If they had a sane moderate and could keep it together that long, they wouldn't be Democrats, now, would they?
I'm sorry, but your statement is basically equivalent to "If that schizophrenic could just control himself a little more..." Well he can't. That's what makes him a schizo.
I mean if Biden wasn't suffering from Dementia he'd be in a much more secure position, right? And the results from Super Tuesday clearly spelled out how, absent a reviled figure to rally against, Bernie's policies just can't win against a moderate within their party.
The Dems were pitching him as a generic D candidate with a 'return to normalcy'. He was even visibly standing in opposition to half of Bernie's platform. What they're suffering with now, even ignoring his mental state + Kamala, is how their platform is totally uninspiring to their base. Even if Biden promises to abolish college tuition, nobody will believe him. You remember 2016, right? How envigorated Trump's side was? Because they thought he could change things, and he hasn't. I see its because the Deep State and RINOs are hamstringing him, but its still inhibiting (there was a demoralising element at play in 2018 at least), meanwhile the DNC have the entire media apparatus on-side to push Generic D over the line.... before the riots, at least.
Almost everything you said here is totally incorrect.
"All the Democrats had to do was get a moderate" --> they got a fake moderate who is obviously a controlled puppet. His senility is plain as day.
>highlight Trump's numerous other failings --> ???
and his coronavirus approval mainly lines up with his overall job approval. And those who "strongly disapprove" when it comes to coronavirus are under 50%.
>Democrats didn't even need to improve things with voters this time (hell, running Not Hillary was enough)
Nope, "Not Hillary" isn't enough when Hillary was more moderate than many 2020 D candidates and Biden has flaws that Hillary didn't have.
>Before coronavirus, his most valued supporters were either ousted by White House power plays (Bannon, Sessions) or outright banned from public platforms (we have an entire e-celeb forum).
Jeff Sessions isn't one of his most valued supporters. Sessions was a coward who utterly failed at his most basic duty. And which e-celebs being banned do you consider to be his most 'valued' supporters? Mike Enoch's crew of malcontents? LOL
>I think the only reason Ann Coulter is permitted a twitter account is because she was critical of how he used her policies to win the election and then either failed to deliver on the wall, or fully u-turn on amnesty.
Yes, it's possible that Ann is only allowed on because she's useful to the D's, but it's a mischaracterization that it was "her policies" that are responsible for him winning 2016. Being more hardline on immigration made him stand out, sure, but it wasn't the *only* thing. And you're propagating a lie by claiming he failed to deliver on the wall. There have literally been illegals dying because they fell off while trying to climb it. You're also propagating a lie by saying he supports amnesty.
Ann Coulter and the entire dissident right have proven themselves to be totally deluded useful idiots of the left over and over again. They're trying to be the Republican equivalent of the Green Party - technically right about the mainstream party they're siphoning votes from on some things, but go overboard in painting the aforementioned mainstream party as having "no difference" from the other one. And with Trump in office, it'd be like the Green Party trying to undermine Bernie's re-election.
Trump staked his 2020 run on the economy, and its in the shitter, with 200k dead. That alone was enough for the Dems to run with.
As for e-celebs, how many were vocal Trump supporters in 2016 and have now since left the stage? Better yet, there were plenty pro-Bernie people that just wound up being anti-Hillary. I don't consider the Charlottesville crew particularly relevant, have they ever influenced policy? And I bring up Ann Coulter because she gave Trump a copy of Adios America in summer 2015, and then a couple weeks later he started lifting policy suggestions from it verbatim because the crowds cheered loudly enough when he floated the ideas.
When Trump isn't delivering the concrete Big Beautiful Wall, I'm calling it out-- underdelivery at best.
And when Trump horse-trades with Nancy Pelosi and Schumer over giving Amnesty in return for wall funding? I'm gonna call it out. It's hard to ignore. He's the president and he had a majority in both houses for 2 years, he shouldn't have to horse-trade if it means sacrificing a key campaign promise.
You can call his critics useful idiots, but it doesn't change the fact their ideas were crucial in getting him over the line. Bannon still carries water for him, yet Trump talks about him like he's a piece of shit on twitter. Again, I hope he wins, but before the riots I just couldn't conceive any way of that happening.
Also, which "moderate" were they supposed to get, exactly?
Are we looking at the field that got whittled down to Biden? Someone who didn't run that Registered Dem voters would have actually nominated? Give me a name. More than one would help.
None are coming to mind now, but somebody in the vein of Buttigieg would have sufficed. It's a big party. I'm sure there was a congressman or senator with loyalty to the party and, I dunno, a Latino grandparent they could have rallied the troops around.
The point I was trying to make was pre-riots, this election was the Democrats to win, to undo the shame of 2016, and to lock in the Rust Belt once and for all, and they fucked it up.
