Here's a response that makes me happy. Thank you. Now, with your response in mind, I want to go back up the rabbit hole and look back a bit further in the discussion. My questions to you would then be: 1) Is it for the greater good that, assuming a position of identity politics, one choose the minority less-well represented in politics, or is this outweighed by former bad policies which have since been renounces? You make a convincing argument for the latter, that Harris is ultimately a better representative, but I'd like to see why I should feel that Tulsi's recanted viewes are worse than the viewes held by Harris during her tine as a prosecutor which have not been satisfactorily recanted. 2) Back even earlier in the discussion, I said that I am sceptical about promises about college tuition made by Bernie, and even Medicare for all supported by many candidates. How should I look into that? Most Libertarians make the argument that these social programmes are not necessarily rights, and that the government funding them is futile becauseit creates dependency. I am unconvinced by the Libertarian argument, but see no reason to outright reject it. When I have presented Democratic socialist ideas to them, I wind up utterly demolished sometimes, while somewhat "victorious" (if you could call it that) equally frequently. Given that I have not had success in such debates, or at least not reliably, shall I resign to an indefinite "I'm gullible," regardless how much I have read form sources of equal repute? And, finally, back to my original post, polling has Bernie with a very good shot -- and the runner-up effect seems somewhat convincing to me. Do you think that that is a valid assessment? This last question is less a question to you specifically, and more just in the general flow of the thread.