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By epicure Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542977

I live in California. The only time my vote matters is in school board elections, and those are non-partisan. In all other races, I'm free to vote for who I like most. If Warren or Sanders lose here because I vote for Brown, it means that about 4 million Hillary voters wanted to keep their health insurance.

To: koan who wrote (423189)	11/11/2019 11:11:13 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542977

There is a much different way to frame this. The problem Bloomberg's candidacy represents is that he might lose the liberal base, Or better put, more than a few would stay home. The problem with Warren's and Sanders' candidacy is the inverse. That's the opening for candidates who could both get the full base and keep the other portions of the party enthusiastic. I don't see anyone yet who could do that. I thought, at first, that Kamela Harris might be able. But her campaign has, at best, floundered. So I don't see any prominent candidate at the moment who fills that role. I've staked out my interest in Michael Bennett (because he says campaign finance reform as the root danger that needs to be addressed and because he's reasonably pragmatic) and Sherrod Brown (because he's a pragmatic leftist from Ohio). But I don't see a path for either to get the nomination.