Why are there Bernie Sanders supporters with Elizabeth Warren in the race?

[OilemFirchen]

I've mentioned before that Warren was Sanders before Sanders was Sanders. Her supporters were horribly let down when she opted out of the 2016 race, so they turned to Sanders as their preferred alternative. That's not the case for 2020.

Warren ticks off all of the boxes a Sanders supporter desires. Additionally, she's younger, a woman, and much more personable. She also doesn't carry any of the baggage acquired by Sanders during the last election. She hasn't alienated a massive group of Democratic voters; nor does she viscerally hate Secretary Clinton. She also hasn't staffed her campaign with fair-weather puritans.

She's whip-smart and has the credentials that Sanders lacks, allowing for her to make policy proposals based on due diligence rather than reactionary rhetoric. She doesn't self-identify as a Socialist, making it much easier to fend off accusations that she is.

And she's a Democrat.

What's the Sanders appeal?

[handmade34]

1. ...?

[thesquanderer]

128. I briefly switched from Warren to Sanders.

Warren's negatives as I saw them:

* yeah, the native american thing... not because it matters, but because there's no good rationale for it so she will get beat up over it.

* her beer drinking video seemed annoyingly contrived. Big campaign moments are times it would be good to see better judgment.

* even though her idea of "reparations" is targeted programs rather than cash payments, the very word will turn many voters off, and I question the judgment of going there.

* her position paper on breaking up facebook etc. didn't give me confidence that she fully understood what she was talking about. It's okay to not know everything, but if you're going to write a position paper on something, it needs to be better than what I thought that was.


But Sanders has his negatives, too.

* the tax return dance

* as old as he was last time, he's 4 years older now (though that one could be countered with a strong running mate)

* questionable hires

* and did I mention, the tax returns?


I still like both of them, but have moved on to someone with fewer negs. We'll see, I could change again...

[FBaggins]

2. Sanders was Sanders long before Warren ran for office

The whole “not a Democrat “ thing is largely nonsense... because he was only there because he is to the left of the national party and that’s how he made that clear. Warren is not as far left (particularly prior to running for office).

[OilemFirchen]

9. Nope. Sanders was not in serious consideration before Warren opted out.

BTW, being an actual Democrat means something to a lot of actual Democrats.

What makes Warren "not as far left" as Sanders?

[FBaggins]

40. The presidency is not all there is

He was popular for his positions long before he ran for president. Ironically, the fact that he was far enough to the left that he didn’t want the “D” label was appealing to DUers before it was a useful weapon for Clinton supporters.

What makes Warren "not as far left" as Sanders?

If your political memory only goes back three or four years? Not a blessed thing.

[shanny]

42. Nope.

Been listening to Bernie banging the drum for a decade or two; Warren? Not so much.

I like her a lot, her ideas are great and she may well be a better candidate--but if you want to play labels games, Warren used to be a Republican and Bernie was never that.

[sheshe2]

61. And Sanders was an Independent...

Who switched to be a Democrat only to switch back to Independent then switch back to being a Democrat, along with signing an oath that he would run as a Democrat, while at the same time registering to run for his Senate 2024 seat as an Independent.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-files-fo-2024-re-election-to-senate

Bernie Sanders Files for 2024 Re-Election to Senate

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is officially running for two different federal offices under two different party labels. On Monday, Sanders filed for re-election to the Senate in 2024, listing his party as “independent.” Team Sanders said the filing was an automatic renewal of Sanders’ candidacy, a standard move for victorious congressional candidates ahead of anticipated reelection contests. That came a couple weeks after he threw his hat in the ring for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-files-fo-2024-re-election-to-senate

..........................

Warren picked a party and stuck with it. Period.

[vsrazdem]

78. Yes, the Republican Party, before she switched to become a Democrat.

[sheshe2]

86. At least she made up her mind and stuck with it.

She is my Senator. Love her.

[sheshe2]

88. My post was about Warren and Sanders.

It has nothing to do with Manchin, why bring him up?

[billpolonsky]

114. Bernie will bring Independents....

....out to vote Democratic in the general election.

[brooklynite]

115. Would you care to elaborate?

WHICH Independents and how many?

[thesquanderer]

124. Sanders switched between Leftish Independent and Leftish Dem.

That's only a whisker of a difference compared to switching from Republican to Dem.

(That said, I like Sanders and Warren both.)

[JonLP24]

121. 43% of primary voters voted for him

Over 13 million Democrats voted for him. We are Democrats too.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. So obviously true... but bears repeating and often.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[zentrum]

84. Thanks.

[workinclasszero]

91. That's for sure

Wasn't Sen. Warren a republican at one time?

I'll stick with Bernie, OP.

[Mike Nelson]

3. He has a loyal base...

… and it's substantial, as did Obama and Hillary. I do think Sanders and Warren have a larger x-over appeal, generally... if one of them got out of the race, the other would benefit greatly.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. Hopefully, they'll BOTH be in the race... against Humpty tRumpy, who'll have a great fall!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[BeyondGeography]

4. Because Bernie stuck his neck out and ran in 2016 while Warren played it safe

He’s living off of that now. We’ll see how he holds up when he has to compete with her. I agree with you that Warren is in many ways a much better Bernie, but Bernie’s base is much bigger right now for a reason.

[Gore1FL]

12. This

If Warren ran in 2016 she would have been a stronger opponent to Clinton than Sanders was. Even if Warren lost to Hillary, Clinton would have been a stronger candidate with a better primary test than the Democrats were willing to give her.

[we can do it]

27. Wrong. She told her constituents she would complete her term.

She kept her word. Unlike BS and his taxes.

[artislife]

139. He tried to get her to run, but she wouldn't.

I wanted her to run last election and started watching her interviews and that is where I started to see and hear Sanders. He ran.


Climate is my number one issue and has been since watching Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. I am waffling on supporting either Sanders and Inslee because of this.

[JI7]

5. support for Warren was mostly a cover for their hatred against Hillary

[comradebillyboy]

13. True.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. I only see hatred for one candidate... it's certainly not Hillary.

And love, love, love Elizabeth for sure... could easily see voting for her in the primary if, by some odd chance, Bernie should falter, though I doubt it. In either case, they would make the perfect team to take on the tRumpster Fire currently occupying the White House.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[lostnfound]

19. You mean for Sanders...and I disagree

I didn’t hate Hillary. Sanders was forcing the issue of income inequality and corporate influence consistently for his entire career. In my case, it is a matter of conscience that I not ignore the less fortunate. Hillary did some great things, which I respect, but was more centrist.

I’m not the only one. About 90% of Sanders voters voted for Hillary Clinton in the general. Wish it had been 100%...but why beat up 10 of us for something that 1 out of 10 did? I had happy tears in my eyes voting for her, feeling that she would be a very good president and is as happy thinking that we would finally have a female president. I had no regrets about voting for her.

But I’d pick Warren over Sanders now, in a heartbeat. Warren understands what Russia has done, and doesn’t seem conflicted over it. She releases her tax returns, she’s super smart, knowledgeable about banking, plus she’s female.

Sanders is way down my list this time. I want someone who is crystal clear about Russian influence, and I don’t want the market to tank. We need stability for a while.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

6. That he's a man

Lets not forget, Sanders was called by one of his team staff (and supporters) recently as "daddy"

It's not just him though. On policy I'd much rather vote for Warren in 2020 than Biden but the latter has "likeability" which propels him to the top as the most likely to win the electoral college. I'm not doubting the fact Biden has charisma and yeah I would happily vote for him if he's the nominee but these male candidates are able to play macho-man and go off the cuff whereas our female candidates are victims of trying to stick to policy, not theatrics.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. Bernie is very much the fatherly figure; thats why so many young people look up to him...I sure do!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Otto Lidenbrock]

23. fair enough

but you'll never hear a female candidate be referred to as a motherly figure in a way to boost her chances

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. You're probably right about that... but, don't see why it should be that way.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[BlueFlorida]

7. Sanders is a better outlet for anger

at rich people and corporations. The talk of "revolution" is seductive to the pitchfork and torch crowd.

Senator Warren is sensible and her progressiveness is not angry enough for some who want to reduce the "establishment" to rubble.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. She was Sanders before Sanders was Sanders?

She was still a republican when Sanders was founding The Progressive Caucus.

She was a Republican when Bernie was endorsing Jessie Jackson for President.

[OilemFirchen]

14. Yes.

And her past history is well-known. Didn't stop the huge clamor by now-Berniacs for her to run in 2016.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Touche... but, I can forgive Elizabeth given the depth of her progressive evolution.

BTW, forgot about Bernie's endorsement of Rev. Jackson for President... that and Bernie's civil rights record tells you everything you need to know about the man, his values and his principles.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

33. That's right, only certain people are allowed to say that they "evolved."

Everyone else is a "waffler" or "flip flopper" or "pandering."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. Except Elizabeth hasn't done any of those things just to run for President.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

39. Like who? Only one in the field has run for POTUS before.

What about people running for re-election for Senate?

Does that count?

[sheshe2]

41. ...

[Tipperary]

47. Ditto.

[ehrnst]

50. IKR?

[ehrnst]

44. Civil Rights record. Moving to a rural 97% white state right after college in 1964.

Traveling to Europe at the height of the Viet Nam anti-war movement.

OK.

[sheshe2]

55. Links to his civil rights record?

And I have seen the picture the one time he was arrested, 1964 I believe. What other than an endorsement of Rev Jackson did he have to gain status as a civil rights supporter with a record? A vote and an arrest makes one a civil rights advocate?

[mcar]

73. What is the name of the AA woman he chained himself to?

What was her consequence? I believe Sanders got a $25 fine and, of course, all this notoriety as a civil rights legend.

I wonder why the woman is never mentioned. It's almost like she was a prop.

[ehrnst]

26. She's been a Democrat for waaaaaaay longer than Senator Sanders has.

[we can do it]

29. 🔥

[sheshe2]

37. We have this as well.

10 Things Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency Has Done for You

The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already shielding Americans from shady dealings by mortgage lenders, student loan servicers, and credit card companies.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the watchdog agency conceived of and established by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in the wake of the financial crisis, had a hard time getting on its feet. The GOP tried everything it could to hobble the bureau, but to no avail. Over the past couple of years, the CFPB has issued dozens of protections shielding consumers from shady practices by mortgage lenders, student loan servicers, and credit card companies. Here are ten things the CFPB, which was created in 2011, has done to protect the little guy:

1. Mortgage lenders can no longer push you into a high-priced loan:

2. New homeowners are less likely to be hit by foreclosure:

3. If you are are delinquent on your mortgage payments, loan servicers have to try harder to help you avoid foreclosure:

4. Millions of Americans get a low-cost home loan counselor:

5. Borrowers with high-cost mortgages get an outside eye:

6. Fly-by-night financial players will be held accountable:

7. Folks scammed by credit card companies get refunds:

8. Student lenders face scrutiny:

9. Service members get extra protection:

10. Consumers get a help center:

Read More: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/elizabeth-warren-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-2/

Fact is, Warren does not just talk the talk, she walks the walk. This was her baby to protect the little guy. WDBD?

Love my Senator!

[ehrnst]

51. Actual progress for consumers. Actions speak louder than words, don't they? (nt)

[sheshe2]

56. Yes they do. nt

[Bradshaw3]

83. That is the biggest difference between the two

While I admire many of Bernie's long-term visions, some of them simply aren't possible until political realities change. Warren has the acumen to get as much done toward achieving the kind of vision toward a more equitable society while dealing with political realities. I'm afraid Bernie would be happy to tilt at windmills while fighting the good fight but getting little accomplished.

[MrsCoffee]

43. Sing it!

[JudyM]

116. As if facts matter ...

[msongs]

16. yep a dems ticket with 2 white new englanders? will that appeal west and south of the hudson? nt

[OilemFirchen]

18. Probably not.

But electability, in and of itself, is not an issue for these voters. That's been repeated often enough to become a mantra.

[thesquanderer]

125. The same regional argument was made about Clinton/Gore, but they won. (n/t)

[tymorial]

20. The native American issue is going to cause her problems

I know this isnt popular and may get me flagged but the reality is she us going to be hammered by this and not just by the right and the press. It doesnt matter that she has some very distant Native American heritage. I respect that she apologized for the confusion and her assumptions but others will claim she sought to benefit.

There is a lot about her platform that I support. I voted for her twice when I lived in Boston. As a presidential candidate, I dont believe her positive platform is enough to override the rhetoric

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. Don't think so.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Bradshaw3]

87. Not the reality

Native Americans support her on the topic:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-native-american_n_5c19550fe4b0432554c512bb

With all that is going on in our country, this is a non-issue, no matter how much some want to make it one.

[LongtimeAZDem]

103. Not really; also from Huffpost

Elizabeth Warren’s Insult To Native Americans Matters Even More Now That She’s Running

And Native Americans really didn't like the article you cited:

NAJA calls Huffington Post reporting irresponsible

[Bradshaw3]

106. Yeah, really

The first article you cited was written before the one I posted and is not anywhere as inclusive as the one I posted. It is an opinion piece from an activist, not comprehensive input from tribal leaders. The second is not cited as an author but from an organization, not at all representative of all Native Americans, and certainly not worthy of the the attempt you made to mean NAs as a whole. In fact, here is a statement from from that organization:
Doug George-Kanentiio, a co-founder of the Native American Journalists Association and a former trustee for the National Museum of the American Indian.
“No one bothered to contact the principal chief of Cherokee Nation to see if he agreed,” said George-Kanentiio, who is Akwesasne Mohawk."
You make the same mistake the NYT did in running with what this one official wrote (and has since been taken down from the tribe's website).

The story I posted includes input from 12 elected tribal officials, not one unelected one as the Times story did. They are representative of native peoples, not someone with an axe to grind.

Quoting one:
Richard Sneed, the principal chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, said he’s not upset at all by Warren’s DNA test. He hasn’t heard from any tribal leaders who are mad either. His tribe is different from the Cherokee Nation and is based in North Carolina.

“It’s media fodder. It’s sensationalism. That’s what it is,” he said. “All it takes is for one person to say they’re offended, and then everybody does a dog pile. But to me, it’s ‘Wait a second. Let’s get to some of the facts here.’ Sen. Warren has always been a friend to tribes. And we need all the allies we can get.”

[thesquanderer]

126. Doesn't matter what Native Americans say... Trump will beat her over the head with it. (n/t)

[Bradshaw3]

130. It does matter what they say

Just as it matters what the LGBT community says about Mayor Pete. For too long Native Americans have been marginalized in our society an dpolitics. We need to stand with them, just as we need to stand with the LGBT community.

[thesquanderer]

134. You took that the wrong way.

I don't mean "it doesn't matter what they say, because they are unimportant." I mean "it doesn't matter what they say, Trump will still make an issue out of it, very possibly with some success."

[athena]

111. Thanks for pointing this out.

It’s offensive to Native Americans that so many people, especially in the media, presume to speak for them. Why not listen to what Native Americans are actually saying?

[Bradshaw3]

113. Yes, and to their chosen leaders

Native Americans have been so marginalized in this country that when an issue does come up, media want to take shortcuts in covering them, so they use some blogger/activist as emblematic of these very diverse people.

[Hortensis]

22. :) I just pointed out elsewhere that Warren was Sanders before

Sanders was Sanders. But that was the first time I put it that way, never said it before. But we say it because it's true.

The simple reality is that in 2015 Sanders stepped into a vacuum of enthusiastic demand created by Senator WARREN'S achievements.

Not his. In going on 30 years in our national congress, he has, shockingly, effectively none significant, and this is extremely well documented year by wasted year. Where a strong record of effectiveness should be, he has a...vacuum. What he does have is a strong, authoritarian delivery on the stump that says "I alone can fix it," but that is completely belied by his history.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Elizabeth is very much her OWN person...and she'd compliment Bernie very well on the 2020 tickect!!

In either order...


Bernie & Elizabeth or Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

34. Has she dropped out? I hadn't heard. But Bernie would make a great VP for her.

Don't you think? She's got that incredible resume, and he would be a great promoter of her policies.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. Guess you didn't read my post to which you responded. I'll say it again for you...

"Elizabeth is very much her OWN person...and she'd compliment Bernie very well on the 2020 ticket!!
In either order..."

See?! ANY order...


Bernie & Elizabeth or Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

53. You agree with me! That's wonderful!

[Hortensis]

35. InA, Warren refused to endorse Sanders in 2016,

though as the self-appointed carrier of her flag he did court her for months. They've been colleagues in the senate for years, though, and she knows Bernie Sanders as his zealous admirers do not.

[ehrnst]

54. She was savaged by many Sanders supporters on social media when she endorsed HRC

who were saying one day before that they would TOTALLY support her for POTUS, so they couldn't POSSIBLY be sexist.

[Hortensis]

58. :) I remember! Sanders himself regards all those who

don't 100% follow his lead, no deviation allowed, as not worth wasting his time on if they're just voters, problems to be destroyed f they have power. And he attracts those who actually admire this.

But these attacks, though also engaged in by his left-wing zealots and cultists, are especially characteristic of the socially conservative populist followers whose nastiness came to dominate his following. We know all too well what good attack dogs those make.

[mcar]

74. ...

[revmclaren]

25. Warren AND 'Undecided'.

It seems that you see more 'undecideds' rabidly defending Sanders (I-VT) then actual supporters.

My prediction... When Biden jumps into the race, all these 'undecideds' will suddenly become Sanders (I-VT) supporters overnight. And some Warren supporters will also suddenly see the light as well.

This will throw off the candidate percentages on DU and show a sudden jump in (I-VT)s popularity.

Of course this is just IMHO.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. People who are fair call out unfairness whenever they see it... they should be commended

for doing the right thing.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[revmclaren]

31. I agree 100% and we'll know if I'm right

about unfair percentage manipulation when Joe jumps in....

Bookmarking.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. I think you ARE right... guess we'll soon see.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. Lol. That will shake the election to the core! I don't doubt MSNBC and CNN will dispatch a reporter.

[revmclaren]

66. I knew you would be dropping by...

ONLY!!!

[mwooldri]

67. I dunno... I was for Bernie in 2016.

But 2020 I definitely am on the fence. If it is Bernie vs Trump well that is of course a no brainier. Pete Buttigieg has been impressing me lately. It is way too early to settle on someone yet. At least that is my opinion.

I don't know whether a lot of undecideds will suddenly go Sanders if/when Joe Biden declares his candidacy. I'm an undecided but I am not feeling the Bern this time around.

[revmclaren]

72. I'm sure the majority of undecided DUers are just that.

Sorry if you feel I meant every undecided. I screen shot the ops that had the most strange (to me) posts. This is purely for my reference. When Biden runs I'll cross check. Pure curiosity.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

48. Excellent post... even though I have a few minor disagreements regarding Elizabeth.

Bernie & Elizabeth or Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. Could see that too.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[TwilightZone]

99. If you find yourself agreeing with the obvious trolls...

you might want to reconsider your position. The argument that Bernie was the first person to ever come up with any and all progressive ideas, as posited by said troll, (since removed from DU, I might add) is ludicrous.

[ehrnst]

52. If you don't count Democrats, sure.

Ted Kennedy was proposing single payer in the early 70's.

Hillary and Ted got CHIP implemented, which was actual progress getting affordable health care to more children.

The ACA - Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama...

DEFENDING Planned Parenthood....

Democrats have been at the forefront, and Bernie has been wise to join them as often as he has.

[TwilightZone]

59. "way ahead of everyone on all the major policy issues"

Nope. The only people who believe this are people who just started getting involved in politics in the past couple of election cycles. Those who've been Democrats and politically-involved since before 2015 understand that many, many Democrats have led the charge on many issues for decades, including those to which Bernie and his supporters claim exclusive credit.

It's kind of funny, actually. For some, it's like politics didn't exist before 2015. Newsflash: there were Democrats, progressives, liberals, and the like fighting for all the issues you hold dear long before Bernie decided to run for president.

[KPN]

57. You mentioned wrongly then. Nobody was

Sanders before Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders was outspoken on these issues and successfully elected as a Congressman and then a Senator long before any other current federal legislator.

His appeal is that he’s been pounding on these issues consistently since the 1980s. His appeal is he is genuine (not that Warren is not but Bernie’s been on this message for more than 30 years). And that has never changed. That’s pretty genuine.

That said, neither Sanders or Warren aren’t front-runner right now.

[FM123]

60. this article from Slate touches on that topic

The impulse to compare rather than contrast Warren with Sanders in this way is a natural one. The two economic populists are indeed closer to each other on the ideological spectrum than they are to anyone else in the race. And as Donegan points out, the socialist-capitalist binary that is often used by Sanders fans to sort the two can feel like a post-hoc rationalization from those “seeking a politically acceptable reason to vote for a man and not for a woman—those who would vote for this man, and perhaps not any woman, no matter what.” Second-choice polling, as limited as it is, offers evidence of that: A plurality of her supporters name him as their second choice, and yet his fans are about two times less likely to select her as their fallback than they are to pick Joe Biden, a man who is synonymous with the status quo and not yet even in the race.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-compare-contrast.html

[louis c]

62. Warren can't win...

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/massachusetts-2020-sanders-biden-lead-warren-in-her-home-state

[at140]

81. Polls have a bad reputation now based on

results of 2016.

[louis c]

109. Ya, they were off a point

Clinton went into the election with a 3 point lead, she won by two.

The polls in the 2018 midterm were square on.

For Warren to be competitive, every poll has to be off double digits, everywhere.

Warren is a smart person and a very good Senator. But she can't beat Trump, and that's what this primary is all about.

[at140]

123. Yeah right, Biden will take Trump to the

Woodshed and beat him up 😜

[louis c]

138. Maybe not. But he is the Democrat most likley to get more than 270 electoral votes...

...and every poll, everywhere demonstrates that.

All I want to leave you with are these three words: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.

[Bradshaw3]

90. Well then every other candidate can't win either

Harris trails both those two in California so I guess that means she is done as well. Any poll in any other state is likely to show the same type of results: Inslee in Washington, etc. It's silly to use a poll nine months from actual voting to make a blanket statement like that.

[louis c]

110. This election is about beating Trump...

...and the largest segment of Democratic voters feel Biden is the person who can do that.

I can see a narrow path for Harris and I think Harris may have a chance of beating Trump. I can't see a path for Warren. My bet is she drops out before Massachusetts in order to avoid the embarrassment.

[Bradshaw3]

112. I see a path for Warren

And can see Biden failing to get the nomination the way he has twice before. So there's that. He may not even run to avoid embarrassment a third time.

[louis c]

117. You mean Obama's Vice President has no path and Liz Warren...

...who is getting a whopping 14% in her home state has one?

I guess you don't have to be asleep to dream.

[Bradshaw3]

129. Funny you have to resort to insults and RW talking points

The DNA is a favortie talking point of tRump, so it always bothers me whe people here try to use it to discredit Warren. I guess when you have Biden's voting record favoring Wall Street, the Anita Hill problem and other issues that will come up in the primary you don't want to talk issues, so it's the non-issue DNA thing.

Also, it's good to read a post before posting an answer. I never said he didn't have a path. I said he lost twice before - a fact. Simply being Obama's vice-president is not going to be enough for him. We will have debates and situations that will come up going forward that wil change polls going forward. Hopefully the candidates - and their suporters on here - will stick to the issues and facts.

[louis c]

137. What RW talking pointa are you talking about?

there is no mention of DNA. No one needs to insult Warren. I have nothing against her. I worked on her campaign against Brown.

The only point I'm making is that SHE CAN'T BEAT TRUMP.

[Ferryboat]

63. Elect either one

They both make wall street nervous.

[Apple Fritter]

118. exactly. I trust both of them. They also trust each other. n/t

[BluegrassDem]

69. Because Bernie's supporters are mostly Green Party supporters and not true Dems...

There's your answer.

[BluegrassDem]

92. Most Independents are center right...to say Bernie would win all Independents is ridiculous!

Bernie's support comes from the left loons of the Green Party with a smattering of Dems that vary depending on the state. The Greens don't have a true primary, so they all vote for Bernie.

[JonLP24]

122. I never voted Green in my life

Even with Krysten Sinema on the ballot. Someone said this site demands votes while browbeating their views.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Where do you get this from?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

108. What is the highest number of votes any Green Party candidate has ever gotten?

What is the highest polling numbers any Green Party candidate has ever gotten? None has gotten anywhere near 5% in any national poll or election. I don't think Stein even got 2%

Your assertion is not even remotely backed by facts. You may not like the fact that Bernie Sanders has substantial support among Democrats, but he does. It may well be the case that he might never have the support of a majority of Democrats, but he overall polls well among Democrats in national polls, and his favorability numbers are positive among all Democrats collectively.

The vast majority of Bernie's supporters are not Green Party voters. They much more often come from the left wing of the Democratic Party

[dlk]

76. Warren Has So Much More to Offer-She is Doing an Excellent Job Pushing the Policy Debate

[at140]

80. Warren is much younger, has much more energy,

has more knowledge of mega banks, not an avowed socialist, would be better in debates with Trump, than Sanders. Other than that Sanders is good and proved to me he is a good money manager by becoming a millionaire.

[vsrazdem]

127. I like liz Warren and she is my second choice, but lets not stretch the truth. She is 69, which is

not MUCH younger, although I feel age has nothing to do with leadership or ability to be president.

[at140]

131. You are in for a shock!

when you go from age 69 to age 78+, the body deteriorates a lot!!

Because at 69, I could walk 18 holes and shoot in the 70's.
Now at 78, I need a riding cart to play 18, and have not broken 85 in over a year.

[vsrazdem]

132. Sorry, not in for a shock, I'm 65 already, and all people age differently.

Chronologic age has nothing to do with leadership ability or stamina. Yes, people are less energetic as they get older but that does not mean they cannot do the job.

[at140]

135. I could never develop the expert software

for manufacturing automation consisting of 1 Million lines of intertwined code which I did in my 40's after I turned past Medicare age.

Actually at age 78, I am in better shape than 95% of others of the same age.
Because I do good workouts on Treadmill and lift light weights every other day.
I have zero need for any type of healthcare expense -- knock on wood.
But my brain power is just a shadow of what it was in my 40's & 50's.

So yes, people do age at different rates. If I keep up my Gym routine, I see no reason why I can not make it to my mother's age when she passed away at age 103. Unless of course cancer strikes, against which there is no vaccine.

[vsrazdem]

133. P.S. Jimmy Carter seems a lot more energetic to me than Trump.

[at140]

136. I am like 3 times more energetic than Trump!

and I will be 79 next month. So Trump is a poor standard to use for comparison.

[DoctorJoJo]

82. I Agree With Your Logic 100%, Especially the Age. But I've Gotten Slammed for Pointing Out ...

... Bernie and Biden's obvious age disqualifiers. I'd prefer someone younger than 68, but she is NINE years better suited than they!

[dogman]

95. She was one of the first to announce.

She was in about a month before Bernie announced. I seriously considered her but she never took off. Her polling and her fundraising were not impressive and when Bernie announced he showed what it meant having run a campaign for President. He had money and volunteers nationwide. It's a long way to the election, but I don't see her path at this time. She would be a strong second for me at this time. For me Sanders biggest appeal is that he has captured large numbers of youth and is now trying to return us to our labor roots. Some of your "baggage" is imagined, some is what appeals to others.

[MadDAsHell]

96. "Warren was Sanders before Sanders was Sanders". Uh, Warren was a Rethuglican until the mid-90's.

Sanders has been as far from a Republican as you can get for decades.

So tell me how exactly you get "Warren was Sanders before Sanders was Sanders"???

[YOHABLO]

97. Referring to any Dem candidate as far left, is a meme you adapted from the far right.

The term "socialist'' is used as a way to disparage any candidate that is simply looking out for average working and poor people.

[TwilightZone]

101. Sanders self-identifies as a socialist.

And has for decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/29/bernie-sanders-is-an-avowed-socialist-and-democrats-are-actually-pretty-ok-with-that/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.90c3afed351a

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/aug/26/bernie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/

It's only a pejorative if you want it to be.

[OilemFirchen]

104. I said nothing about the "far left".

The term "socialist" is used as a self-identifier by Sanders himself.

Thanks for the bump!

[customerserviceguy]

98. Two reasons

First, it is important to the Bernie-bots that Bernie himself is personally redeemed by getting the 2020 nomination that was unfairly denied to him in 2016 by all of the Clinton machinations that were exposed (maybe partially!) by Wikileaks.

Second, Sen. Warren really shot herself in the foot over the whole "Indian ancestry" thing. She did her DNA test result release as the country was approaching the midterm election, and that took focus away from the cause. Also, she clung to the story of her smidgen of Native heritage from an analysis that showed her as being one tenth of one percent Native at best. Then, the form from the Texas bar emerged, where she said her heritage was "American Indian", although she's whiter than most white people in America.

Sanders didn't pretend to be anything other than he wasn't. Not a high qualifier, but in some folks' eyes, it makes him appear more honest.

As for the "much more personable", I have commented on another thread about what I feel about that, and for the sake of this post, I am not going to repeat my remarks, lest it be censored the way the other one was.

[betsuni]

105. What "Clinton machinations" were exposed by Wikileaks?

"Finally, it was the Russian hack of DNC emails that 'proved the organization had its thumb on the scale for Clinton.' As Eichenwald points out, those emails were almost all from May 2016, at which point Sanders had no hope of winning the nomination, except though a massive 'flip' of superdelegates -- a rather odd strategy for someone running a campaign in the name of 'the people.' ... As to the DNC emails, as Sanders himself later admitted, we surely would have found emails just as nasty, if not worse, had Sanders's campaign been hacked as well." Susan Bordo

[LongtimeAZDem]

100. I would guess it's because it's more about personality than ideology

[betsuni]

102. She used to be so popular with Sanders supporters.

Conveniently used for the: "I'd vote for a woman, just not THAT woman" thing (and it was "labels aren't important" as far as Warren being a former Republican was concerned.) Then she failed to endorse Bernie, a great sin.

She has her own policies, is an optimist, fits into the category of "a progressive who likes to get things done," has said she's a capitalist. Sanders appeals to those who prefer slogans over policy, are pessimists, think capitalism is bad (no thought to which party deregulates and gives tax breaks to corporations and is corrupt to the core). Now Warren is considered to be too much like Hillary, and we see "former Republican" used as a negative.

[roody]

107. 40 years of consistency.

[Apple Fritter]

119. boom MIC DROP. n/t

[workinclasszero]

140. Bingo

[JonLP24]

120. Warren wasn't Sanders before Sanders

Sanders has a long history and has fewer mistakes than most candidates.

I donated to both Warren and Sanders and guess what? I haven't voted yet. Right now Biden is off my list out of all the candidates so I will support the candidate that has the best chance at beating Biden. Voting for Warren if the poll numbers stay consistent would be splitting the progressive vote.