We need a GenXer. If Bernie was 15 or even 10 yrs he'd sweep it all. Liz Warren's year was 2016 and she stepped aside for HRC. Dems need a Gavin Newsom-type. someone who inspires
1
The pragmatism of Senator Sanders and Senator Warren is comparable in scope (though different in focus) to the pragmatism of President Clinton. However much they, Sanders especially, would like to claim otherwise.
Sanders, for instance, pragmatically focused on economic progressivism while ignoring social progressivism. His was a big tent that had room for social conservatives and even the odd misogynist or racist. (His misogynist and racist block voted for Trump.) No wonder then that he steadfastly refuses to emphasize the accomplishments of President Obama. No wonder then that he cannot or will not speak to women's economic or health issues. He knows what worked for him and still doesn't want to alienate the white male social conservatives. The term used here "social justice catechism" is puzzling and not at all appropriate. The term should be "economic justice catechism."
Warren's pragmatism has now increasingly become very similar to that of Secretary Clinton--whose proposed policies and plans were not at all the same as President Clinton's. She is aspirational in roughly than same pragmatic way as was Hillary Clinton. She recognizes the excellence of Obama to the same degree.
4
The Times's slanted coverage of Bernie Sanders seemingly knows no bounds. It has become very tiresome.
3
I greatly admire both Sanders and Warren, and want them fiercely fighting on the front lines--with Joe Biden's efforts, too. I also want Sanders and Warren to remain in the Senate where, I believe, they are most effective.
I would _vastly_ prefer a younger, more fresh-ideas kind of Presidential candidate, along with the vision and input and front-lines battling from these venerable lions. Kamala Harris and Kristen Gillibrand immediately come to mind. Heck, I could even live with a new Democrat and truly moderate Republican combo ticket. It is time for a new vision.
1
While I admire both Senators Sanders and Warren, they appear to be retreads and too far left. I believe the swing from the right (Bush) to the left (Obama; though he governed far more moderately), the country is setting itself up for a resurgence of moderation in it's politics.
And Mueller needs to hurry.
1
For me, there is no choice. Warren is younger, a woman, and most important, a bona fide Democrat, as Hillary was. Being a member of the DNC I would endorse Warren but not Sanders. He joined the party for one year for one reason alone: to ride the DNC's coattails to the only nomination which matters. There are only two viable parties which have any chance of winning the White House. That's a fact, Jack.
Trump is a complete jerk but being the con man he is even Trump knew he had no chance as an Independent. He also attached himself like the parasitic slug he is to the RNC. No more of this nonsense. As a lifelong Democrat of some five decades only a dyed in the cloth Blue Democrat will get my endorsement. It's Warren in a landslide.
DD
Manhattan
6
Here's hoping Bernie runs as an independent this time.
2
I'm worried about this healthcare plan touted by Bernie Sanders and backed by Elizabeth Warren. It looks to me like the important implications and possible problems have not been carefully researched at all. Instead, this is a fly-by-night attempt to capture the votes of ideologues, typical of Bernie's other declarations and promises. More realistically, but less dramatically, Obamacare is a good start and could be improved. That seems to me a much more logical and less potentially dangerous road. But it looks like this represents the rising tide of fantastical dreams which will form the Progressive platform, and force more moderate and sensible liberals to join, against their better judgement. But a Sanders Warren ticket or a Warren Sanders ticket might stand a chance of winning in 2020, and so, putting my fears aside, I'd of course vote for them.
5
Well said, Joan. I agree completely.
2
The courage, integrity and vision of Senator Sanders offers hope to America's future.
6
I'd have to go with the one who did not kowtow to the NRA and gun manufacturers over and over to the point where America is now drowning in guns and gun violence.
7
Sanders is taking the same approach as Trump from a different direction, rely on a fervent base while only giving a nod to the rest. That will not work in 2020 democratic primaries, just as it did not in 2016. Much as they like to think of themselves as the future of the Democratic party the Sanders most faithful supporters are not a majority, many who supported him will go for Warren and so will most of those who supported Hillary. One sided politics may succeed only if the rest are too divided to oppose it, as happened with Trump who was facing 15 weak opponents . Furthermore, as we are seeing with Trump, that is not a formula for governing. Sanders is a one good note politician, Warren is the full orchestra.
4
Thanks to Wall Street stooges Obama and Holder, Warren's meeting with Jamie Dimon did not occur across a plexiglass window in a Federal facility, as it should have. Feeling the need to audition for the blessing of the oligarchs tells me all I need to know about Warren. Dimon would never meet with Sanders because his impeccable coiff might get ruffled.
6
Hear, hear. Warren is selling out.
2
It impossible that Bernie Sander does not talk about his early activism on behalf of African Americans because there wasn't any. Questions were raised during the recent election about the real extent of his commitment to social causes in his college days. In fact, there were many questions about his past, among them: why he held no job for many years, why he declared that women enjoy being gang raped, why he supported the NRA and the F35. Fear of revealing his actual past actions may explain his reluctance to bring up even an imaginary, nice-looking past. No known activist remembers Bernie Sanders taking part in any resistance in the 1960s. The only "evidence"is a blurry photograph - hardly a reliable indication of anything. It is possible that Bernie Sanders avoids mentioning his past because what is being told -- vague and minimal though it is --- is not accurate. As a vague chimera of which he must not speak, it sheds a complimentary light on the aged chameleon known as Bernie Sanders. He hopes to hide his sorry past with the same success as he has concealed his recent tax returns.
6
This country is going to snap in two without a viable third party.
4
I love Warren but don't think she can beat Trump. He'll eat her for lunch.
Anyone who runs against Trump must be willing & able to effectively tear him apart - 'effectively' - which Hillary couldn't do in 2016 - while Bernie was calling Trump "a pathological liar." If Trump's still president, no 'traditional campaign' will ruffle Trump or reach the working class. Bernie can & will take the fight to the working class, using the economy & jobs. That's Bernie's element.
Warren's cautious 'incrementalism' on health care sounds like HRC - & progressives ran from her. If Warren runs as a traditional Democrat embracing HRC's incrementalism & corporate fundraising, there'll be a fight w/ progressives & Bernie will likely triumph (assuming the Party has the sense to leave the race alone: no super-delegates or front loading southern primaries to knock Bernie out).
I'm not convinced Bernie should be the nominee. But he can raise money, hit Trump hard & successfully bring economic issues to the working class - & progressive ideas to young folks. Bernie's the 1 'Democrat' likely to knock Trump out.
Democrats better adjust to Bernie as a possible candidate, run an honest primary & support Bernie if he wins an unrigged primary contest - or there'll be a progressive 3rd party candidate. If Democratic insiders cherry pick another nominee, they're sabotaging the Party - which only gets one chance to choose a candidate the honest way & redeem the 2016 mess. Or they're finished.
5
It may be that Bernie Sanders will again run on policies, not trying to sell "himself" -- which is what our candidates usually do, attaching personal issues like "time to break the glass ceiling" or "I alone can fix it."
Decide whether it's honest & refreshing to see someone run for President explaining (pulling no punches) what they want to try to accomplish, what they'll fight for, instead of talking endlessly about their life, their marriage, their personal trials, all the personal celebrity - oriented stuff that has taken over our politics for decades. And brought about the downfall of Bill Clinton, widely packaged as a 'hip new, baby boomer' candidate who deserved to win more on what he seemed to offer than the neo-liberal policies he brought to office. And the focus on Bill Clinton as a personality didn't help when his character problems made him look like a man who lied & disrespected the Office of the President.
I really want to know about the policies the next POTUS is willing to fight for.
All the pandering on racial issues & identity politics poisoned our system & gave us Big Clown Trump who dishonestly pitched how awesome he is - Trump couldn't talk about policies because he's ignorant & doesn't have any - witness him spending his entire campaign bullying, mocking, insulting & intimidating other candidates.
Listening to someone focus on policy & the future of the country without pandering will be a breath of fresh air.
5
What? Obama as one of the greatest presidents? I think not. He ran as a populist then played it safe. Helped the elite gather even more power and money to themselves and then like the Clintons, hobnobs with his new billionaire pals. Sad, if you think that makes him great.
12
He's tarnishing his legacy even as I write. Google Obama and paid speeches. He's giving more of them to the 1%. For $400K a pop. And this after he already inked a $60 MILLION book deal. He needs more than $60 MILLION??????
1
Many of us won't forget the Berniebros and how little Sanders did to discourage their viciousness against Clinton.
9
People, including Hillary, who keep focusing on the poisonous "Bernie bros" are people who are very late learning that the "Bernie bros" were Russian bots sent by Putin to tear the Democratic candidates apart.
Sanders himself was and is a model of civility to Clinton up to the present day while she's still trashing him, even though he campaigned hard for her. I've never met a Bernie supporter who spoke viciously about Hillary. They may not have liked her but the stuff you and other people are still up in arms about came from non human bots who posted from countries in Eastern Europe - part of Putin's plot to try to get Trump elected!
How long, how long?
2
fast/furious, spot on comment. Clearly April isn't up on the news.
Sanders will dance around and 'dodge' any details about how he evolved to become a lifetime politician because of how it was premised by his avoiding the Draft in the '60's. That's when he bolted from Brooklyn, NY and headed north to get close to the Canadian border, settling in Vermont in 1968. He said it was all about "loving the great outdoors." More like getting lost in those great outdoors, and dropping off the Draft Board's radar.
And let's not forget, the Millennials who flocked to attend his rallies and support him for the Democratic nod to be president didn't know Bernie Sanders from Colonel Sanders before Sanders started mentioning how he supported providing free college educations, but especially how he'd enact legislation to get rid of their 'student loan debt'.
So let's be truthful and tell it like it is, and was. Please.
7
@merc: The last US president to have an honourable service record was George H.W. Bush, so stop setting the bar so high. And applause to anyone who avoided conscription during your disastrous Vietnam War.
6
Avoidng conscription is all about oneself. But for one to refuse conscription and suffer the consequences is something altogether different, and admirable. I refused induction into the military, and once getting their attention, I said I would only serve as a Medic and never carry a weapon. I was granted Medic training, but once I'd seen enough, understood what we were responsible for, I refused to wear my uniform, had a Court Martial charged against me, but never looked back. And when visiting 'The Wall', when I see the last names of the dead, I believe I helped keep the engraver from adding more.
4
Funny how lefties who mock Trump for "never having served in the military!" --- give a total pass to Bernie Sanders, and before that, to Bill Clinton.
Lefties are utter hypocrites!
2
Between Warren and Sanders, I choose Sanders. She didn't back Bernie during the primaries when he could have used her endorsement and if her comment about single payer is true, she's not the candidate for me.
And, no, it's not about her being a woman. I voted for Bernie in the primary and Jill Stein in the general. The problem was Hillary. Get over it.
And, oh yeah, Bernie is the most popular politician in the country. Of course his chances are better than Warren's. Deal with it. Stop living in fantasy land about him being unelectable. You know who was unelectable? Hillary Clinton- twice.
9
/The two liberal senators are often spoken of in the same breath as if there is scarcely any difference between them./
Interesting use of the passive voice.
Here's a difference of which one paper of record seems scarcely aware:
She is a Democrat and he is not.
7
Exactly, Elizabeth Warren is a strong Liberal Democrat and Bernie is not a Democrat, and Bernie still hasn't stopped crying because he got trounced for the nomination, always about himself.
Bernie has a lot in common with Ralph Nader, he cost us the election.
7
Most people don't care anymore. The DNC destroyed the Democratic Party rigging the 2016 election. Donald Trump destroyed the Republican Party by hijacking it against a bunch of cowards for white supremacists.
The traditional politic parties are over.
7
The Democrats have been betraying the workers since 1800.
The American workers will continue to be trampled under the foot of big business until they leave the Democrats and organize a Socialist,
Labor based party like other countries have.
8
I get so frustrated when I see supporters who idolize Bernie Sanders blithely assert that if the Democrats had ONLY nominated him he would surely have beaten Trump and the country would have been spared the trauma we've been suffering. Let's inject a little reality into the discussion, shall we? First of all, Sanders isn't even in fact a Democrat. It's disingenuous to argue that he was treated unfairly by the party establishment. He is a self-described democratic SOCIALIST. And that fact would have been hammered home 24/7 for months by the Republicans. They would have equated it, however falsely, with communist. And then...as appealing as many of Sanders' ideas were, they were not well thought through in terms of detail and implementation. Also, however much his fans might want to dismiss the issue, Sanders was several years older than either Hillary or Trump, who were both skirting the edge of the viable age range for the office. (For those dreaming of another Sanders run, he will turn 79 in 2020.) Bernie has some valuable ideas to contribute to our national discussion, but he was not, and will not be, the candidate to win the White House for the Democrats.
8
I am a Trump supporter, but my husband was first a Warren, then a Bernie supporter. He turned to Trump ONLY after Bernie dropped out.
I think that Bernie had a real chance, because he was perceived as honest and ethical -- whether that is really true ($600K lake house, cough cough) or not -- and Hillary is perceived as a crook (correctly).
1
Clearly Senators Warren and Sanders are 'in the running,' and who else? You can tell by who the Republicans are starting to smear. Articles like this are fodder for the smear machines that are corrupting our democratic process. When 'Swiftboating' worked so well against John Kerry, the dirty tricks crowd took over the Republican party.
https://seniorjunior.blogspot.com/2017/09/which-democrats-do-republicans...
7
What you miss is that Bernie Sanders is a charismatic figure and Ms. Warren is, surprisingly, not.
Bernie Sanders can and routinely does electrify a crowd, where Ms. Warren puts them to sleep. Her voice is simply too weak and she is disappointing on stage, as she was at the Women's march after Trump's election.
Beyond the personal attributes, Ms. Warren's inclination to "making a personal connection" comes off as pandering to the identity politics of Southern Black women, or the Christian church crowd.
Bernie says he does not care about pandering--he has the confidence Black Southern women church ladies are smart enough to see what he is talking about is more important than identity politics.
Sadly, he's probably too old.
The Democrats need someone-- but none of the choices you mention has got the Right Stuff.
In a country of 320 million it's extraordinary we can't find the right hero.
6
I still have not forgiven Senator Warren for endorsing Evita (a.k.a. Hillary) last year. Bernie is the heritage of the New Deal personified and Clintonism is a malignant cancer in the party.
Bernie, I worked very hard for you in 2016, but 2020 is going to be a bridge too far. Run and you will look like Gloria Swanson in Hollywood Boulevard ("I'm ready for my close up now") unless you make it known that you are running to keep the others on point and honest.
Senator Warren would be a great nominee despite her endorsement of faux progressive Hillary (almost an unforgivable sin), but I expect to see a number of rising stars that the D.C. writers have overlooked. I think Senator Harris could look very formidable 3 years from now and having California in your pocket is a big plus. Were he not running for Governor next year, Gavin Newsom would be an interesting candidate.
I would suggest strongly that any Democratic nominee consider Representative Tulsi Gabbard as a great running mate. She is a rising star an in the meantime, Ms Pelosi should be giving her room to grow on the national stage and in House leadership.
The Democrats can win the White House in 2020 and it could very likely be a woman (finally) - just not Hillary, Thank God. I will be ready to phone bank, knock on doors, contribute, organize and all the rest- just not for any Clinton or Clintonite.
Stay home Joe.
4
I haven't forgiven Bernie Sanders, NOT a Democrat, who campaigned for himself even after he got blown out for the nomination by Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren showed class in campaigning for Clinton and supporting the party nominee.
Bernie always campaigned for himself, and even when he supposedly campaigned for Hillary, it was always about himself and his ego. Bernie showed himself to be selfish and not a team player, not ever going to support the Socialist for the Democratic Nomination.
I'm a Liberal and Progressive Democrat, but Bernie Sanders is not.....he still thinks he won the nomination....and is still running for himself.
5
@David -
I was a Sanders supporter, and i wrote him in in November. I'm also an Independent and a Mass resident, a state with open primaries. When 11 of 12 bought off superdelegates went for Clinton in my state before the primaries, i can't get too upset at Warren for at least having the class to hold off on declaring for Clinton until after the primaries.
I agree that Bernie shouldn't run either. I'd prefer Merkeley over the others, but i'll consider anyone who looks to stick with plugging for single payer without selling it out.
Forgive me whomever, i've recently concluded that the Libertarian-lite Cory Booker is the smartest and gutsiest, and feels the most presidential of the pack to date. If i think i can trust him with the health care thing.
What is really sad -- and comes through SO clearly on this forum -- the Democratic "bench" is about an inch deep. All the candidates are OLD -- Warren is 67 or 68 -- everyone else is 70 or older.
That's too darn old. Reagan was 69 and routinely mocked as an old geezer with dementia! This is a demanding job, it's not for seniors on SS and Medicare (yes, I mean Trump too).
There should be a maximum age for POTUS and I think at least 65 is the max. That would mean a POTUS in his year at 73!!!
And why don't the Dems have a dozen or more bright, shiny potentials in their 30s, 40s and 50s -- WHY? why? why?
1
It's old turtles all the way down. Seriously, Warren's the one. Oops! Wrong decade. No,really, seriously, the senator from Massachusetts.... uuuh let me start over. Can't we all wait until it's closer to Christmas before we start peeking at the presents? There.
3
If Warren runs in 2020 she'll have no hope if Bennie is on the ticket with her - I hate to say it but she will never be taken seriously by 40% of this country unless she has a running mate as a counter-point, perhaps more fiscally/militarily conservative but socially liberal.
Doesn't have to be a man - but I don't see a lot of moderate Democratic women on the stage right now ready to step up.
3
The US was ruined by Nixon, Reagan and Bush II with voodoo economics and huge deficits, while the democrats tried with some success to stabilise the country, so 'fiscally conservative' is probably the wrong word for reckless behaviour of republicans.
To get the US near modern western countries with social safety and good education wouldn't be unrealistic if not for all the waste on military spending and those incredible tax breaks for corporations and the rich.
Since I frequently see claims in the NYT and by a few NYT commenters that Sanders hasn't specified how he will pay for his Medicare for All, may I point out that it is on his webpage: https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
Too many items to list here, but upshot is replacement of premiums with progressive taxes, some on employers, some on families (which come out ahead because there are no more premiums). Also higher rates of taxation on those over $250,000/yr, taxing capital gains the same as wages, and changes to the Estate Tax. Thank you to those journalists and commenters who do their due diligence.
6
I would be inclined toward Adam Schiff, Kennedy, or Harris is any combination.
Schiff is impeccably moral and responsible -- which is what we as a country will need to heal after Trump. Someone who can be completely trusted by both sides, immediately. So, for me, it's Schiff/Kennedy or Schiff/Harris or perhaps Schiff/Warren. We need to win.
4
Schiff-Harris is brilliant.
If Elizabeth Warren had endorsed Bernie Sanders last April we wouldn't be having this conversation because Sanders and Warren would be President and Vice President. She has to be "pragmatic" because she will never be able to raise middle class money the way Sanders did which means that whatever she does will need approval from the Oligarchs.
10
No. Elizabeth Warren decided not to enter the presidential stakes after discussing it with her husband, and she chose Clinton because they share goals and ideals. This is nonsense. Your idea that Sanders can "raise middle class money" is directly contradictory to his idea that middle class money is not welcome if it comes in larger quantities.
2
."..middle class money is not welcome if it comes in larger quantities"
Middle class money in large quantities? What are you talking about?
5
Warren threw Bernie Sanders under the bus, for ambition, not integrity. I voted for her, but now she has shown what she is, I'll not be voting for her again.
As far as sharing goals and ideals with Clinton, does that mean she wants to grift a billion from some less fortunate people, and become part of the US endless war machine around the world? Because lately Warren has become the apprentice to Gramps McCain, the real "Mad Dog" in our government.
8
I respect Sanders and really like and have supported Warren but both are too old. Sanders is 4 years older than I and Warren 2 years younger.
Stay in the Senate the both of you; exit the main stage and make room for some very bright younger people.
4
Sanders needs to consider running outside of the Democratic Party as an Independent. Yes, I anticipate the squeals of outrage from Democratic Party members, but it is time to admit Bernie is at best a Democrat of convenience. Yes, the Democrats might lose as Bernie's millions plead their case to the voters. Yes, without Perot, Clinton could not have won. Without Nader, Gore would probably have prevailed. Without Bernie, as Hillary would have it, she would be president.
With neither the Democrats or the Republicans claiming 30% of registered voters and with independents representing a plurality at over 40%, and with both major parties imploding, it is past time for a little disruption. It's time to kick out the jams and see where the electorate is in the 21st century.
5
For a party supposedly of the new, it is time to keep from going back to the same well for our presidential candidates. All people and ideas should be welcome and considered obviously, but it is time to put a new face and voice to the Democratic Party, the nation as well.
It is a complex and dangerous world, yes, but jingoism and saber-rattling by amateurs, such as we have now, is not an answer. World economic development and prosperity are the ideals to be sought. Less fortunate people should be assisted, not discarded. We should not let down our guard, but we should not guard against peace. An infrastructure of peace should be the goal. For all nations, including the United States, the tendency to wage war seems be a more easily chosen road. World and national leadership requires imagination leading to the development of new realities. All nations would be wise to seek the profit found in peace and avoid the moral bankruptcy found in war. The United States should aspire to lead along this road, embrace this tenet.
1
Unfortunately it has been proven that pragmatism does not win elections anymore. Elizabeth is a brilliant scholar and lawyer but Bernie has connected with the core principles of decency in America, if we want that. Do we want decency? Sure. Maybe for the first time in our history. Other people have obviously carried the torch but I don't see Elizabeth doing it, despite her brilliance and her character and her resolve. And it comes down to the fact that a woman like her will not win the election. But Kamala could. Kamala, my friends has karisma. A black woman? Yeah.
1
Kamala Harris is a corporate Democrat ... Obama 2.0.
17
I'm a little bit older, perhaps. Jimmy Carter was the last decent human being president. I could cry that the US in 1980 chose the wrong way for a pandering actor with false solutions. How the US and the world could stand today on climate change, social justice and morals.
Good people can only reach the top in special circumstances. Probably, after Trump, like after Nixonford, there could be again some 'designated survivor'.
4
As a registered Democrat for 39 years (and a fairly reliable Democratic voter for a decade before that), I cannot in truth support either of these candidates. Both are divisive, each in his or her own way.
Single-payer health care is a great idea. Would that Sanders knew how he would pay for it (or how we would pay for it) and how he would pass it. He can't. His plan for free college tuition is ridiculous: a give-away to the already well-to-do (you can only get into college with a secondary education that comes with a certain amount of privilege, however unfair that may seem). He verges on hating capitalism—come the revolution, comrades.
Warren has been a valiant fighter for good financial regulation in the Senate and out of it. She should stay there and continue the fight in the very harsh tone she habitually uses, not a great media selling point.
The Democratic party can't give into its left wing or to identity politics. It needs a candidate who can unite the whole party and speak to a broad spectrum of voters. Neither Sanders nor Warren do this.
15
Glad you hear to say single payer is a great idea. Sanders says exactly how he will pay for it on this page: https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
Too many items to list here, but upshot is replacement of premiums with progressive taxes, some on employers, some on families (which come out ahead because there are no more premiums. Also higher rates of taxation on those over $250,000/yr, taxing capital gains the same as wages, and changes to the Estate Tax. Not really socialism or even "left wing", unless you consider FDR or LBJ to be the same.
6
I appreciate that both candidates have strong credential to the left. We've seen what a centrist is capable of in Obama: a single monumental achievement early on, and then 6 years of giving Republicans everything they wanted -- in terms of foreign policy, domestic spying, and vast favors for Wall Street -- while they rake him over the coals publicly.
That isn't what this country needs.
And I write this as a conservative who finds the Republican party both anti-conservative and, frankly, nutso.
6
Numbers don't add up!
If Bernie Sanders is allowed to run as the candidate for the Democratic Party, this Blue voter will not only be sitting out the election; she will be doing all she can to influence others to do the same. (And believe me, it will not take much.)
He is NOT a Democrat. He holds no allegiance to the goals or ideals of the party, and has made his desire to disrupt the party quite clear. In fact, he went out of his way, in a world-class fit of petulance, to make sure that the nominated candidate of my party lost. Donald Trump sits in the White House due to Bernie Sanders' gigantic ego.
Nope. Not gonna do it. If he wants to run, let him form his own Progressive Party. Perhaps then he can get the adulation he so clearly desires.
8
I hope he does form his own progressive party, they'll have my vote. Careful what you wish for, and have a nice 2020.
3
Enjoy having 8 years of President Trump.
2
Dems are the one who want him to form his own party. As an Indy, i'll go quietly.
1
One need only follow the rise and fall of the US' economic prowess to understand the plunge in US' importance on the international stage. The rise in inequality and racial tensions (begun well before Trump's arrival) also correlate to the economic plight the US has experienced for the past 10 years.
Making things worse is that unless the US economy begins to grow faster than it has in the past 10 years we will be completely buried in national debt, without the ability of continuing to fund our social welfare programs.
Fast forward to 2020 and the mere thought of a Bernie / Warren ticket should terrify all Americans. Bernie & Elizabeth have waged war on Corporate American and have blamed them for all of the social ills facing America. Bernie & Elizabeth will promise new social welfare programs while destroying our ability to fund them. They will use the promise of government assistance to buy votes while undermining our ability to fund them..
I just hope that the Democrats can find a viable candidate for 2020 who understands economics and what is fueling our increased inequality and lack of opportunity in our country. Obama got it...
Bernie & Elizabeth would lead us down the paths that Venezuela, Argentina and Brasil went and it would be horribly painful!
2
Down the path to Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, with working healthcare, social justice, infrastructure and politics?
In political corruption, injustice and the lack of working and safe infrastructure you're far nearer to Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil than to northern Europe.
Republican presidents destroyed taxes on the rich and big corporations, to starve the state. Once, your country had free education. You ordered Japan and Western Germany to have a modern health care system, only you didn't get one. SAD.
4
Why not start stumping for Senate Majority leader? Congressional leadership positions are important.
2
As a very liberal Democrat, I admire these two Senators, however, setting aside the fact that they are too old, I don't think anyone in the so-called "battleground" states will vote for a liberal Democrat. And, that includes Kamala Harris.
We need a candidate who LIVES in a battleground state, not liberal bastions like NY, MA, CA. We need a candidate who:
* Knows that's it's like to actually hold a real job. Not government, finance, or the law. I mean an actual job where you get a paycheck for doing/making something.
* Supports Unions and isn't afraid to say so.
* Can explain in plain English why we need a strong EPA
* Has a plan to rebuild our infrastructure. If you don't already have a plan, do not apply for the job.
4
With Sanders and Warren the Dems would shoot themselves in the foot again. They are far too polarizing. The Dems need candidates with broader appeal.
7
It's all like the emperor's new clothes. Unable to answer the 800 lb gorilla question that continues to vex the heartland: why can people sneak into this country and gain residency/ citizenship status for themselves and their extended family. Even Scheumer and Pelosi acknowledged that fact by negotiating with Trump recently. No Democrat is ever going to sway the nation until that is clarified to the reasonable satisfaction of the electorate. While many may think it's a made up divisive issue, I suggest you take a trip to Europe and decide to stay more than three months without governments seal of approval and see how that goes.
Just because the vast majority of nyt readers don't believe this issue affects their own respective clans, I submit that IS THE PROBLEM.
4
"As for Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders sees the man who many Democrats believe will go down as one of the country’s greatest presidents as largely incidental to his vision."
Which Democrats are those?! His most die-hard supporters, no doubt. Certainly very few well regarded historians, political scientists, or scholars would be prepared to make such a call!
As to his signature accomplishment, he didn't lead the effort on health care reform, but left it in Congress's hands, especially those of Max Baucus! The result was Romneycare, the individual mandate of Hillary he had decried, and a system favored by Big Pharm and Big Health Insurance. He ignored his promised public option and C-SPAN healthcare hearings!
He expanded domestic spying; made drone warfare and assassination U.S. policy; expanded the war in Afghanistan; backed Big Data and Big Testing in misguided school reform -- paved the way for more privatization; and became deporter-in-chief with more deportations than the previous several presidents combined!
His one claim to fame is shepherding the country back from the brink of another Great Depression -- he deserves great credit for that, but that hardly qualifies him as one of the greatest presidents, especially not when all the deep negatives are considered!
He did speak well, though, and showed dignity, class, and restraint, in contrast to the current part-time occupant of the White House!
Yes, in spite of his failings, we'd be better off with him -- or Hillary!
3
Agreed. Obama is already tarnishing what little there is of his legacy by giving $400K paid speeches. Google it.
1
" 'I was a Sunday school teacher,” said Ms. Warren'...And, as she demonstrated here with a reminder to King’s old congregation that 'there’s Jesus in every one of us,' she is opening up about herself to satisfy the electorate’s hunger for personal connection."
This is not a criticism of Ms. Warren, who I like, but: I'm a black Christian yet this is a country where many people aren't black and many people aren't Christian. It's good for candidates to occasionally visit houses of worship to meet constituents/hear services - but there is still separation of church and state, right?
Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, attends a synagogue - he's Mexican/Italian on his father's side and his mother is Jewish. If he runs for president and is a capable candidate (he just won re-election with 81 percent of the vote), should he have to get votes by telling a church he's respectfully visiting "there's Jesus in every one of us?"
Donald Trump will tout his Christianity - he's a Presbyterian, you know! - but do his actions and the actions of the evangelicals who support him show it? Mr. Trump pointedly wouldn't attend large secular gatherings of black people - business people, the NAACP convention, etc. The only black group he reached out to was the small group of black preachers who had already declared themselves pro-Trump.
Candidates usually need to show a personal connection; Donald Trump is a unicorn in that aspect. But voter connections can be made outside houses of worship.
14
The important thing is that the establishment should stay out of the primary contests. The party should nominate the people's choice. If either one of them get coroneted by the establishment, I will vote for Trump.
4
Two more things not to listen to for the next few years.
Women want to break that glass ceiling more than ever after the Electoral College snatched the presidency from Hillary.
Warren it shall be.
3
Just what the President ordered. What did he say about the failure of socialism at the UN today? Remember Dems, you won only 16 states. And the party was as left as left can be... too monolithic... too orthodox. Try political inclusion. You do say you're for inclusion?
Take it from someone who's represented by Warren, back Bernie!
8
Bernie in 2016. But Warren in 2020.
2
One major difference is that Warren just cast an utterly despicable vote on behalf of spending $700 billion for the Pentegon to kill people around the world and guarantee huge profits for Raytheon. Sanders voted "No."
17
Bernie Sanders -- narcissistic old man who whined his way through the primaries and won't get off the stage. Go away. Not a Democrat -- just an opportunist who failed to get behind the Democratic candidate and encouraged his slobbering followers to vote not for Hillary but for either Trump or some non-entity like Jill Stein.
Elizabeth Warren -- no shot at winning the nomination or the presidency. Time for new, younger people with a wider appeal than to the far left "purists."
6
Right.
She's not center enough for you?
I'm far left. Doesn't mean my candidate needs to be.
She is a good person, and a good manager.
4
Beezelbulby --- my big issue with her is -- too old. We need younger people. I'm a Boomer and it's time for us -- the Boomers, the people who lived through the Vietnam mess -- to exit the stage and allow the people behind us to take the reigns. I was a teenager when JFK was elected and it was like a breath of fresh air blew in the window to see a young president take office with fresh ideas and ideals. President Eisenhower was a decent man and a great general but he was an elderly man and seeing 43 year old take office -- a guy just two years older than my own Dad -- well, that was a great thing to see because it meant new ideas to which we younger people could relate. We just need new blood -- not retreads, not the old ways and old ideas.
2
Please Bernie, go away! You'll give us Trump's second term just like you got him elected.
12
“[Bernie will] give us Trump’s second term just like [he] got him elected.”
This comment couldn’t be further from the truth. Clinton and her supporters want to put the blame on everyone else except where it belongs. When is Clinton going to accept that she was a very flawed candidate for many reasons? She matched Trump on very high unfavorability ratings. Clinton didn't even bother campaigning in the rustbelt states.
How Clinton lost 'blue wall' states of Mich., Pa., Wis.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/09/how-cl...
“It’s is nothing short of malpractice that (Hillary Clinton's) campaign didn’t look at the Electoral College and put substantial resources in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.”
Trump campaigned on a populist message, Clinton ran away from it.
"What has historically been a liberal populist message resonated with these conservative voters: ‘You’re getting screwed by the system and I’m going to fix it."
10
I would have no problem voting for Tim Caine, Tim Ryan of Ohio, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo, etc.
6
Senators Warren and Sanders are great and I support them both. I would be happy to vote for either if given the chance. Heck I would volunteer to push Bernie's wheelchair if need be! That said, I fear the American electorate will once again reject progressive politicians as they are routinely tarred and feathered by the fear mongering conservatives. We know 40% of voters are basically lost at this point so I fear for their ability to win over conservatives.
Sigh
8
I think that progressive candidates are tarred and feathered more by the Dems than by the Repubs.
6
If the Democratic Party allows Bernie Sanders to even fantasize about becoming president, it deserves to fade into oblivion.
8
“It’s how well you do with African-American women, that’s the key,” said Jaime Harrison.
Maybe that's because African-American women have been so abused by this nation throughout its history and have had to withstand overt sexism and racism right up to the present, that those who survive have a pretty good picture of whose the real deal. Who actually sees them. Who, in this tragic comedy of a political landscape, might be a person of substance.
Tell you what, their polar opposite demographic sure have made a mess of our democracy of late.
Maybe it's time we listened to the wisdom of black women.
9
All African American aka black women, we do not vote as a block; educated people are not drinking the Jim Jones aka liberal elite Kool Aid.
See esteemed, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, Eugene Robinson's column in the WaPo today.
4
There are actually a surprising number of black women who voted for Donald Trump. Who fully agreed with and supported the wisdom of African-American, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and her leadership of Bill Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform. Unfortunately Trump lacks the class, grace, & eloquence displayed by Ms. Jordan over her career. But their immigration positions are virtually identical and millions of African-Americans of both genders fully understand this & support it. Politics can make strange bedfellows.
Barbara Jordan was a hard-headed realist, patriot and champion of all Americans, including the most economically disadvantaged. She understood it is a world of 190+ separate nation-states, each with their own laws and regulations, jurisdiction over their own territory, and that uncontrolled, unlimited immigration via de facto open borders was damaging, including to her own constituents in Texas. She had just watched NAFTA's passage & foresaw the economic consequences of globalization to the lowest income US citizens. The bewildering thing is that Hillary Clinton ran away from fulfilling the vision of Bill Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform and fully conceded all leadership on this to Trump.
3
Warren or Sanders? I nominate Adam Schiff, Rep. from California.
3
I will be the one to tell the truth about Bernie Sanders. I voted for Barack Obama twice. I voted for Hillary Clinton. I am a forward-looking, registered independent who accepts that climate change is real and upon us, that national health care should be an American right, and that public education and our military must remain in governmental hands.
I support human rights, sexual freedom, gender equality, and I oppose racism and am repelled by young white men marching with torches and shouting "Jews will not replace us,"
However, there are no circumstances, none, zero, under which I would vote for Sanders for president in 2020. Why? Because he will be too old in 2020. One month before the November election, he will turn 79.
I do not want a 79-year old president. I want an intelligent person in their 50s or 60s.
Why do people like Sanders think because that merely because they exist, and say what might be the right things, that they shouldn't do the honorable thing and step aside and let someone healthier, with quicker intellectual capabilities, run the country?
What is this impossible ego all about? Retire gracefully Mr. Sanders.
Additionally, you are not alone. Mitch McConnell should also retire gracefully. We do not need these elderly John McCains of the world or a man like Jeff Sessions in positions of power.
And yes, you can accuse me of being ageist, but I am being realistic.
79-years of age is too old to be sworn in as president for the first time.
13
Bernie Sanders, get off the stage. He's so divisive, so old, so extreme he can never win a national election. Make way for an electable candidate. Please find us a candidate under the age of 65.
8
I don't care what Sanders says or does - as long as he stays out of the Democratic Party.
8
If the Dems want to win, they should run John Kasich.
1
As a 61 year old professor I have plea for the democratic party and it comes from my students: Please, please, please, no more "Woodstock Generation folks" verbatim. I agree with them wholeheartedly. If the party retreads, these retreads, it will lose again.
6
Ideological purists sunk the Democratic party in 2016 and will likely do so again in 2020. There is no unifying message from the Democratic party that resonates beyond the coasts. If the die hard fans of any candidate don't get their way they'll just stay home and sulk while we get Trump II... Its like the Tea party: win or burn it down. And the powerless, well, tough for them. I suppose for our ideological purists it was never about them. It was about being right.
6
All this nonsense about past accomplishments, progressive record, and 2016 grudges is quite alarming. We tried running the most qualified candidate...and it didn't work.
Pick the candidate most likely to connect with folks in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - and run them.
Do we really need a symposium for this?
3
I have decided to permanently retire from voting. What's the point? Either the wrong person gets elected or something goes terribly awry if the right person somehow gets elected.
Quite frankly Bernie Sanders decided to pick up on what Barack Obama accomplished in 2008--play the spoiler and steal the nomination away from the front runner. Elizabeth Warren should consider her options very carefully before throwing her hat in the ring. Candidates from Massachusetts do very poorly in the general presidential election. There is no way either Warren or Sanders are going to win hearts and minds in the red states. It's also very hard to get rid of an incumbent president because he's got all the trappings of the Presidency behind him.
However there is another option to consider--don't vote. Seriously. What if they gave an election and no one came?
That's partly how we got Trump as president!
Admire your courage for expressing such an undemocratic, foolish, throw in the towel, a pox on all their houses, who cares what happens attitude.
The difference between a Clinton presidency and the Trump one we ended up would have been vast -- on everything from the environment to race relations; from addressing global warming to improving working class lives; from expanding health care coverage not undermining it to appointing moderates and progressives to the Supreme Court; from serious, common sense gun control to helping the downtrodden, the poor, and supporting women's and LGTB rights; it would have been enormously different.
Instead of a bleak future, there would have been hope and progress!
The answer isn't to give up and not vote, but to vote, march, protest, organize, campaign, write, speak, donate time and money, etc.
Please reconsider your position!
7
Stephanie-- Hillary Clinton would have been stuck with a Republican controlled Congress dedicated to making sure that all of the lofty goals you mentioned never see the light of day. Talk about gridlock!!! In addition the Republicans would be far too busy drafting articles of impeachment to get President Hillary Clinton out of the White House as soon as possible. Hey, the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton so impeaching his wife would just be icing on their cake.
I've had it with terrible candidates, rotten presidents and being let down again and again. Well no more I say!! "None of the Above" gets my vote in 2020.
Sen. Warren has set up a private audience with "JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon" and is cultivating other elite luminaries.
Sen. Warren was supposed to be the alternative, but now she appears to have set off down Sec. Clinton's path to the presidency. And look how well that worked out.
10
If you think campaigns can be launched, financed and won without Wall St. money, I have a bridge. And, Wall St. is a microcosm of all of us; there are liberals on Wall St., conservatives and progressives. If Warren can get Wall St. money, good for her.
2
Um, Linda, you do realize that Bernie's campaign was launched and financed without Wall Street, right? And he likely could have won without Wall Street if the fix was not in at the DNC. So, contrary to your statement, yes, campaigns can certainly be launched and financed without Wall Street.
Becuse of their socialist agend, Sanders and Warren will appeal to a narrow constituency. That consituency is not inclusive of less extreme views held by many in the Democratic Party. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the amount of voters in the narrower consituency is less than the number of die-hard Trump supporters.
Nominating either Sanders or Warren is a recipe for defeat.
5
Yep, that's why Sanders led Trump by double digits at the end of the primary, whereas Clinton (the inevitable candidate) only showed a low single-digit lead over Trump.
10
Please, please, please! Can the Democrat Party move forward by finding new, fresh and competent candidates that are closer to the middle? By leaning to the extreme, both Sanders and Warren would alienate many Democrats, and Trump's re-election would be guaranteed. Let the search begin immediately for new possibilities to run in 2020.
4
I admire both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. In 2020, Bernie will be 79 and Ms. Warren will be 71. I think her age will be far less of a problem than his at that point.
8
Bernie's biggest problem is that he is not a Democrat and I won't support him. I know many Democrats that won't support him, he is an avowed Socialist and that's not where I want my Democratic Party to be.
I would support Elizabeth Warren, being a Liberal and Progressive is not a Socialist, in the last election Bernie Sanders was more about himself than he was trying to get Hillary Clinton President and in that way he reminds me of Ralph Nader.
When I compare the speeches Elizabeth Warren gave in support of Hillary Clinton with Bernie Sanders, it's not close; Bernie belongs in the nursing home and it's time to let go.
9
I know many Democrats who will support him.
1
I predict that by 2020 Warren will be so carefully groomed and positioned that she'll be the runaway Democratic party leadership favorite. She'll have won over the tech business leaders, financial leaders and all the big donors. The party will ensure she gets the nomination. The public who know her before won't recognize, and the rest won't know what she is for or against since it'll change according to who she's meeting with. Sound familiar? If this is how the next 3+ years are going to go, then I don't know who will win the election, but I'm willing to place a bet on who won't.
6
African American woman here-will not vote for Bernie or Sanders. Find someone younger to run. I'm sick of hearing about these two.
5
@Andy
I suspect that you're probably half right. That she'll be unrecognizable in 3 years, but she won't have the party's backing. I think that's reserved for Kamala Harris, and if Brown signs the legislation to move the California primary up to Super Tues, it's probably safe to bet that the fix is cemented in.
3
Better California than the southern red states.
1
I love Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but I'm afraid that Bernie is not electable. He has good ideas, but he scares away moderates and we need them on our side. Whoever it is, needs to bang the drum on the issue of money in politics. They need to wake up the country and say "THIS NEEDS TO STOP NOW!"
5
Bernie led Trump by double digits at the end of the primary. The inevitable candidate, Clinton, only led by low single-digits. He would have definitely beaten Trump.
Bernie won his reelection to the Senate in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote, i.e., he got support from many Independents and some Republicans.
9
I'd advise against Bernie ignoring traditional coalition building methods. The rise of Trump is an unusual historical accident, and can't necessarily be duplicated in other circumstances.
4
Traditional coalition building is what failed Hillary Clinton. The electorate has shifted and what we used to know about who was part of 'what' coalition got blown up in 2016.
3
It doesn't seem to make much difference who gets the nomination for the 2020 election unless the Democratic party reforms how it goes about choosing its standard bearer. It the party persists in allowing Super Delegates to throw the process to one candidate or another, exclusive of the will of the people, then 2020 will be a stunning repeat of 2016
6
For Sanders, equality can only be achieved after people recognize and acknowledge that all men are not created equal and they certainly don’t remain equal.
1
I was firmly behind Sanders (and voted for Clinton so stop grinding your teeth, old-guard Democrats) but we need someone younger for the next presidential nominee. Warren is brilliant and a great, passionate speaker, but she's already been put through the conservative media's demonization machine and in that sense, will have some of the same liabilities Clinton did. What I'd love to see is both Sanders and Warren support a fantastic, progressive, younger candidate with a great reputation, who has not already been made into a cartoon-villain by conservatives. Actually, I want to see younger leaders at all levels of the Democratic Party - I think it's the only way the Party will be able to be relevant and vital going into the future.
6
Senator Warren does stuff. She is patient and tolerant, but doesn't pull her punches. Sanders provokes and prods and condemns. I admire their ideals, which they share, but Sanders is too eager to cut off too many people, and his disciples are too eager to embrace false condemnations of people who serve and work in the real world.
6
Bernie's message is of freedom and independence from the corrupted two-party system of this country. I hope he remains and independent. How soon we forget the that Hillary's rise to the candidacy was all politics and ego. She was the FLOTUS for 2 terms. She was SOT for 2 terms. She served in the NY State Legislature as Senator. Her qualifications should have humbled her enough to get out of the game after she was defeated once by Barrack Obama. No one needs to read her book "What Happened". Her Super Predator ego to win is "What Happened".
Being accomplished also means knowing when its time to pass the torch.
11
2020 Independent ticket:
Trump - Sanders.
2
So NYT is at it again, starting early to minimize Sanders and encouraging Hillary lite upon us; not gonna happen.
Senator Sanders is the true progressive. I thank Senator Warren for her efforts in establishing the Consumer Finance Board, but when she failed to support Sanders and gave a wet kiss to Clinton, I will not forgive her; she helped Clinton and therefore planted a path for Trump on this country.
The elite will not give it up; Hillary was rejected by the country except for the open borders crowds in California, Illinois and New York; I would vote for devious Steve Bannon before I would vote for Pamela Harris, Cory Booker and yes, Warren; waiting to figure out Tim Ryan's position on the issues important to me.
11
I had been hoping for Tim Ryan or Tulse Gabbard. Although unfortunately it turns out Tim Ryan is not quite as much of an economic populist as I thought. In talking about DACA, he recently expressed full support for citizenship for all illegal aliens (not just DACA recipients) and unlimited chain migration for every relative of DACA recipients not living in the US. And, sadly, Tim Ryan said absolutely nothing about ending chain migration; nothing about moving to a Canadian points system like the RAISE Act; nothing about E-verify. I had thought Tim Ryan cared about the working class and our least disadvantaged but it appears he is letting the no borders, unlimited immigration groups run his office.
7
OMG, his positions are an anathema to what I believe.
Thanks for the info; I will have to fine tune my inquiry of his positions.
4
Take a look at his interview with Tucker Carlson in the last week or two. Yes, Tucker is FOX News so I was inclined to roll my eyes & ignore when a relative forwarded link but was intrigued because of Tim Ryan. Was surprised to see Tim Ryan's positions.
3
We all know this news conglomerate's bias towards Sanders. Here it goes again. NYT=CNN=Washington Post=MSNBC. All on the same page. I like Warren, relatively, but she didn't stand up when she needed to. Had she has the bravery of say Tulsi Gabbard, in endorsing the progressive candidate of 2016, I would be 100 percent behind her. Sanders has the people's trust. Did Warren initiate the public discussion of single payer? We need someone who is brazen and in your face in the era of Trump. Please stop pushing the pragmatic thing or we're going to go deeper into fascism.
10
We have to find younger leaders. I like them both, but they're too old. Corey Booker, Gavin Newsom, Kirsten Gillibrand... get going please!
3
The Democrats have written off the white working class. Their target market is a minority of voters. The days of Bob Strauss, Bill Clinton and Jim Webb are over.
5
I wonder if Democrats realize there are lots of voters who usually vote Republican who would have voted for Jim Webb? I'm one and I know many others like me.
2
I liked Jim Webb until I found he denies climate change/global warming. That is a deal breaker for me, and for all our futures.
5
I would definitely pick Warren over Sanders...and for some of the glaringly obvious scenarios put forth in this article...He is a one sided ideologue.
14
Great, now he can ruin another woman's chance to be president.
12
This comment is only slightly less ridiculous than the expressed similarities between Sanders and Trump.
9
Warren has disqualified herself by not seizing the moment when it mattered. I can only conclude that she chose to go with her gender rather than her beliefs. What a disappointment!
7
I agree with you about Warren, but for a different reason. Warren buckled under the pressure and chose to go with the party-backed candidate.
8
She caved to the establishment, no doubt. No backbone.
1
After watching Trump take a flame-thrower to the United Nations,
Here's a deal:
We support Sanders AND Warren. elect one president, and the other becomes vice president.
I don't care which holds which title.
Oh, wait, I was apparently daydreaming
that my house got carried up in a tornado
and I was carried to a place where
we voted for our long best term interest.
Then again, in a country that whiplashes
from Bush to Obama to Trump,
anything is possible.
I'll take a look outside...
Maybe somebody dropped my house on Trump.
7
When I think of Bernie Sanders I keep seeing two images: a deranged-looking man behind a podium, shaking his fist and pointing his index finger out at the audience, and a shrunken figure slouching in his seat at the Democratic convention sulking and disinterested when someone else was speaking. Just what we need: another angry old white man.
If he runs again it will prove just how selfish and foolish he is.
19
Many comments here & elsewhere relates to the age of Sanders/Warren etc.
Sanders became a "shiny object" only after nearly 50 yrs of sustained public activism. It is especially a thankless job to fight from the left. Zuckerbergs or
Shkrelis won't do that for you.
8
Sheesh. An entire article that purports to be about the differences between Sanders and Warren, but hardly a word about the differences, if any, in their policy positions (except for one or two vague sentences about potential differences in their approaches to expanding healthcare coverage). May we have some more substance, please?
6
There are apt to be 20 odd candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020. If that is the case, then Hillary Clinton, who still has a high floor, will win. The Democratic Party cannot win the election with a left-wing candidate.
3
Both big government - tax and spend left wingers. I say bring back Hillary, she must have learned how to do it right by now.
2
I read her new book. She learned nothing.
10
Sanders is too much the old white curmudgeon to be elected by the left in the current atmosphere. He's an important voice, but he is not electable.
Warren is more qualified to curb the excesses of big business and the bank lobbies. She can use Sanders' far left position to make herself look more mainstream.
The Democrats' best shot now is a Warren/Biden or Biden/Warren ticket.
6
Treachery is hard to forgive and Sanders, the Independent, committed it again and again with disastrous results for Democrats in 2016. Demonizing the DNC, trashing Hillary Clinton at every opportunity and hectoring one and all over the utter fantasy that his failed primary bid was rigged against him, he did his worst to cripple Clinton. His so-called movement mimicked Nader and ultimately helped immeasurably in a never-happen Trump presidency. Now, alas, that a third of Senate Democrats joined this spoiler in his healthcare-for-all folly demonstrates how little unity there is in my party. As for Ms. Warren, she is at least a card-carrying Democrat who supported Clinton and for that she has my vote.
13
"health care for all folly" - you mean as we see in operation in some form in all the civilized countries in the world?
This opinion is as wrong-headed as that Sanders destroyed Clinton's chances in the election.
6
You say it as if he was wrong in his accusations.
3
Bernie is nothing like Nader - who ran as a 3rd party candidate and never ran as a candidate in any regular party primary. Nader was a vanity candidate who shockingly got just enough of the vote to mean when the Bushes stole the Florida vote, Bush was selected as president over Gore by a Republican Supreme Court.
'It’s how well you do with African-American women, that’s the key,'”...
IMO there's a difference between catering to a specific audience and respecting them as part of THE audience. As a black person I don't care if a qualified candidate I'd vote for shows up at church. What I do care about is IMO many people who support Bernie Sanders seem to be as dismissive of women and minorities as some Trump voters whom these Sanders voters disdain. (Keyword clues: "identity politics" and the "black voter monolith" which forced Hillary upon them. Aren't they forcing Sen. Sanders - though not a Democrat - on us as the "heir apparent" now?)
Having Nina Turner placed as his visible surrogate - quite frankly, I know no one in real life impressed by Nina Turner's performance - doesn't provide a Band-Aid for Sen. Sanders in this regard. People observe who he attracts (not his casual fans, but his hardcore base) and want no part of that; they know they're only welcome as votes, not people.
IMO a bubble has been created in the NYT/Daily Kos comments on articles about Democrats, where Sen. Sanders is a contender in 2020 instead of LA Mayor Eric Garcetti or a host of others. But outside that bubble the GOP oppo research on Sen. Sanders collected in 2016 is waiting. See if the white working class men who now think "that Bernie guy seems OK" will vote for him after (accurate) oppo is unleashed and packaged Bannon-style. They won't. One hopes the NYT itself stays outside the bubble to see that.
11
I'm a woman who supported Senator Sanders. Many of the people who persist in condemning Sanders as anti-woman and talk about how anti-woman his followers are have not yet learned that the "Bernie Bros" were actually not humans - they were millions of bots auto-posting from Eastern European countries that were part of Putin's monster data attempt to disrupt our election and destroy Hillary.
Nobody is shoving Bernie down anyone's throat. His prominence right now is because he came in 2nd in a tough primary race and the winning Democratic candidate lost. The other reasons for Bernie prominence are that he's out front offering a bill to have single-payer through Medicare expansion. And because in recent polls ranking popularity of major politicians, Bernie has been voted "The Most Popular Politician In America" in 2 of those polls.
4
I think Nina Turner is great.
1
They shouldn't take chances again. They need more of a 'blue dog' style democrat to focus on workers, health care and morality, and everything else can come later. Too many failures. Another woman? Bernie? I'm not thrilled to say this, I like them both, but that's not a winning strategy in America for Commander in Chief. Just stop gambling and once you get a big win, success will build on success.
4
I like both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, also, just not as two people potentially running this country. Neither are presidential material, especially Bernie. The Democrats sold out a long time ago to "identity" politics. People want the basics: strong employment, affordable health care, and decent affordable housing. That goes for all people, no matter your race, gender, or politics.
3
What about a Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders joint ticket for 2020?
Failing that, literally anyone would be better than Trump.
1
In case you don't have enough time to read the article, I'll summarize:
Abandon all of your idealism and hopes for social justice (your single payer "ponies" and your "free college" and "financial transaction tax" pipe dreams) and scurry rightward to the bland, uninspiring centrism of the Democratic party bosses.
13
Warren's failure to support Sanders in 2016 told me all I needed to know. Her private meetings with bankers and Wall Street heavies only confirm it. Warren is a liberal who pushed some regulation on the banks but is not going to fight them the way Bernie has and will. She is much more the brittle technocrat than her occasionally feisty sound bites suggest and will not perform nearly as well on the campaign trail as Bernie.
The 1% will give her enough support to split progressives from Sanders but probably not enough to win the nomination which they will want to give to a more reliable neoliberal. Their interest in her is as a spoiler. Progressive Democrats should not allow themselves to tricked into splitting. Bernie almost won the nomination in 2016 with everything against him. I trust him not to run if he isn't up for the job, but all the evidence suggests a man with the energies of someone 20 years his junior. Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016 and he will beat him in 2020.
25
nope, democrats like me won't vote for him, I'd rather give it to a centrist, moderate republican.
let Bernie form his own party and leave the dems alone and out of it.
4
Warning, Chrisopher. Many made the absolute statement that "she will beat him in 2016", and were shocked at the outcome. Never be that sure, or you risk a complacency which could result in defeat.
2
While both are truly outstanding (while everyone else was inside sitting down), I hope that neither of these fine politicians runs for President in 2020. We need fresh faces and middle ground to win back the Oval Office.
5
We Democrats are sunk before we even start to recover nationally if we turn to righteous ranters and ravers like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Sure, I'd really prefer either one of them to most of the other possibilities, but I'm 72 instead of 27, when I gloried in being pure in heart and mind with Gene McCarthy and George McGovern, if when it meant cursing defeats at the polls.
7
A candidate who will be almost 80 years of age who wants to end the private insurance market where 160 million Americans receive much better benefits than anyone on Medicare, who wants to tax the top 1% 80% of their income, and decimate our military to help pay for free college and universal health care will not win the Presidency.
I have friends who are teachers, policemen, firemen, city and state workers who receive medical benefits far, far greater than anything Medicare provides. I highly doubt any of these folks who have almost no deductibles, $20 or less co-pays, prescriptions for as little as $10.00, will not fight Medicare for all where they would LOSE most of the good things they have now about their health plan.
Study after study shows that the 160+ million people who have private insurance thru the workplace are happy. To upend this would doom the Democratic Party for a generation.
What needs to be done is for the Affordable Health Care Act to be fully funded so premiums and deductibles are not made out of reach and prohibitive and insurance companies cannot game the system.
Before we change and allow Medicare for all the American people need to know what they would be getting. Medicare does not over dental or vision or prescriptions. You have to pay out of your own pocket to have those things and your cost could be a few thousand dollars a year.
We cannot gut our military and tax the 1% 80%+ of their earnings. It's unrealistic and will not happen.
5
Please share a link to support you claim that people are "happy" with private insurers. here's a link that supports the opposite of your claim:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-sat...
6
All the professions you mention are government employees. Almost everyone i the private sector has employment through their employer - which they may change unlike career civil servants - or they are struggling to put together some kind of coverage. If those 160 million are too selfish to care about the people left out of or struggling in our current system - this country is sunk.
3
As an 87 year old I feel that I have the right to say that I consider people in their 70s and 80s too old to run for President, or even for Congress. They still can have a place in the background as advisors. There comes a time, however, when it is appropriate to step down and pass the reins to next generation.The future is theirs and it is their job to fashion it.
8
I have to say that I do like Bernie a lot. I also think Elizabeth Warren has some great ideas. However if the Democratic party wants to accomplish anything they actually have to win elections. I do think that Sanders might have been able to win in the last election. Going forward perhaps we need to get more towards the average American, someone in the middle. I think that most American voters tend more towards the middle, not the extremes. It may not be as pure to take more moderate positions, but if you don't win you don't set the agenda. And although I am a baby boomer the idea of older leaders may not fly with the majority of the country ( Bernie excluded as he seems to connect with younger voters). Perhaps this could be the Al Franken decade.
1
I absolutely love Bernie. History will remember him as the politician who made conversations about universal healthcare, $15 minimum wage and income inequality mainstream. I donated, campaigned for him and eventually supported Hillary in general election. BUT
I want a democratic candidate in 2020 who can run for re-election in 2024. I want a candidate who created a system to protect the consumers of USA. I want a candidate who is smart, eloquent and pragmatic. I will support Warren in the primaries, but i will be very comfortable with most of the democratic candidate (so far). I am also hoping Bernie and Warren will unite for 2020 and not split the liberal base.
5
I believe that there is enough bad blood between the Sanders supporters and the Clinton supporters that it's reasonable to say that Sanders does not have a chance at a national ticket again.
Even if things were as he claims, that he fought hard for her, and whatever else he may say, enough of us experienced the hateful trolling and cyberbullying of his supporters that he is anathema. (To those who say don't blame the man for his supporters, I'd say the footprint of a leader is exactly evidenced in the character and actions of his supporters and surrogates).
Furthermore, the ongoing dismissal, marginalization and intolerance... ongoing today to even griping over letting Clinton have a voice in one book, after Sanders has written two and Trump Tweets insults at her constantly, makes the Sanders camp repulsive. How many times are we going to have to hear them tell the women to be quiet and go away?
I think that a lot of people are overestimating Sanders' reach, and underestimating how many people in fact support and continue to support Clinton despite progressive animosity and disrespect for her. The ongoing disrespect and dismissal shown to Clinton alone, is enough to make Sanders unacceptable for a national candidate for her supporters' votes.
10
Sigh. Don't blame the Sanders supporters for the millions of bots Putin had posting online and in social media from Eastern Europe pretending to be 'Sanders supporters' who crudely insulted Hillary.
It's like nobody on this website is bothering to read the papers about Russian bots used in the 2016 election. When will these people ever catch up?
1
Bernie is using the Democrat Party as Trump used the Republican Party. Warren is a very smart person who understands the pragmatics of governance. Bernie is an idealist/populist who clearly does not accept that 'big ideas' are only big ideas - not legislative success. The legislative process is slow, grinding and demands cooperation and collaboration. Warren gets it. Bernie does not accept it. If the Dems choose Bernie in 2020, it will be the equivalent of the 2016 GOP mistake.
8
you mean their candidate becoming president?
2
Warren badly tarnished her progressive credentials by not supporting Bernie in the 2016 primaries. Her positions are also considerably to the right of those of Sanders, for example, she has not come out in support of free tuition at public universities. In my view, neither Warren nor Sanders will be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2020. The article omitted some strong possibilities. Al Gore has been out of elective politics for over 16 years, which will help him with voters. He emphasized the issue of global warming long before it became popular. He could bridge the gap between the party's progressive and neoliberal wings. My favorite candidate, however, would be Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii.
3
I have two dream tickets. Gore/Kerry in either order, freed from the shackles of trying to present warm fuzzies. The other is Comey/Yates, in either order - both of whom have demonstrated high integrity and good judgment, and are worthy of the position by virtue of their resumes.
1
Al Gore would be a great president! A Gore/Gabbard ticket would be terrific!
1
Warren is praising Jebus and meeting with bank executives now, lovely. Bernie, run independent and leave our broken parties in the dust.
8
Elizabeth Warren is sound on policy and has been effective at influencing other politicians. She was instrumental in establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Bernie has great sounding policies with little foundation. He goes right along with the Pauls on their notion that auditing the Fed would somehow be a good thing. Substance vs image.
25
After Trump, the LAST person I am going to vote for is yet another moody, cantankerous old man for whom it is his way or the highway who also believes it is a good idea to throw the press out when he doesn't like the topic. I fail to see how an administration lead by an anarchist is going to get any more done than Trump. It is going to be chaos all the way.
58
Your equating Sanders with Trump in any aspect is about the most insane comment I've ever seen on these boards.
8
I wont vote for Warren or Sanders in 2020. Dont get me wrong, I love Bernie Sanders and tried to vote for him im 2016 (Id only been a Democrat for 1.9 months so the caucus jerks decided to not let me vote).
However, Im done voting for baby boomers. Im tired of the old guard who should be enjoying retirement instead of continuing to grasp the levers of power with their arthritic fingers.
I want someone in the line of Sanders politics, but who is 50 years old or less. Lets get the one Gen Xer president before us millenials take over.
The baby boomers took a pretty great country and turned it into a inequal corporatist nightmare. They need to get out of the way and let new ideas and new people take over. Im tired of waiting for something different, and having some fossil run for president isnt going to make me vote for the Democrats even if it is Bernie Sanders.
16
Ageist much?
31
Reasoning such as yours only solidifies my belief that the problem is not so much the quality of the politicians but the naivety of the electorate.
1
In response to Jacqueline: Although I concur that neo-liberal Baby Boomers have irreparably damaged U.S. society, Bernie Sanders isn't a "Baby Boomer." Sanders was born in 1941. He is a member of the civic-minded Silent Generation which is likely why his political views are much closer to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and the early U.S. Progressive Movement idealists.
Nevertheless, again, I agree with your views regarding Baby Boomers. Political commentator Paul Begala accurately summed-up their destructive impact:
"Generations can have a unique character that defines them. The single greatest sin a generation can commit is the sin of selfishness. And it's from this standard that I draw my harsh conclusion: The Baby Boomers have been a miserable failure. At nearly every critical juncture, they have preferred the present to the future; they put themselves ahead of their parents, ahead of their country, ahead of their children — ahead of our future."
"It is telling that when he ran for reelection, Ronald Reagan got higher support among Boomers than he did from his fellow older Americans. Perhaps some of the Greatest Generation [those who survived the Great Depression and World War II] saw the selfishness in Reaganism, saw the short-sightedness, the mean-spiritedness in cutting school lunches and telling children ketchup was a vegetable, and turned away from it. And perhaps the Boomers saw those same qualities — that savage selfishness — and embraced it.”
5
Sanders lost the primary last year because the Hillary crushed him among African-Americans, typically by 80-20 percent.
It's simple: Black voters are the base of the democratic party and you won't win the nomination without their support.
Same as evangelicals on the GOP side.
15
You repeat a very mysterious phenomenon. Sanders campaigned twice for Jesse Jackson, and was arrested for participating in civil rights demonstrations. HRC said "hard working white folks won't vote for him (Obama)" in '08, and WJC said "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too" when she lost to Obama in '08. But during the '16 primary, apparently the black vote went heavily for HRC.
On the other hand, one reason HRC lost to Trump was the black vote didn't show up for her in sufficient numbers, as they had for Obama.
5
Bernie Sanders will be 79 years of age in 2020. I think that will be almost an automatic disqualification in any quest for the presidency.
26
66 is the new 79
2
Given how Sanders supporters overlooked the many right-wing positions he took while in office, and instead just bought his rhetoric, it probably won't matter to Warren supporters that she worked with the medical devices industry to repeal a key part of the funding for ACA, the medical devices tax. Both a about as good as it gets in national American politics. I would rather have someone younger, like Kamala Harris, more in tune with the future that is coming. That would be dependent on how Kamala votes in the Senate.
7
"...the many right-wing positions he took while in office..." Could you please enlighten us on this?
6
In order to take back the Presidency, the Senate, and gain ground in the House, which should be the goal for both 2018 and 2020, the Democratic Party needs to move more to the center not further to the left. Independents, Democrats who supported Trump and Republicans who didn't are not going to be convinced to support any candidate espousing a far-left, progressive agenda.
21
When baselines shift, we lose perspective. We try to protect our residual environment as if it is normal, not the wasteland relative to what it was before the robber barons trashed it. Likewise Warren a leftist? Compared to, say, Humpfrey or McGovern?
Sorry, it's early out West: Humphrey.
I spent a good part of my life in Vermont and have seen Bernie's work first hand. He rightfully gets credit for transforming Burlington into the great little city. His politics fit well with mine.
BUT: and there is a but: I fear he's a one-trick pony. Health care, college, billionaires, over and over again (I agree with him on all points). He can be a little dismissive, which is irritating. I'd vote for him.
Elizabeth Warren is BRILLIANT. I listened to her give a talk one time, over an hour. I was floored by the depth and breadth of her knowledge. She's America's Angela Merkel (another smart cookie). On the world stage, I think she'll do a better job.
I admire them both, but Ms Warren is my top pick.
117
Yes, Tim, and I have a feeling that many of the politicians and their "consultants" are missing the concept that people generally want things that will help their lives be more meaningful - not "free stuff".
Americans are uncomfortable right now because meaningful jobs are being taken over by "robots", not immigrants. Many young people can't afford to buy homes because BIG investors have put real estate out of reach for them. Many young people are not being truly educated and do not have access to arts education in public schools. Many people who retired, or could retire, have gone back to work to earn back the retirement money they lost during the 2008 stock market crash or simply to feel like they matter in society.
It is time for new models in America. Bill Clinton started a hugely popular youth program when he was President. Rather than increase our "military" or decrease "defense" spending we should start a "Civil- Military Youth Program" where every young person, when they graduate from or drop out of high school, has to serve for two years in a place in America far away from where they were born/raised. They should experience economic conditions different from the one they inhabited during their youth to gain understanding of the opportunities available - and not available - in our country. They could serve in a "civil corp" that aids in community building or the military and both components would be equally funded. Let's build a better America!
7
Single payer, free higher education, $15 minimum wage, is not really a "one-trick pony." Warren's "brilliance" will be tested in changing the direction of the Democratic party from a donor centric party, to a people centric party. If she can resist the establishment Democrats whose "strategy" has led to huge losses in the State and Federal Legislatures, she will be a viable candidate.
In the end, neither Bernie, Warren, Harris nor any individual is going to change policies on their own. Americans need to wise up and demand policies that the top .1% oppose. In other words wake up--most of our politicians are bought and paid for by their donors.
15
Warren will cater to the corrupting special interests.
3
I love Warren, but afraid she may not appeal to the independents we need to win the White House. I do believe misogyny played a role in Clinton's loss, unfortunately, and that's not something that's going away anytime soon.
12
If Senator Warren runs, you can bet that her talking points won't include "vote for me, I'm a woman," let alone lies about an in-house unsecured email server about which she claims she asked for an received permission, both of which were denied by the authorities, and calling voters "deplorables" or reversing her well-known positions, nor claiming to install her husband as economic adviser, etc. etc. etc.
When will the echoes stop? Misogyny did not defeat Clinton, she did it to herself.
2
I would love to see either Sanders or Warren in the White House. But I fear that the right-wing propaganda machine, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, will not allow it. There is no doubt in my mind that the Republicans would love to run against either.
We have to deal with the electorate we have. It reminds me of the (perhaps apocryphal) story of Adlai Stevenson's response when an enthusiastic supporter said, “Every thinking person in America will be voting for you.” and Stevenson replied, “I’m afraid that won’t do—I need a majority.”
If either is the Democratic nominee, he or she will certainly get my vote. My hope is that other candidates will come forward over the next three years who will appeal to enough voters in the swing states to ensure a Democrat in the White House.
12
If Warren and Sanders were the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2020, I would probably support Warren. Sanders will sometimes misstate facts to support his rhetoric, such as claiming that taxpayers paid billions for the bank bailout in 2008-2009 when the federal government actually cleared about a $15 billion profit from the interest payments it collected. Warren avoids such false or exaggerated claims.
27
That or the Senators are each stumping for the bill they just co-sponsored. What seems more likely to you? Feuding progressive rivalry for an election 3 years away? Or! Promotion of a shared agenda in advance of the next House and Senate primaries? Gee... Let me think.
3
Can we have Obama back?
I have some concerns about both these candidates. Warren is a simple concern. While highly qualified and distinguished, she's a woman and the massive amount of misogyny directed at Secretary Clinton in the last campaign scares me. Would the U.S. really elect a woman? At this point in time, it's more important for progressives to win than to make a point. I'd have to see how Warren does in polling against male Republicans (expecting that the Republican candidate would be a male). Otherwise, she's very impressive.
Sanders is someone I doubt I would have a hard time voting for. Not only is he reviled by many for what he did to Secretary Clinton, but his refusal to empathize with groups of people to whom he speaks (as detailed in his refusal to try to connect to black audiences) supports my view of him as a complete ideologue who would be the worst kind of President imaginable, getting nothing passed through Congress and making immediate enemies of the Republicans.
12
“Can we have Obama back?”
Corporate Democrats, like Obama and Clinton, make it possible for the status quo to remain and prevent us from solving the many serious problems facing the country. Remember, their first loyalty is to big money donors. In 2008, the Obama campaign bragged that half of their donations came from small donors, but his policies told a different story. Obama:
-was willing to put Medicare and Social Security on the table when negotiating the so-called Grand Bargain with Boehner (unprecedented for a Democratic President)
- did not prosecute the bankers (not one!)
- took an ‘all-of-the-above approach’ to energy policy (more fracking and drilling for oil)
- abandoned both single payer and the public option despite his campaign rhetoric
- extended the Bush tax cuts when they were set to expire
Just a few examples.
34
What he did to Clinton? I do not think that Debbie-whats-her-name worked for Bernie.
6
Didn't insist on a recess appointment for Judge Garland to the supreme court when he could have; appointed Tim Geitner immediately upon eke town instead of searching for someone with even passing familiarity with progressive economic ideas instead of bring a toady for the banks and approving bonuses while the economy burned; didn't take Mitch McConnell at his word when the man just weeks after the election promised his Republican colleagues that their work was to ensure Obama had only one term...a variety of treason, on my view, since members of congress swear to uphold the constitution not their respective parties.
Obama is a brilliant and elegant man, but he aligned with the money folks and walked away from more fights than he engaged in. Gave up on single player before it had a hearing, best his head against the brick wall of opposition politicians instead if working his own side.
Maureen Dowd rightly condemned him for his distaste of the hard work of politicking.
So, no, let's not bring Obama back, though his elegance would be refreshing. Let's bring in some real Democrats.
6
Articles like these ruin any pleasure I might get from thinking about Trump's defeat in 2020.
Warren is a great candidate on her own, not merely a safer, more conventional one. You write approvingly of the ways in which Warren's speeches seem to resemble those of a regular politician, as if that were more important than her policies and public service.
And your attempt to dismiss Bernie only highlights one of the reasons people like him. It is precisely because he refuses to play politics that he is so popular.
Your approach does both a disservice.
If it comes down to it, I'd rather seen Warren run and Bernie engage in the important work of building coalitions and leading the charge in the Senate. (He's too old, too prickly and too self-righteous for my taste.) They should be allies.
We don't need another campaign about purity. Purity is backward looking. Let's just pick the most talented person.
63
I was a Bernie delegate but would not be interested in him running for president in 2020. I agree that he would be older than I would want a president to be. Great as a senator or congressperson but they do not typically get woken at three in the morning to deal with something.
12
The article mentions that Senator Warren has met with Wall Street decision makers. It is immature and foolish to try to keep Wall Street out of the equation. They have immense power.
Capitalism is not bad and, as a matter of fact, has proven to be an effective financial system WHEN it is tightly regulated to prevent companies from buying up their competition and putting the companies out of business to improve their own profit and WHEN it is tightly regulated to prevent other forms of financial corruption.
Well Regulated Capitalism is a bedrock of democracy. Unregulated, runaway, predatory capitalism is a society destroyer.
I believe that the people/companies that are allowed to work on any project that is funded by OUR hard-earned taxpayer dollars should be required to put at least one-half the GROSS profits back into OUR United States or State government treasury to support OUR social safety net and infrastructure. Everybody wins that way.
Senator Warren will fight for strong regulation. Bernie Sanders wants to destroy it for some utopian dream he has harbored since college.
You choose.
51
Bernie, an FDR Democrat, all the way!
17
Yes, he is. FDR would not have created a strong social safety net with workers' unemployment benefits, social security and other protections for average people if ELANOR hadn't pushed him into it.
Ms. Sanders will not "push" Bernie into anything. He's a man and he's like The Con Don. He can only hear himself.
8
Bernie is not a Democrat. He was one, but briefly.
8
So Bernie supporters that derided Hillary Clinton for thinking it was "her turn" for the Presidency wants "their due" because of their success last year?
I'll be voting for anyone on the left other than Bernie Sanders.
29
The most important question of any Democratic candidate is not how ideologically pure they are, but can they WIN. We have seen what happens when the idiotLeft puts ideological purity before common sense. We've had Trump as president for almost 9 months and he has forced the country backwards in terms of almost every liberal cause and yet the idiotLeft continues to rejoice that Clinton did not win because she was a flawed candidate. And we still wonder why Republicans own just about every level of power in the country.
14
Look at the comments. The Bernie crew hasn't learned a thing -- already trashing Warren.
16
Sanders vs Warren
Sanders has a proven track record of raising big funds from small donors, ($27),creating a movement and the support of young middle aged and older voters.
I love Warren but another women?, after Hillary, nope, not this time. Maybe VP ?, sure, 100%.
SANDERS/WARREN ... you think?
6
Oprah, Ellen 20/20 Vision :)) Only a fool is going to vote for another Republican OR a Democrat. Its interesting to note that not one founding father ever voted for one and its time that both parties go the way of the Whigs and Torries. They serve no one but the rich and themselves.
1
What I love about Elisabeth Warren is ability to relate to average Americans. She sincerely cares about issues that affect all people-not just Democrats. She comes across as very down to earth and genuine in her beliefs. I even had Republican friends speak highly of her.
I totally agree with Bernie Sanders stands but he is more standoffish. I believe that it's just his personality.
I'd love to see someone like Warren run for President but I'd rather have both Warren and Sanders remain in Congress where I believe they can do the best good.
9
Bernie is a bit too old to run, but he has started up a movement in the Democrat Party that may have beneficial consequences down the road. Hillary is the old, corrupt order. She is of the Corporate Cronies and does not give a fig for the once great American Middle Class. Warren is not so "connected" with the establishment so she may attract support from the Bernie Wing of the Democrats. If Warren had run in the last election I might have voted for her. But she did not so I voted for Trump.
If political intuition and "feel" we are musical talent we could safely say that Our Hillary is Tone Deaf.
2
I hope the Democratic primary voters are smart enough not to put up on uncompromising extremist. Have either of these people ever demonstrated real-world problem solving skills? The only good thing about one of these two running against Trump is it guarantees there will be a legitimate third party choice.
13
Can't win without progressives. Neoliberals never learn.
7
Zejee: can't win WITH progressives, as you are bogged down in identity politics.
Lefty libs never learn.
1
Maybe Bernie Sanders’ approach to 2020 is to avoid embracing identity politics as a means of wide-ranging voter appeal. He respects former President Obama but declines to wear him on his sleeve or champion a civil rights agenda. Sanders will not attempt to forge an Obama coalition. Elizabeth Warren may be the female candidate that connects to Democratic voters and Independents that Secretary Clinton could not manage to do. Warren’s persistence in the face of Republican sexism and condescension in the person of Mitch McConnell could also galvanize women voters in a way that the Secretary could not. And neither Sanders nor Warren have any political baggage with name brand association the way Hillary Clinton did.
11
The baggage that Bernie carries is he is considered a socialist by many which seems to be the same as a communist on the forums. And he will be pretty old to start a hectic 8 year job. I will no longer vote for ANY Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are corrupt as corrupt can be and both parties have claimed all of my life that they are for working families and yet year after year, the rich get richer and the families are going deeper in debt.
So, crazy as it sounds my vote in the next election? Oprah 20/20 Vision - A new car and a trip to Australia for everyone.
4
I'm getting pretty frustrated with articles in the Times out to make Bernie look like an ornery radical.
60
The Democratic party seems to have forgotten how badly McGovern lost. I always defended McGovern against conservatives who tried to defile him personally, he flew 35 missions as a B-24 pilot in WWII, but his campaign was a disaster. Nixon won in one of the biggest landslides in US history, in part because his grass roots support as progressive liberal split the Democratic party. Sound familiar?
9
Dems can't win without progressives. We used to be the Democratic base. Now we are independent.
11
Losers don't legislate. Please read some history.
The Democrats lost 5 out of 6 elections btw 1968 and 1988 because the candidates we ran were too far left.
Dems would not have won in 1992 if the Clintons had not moved toward the center with the Democratic Leadership Council. Like it not, that is how we won the WH for 8 years.
This is a center-right country. Sometimes the country veers to center-left but never, ever far left.
4
Zejee:
Progressives have been part of the Democratic coalition but around the country there have been other constituencies as well. Many Democrats are moderates nationally or even blue dogs but may be pretty progressive in the states in which they live. Progressives need to understand this. Then you have minorities who are constituencies as well. We are a large coalition and need leaders who can bring us all together.
2
I am already resolved to support either in the drive to liberate this country from the GOP. Hpwever, the way I see it, the US is like a Nazi occupied European country. There are two groups of partisans: the first are those who simply want to restore things to the way they were, the second are those who see the struggle as a way to replace the old, failed systems with something new. One is well funded from outside and pragmatic, the other, however, is more motivated and so far is making all the bold moves. One is good at governing with power, the other is good at winning power.
Now I'm not saying Bernie is a Communist, far from it, but he is taking the Democratic Party in a new direction, one that would have been impossible just a few short years ago. A man like that should never be underestimated.
5
"More leftie than thou" is how Bernie Sanders has always come across to me. With his anti-establishment tirades he hoodwinked the left wing extremists just like Trump hoodwinked the right wing extremists. IMHO, Sanders cost Hillary the election by alienating so many millennials.
Let's avoid a repeat please. Sanders' my way or the highway style doesn't work in a democratic government. Trump has been proof enough of that.
17
Maybe Hillary was not the best candidate. Dems can't win without progressives. You know the former Democratic base.
9
No one could have won against:
Rupert Murdoch with Fox News and NY Post. A bad story and picture every day for 25 years.
KGB / Putin -- hacked Democratic Party and released emails to harm the party.
FBI / Comey -- unprecedented speech about Clinton emails. Unprecedented Weiner laptop story 10 days before election.
Trump - Russia -- there is no way Trump would have won without Russia. Russia started compromising him years earlier and have since manipulated him. Also, when the Facebook info comes out, we will see there was direct collusion.
No one could have beaten all that.
3
Unfortunately, after the campaign of 2016 Bernie Sanders has become a bit too enamored with himself. He will take the Democratic Party to defeat in 2020 if he refuses to step aside and allow younger voices to be heard. He will be 79 years old and is not now and has never been willing to compromise to get legislation passed. He has refused to support Democrats battling Republicans unless they pass his litmus test of being a far left liberal.
Hopefully soon Hillary Clinton's "Blame everybody else for my loss" book tour will end and she will not try and influence the Democratic Party. She ran poor campaigns in 2008 and 2016 and her two main reasons why someone should vote for her were because she was a woman and she was not Donald Trump. She also felt as though she was entitled to the nomination, was an uninspiring speaker, and a mediocre Secretary of State.
If the Democratic Party wants to take back the White House it needs to embrace much younger leaders than Sanders, Warren, Clinton, and Biden.
If the Party really is serious about attracting millennials as well as older voters and giving them something to be excited about then it should look to Senators Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillenbrand, Kamala Harris, and Sherrod Brown, former Governors Deval Patrick and Jennifer Granholm, and others.
At least half the candidates must be women. I hope that all of the candidates are between the ages of 45 to 60 or else it will mean losing the White House once again.
9
We need Bernie. He speaks for those of us who are FDR Democrats. And now Independents.
19
Better to have candidates born no earlier than the Truman administration with preference for candidates born during Eisenhower or Kennedy's presidencies.
It's a matter of energy and mental flexibility, especially with regard to men, who age more quickly than do women.
It is illuminating to see the different approaches taken by Warren and Sanders as they line up a possible run for the 2020 campaign. Thus far, I prefer Warren's efforts to build coalitions and reach out to different groups for their support. Honestly, I'm tired of Sanders and his dismissal of the Democratic party and his rigid adherence to his pet issues. A candidate that can advocate for liberal issues while still being pragmatic enough to achieve what is possible will earn my vote.
53
I agree about a Warren's pragmatic side and Sanders' rigidity.
When Jeff Weaver asked if enough people have heard about Bernie, I would say, yes, I have listened for over a year, and that is enough.
Warren has more strings to her bow, and more tunes in her repertoire. I could keep listening to her. She is also younger.
Since Warren and Sanders are often lumped together, I appreciate an article that teases apart the differences.
10
I like Warren, Sanders, Biden and Franken. All four would make an excellent President.
But Biden and Sanders are too old, as was Clinton and Trump. I state that from my perspective as one who is 66.
But I do like Sanders a lot. The reason Sanders wasn't nominated was bwcause of anti-semitism by sotuthern Democratic primary voters. That wouldn't have hurt Sanders in the general election as the south mostly voted Republican anyway.
Al Franken is younger than the aforementioned, quite progressive, intelligent and has a gentle but biting humor that would destroy his opponents in debate. He is media saavy and a respected Senator from a mid-west state.
Franken and Warren both support Sanders' plan for universal Medicare. Either will make a great President, but I think Franken would be the tougher candidate in November 2020.
But Franken is Jewish and Warren a woman. Bias against either is a problem, especially down south where bigotry is an honored tradition.
11
And Al doesn't really want to be president.
2
Zephyr Teachout for Vice President -- Bernie for President in 2020. Liz in another self-ambitious megalomaniac in the style of Hillary.
9
I think "in the style of" really means the problem is she is a woman.
Misogyny lives.
4
Uh-huh... Why do think having Bernie in the White House is more important than his work in the Senate or in organizing? Do you really think he can create a socialist utopia as an Independent in the White House? And do you really think he's not also a megalomaniac? Running for president at 79 and acting as if he alone is pure enough to set things right? Uh-huh...
4
And Zephyr Teachout is a dude? Who knew.
1
Time for Sanders to start a Witch Warren campaign. Sanders remains the best hope for Republicans going forward, and I am pretty sure it will work its charm like it did in 2016.
15
Many of us believe Sanders would have won. Many of us believe Democrats cannot win without progressives.
22
Many also believe the Earth is flat. Belief doesn't make it true.
13
The best hope for Republicans going forward is if Hillary decides to run again. :) And I fear that she will run again even though she claims, much like Cher, to be done touring.
3
The fact that Warren didn’t back Sanders in the primary last year tells me all that I need to know about her ‘progressive creds.’
This article confirms my distrust of Warren as a real progressive. Warren attends a party fundraiser at the home of a former UBS executive? Warren met privately with Jamie Dimon? Warren defends the ACA over pushing for Medicare for all? Warren views Medicare for all as “aspirational and not nearly as central as protecting what she sees as the recent gains made to health care coverage. She is also looking for other incremental ways to expand coverage or lower the cost of care.”?
Sanders consistent message of Medicare for all, tuition-free college, $15 minimum wage, and all the other issues he spoke about last year on the campaign trail is exactly what the majority of Americans support in poll after poll.
Bernie 2020!
63
Bernie Sanders is just another old white man grasping at straws. He is a traitor, actually worse than The Con Don. The Con Don used the Russians to help get elected. Sanders knew his supporters' facebook pages were being hacked by Russians to ramp up hate for Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton and said nothing.
Any woman or socially conscious man who supports or votes for Bernie Sanders is aiding and abetting further corruption in OUR government.
13
I have a firm grasp of the facts, RLS. You are the one who needs to come into the 21st century and get out of the way of the women who will take one-half the power. They will do it with or without you because they will shut out all the negative vitriol thrown at them and get the job done as women have done since the beginning of time.
5
@RLS: you lost me there... with the exit polls and voter suppression conspiracies.
Bernie had 'effectively' lost the primaries by mid March because he hadn't connected with the African American voters who voted in large numbers for Clinton - mainly due to Bill and brand recognition for the Clinton name.
I like Sanders. I really do. Post-fact (given how bad a candidate Hillary turned out to be - no matter who she blames in her book), I wished he were our nominee.
I'm not going to slander Bernie, just because I like Senator Warren more and want her to win. The two are almost indistinguishable on their voting records and positions. It doesn't behove us to slander people we know in our hearts to be true liberals... please reflect with an open heart (not just mind) when you have a moment of solitude.
10
There you go again, Mr. Martin and New York Times. You say, "Certainly, a Warren nomination would underline how ascendant liberalism has become in the party..."
Oh, yes. The men think it is extremely "liberal" for a woman to be a presidential contender. Fortunate, over one-half the population are women and most do not agree with the idea. Most women believe it is centuries past time for women and men to share power equally in every segment of society to bring balance, social/economic parity and relative peace to an out-of-control destructive male model world.
You Go, Senator Warren! If necessary I will write you in when voting comes around.
7
@njglea: I'm with you all the way.
Senator Warren 2020!!
3
I'm an avid supporter of both. Be it known that *even* as a woman, I have no problem identifying with Bernie's platform.
72
Sad.
4
I am indifferent about either of them as a potential presidential candidate. Can we please choose someone who won't have lived seven decades by 2020.
21
"Pragmatic" seems to mean willing to bend to Wall Street and support Republican lite candidates like Clinton. Ms. Warren is a liberal whose work is largely on behalf of the middle class and its woes.
Bernie is a true progressive who includes ALL the people in his plans. This is another kind of pragmatism.
Once again, the Times loses no opportunity to make Sanders look bad. We are not fooled.
71
Im beginning to think we should vote for whomever the Times disfavors.
11
Sanders makes himself look bad not the Times
and I am not for him as Pres...
8
After 2016, I'm pretty sure you can cross off millions of Clinton voters from Bernie Sanders' black book. Since 2016, the ongoing Sanders supporters' and surrogates' marginalization and dismissal of her, only puts more nails in that coffin.
I think Sanders has no realistic hope as a candidate for a national Democratic ticket.
You can't win a national ticket on the adoration of condescending progressive millennials. Especially since that base is weak at turning out for midterms and national elections.
Sanders is over, and the people who don't realize it are the ones who mistake social media noise for a real voting base.
4
I appreciate what Sanders has done for the Democratic Party, and think his vision is absolutely the future. But honestly, he will be 79 in 2019/2020. I would prefer 8 years from the next Democratic president.
Instead of the political jockeying, what are the serious policy differences between the two of them? I've always seen Warren as a successor to Sanders; the one to pick up the progressive mantle come 2020.
It would be extremely hard to label her as insufficiently progressive, the main line of attack during last year's primary against Clinton.
As much of a fan I am of Sanders, the next primary should be about which Democrat candidate gets his support. Him entering the field would make the sure-to-be-crowded playing field even more of a painful mess.
35
Warren sounded progressive--until she began to sound more ambitious and opportunistic. Had she really be a progressive willing to work for the working class, she would have had the moral courage to back Bernie in 2016, since he supported, led the campaign for, issues she ostensibly supported. Instead she backed the corporate and political establishment candidate, Hillary. Warren will never get my vote. Hillary didn't and neither will Liz.
15
Purity! You endorsed Hillary and not Bernie. You must pay forever! Bernie's people are like Trumpsters in their devotion.
7
Warren and Sanders are the voice of the Democratic Party which is going to have to change and get its act together before the next presidential election. The advisers and consultants got it so wrong last time that we now have trump in office. Because of the parties blunder with Hillary Clinton I don't think that voters are favorable now toward a women or a minority unfortunately. Kamala is not experienced enough but Booker may be but are the American people ready to elect an AA? The party is in dire straits and must conduct serious qualitative research in order to know where the countries population stands and adjust its strategy in order to win. There is no room for miscalculation again, trump is dragging the country into too deep a hole.
15
I hope Senator Warren persists.
I'd love to see her run in 2020 and hopefully become the Democratic Party nominee and then our 1st female president. It's about time. Dear Lord, it's past time for our first female president who can inspire young girls to break any ceiling(s) that still stand in their way.
Her values and causes have been completely aligned with mine over the years. She's always championed the middle class and took on larger players. She may be supportive of President Obama, but was the first to voice her reservations and publicly challenge President Obama on TPP, even drawing an uncalled for personal rebuke from President Obama then.
Whenever I'm feeling depressed about Betsy DeVos, Mnuchin, Pruitt and the other deplorables, I watch the video of Senator Warren grilling the then Wells Fargo chief over the scandal at the bank. It was an epic takedown.
Yes, I expect Bernie Bros (please note I'm not including all Bernie supporters) to take shots at her for being "pragmatic". This is the state of our politics: pragmatic is now a dirty word. But, I'll judge Senator Warren on how she represents me on healthcare, education, justice, immigration, economic reform...
She's a fighter. The only one who took the fight to Trump in ways he did not expect last year. Yes, he tried to brand her with his childish name calling... but, you can be sure she 'hontas' his dreams...
60
This is exactly the problem we had in 2016. Trying to elect a president that little girls could look up to rather than a president that everyone could look up to. and just for the record, 53% of white women voted for Trump
10
A fighter? As soon as she thought her future standing in the Democratic Party might suffer she avoided backing Sanders, who supported the interests she ostensibly supported. She stayed silent on Bernie and gave her vote to Hillary. She is just another ambitious politician.
12
53% of white women voted for McCain in 2008 and 56% of them voted for Romney in 2012.
In fact, white women have voted GOP in every presidential election since 1968, except for Bill Clinton (who got 48% and 51%).
Obama proved that democrats can win in spite of them.
7
haww what a gift
take 2 socialists
let them foght to see who goes farther LEFT
then we win
5
Have to agree. Hopefully someone else will emerge for the Dems to provide an escape hatch from the current sinking ship.
3
Warren uses Sanders to make herself look more mainstream. Sanders plays along, then Warren wins.
2
It's the unfortunate tendency of contemporary political journalism to place two elected officials who are fighting for the same things, together, in opposition. This frame results organically from political journalists' view that their role is to cover electoral goals as more important, or more relevant, than policy goals.
There's never been any serious indication of a rift or rivalry between Sanders and Warren, or that either has allowed personal electoral ambition to cloud their respect for each other and mutual appreciation for their counterpart's advocacy for policy goals they each hold dear. Unfortunately I'm sure many readers will ignore that, take the "rivalry" bait, and start bashing one or the other (probably Sanders in this case). I'm just happy to have both of them. And I'd vote for either over Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, etc. because Sanders and Warren fight hard for issues I believe in deeply, and have always displayed the courage of their convictions.
162
Journalists that have covered politics long enough understand what is going on. They aren't misleading you. These two are definitely leaning toward a 2020 run. It's pretty naive to think that these two are making appearances just to talk policy with the public. It's a competition.
10
Completely agree with you. I'll take either one of them over Booker, Gillibrand, Harris... and, don't forget Patrick Deval, MD at Bain Capital.
Who is encouraging him to run? President Obama's inner circle? Are they looking for jobs? I'd think they are doing well enough in life.
Why do politicians think they can leave public office, mint money based on their connections and potential influence, and then run again for office?
This doesn't work any more. The Democratic Party should learn from Evan Bayh... and Hillary Clinton.
8
We have almost three years till the next election and it would not be shocking if Donald, Hillary, and Bernie had all died from natural causes.
4
Sanders is not defending the Affordable Care Act? Do your reporters even follow his FaceBook feed?
67
"She attended a party fund-raiser in July at the summer residence of a former UBS executive, and earlier this summer she met privately in Washington with JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon". Way to go, Ms.Warren!
14
Those are the people she'll have to deal with if she wins.
4
Harry, here is a news flash:
Candidates require tons of cash to run. Unless we change campaign finance, this will continue to be true.
4
So how do we "change campaign finance"? Continue "this"?
3
Bernie is right. The old rules don't apply. He will prevail.
30