It appears that a majority of Democratic voters prefer to sit on the tracks, believing that slow train of national disaster will never hit them in their own lifetimes

A CNN poll claims that not only is Joe Biden up by 16 points nationally over Bernie Sanders with Elizabeth Warren still in the race, but without her seven percent, it divvies up to 5 percent opting for Biden and 2 percent still “with her.” This proves my point about Warren: it was never really about being a “progressive,” but tearing things down for the sake of tearing them down—and for most of her supporters, it was about a woman tearing them down. Warren wasn’t “punished” because she was a “woman” who displayed “ambition,” or because people didn’t buy into her sanctimonious lecturing because they were “sexist,”  or by those who “foolishly” couldn't support “a once-in-a-lifetime candidate” foir the same—that is who Sanders is, not Warren. Voters didn’t support her because they saw right through her façade: she was a hypocritical, self-righteous liar, a white elitist who would not speak to the concerns of minorities as she insulted them by claiming that she was a “minority,” and  her diehard backers expected voters to overlook all of that. 

As Aaron Goldstein pointed out in the National Review, poll after poll showed that many liberals and progressive voters believed that Warren was inauthentic—the former in New Hampshire supporting Sanders over Warren by a 33 to 13 margin, the latter by 48 to 19. Goldstein also pointed out that the endorsement of Sanders by the presumed leader of the young progressives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, convinced many on the left that Sanders was indeed the more “authentic,” and there were in fact many policy differences between Sanders and Warren in which the latter strayed far from liberal and progressive mindset, including foreign policy, campaign finance and not “rocking the boat"--it seems that what she meant by "tearing things down" was of a personal nature, not institutional. The reality was that Warren really was no different than the “other” candidates—except that her only point of differentiation was that she was a woman who moved the sound level to “11.”

But that is done. In meantime, while previous polls showed Sanders with a lead nationally as long as the field was crammed with other candidates competing with Biden for the “moderate” vote, that is no longer the case, and Sanders is no longer the “frontrunner.” And what about Biden? The Washington Post even admits that he is as “risky” a candidate as Sanders for Democrats. Hillary Clinton tells The Guardian that Sanders would not be the “strongest” candidate against Trump, as if this two-time loser who pretends to be an “elder statesperson” would know.  After another one of his patented gaffefests in Missouri, Biden was the subject of an “edited” compilation of them that Trump used to make him look like an idiot. Of course, if the Trump campaign wants to play that game there is plenty of ammunition for the other side to question his mental fitness; but the unfortunate truth is that Trump’s supporters don’t care because most of them share his tendency to let his personal prejudices muddle his moral and ethical judgment—while those voters who are “undecided” might care just a little more about Biden’s “condition.” What may be the best that can be hoped for is that voters who are “unsure” believe that Biden’s policy priorities are in a “better place.”

For now, I’m not particularly hopeful for the future. In 2016, Sanders won Michigan on the support of white working class voters who bought into his claim that they lost jobs because of “free trade” agreements—something that I disagree with, in no small part because it tends to play into racist attitudes. There are now claims that Sanders’ efforts to broaden his base in 2020 by courting minority voters in fact alienated white working class voters who saw Hillary Clinton doing the same in 2016, although since Sanders’ efforts only seemed to have worked with Hispanic voters, it may be more due to the anti-Hispanic attitude that Trump has done much to inflame. Sanders won in Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016, but polling appears to suggest he is behind Biden by a considerable margin in 2020. It may also be due to the fait accompli in the minds of voters by the efforts of the media and the Democratic establishment to declare that the sky will fall if Sanders is nominated. 

The truth is that no one has the facts at hand to claim that Biden is the more viable candidate than Sanders. On the contrary, Biden may be less able to fend-off the attacks of Trump because of his penchant to appear of lost mind—something that has appeared before, even 30 years ago when he was a relatively “young” man. Sanders still knows his own mind, and I think he could more easily hold his ground in a debate with Trump than Biden can. But all that is in the hands of a electorate that has been severely misled by the mainstream media and “establishment” Democrats. If the so-called “liberal” media had chosen to, it could have championed Sanders’ vision of the country and made it less “fearsome” to voters; instead, it chose play paranoid and go with the “safe” bet—just like it did in 2016. 

Unfortunately fear of the “unknown” will be the motivation of the Democratic primaries going forward, now that the “safe” candidate has been established. The question people must ask themselves, having made such a poor decision, who is it that you would trust more to look after the interests and needs of working people when this country faces the inevitable economic crash? Reports are that Trump is using the coronavirus scare to among other things convince Congress to go along with an across-the-board tax cut that will of course be more beneficial to richer class than the low-income. How will he pay for it? We have already seen that he wants to cut social safety net programs, Medicare and probably Social Security as well (which could be easily “saved” by the simple method of increasing taxable income to, say, $200,000). With the budget deficit already at astronomically high levels because of Trump’s first tax cut despite a “robust” economy, it will be much more difficult than it was in 2009 to “stimulate” the economy. Trump’s tax cuts will have to be rescinded, and he won’t do it, and Biden is not likely to do it. It will take someone who has already stated time and again what he will do about the “billionaires” if he is elected.

People need to look at the world realistically. We are living on borrowed time, and future generations will be asking why we today didn’t support programs like a “green new deal” sooner rather than later—or never if it is too late. People live life from day to day, each day seems no different than the previous one. But as I said before, it is like people are sitting on railroad track, seeing a train in the distance coming very slowly, barely moving, and they believe they have all the time in the world to wait. They fall asleep, and when they awake, it is too late to move. That is why we need someone like Bernie Sanders in office; unfortunately, I suspect that voters just want to stay on that track.