I might post here more as I've been reading along. I both work in and currently study politics as well, albeit in the UK, so I'm following the primaries closely and have a good enough understanding of politics to have I think a valid opinion.
But in this respect my not being American is relevant. Neoliberalism and democratic socialism / anything left of neoliberalism are absolutely ideologically distinct, and if you disagree you lack a foundational knowledge of politics. Our left wing party in the UK has had both a neoliberal (Blair) and a left-of-neoliberalism-but-not-quite-democratic-socialist (Corbyn) heading it in the last 20 years, and the difference it makes not just to the party of which they are leader of but to the entire political discourse of the country is stark. In relation to the things you mentioned and that Biden would "do them anyway": sure, he would likely pass the issues that are being injected into the public eye during this primaries race. But would he sustain a progressive agenda beyond that? Simply put, no. That's why having a progressive candidate is important, and why arguing progressives have a "saviour complex" is nothing more than a strawman.
Bernie's electability holds a lot of empirical weight behind it following the precedent set by Labour in the UK; mass enfranchisement of voters who previously believed politics had abandoned them and shifted too far right occurred, and Corbyn won the leadership contest in Labour by a landslide. Considering the similarity of the UK and US societies, there have been countless examples of one country setting a precedent either politically or socially for the other to follow a few years down the line. Bernie winning the primary will just be another predictable instance of this.
My personal pick for vice is Tulsi Gabbard. War in general is a massive voter issue for me and I would like to see America set a precedent of a non-interventionist war policy to make it more salient once Labour follows suit. Plus, from listening to her speak, while a lot of what she says does seem to be rehearsed, when she speaks off-the-cuff her perspective seems to be in the right place. Beyond that, Elizabeth Warren should be kept in the inner circle because she has a talent for creating practical, humanist policy. The Democrats have a robust triumvirate here of politicians they could put at the top of their party, and I sincerely hope they do.
Awesome post man.
I just want to ask, what makes you say that Corbyn is not a democratic socialist? I believe he calls himself one, and some of the proposals he's putting forth would definitely be gaming changing in a great way.
I also ask in part because what you hear on the left in America is also very interesting on the topic of whether Bernie is or isn't a Democratic Socialist.
There are social democrats that claim "he's actually one of us, he just says it wrong but look all his policies are Social Democrat."
There are democratic socialists that claim "Bernie's a revolutionary, he's definitely one of us."
My personal opinion is that Bernie's policies are definitely Social Democrat, BUT the candidate himself is definitely a Democratic Socialist.
It really strikes me as strange when leftist political commenters of my generation call Bernie Sanders a social democrat because his policies are social democrat, and say something like "I don't know why he calls himself a Democratic Socialist-- Bernie used that phrase wrong and now we and the people are confused and we just have to live with it."
Acting as if Bernie didn't understand the difference and was making a mistake. I don't think they're accurately following the plot here-- this is a man from the Liberty Union party who was calling Noam Chomsky to do Town Halls in Burlington when we were in diapers if we were around at all. While old Bernie is pushing social democrat policies and ground his explanation of socialism in them, a cursory glance at what young Bernie was saying and doing will immediately make it obvious that he definitely is deeply versed in the history of socialism and of socialism in America-- and the message he has crafted is not a message of error or inaccuracy, but instead the message designed by a long-time socialist veteran for the American people.
And besides, the difference doesn't even really matter imo. Often people say that the safety net and regulation policies of the Norwegian countries and western European countries and things like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Min Wage are not socialist but Socially Democratic and exist in a capitalist system. Okay those things are true, but it's also true that ALL of those things are historically victories that were won with leadership by Socialists and Marxists of different strains-- and Richard Wolff will tell you that Social Democracy itself is an invention by socialists of yesteryear. Yes they were reforms on capitalist systems that left capitalism in place, but also saying that "those policies are not socialist," also seems to me to miss the ball.
Likewise calling a socialist who says he is a socialist not a socialist because his policies are Social Democratic also lead you to miss the ball. When I look at Bernie, at what he's trying to achieve and where the man has been and what he's thought about-- I definitely see him as the read deal holy field, a revolutionary, a Democratic Socialist.
In our country, even the act of calling himself that is revolutionary. xD