The smart lady with serious solid plans for every problem and who doesn't try to mealy-mouth half-measures in order to please the rich people who profit off those problems seems, dare I say ...
I'm just trying to think of how many elections were won by the person people expected would win 18 months in advance, and I'm pretty sure mostly those people lost.
Maybe nobody knows anything?
Maybe the candidate that excites you would also excite others?
In May of 2016, Donald Trump wasn't electable and Clinton was
In May of 2007, Obama wasn't electable and McCain was
In May of 2003, Kerry was electable
In May of 1999, Gore was electable
In May 1991 Bill Clinton polled at 1.7%
In 1980 we elected a movie star
It's sort of wild that there are these well-paid people, some of them clearly rather dim, who tell us what they think's going to happen, and they're wrong way more than they're right, but we keep listening & never ask why they're still talking.
It'd be funny, but for the stakes.
I feel like the safe bet is almost always the riskiest bet.
It's basically what you'd do if you were specifically playing to lose a close one.
Like those promoting a "safe bet" purposefully wanted to lose, but only by a little.
Almost exactly as if that were the goal.
Good thing we don't have some odd electoral system that can elect a person in a close one even if they got fewer votes.
Good thing that system wasn't set up specifically—as in, this was the reason given—to keep voters from choosing somebody powerful men didn't want.
This absolutely is the relevant point.
If Biden (or whoever) excites you, OK. That's your candidate. Be excited.
But if he (or whoever) doesn't excite you, don't *settle* for him if there's somebody you like better.
Ask yourself who's telling you to do that? And why?
I don't think candidates people "settle" on win
You can follow @JuliusGoat.