The point is to elect a democrat the voting public as a whole can support, and that's not a status-quo liberal when half the reason Trump got in the first time was that people were so desperate for change they were willing to roll the dice on a conman.

Progressives or socialists are the right choice precisely because they appeal to people otherwise dissilusioned with the Democrats.

I agree with the goal... but while I think a competitive primary leads to better outcomes, too many candidates leads to arbitrary outcomes that depend more on which factions have the lowest candidate-to-voter ratio instead of which have the most actual voters (at least the way it’s currently structured). Plus it increases the chances of a brokered convention, which leads to voters feeling disenfranchised no matter who wins.

It better be a progressive because if it's another neoliberal MAGA lives on.

My point isn’t whether or not the best candidate won, it’s that the outcome depended on how many candidates each faction split their votes between. A bigger field wasn’t a reflection of “where the base was” if more candidates supporting a position made it less likely to win.

Not to defend this too much (misogyny and racism are popular pastimes in the states and I do think Kamala being a black woman was a factor in her losing), but Biden would have lost her race too. People that say Kamala's bad stance on Isreal and dearth of big ticket items cost her the election might be pushing it a little, because it wasnt just one thing, but she was weak in those areas and it definitely cost her votes. Could a different strategy have flipped the states she needed? Who knows. It's just not a wise strategy to blame everything on prejudice because doing so completely erases your ability to ever get someone other than a white male elected.

What would Schumer get from that? I can’t see him throwing away whatever’s left of his career just to help a Californian get the presidential nomination instead of another New Yorker.