Thread by @JuliusGoat

That feeling you get when the people you’ve long assumed you could afford to alienate suddenly feel they can afford to alienate you, and also you helped deliberately lie the country into a war that cost a million lives.

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1231234479445901312

OK, so:

Sanders isn't "betting all his chips" on uprising, any more than a Biden nom is "betting all the chips" on center-right swing votes.

If Sanders is the nom, we should expect centrists to vote for him, just as centrists would 100% expect leftists to vote for Biden, say.

Centrists are actually pretty used to nominating alienating candidates and are perfectly comfortable with the strategy; they're just not used to being the ones who are alienated. It might be a useful experience, honestly.

I think Frum would be making the exact same argument if Warren were the likely nominee, by the way. it's the same energy.

If Biden were the likely nominee, the GOP is an existential threat, so I'd vote for him, but let's not pretend it wouldn't be an alienating pick.

People alienated by Biden would have voted for Biden, in huge numbers.

Alienated centrists will do their duty, too.

And yes, there are some leftist swing votes who wouldn't have voted Biden. But centrist strategy includes seeking swing votes, too—just different swing votes.

It's true that Bernie *does* think there will be a popular uprising to help enact his plans, but that's an enactment strategy, a far cry from "betting all the chips" on it as an election strategy.

I think the expectation is alienated centrists will do what alienated leftists do.

And remember, Biden's idea was that as soon as Trump was gone, Republican electeds would just... start working with him again. Because he's buddies with them, basically.

I have more hope in Sanders' plan coming to fruition than Biden's. People are struggling and desperate.

But my MAIN point is that David Frum spent 2002 telling us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in service of the single largest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, so my opinion of his intentions is nearly as low as my opinion of his strategic analysis.

I think if Biden were the sure bet to win, he'd be winning. Maybe a surging candidate who seemingly can't be stopped by any other nominee augurs ... well? for a general election?

Sanders may be a gamble, but he sure doesn't seem MORE of a gamble than Joe Biden, a man who has been terrible at running for president in 3 different decades.

But what do I know, I'm never lied my country into war then received a well-paid job giving my opinions.

The Dem Party is an uneasy alliance between people of competing interests who nevertheless recognize a much greater common foe.

There was always going to be a group out of this who would have to deal w/their alienation. Therefore the nominee was always going to be a gamble.

I'm not even a Bernie guy! I'm a Warren guy! I like all the plans!

But I can know this would be the same "gamble" if it was Warren surging. People used to being attended have to deal with not that, and they don't like it. I hope they get over it. I trust most will.