Thread by @dTrixieF

What's ironic about this is that it shows that the libs fundamentally don't understand

wait for it

game theory

https://twitter.com/JeffSharlet/status/1225858538825814016

Things that are currently up in the air

-- who Warren is going to endorse
-- how long Biden is going to stick around
-- how hard Pete is willing to cheat

Things that aren't

-- which candidate will beat Trump
-- which candidate has the best platform
-- which candidate is the most trusted
-- which candidate listens to activists
-- which candidate would win a fair primary
-- which candidate is in any way meaningfully anti-war

Biden isn't going to win

He might not even make it to Super Tuesday

Sanders is the only other candidate who has any natural base in key Democratic constituencies

Therefore, Sanders must be the nominee if Trump is to be defeated

You might think that this is awfully convenient for me to be saying, but actually it's super inconvenient that out of 20 plus nominees only one of them has a fucking prayer of

(a) winning the general election
(b) not being a contemptible piece of shit in office

There is zero chance that anybody who's #NeverBernie is at all sincere about stopping Trump. Their belief that he's a vulnerability in the general election flies in the face of all available evidence and rests solely on the hunches of people who are wrong about everything

Establishment Democrats, the one who have actually bothered to game this out, believe that if Trump tries to cancel the 2024 election the military will be on their side

If Trump wins, they can try again in 4 years

If Sanders wins, they're done

Pete winning would be ideal for everyone who's still hoping to make Juan Guiado happen, but they have to know that actually installing him in the White House is a long shot

They'll try like hell to get him in, but will ultimately accept a Trump re-election

So this is a game of chicken.

The people on the other side are

A: the coup plotters who back Pete,

B: the rank and file Dems who have been swayed by electability arguments

Group A, as I've outlined, are not going to give in, because it isn't in their interest to give in.

But they can't win unless they have Group B with them-- the trouble with being on the side of the 1% is, well, you get what I'm saying

Group B will ultimately back Sanders

The only winning move in this scenario is to convince all other players that we aren't going to give in.

Unless people who want Bernie insist on Bernie, we're most likely going to get Trump

#BernieorBust is the only ethical option

Not everyone is going to accept this logic.

Some people are going to see the establishment beating Sanders as the foregone conclusion and that whatever Pete's weaknesses, a long shot with him is still the best available option

We likely won't be able to convince those people that Pete is just as willing as Trump is to commit war crimes and potentially more able but we might be able to shrink the difference between Pete and Trump to the point that they're more willing to take a perceived risk on Sanders

Some Dems won't buy that Sanders is more electable in the general election

They need to be reminded of Pete's support for white supremacy (not that the former group don't) and that he simply will not draw sufficient support from the communities Trump impacts the worst to win

No two political figures are equivalent

Nobody is actually literally claiming this

When people say that Joe and Pete are just like Trump, what they mean is that they aren't sufficiently different for it to be morally defensible to signal our consent

This isn't just arguable

It's inarguably true

Even Sanders might only slow our progress on the way to a collapse that's already in progress

Joe and Pete are pursuing platforms that at best *might* slightly slow the collapse but will most likely accelerate it

You gain nothing but superficial respectability by admitting that Trump is worse

Don't let them fucking get you to yes on that shit