And you flew right by the point I was making, which had nothing to do with Biden's record on social security. It was specifically about the trait of compromise and whether people consider it a negative or positive trait. Pointing out (as Brenda did) that Biden is willing to compromise explains why SHE doesn't want him as president, but this is not a deal-breaker for other people. Other people see compromise as the way you get things done.
You can argue about Biden's record on social-security all you want, but that's not the criteria that is informing my choice. It's irrelevant whether I agree with everything you say, it's not driving my choice. Policy is not my priority; character and temperament is more important to me. And of the two not-very-inspiring choices I now have, Sanders falls shorter of the mark than Biden. It's a very low bar, but Sanders managed to fall beneath it.
I'm down to "let's elect someone who creates the least amount of damage as compared to Donald Trump." I had hoped we'd elect someone like Warren who wants what *I* want AND is competent and could get things done in all the areas of a presidency, not just Sanders narrow focus on healthcare and income inequality. Those are important, but they are not the be-all and end-all of the presidency.
I think Sanders could be a worse president than Biden, despite the fact that Sanders wants good things for us all. Intentions are not enough, and I firmly believe -- more so each day -- that his presidency would be worse than a Biden presidency, albeit for different reasons. So yes, I'm willing to elect someone who doesn't want all that I want, in hopes he'll create less than damage than the person who does want what I want.
As I've stressed before, ad nauseum, at this specific point in our country's history the best we can probably hope for is just a rebuilding of our governance structure. Nothing new, nothing bold, nothing immediately helpful, just cleaning up the Trump wreckage. And Biden will be better at that than Bernie.