Thread by @JuliusGoat

If Dem leaders are concerned about losing the election I can’t think of a better way to ensure that then spending years on a group of candidates and then just picking somebody else because you don’t like who emerged.

IF what they’re concerned about is losing elections, that is.

https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/1232996131665215488

I’ve wanted Warren since the beginning but however a big a risk you think Sanders is in a general election, simply going into the convention and nominating someone else isn’t a gamble; it’s guaranteed loss.

It will preserve power of the leaders of a minority party; nothing more.

It may well be within the Dem nomination rules to do this, by the way. I’m not arguing about the rules.

I’m simply stating what I see is a fact about what will happen in a general election.

Which should concern us—if our concern is winning the election.

I know this is true, because I want Warren, and Warren won the most delegates, but then they just decided no we don’t like Warren so here’s Sherrod Brown ... honestly, I like Brown, but I don’t even know if I’d care about that.

I’d wonder: what are we even doing here?

It would basically make me feel like I wasn’t a necessary part of the process. I think it would make me feel that way because that’s what it would mean.

That doesn’t win elections.

You might ask me: well? But do you care enough about beating Trump to vote for Brown anyway?

Answer: It doesn’t matter.

Because he’d lose.

Not because of him.

Anyone would lose there.

You can’t win by telling people their votes don’t matter.

is this obvious? I feel like it’s obvious.

A lot more obvious than “socialism won’t play in the Midwest.”