Elizabeth Warren is an opportunist, who has tried to insert herself into a race fr president as a progressive by taking over the platform that Bernie Sanders had done years of heavy lifting on. She tried to pass him on the left, forcing him introduce more radical policies than he previously had, possibly rendering both of them as unviable candidates.
Elizabeth Warren's credentials, or rather lack of credentials as a true progressive candidate are clear. She supported Hillary who was clearly not a progressive candidate, against Bernie Sanders in the last election.
Elizabeth Warren showed her true stripes as an opportunist when she declared herself to be an American Indian to get the job at Harvard. Those opportunist stripes have become even clearer now. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican all the years that Bernie Sanders was marching with the blacks (and getting arrested) for equal rights. If she were not dividing the progressive vote, then Bernie Sanders would be polling higher than Joe Biden.
Elizabeth Warren risks becoming the spoiler in this election. I believe Trump will Trump Biden, if Biden is run, and that only Bernie Sanders is capable of beating Trump by getting the youth to vote.
16
It is a no brainer.
Bernie is too old to too frail to run the Country. Let's alone go 4 or 8 years.
Bernie is a self-defined Socialist, which will lose the South, Deep South and Mid-West in the Presidential election.
Warren all the way! Warren 2020.
We have to be practical here....
6
So much of the new good talent come into the Democratic Party & then gets disillusioned because all the old stuck in the mud are the leaders because of seniority. This penchant of the Dems condemns us to never being effective.
It is so frustrating, watching young really good thoroughbreds having to twiddle their fingers because the clout is in the hands of people who have not had a good idea in the last 20 years.
It is also sad that so few women are really in the Congress though that is changing on the Dem side of the table. Obama said in Asia last week that women were better leaders and we would not have the wars if women led. All that we need to do is look at all the trouble spots of the world and we will see men with too much testosterone and too little diplomatic brilliance, if any.
For these and many other reasons, even as I am proud of my male masculinity, I say heartily, Go Women! Go Ms./Sen Elizabeth Warren!
4
Bernie will win “by consolidating the left” when he fires a; loud, public, sustained, ‘in-the-streets’, but totally Non-violent “SHOUT (not shot) heard round the world” to ignite an essential Second American people’s peaceful & complete “Political/economic & social Revolution Against Empire” — “Our Revolution” Against Empire — for democracy and against this Disguised Global Crony Capitalist Empire, which is only nominally HQed in, and merely ‘posing’ as, our formerly “promising” and sometimes progressive country (PKA) America.
6
Senator Sanders is a visionary & inspirational and at some point, he's going to have to campaign by himself. HIs surrogates — AOC et al. can't do the work for him because ultimately, were he to be the nominee, he's the one we're voting for not the rising stars.
8
I’m probably in the minority but both scare me. Medicare as we know it not the answer, and the existing lack of a cohesive system is also very poor. With many Americans now eligible for Medicare we are already starting to see a 2 class system. Some of the best professionals refrain from taking new Medicare patients because of low pay and slow pay. And many communities with high percentages of and Medicare and Medicaid patients are losing hospitals and
secondary and tertiary care. Our country needs a total reboot of its Heath Cate Delivery.
5
With respect to Elizabeth Warren, who I believe is a very solid candidate, where was she in 2016 when we needed her?
If she does win the nomination, I will cast a vote for her but not before.
10
I do not think that a centrist Democratic Presidential candidate can defeat Trump in 2020. The 2016 elections demonstrated - at least to me - that unless the Democratic candidate is transformational, younger people and people of color will not be moved to go to the polls in sufficient numbers to defeat Trump in the contested states, particularly the Midwest and Florida.
Among the Democrats, only Sanders and Warren are transformational. That can translate into one of them winning the nomination if the two of them, together, come into the Democratic Convention with a majority of the elected and pledged delegates.
Elizabeth and Bernie, in the way that they are campaigning shoulder to shoulder, appear to understand this basic calculus. It's a pity that some number of their supporters don't quite get it.
At the convention, if they come in together with a majority, all of this will be sorted out with the greater hope of a grand unity that can defeat Trump and set our country on a different path.
13
This is what is confusing to me, why are Bernie and Elizabeth activity conspiring in a manner that is illegal for any competitors to do in business? Are they above those legal standards?
4
@Tammy
I think what is confusing is how you concluded that they are actively conspiring to do anything. Feel free to present credible evidence.
17
Warren is a serious policy wonk. Sanders is a sloganeer. He's all hat and no cattle. Trump will have Sanders for breakfast. Warren will rise above the fray and show real leadership. Sanders needs to withdraw and heartily endorse Warren.
8
Are you joking? So far, Warren has taken the bait every time with Trump. Bernie has the best response possible.
*best Bernie voice*
“I don’t have time for this nonsense. Do you know how much you pay for healthcare.”
13
@rosa (a lovely lady from California who took the time to reply to my comment to Charles Michener’s comment and told me why a person who is not officially a “Dem” should not be the Democratic Party’s nominee)
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Party labels are really not the point, are they? Bernie could not have done what he did for the nation (everything in the progressive platform now has been his brainchild, you won’t disagree with that I am sure) if he was in the restrictive, center right, establishment fed “Dem” Party. He moved the political agenda to where it is now by staying out of it while being a pure democrat if there ever was one.
Your age is no reason for being or not being funny. Corny is used still. I am a decade younger than you and have children in their twenties who use the word. They are Harvard and Yale grads so not really from another planet.
The story about the Republicans at some point in history being progressive. I guess if you go all the way to Lincoln maybe. In my lifetime I haven’t heard of such a specimen. Maybe you can take the time to tell me about a few since say you were born.
Bernie is a mensch. Where I come from that means a lot. He has my family and friends support. We are wealthy, Harvard, Yale and Columbia educated, progressive, Jewish (Shoah, countless programs and even the inquisition deeply affected my family). We love Bernie and would be the happiest family on earth if he blesses our nation by becoming President.
15
Bernie is only a Democrat for Presidential campaigns, and is an independent the rest of the time. I understand he needed the name recognition of an oligarchic party in 2016, but this time he really needed to remain true to the "I" and attempt to form a third way. He isn't trying to transform the party from within, he is trying to sponge off its fundraising prowess. I cannot respect it, but if he wins the nomination, he would be superior the sitting president.
1
1) Interesting difference in tone between Sanders' surrogates and Warrens'. Are Warrens' thinking they're helping her with this stuff?
2)Harry Reid will step in to help? The same Harry Reid who several months ago gushed about Warren and all but said, "Oh, pshaw, don't worry about that Medicare 4 All thing. She doesn't really believe in it." That Harry Reid?
3) There is so much I admire about Warren. However, Sanders has by far the most crossover and Indy support, by far the most committed base, the most volunteers, the most Obama-Obama-Trump voter donations (by faaaar), the most PoC support, people under 45, and working-class support. He is best positioned both to bring some former dem turned Trump voters into the fold AND inspire massive turnout of new/disaffected voters. He is the far stronger GE candidate.
16
This. For once, Democrats, you can have both the most electable candidate AND the most progressive. For the first time since...geez...ever? you don’t have to choose.
14
Whatever, I’ll vote for one of them. Not decided yet. Tired of the abuse of the health insurance industry, of college being unaffordable and just the power grab of the ultra wealthy. Not going to vote for a lame democrat who will maintain the status quo.
11
When the Democrats talk themselves into nominating Mayor Pete and he loses even worse than Clinton for the same reasons she did - no policy or vision that does anything to help anyone and nobody outside of NYT opinion columnists is really interested in his candidacy - I will happily repeat what I said in 2016.
Bernie would have won.
9
Most of the posters here seem to forget that the only thing that matters is who will prevail in PA, WI, MI and OH. And it’s neither of these two.
7
@GC
It appears that many upper income moderates in Manhattan and other large urban areas are out of touch. Many moderates in those states you mentioned are blue collar working class people. Sanders won the 2016 primary contests in Michigan and Wisconsin, which included many independent voters. They’re not looking for a candidate who is going to protect your seven figure financial portfolio.
16
At some point they have to criticize each other
1
These articles are silly conjecture. The process will play out and the American people will have their say in due course. All of the hand wringing will prove irrelevant.
7
Warren and (especially) Sanders should end their campaigns and withdraw for the sake of the American nation.
Neither can beat Trump, alone or in any conceivable combination.
Both would lose in landslides.
The uncompromising divisiveness of many of their most die-hard supporters will cripple the party just when it needs unity most, like it did in 2016. “Bernie or Bust” gave us bust, and will again.
But it’s much bigger than that. When it comes to 2020 the simple fact is there is only one actual issue, this bald proposition:
The United States can’t survive four more years of Trump.
I hate to say “it’s that simple” but it is, like Lincoln’s famous “House Divided” speech in 1858. Lincoln led with this bald proposition about slavery and the republic: “a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free”. The crisis we face is of similar magnitude. Not only is Trump temperamentally unfit to be president in too many ways to list, let alone count — forget remain president — he’s Russia's agent in the White House.
Oh, in case you didn’t know (but how could you not?) Russian state TV just admitted the obvious: Trump is a Russian agent who acts in Russia’s interests. And the once great and grand old Republican Party supports it.
Nothing less than the fate of our nation is at stake. The American nation rises or falls in November 2020.
10
Why would a candidate who is second in the polls concede to a candidate who is fifth in the polls?
13
I would say the biggest problem Sanders and Warren have is the Democrats trying to cover too much political ground.
It's easier to understand that candidate Warren or Bernie will cost the Democrats votes in the center than it is to understand that candidate Buttigieg or Bloomberg will cost votes on the left.
Too often people think everyone on the left will just vote for "the" Democratic candidate instead of staying home, or worse.
And this, despite that's precisely what happened in 2016. Sanders even got blamed for supposedly not supporting Clinton enough.
The Democrats are not winning more elections than in the past, but by taking the center they have orphaned voters on the left while pushing Republicans and their voters, most of whom will never ever vote for a Democrat, to the extreme right.
This is ruining our country.
7
Bernie has to knock out Elizabeth.
Or Elizabeth has to knock out Bernie.
Otherwise, Joe, Pete or Amy is going to knock out both of them.
Or am I missing something here?
4
@Kenneth Johnson
As far as it looks right now, it won't matter at all 'cus Trump will knock out whoever, if the Democrats can't get their act together. I have little hope.
2
Ever see Warren question a scoundrel trying to over on the American people in one of her committees? The rich are so afraid of her that they begged Bloomberg to run. If Bloomberg wins, ( based on his history) he may pull a Teddy Roosevelt & change laws that actually represent the American people. If Berni wins the primary, the stress of the campaign & the ruthlessness of Trump & the GOP can kill him.
Why doesn't anyone address that?
I would rather live Berni yelling in DC for the people than (I won't write it ).
Biden is going to slip & lose the black vote.
Both Warren & Berni will be ruthlessly attacked by Trump & the GOP & lose.
Synder & Bloomberg will run until the votes are cast. Neither will win the primary.
Buttigieg will win the primary, kiss his husband in public & lose a large percentage of voters.
Lots of Dems will stay home.
Trump & GOP will win most races because Putin will hack the results. He will Hack the numbers just enough but not too much as he did in 2016.
Synder is being funded by an oligarch.
Not necessarily Russian.
Lots of people are getting richer with Trump in the W.H. & will like it to continue.
Warren & Berni are hurting each other, none will get anywhere because Berni refuses to accept that he is a sick man, Warren attacks Buttigieg, mom attacking neighbors kid, not a goo
2
I see them both as a problem as well.
4
And you know how many people see people like you as a problem?
People who say things without an iota of back-up associates with their statements.
5
As a lifelong progressive Democrat, we don't need Sanders and Warren to start a fight. There's already too much of that. Let the voters decide; that's what the primaries are for. The real problem facing the Democratic party is that they have a big split already between progressives and moderate, establishment centrists; between men and women; between whites and minorities; and between billionaires and the rest. Money has corrupted our political system and with billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer it's a serious problem for the party, especially highlighted by the loss of Kamala Harris. It won't matter whom the Democrats nominate if they fail, as did Hillary Clinton, to unify the party with a ticket that will create the huge turnout they'll need to beat Trump who's clearly at work rigging the election. Sadly for this 79 year old, I don't see that ticket among the current candidates. Perhaps a Sherrod Brown-Stacey Abrams ticket would do it, but so far Democrats have a very long climb to surmount Mt. "Total Exoneration!" Trump.
2
I hope that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren will keep using their presidential candidacy platform to explain the value for everyone in finally going to a single-payer health care network that finally has the ability to negotiate a single price for drugs, imaging, hospital stays, surgeries, doctor visits etc. so they can also regulate how much and how fast these services and drugs can increase... instead of the skyrocketing costs often associated with lifesaving drugs etc. Currently, Canadians can purchase insulin for $24 that costs $240 in the USA. People in the USA are rationing their insulin and DYING. More than 500,000 families a year go bankrupt due to unpaid medical bills, and the majority had insurance when they first became injured, or ill, or began trying to save the life of a child. People's lives should not be lost or saved based on $$$$. We are a nation of immense wealth in the hands of a few, who pay ZERO to very little to the IRS but instead invest in the purchase of our lawmakers via big-donor money and lobbyists. I only trust Sanders on Economic, Social and Justice reforms. He made is first $ million dollars in 2016 by writing a book on how to organize to take back government from the corporate/investments crowd. I would love to see Sanders and Warren pool their support and win as President and Vice President. It's what this country needs!
6
Another displaced article of "how to set up the two that are actually speaking to working class Americans who are not only now paying more taxing that the rich, but are also paying for more housing, more energy costs, more healthcare costs and more corporate welfare. Manipulation of opinions now that they will cancel each other out is nonsense, it has a slight ring of "corporate slight" to it.
Guess it was a hard day for "real news" about how Chinese tariff agreement is bogus or how Biden and other Democrats are raking in money from its corporate bankers and equity wall street companies, or how Climate Change is rapidly catching up the world and no one here is talking about it or taking it seriously except these two candidates.
Democrats need to consolidate or lose and those running to just win to keep the "status quo" won't work, especially when our country is approaching the brink of the cliff in deficit spending (so much for Republican hype) and debt.
And make sure you mention that Sanders and Warren will be saying Peace on Earth instead of more funding of the military conglomerate, when Congress passes the huge "lets stay in "protect our oil" wars budget going forward.
5
Shouldn't Sanders and Warren recuse themselves from the impeachment vote in the Senate--since one of them might be running against Trump in 2020? Or should just one of them recuse him/herself, since only one might be the Democratic nominee? ... Since the whole thing is about a telephone call concerning a potential nominee in 2020?
3
What???
10
It amazes me at the amount of pearl-clutching going on openly among the media over the prospect of a Progressive being the Democratic nominee.
Why don't we let the voters decide for once?
21
THEY have a problem? What about the rest of us, who are desperate to save democracy while these Dems are doing the usual political games and the United States has become a vassal of Russia?
People need to get real. There is only one policy issue that matters: getting Putin and Trump out of the White House.
4
LIz Warren who I support has only one chance attack Biden. Bernie's folks are totally sold on Bernie. Biden cannot beat Trump/Putin I think the polls are dead wrong like last time.
Trump/Putin will go full mad dog on Biden and Biden cannot handle it.
6
The worst thing that can be said about Elizabeth, or Bernie is that they are some kind of wild-eyed radicals, the facts are that neither of them are, but that will not stop the Rapepublicon from trying to spin that tale. The most radical and dangerous President we have ever had is in the office right now. I can only wonder what my parents would have thought to have an apologist for the Saudies and Putins Poodle running our country. The one thing that any of the Democratic candidates will do is to try to make the country work for the people. What we have with Trump is someone who only cares for himself and the one half of one percent. The rest of us have been sold down the river, some of us know it and the rest haven't got a clue. They like the racest and cruel simple answers and when the house of cards fall again will scream bitterly about their fait till the next Charlatan comes along.
2
The Democratic Party has made a faustian deal with the electorate of Iowa and New Hampshire which - Obama not withstanding - is not reflective of the demographics of the party of nation. Both are disproportionately white, out of tune with urban America, and where the votes really are. Neither reflects the core strength of the party and the caucus systems are bizarre. If we want our national tickets to reflect their national constituencies, set regional primary dates in which Iowa and New Hampshire would lose their exclusivity and be diluted in a larger and more demographically reflective pool. Any state that doesn't comply with the regional primary date schedule can not have delegates seated or voting at the convention.Sure spurned Iowa and/or New Hampshire may vote Republican but we are losing far bigger states because of Iowa and New Hampshire.
1
@Dennis C -- I think the addition of California as an early voting primary state is a great move, because the eventual candidate is very likely to win that huge pile of Electoral College votes in the General Election. Meanwhile, way too much importance is given to South Carolina that ultimately votes majority-Republican in the general election. In 2016: Donald Trump continued the Republican tradition in South Carolina, carrying the state with 54.9% of the vote. Hillary Clinton received 40.7% of the vote, underperforming Obama by about 4 percent.
2
i'll vote warren (but not with harris) but not bernie.
Bernie has done diddly as Senator of tiny state. The only reason I saw him gain traction last cycle was the 'free college' line to get college voters. I don't want to pay for adults decisions.
6
@ray
Lol...this thing your commenting on; also does research. You should give it a try.
What has Bern accomplished:
Wrote 'n passed an $11billion HC Clinics Bill. Serving an estimated 30 million citizens in 11000 rural and urban locals.
Negotiated the $5 billion bipartisan Landmark Veterans Bill of '14.
Recently helped the workers in the Fight for $15 win a doubling of wages. 350,000 Amazon workers, 60,000 Disney workers, 20,000 Wholefoods workers and more.
Restored $320 million in pension benefits to 130,000 IBM workers.
Passage of the first and only audit of the Federal Reserve in '10.
Passage of $3.2 billion Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy grants.
Stopping bailed-out banks from replacing US workers with low wage guest workers.
Stopping the Postal Service from closing up to 15000 post offices and over 100 mail processing plants, ending Saturday mail and slashing over 100,000 jobs.
Passage of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act.
Raising wages of Federal contractors to a min. of $10.10 hr. or more.
Created the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
Would you like me to continue?
The man is The Amendment King. Passing more amendments under heavily partisan Republican controlled gov. than any other congressman/woman.
By the by, much of Bern's work he doesn't get credit for. Here is a Repub. colleague discussing just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C08mO4BxRBs&feature=youtu.be&t=621
7
Too bad neither of them can win. America is far more centrist than either one.
7
If, like me, you don’t think America is as fantastic as all the flag-waving and flyovers would have you believe. If you think we can and should make efforts to better ourselves as a people and a country. If you don’t think we’ve hit our ceiling. Then the only real chose for you in 2020 is Bernie Sanders. Everything else is a return to the mean. Nothing else is even an attempt to solve the problems that brought him to the Presidency in the first place and we’ll get another just like him again in the future. Only next time it won’t be a cartoon TV clown, it’ll be a real, cold, competent, calculating fascist.
6
@Will
No, the "real choice" for me in 2020 is whoever can beat Trump. And that isn't Bernie Sanders, I'm sorry to have to explain reality to you but the fact is Bernie Sanders is not going to be president.
3
Yeah, better go with a moderate. A third-way candidate. Someone like, I dunno, Hilary Clin-
Oh. Oh wait. Oh nooo...
3
Putin is interfering again! Russia is doing this!
6
Warren did not help Trump win last time. She is not only more persuasive, she listens. Hands down will be better at governing. Plus, Trump's cognitive decline is going to be an issue in the campaign. Not a great moment to be putting forth the oldest candidate in history.
15
Warren did not endorse progressive policies that this country needs to keep from sinking. She backed Clinton’s neoconliberal policies, which lost, and will lose again.
3
@Lilly Moreover she acted very "smart": she did wait to endorse Clinton until Clinton had the nomination.
I did not like her because of this hypocrisy and Clinton probably did not appreciate it either, in fact she did not choose Warren for any function.....Very telling.
1
My great concern is that Warren, Sanders and other Democratic presidential candidates are competing to see who can make the most woke and socialist promises:
Free college tuition. Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants. College loan forgiveness. Reparations for blacks and gays. Guaranteed basic income. Federal job guarantees. Federally mandated school busing to achieve integration. Green New Deal (eco-socialism). Voting and early release for prisoners. Open borders.
All the fabulously wealthy US individuals and corporations together do not have the many trillions of dollars needed to pay for these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes would have to be raised on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, not to mention the additional trillions needed for the other items. (For perspective, the current US budget is about $4.4 trillion, with a deficit of about $1 trillion.)
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Don’t forget that our goal in 2020 is to elect a Democratic president, and that will require appealing to the independents, undecideds and others whom the Democrats failed to reach in 2016.
If all of these progressive (socialist) promises, or even a few, are planks in the 2020 Democratic platform we are doomed to a second term of Trump as president.
103
@Mon Ray What I have been saying for 2 years. Unfortunately, it feels like voices like this are tilting at windmills.
20
But somehow we always have enough money for war.
330
@Mon Ray Taxes will go up as Bernie's told us up front, but copays and deductibles will go down. I'm already on Medicare, but that would be great for the many. Health care for those who need it would greatly help the many people in prison who are there for substance abuse and enable them to work and find a place inside an America that cares. Maybe an America that really cares would alleviate the violence and class bickering that divides us. Environmental progress? What can I say besides the new jobs that will be created with all the new infrastructure and saving the planet? Open borders? Not a sure thing and isn't that throwing in everything but the kitchen sink? Btw, Thatcher? Not a good moral compass I'd say. Put her together with Reagan and now you know why the Democrats are not really Democrats anymore, not really side of the working man/woman. But with Sanders, we could revive the Democratic party. And mostly make our America a better place for the many, not just the few!
115
“Neither can live while the other survives”.
The problem with all of this is that it appears neither or both can defeat the horcrux called Trump into which the Dark Lord has deposited a portion of his shriveled up soul.
Debating the relative merits of either or both would be comical if it weren’t so serious. It’s early enough that things might change, but as it stands now Trump prevails in the general.
2
@Someone Somewhere
You said it.
Warren is nowhere near as far left as all Republicans are now far right. The middle ground has now moved way to the right. This make warren look more left than she is. Bernie is passed it and should step down.
7
Give it a rest folks, it is still almost two months from the first primary vote and, in the meantime, much can change, after all, just before this whole primary deal started, the so-called pundits, experts and much of he MSM were predicting that the two candidates with the "inside track' to win were Kamala Harris and Beto O'Roarke.
10
Warren cannot win against Trump (I can't stand to even look at her) and neither can Sanders. The only one who has a chance is Bloomberg -- Biden is history. By the way, the black gym/yoga outfit is getting tiresome. She certainly doesn't look like presidential material.
3
What an utterly incorrect take. Warren's supporters and Bernie's supporters have very little crossover, just look at the breakdown of the professions of the people who donate to each campaign. Warren's demographics more resemble Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg, and that's exactly what the shifting poll numbers represent. Just bad reporting and lack of insight on display here.
4
If Warren and Sanders were not spliting Progressive voters, Biden, would be back in the middle of the pack, certinly not a front runner. Trump, got elected because he was diffrent from the status quo Ms. Clinton was offering. The exact same thing will occur with Biden running. Even if you hate Trump, he’s a good politician, in every bad sense of the word. That means, he will eviscerate Sanders, (Socialist), Warren, (Lying Indian), and Biden, (Sleepy Joe). Name recognition. Trump, is maybe, the most famous person in the world, (certinly in the U.S.) and, the economy is good, and no new wars. The impeachment will end up in the dust bin like the Muller Report, nullified completley. So, what’s left? My guess, some new revelation will certinly come along. Trump, has a year to screw up yet again, and since he never changes, it most certinly will happen.
3
If Elizabeth Warren wants the nomination she had better accept three things:
1) cranky old Bernie isn't going anywhere. They will carry him off stage in a gurney before he quits. If Warren wants his voters she's going to have to poach them, and that means offending some.
2) add a public option to your health care or you and it are doomed. Germany, Ireland and Scandinavian countries all have POs--U.S. voters will never support wiping out private insurance.
3) an African American VP. She and Bernie poll appallingly with Af-Ams who can do no greater harm than staying home because they're uninspired. There's no Liz/Bernie or Bernie/Liz ticket so stop dreaming. It'll never happen.
It's Bernie/Kamala Harris or Liz/Cory Booker. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
5
I think the biggest tragedy will be if Warren wins more votes in the primary, and the Bernie or Nobody camp refuses to yield. I see Warren's supporters willing to support Bernie; I'm not so sure it will happen the other way around.
6
Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.
6
@Richard
As opposed to Capitalism that has it's elders and poor eating pet food; if they're lucky.
2
Why on earth do Democrats still think that in Right Wing America (right or wrong), these two far lefties have a shot? Makes no sense.
3
Surrender, Bernie! Join Warren.
4
Not.
4
The only time the NY Times can find room to discuss Sanders, it’s how he’s a problem.
Really, how do you think this helps your credibility?
9
Yes but which one of these primary Democrats Betsy Warren and Bernie Sanders is favored by the self- proclaimed King of the Jews Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and our Russian Czar Father Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin as the favorite to lose to our Moscow Tel Aviv Siberian President in 2020?
Bernie is older than Trump and a one-time primary loser with a bad heart. While Bernie is an avowed socialist living in very white Vermont whose New York City roots play and sound like Al Sharpton and Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump.
Betsy Warren already fell hard and fast for the Trump tweeting and speaking nicknames and slurs tar baby caricature techniques.
1
There's always trouble for Democrats on the front page of the New York Times.
9
@John Byars
Still laughing. Glad you noticed, too.
5
It's all over...Biden gets the nomination. Wins the election. Four years of another idiot. This one an old, feeble idiot. God must love America because I have no idea how we can survive otherwise.
2
This is a magnificent game of Risk. We’re still early in the game. The Dems hurt themselves by using the word extremist. It plays into the Repubs hands.
The Repubs since Reagan have been relentlessly creating a society that is Hunger Games. It’s Health Games too. Americans know it, and since they see no way forward, they blithely vote for Trump. We just need to brand the Repubs at the Hunger/Health Games party.
The only ones calling it out are Warren/ Sanders. Biden is too get along go along and losing his vitality. Mayor Pete is articulate in a platitudinous McKinsey way that doesn’t change anything (unless it’s financial engineering.). Time to stop the Games.
4
First, the headline and byline are not supported by the rest of the article. The article goes on to explain that Sanders and Warren can each run their primary races with civility and respect for each other and then join forces going into the convention, according to a range of pundits quoted. The headline and byline suggest that one of the campaigns must triumph over the other (each campaign is a "problem" for the other), or even that their nonagression pact is part of the problem. The headline and byline should be fixed.
Second, the article fails to suggest the reason why both campaigns can and do live respectfully side by side: They draw from different coalitions of supporters. Sanders supporters are more diverse racially, they are more working class and more young. A MAJORITY of Dem primary voters 35 and under support Sanders. Sanders is far more popular with African American and Latino voters than is Warren. On the other hand, Warren supporters are mostly white, include more older voters, include more 4 yr college grads and are financially better off than Sanders voters. That's why the campaigns should continue their happy respectful courses and then join forces as a united Progressive caucus going into the Summer. This explanation of who the Sanders and Warren supporters are is totally omitted from the article so the reader is left baffled about why the two campaigns exit on parallel tracks.
6
There's a couple of ways of looking at it -- Warren was a Republican until the mid-1990s. So, how progressive is she, really? Sanders has always been a progressive, throughout his entire political career. So, while Warren gets painted with the progressive brush, one has to wonder about her bona fides in many respects. The GOP was fine for her until the mid-90s, before she parted ways with them. Emma Goldman, she's not.
Barney Frank's comments are revealing:
“Sanders is a problem for her in two ways: one in terms of the votes that would otherwise go to her, and two, by forcing her to go to the left,” former Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts said. “Her ability to respond to concerns about electability is hampered by her concern that she’ll be overtaken by Sanders on the left.”
Sanders is truly progressive. Warren is progressive lite. So, what does the Democratic Party want? Actual progressive? Progressive lite? False centrist (also mislabeled as "moderate")?
Whoever ultimately wins the Democratic nomination, the GOP will brand them as the second coming of the USSR, so do the Democrats hope to win big by thinking small? Or should they authentically embrace a progressive vision?
4
This article is just another not-so-clever way to further try to undercut the candidacies of Sanders and Warren. The MSM - including the NYT - and mainstream "centrists" are terrified that a dismantling of the "trickle down" status quo would be the result of either winning. And yet, despite the sniping and undercutting, both remain strong. I wonder why?
Could it be that the MSM and Establishment are still clueless about how Trump won? That they're still oblivious to the decades long struggle of the working and middle class to hold onto what they used to take for granted - a decent, secure job, a nice house, the ability to pay their bills and obtain affordable health care? While Wall St. and Corporate America have had several "recoveries", and enjoy historic profits, the working and middle class has been sliding backwards. That's what Hilary and the DNC still haven't understood.
But Bernie and Liz do. And of the two, I believe Sanders has the best ability to peel back Trump voters. But both would be a boon to working people, and the rest of the nation as a result. And the idea that they're going to have to go after each other is wrong. Doing so would only undercut the platform they're each standing on.
No, this article just shows how out of touch the so-called "smart" people are. How'd that work out in 2016?
5
There is nothing radical about Medicare for all, a tax code that closes loopholes and has the wealthiest paying their fair share. There is nothing radical about a public works program that rebuilds the infrastructure and creates union jobs. There is noting radical about ensuring that the air we breath is clean, the water we drink safe. There is noting radical about ending egregious gerrymandering, ending voter suppression, overturning Citizens United, and enacting campaign finance reform.
The radicals are in the GOP. The GOP supports an unethical, unprincipled, criminal who is unfit for office.
4
No worries. They together first need to defeat the so called moderates, aka, compassionate Republicans. We do not want to go back to where we were before Trump. Democrats needs to win based on progressive change and make a case for it. Else, Trump will win and we can live through his second term.
1
Bernie on top of the ticket. Liz as his VP pick. Bernie serves one term and hands the reins to Liz for 8 more years.
That's a winning ticket.
2
@pork chops I was just thinking the same thing. Together they have all bases covered. In a debate Sanders does not hold back, even in the debates he calls Trump out as a psychological liar, which describes him perfectly, and in a debate I can see him saying it to his face.
1
@pork chops
You live in a fantasy world. It's unfortunate, because it's a big part of the reason we have you-know-who in the White House and we have five long years to go tolerating this horror if enough people think like you do.
1
Doesn't anyone wonder why the Democrats are unable to present an intelligent, young or older but not 70 plus, moderate, rational and qualified candidate? I suspect it is because no man or woman who met those qualifications would want to engage in the abusive, derisive and outrageous spectacle Trump would create. Name calling, slander, internet humiliation, harassment and other horrors would be heaped upon the candidate by Trump and his supporters regardless of the integrity and reputation of the opponent. We have made politics and hence the nation, an embarrassing spectacle rivaling the worst reality television. Our system is certainly not likely to prepare or encourage future honest leaders.
4
They're splitting the vote and that makes me nervous.
1
I like them both. I don’t see it as a problem.
4
The most important thing is that whomever wins the Democratic primary that they get full support from all Democrats against Trump. It would be foolish as this point to protest against a Democratic nominee and wind up living in an authoritarian state run by a despot backed by millions of angry American who want nothing more then to crush liberalism and turn back the clock centuries when it comes to progress in human rights. Left wing populists need to understand there is much more at stake than health care coverage and tuition payments. Everything associated with what the founders set up more than two centuries ago is at stake.
2
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? To consolidate the left you need to win the nomination first. And neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has spoken, much less any other state.
3
In what race in the last 100 years have so many of the candidates had such high floors and low ceilings? The top four of this race is set, with Bloomberg set to play spoiler and probably hurt the candidates who most resemble himself. This race will likely go to the Convention. What would stop it? Barring some profound upheaval in the next two months, Pete Buttigieg will likely take Iowa and perhaps NH. The money will run out for the non-billionaires outside the top four. Then what? Will voters pay attention and leave Biden for Buttigieg? Will the progressive left claim the DNC rigs things? There are so many states and so many paths. Who can consolidate? Not Bernie. He tried and failed. Not Warren, she’s been sinking since people got to really know her. Not Biden, he is the candidate of the apathetic. Maybe Buttigieg, but only if the Twitter Left and Reid E at the NYT decide to grow up.
Almost certainly there will be a intra-party war. And that means almost certainly, unless a major Republican challenges Trump, we are on our way to 4 more years of Trumpism and decay. It is too bad the far left won’t accept, no matter the mounting evidence at home and abroad (Labour), that you cannot win going to the far left. There is no mystical voting block waiting to be engaged. As if anyone unengaged at this historic crossroads in our country could ever be made to care.
2
Yes, it’s a dilemma. I believe Bernie the more authentic progressive, but he’s also, I feel the most vulnerable to attacks from Republicans. I think we all know Elizabeth hasn’t always been a Democrat, and possibly not a progressive, either, however, her good heart has lead her to the progressive cause, and I’m not sure, given her practical sensibilities what possibly Republicans could make stick on her? Trump tried the Pocahontas nonsense and insulted the Native American Indians in the process. If they would unite, they would be unstoppable.
2
Okay: We're talking about the Democratic nomination.
That means, it should probably go to a Dem.
And Sanders is not a Dem.
He wasn't a Dem last time, either.
How I wish that he had chosen to run this time as a Republican.
Now, THAT would have been interesting.
But this?
It's a re-run of last time and when Bernie chooses to turn nasty he'll be swearing that Elizabeth Warren is "UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT!", just like he did last time on Hillary Clinton whose record was 8 years as First Lady. a Senator from New York and Secretary of State.
I'm with Elizabeth, all the way.
Next time, Bernie: Run as a Republican and drag them into this century..... and leave the Democrat Primaries to Democrats.
2
You are not funny. Not a bit. Corny, maybe.
4
Interestingly, he’s ahead of Warren AS a Democrat. Congrats to her and you on having that (D), though. Really means a lot.
4
@Blunt
At 71 I don't waste my time tying to be 'funny'.
Not a bit.
And I haven't heard the word 'corny' applied to anyone for maybe 50 years.
No, Blunt, I was being dead serious.
If Bernie wants to run as a Dem, he should join the Democrat Party.
Or, run as a Republican.
You do realize, Blunt, that the Republican Party didn't ALWAYS have only monochromatic knuckle-draggers.... yes?
Yes, true progressives and they were all run off by the 70's, but they DID once exist.
Now, THAT'S not an attempt to be 'funny' either!
2
States like Iowa and New Hampshire are not relevant to Democrats, when so many Democratic candidates are promoting the idea of ending the Electoral College. Why don’t Dems lead by example and conduct a nationwide primary instead of allocating delegates by states. It would be less painful, cost less, and of course, be less hypocritical.
3
“But with 50 days until the Iowa caucuses, some of their admirers are hoping they will begin a dialogue.”
Not a bad idea. I agree they should both stay in the race until it’s time for one to drop out. So far, their unvoiced strategy of cooperation has been working like gangbusters. It reflects well on both of them and gives me hope for the future.
A typo:
“Moderates in the party fear that if Mr. Warren or Mr. Sanders pull away . . .”
4
I'm so tired of being told how I am supposed to think about the race..so ridiculous, this will play as it is supposed to, by the best person winning..in the meantime but out, the country is in desperate need of HUGE change, the last couple of elections have shown this...but the change needed has not been heeded!!!
1
"Liberal leaders, acknowledging the mixed blessing of having two well-funded, well-organized progressive Democrats..."
Sorry, I'm confused. Warren is a Democrat. Who's the other one?
1
It is clear to anyone with a brain and heart in the right place that the right ticket (for just and fair people not crypto-fascists, oligarchs, one-percenters and the media barons — there are intersections of these sets of course) is Bernie for President and Warren as VP in 2020. Bernie will not run in 2024 and AOC will run as VP with Warren for POTUS at that time.
They all will be as good if not better than FDR. Universal healthcare and public education, green new deal, campaign finance reform, unionization for every worker who wants it, gender equality, racial justice, end of idiotic imperialistic wars, major tax reform. Our society will move towards implementing Rawlsian justice. All will go to sleep without knowing who they will wake up as and be indifferent to the fact.
These all can be done and your editors and bosses know that. They are educated and intelligent enough to know the enemy and that is exactly why such articles are written. And why my comment won’t be published!L
5
I will go with Warren in a heartbeat - Sanders isn't even a Democrat. he's only pretending to be one to take their tens of millions of dollars for his campaign. Plus, he is a grouchy, humorless old man.
1
Reading the many comments, I'd offer two disinterested UK thoughts. Please try not to do what progressives do best - "kill" each other. And beware those (apparent) partisan Dems who say they will vote for Trump if A or B get the nominations; they are trolls, Russian or other, or smart GOPs stirring the pot.
3
This is the first time since I started voting in 1980 that I've been faced with the delightful quandary of having to choose between two highly acceptable candidates. But it is a quandary. I want to cast my vote for a progressive and not split the party. I don't want Biden or Buttegeig or any of the other "let's protect the status quo because anything else is too scary" candidates to win the nomination merely because Warren and Sanders couldn't agree on how to consolidate their following. I'm a Warren supporter for two main reasons: first, I've always admired her thought process, ever since she became a public figure, and her policies are the products of deep research and knowledge. Second, Bernie is plainly too old. I would never ask even the most energetic 80-plus-year-old man to take on a stressful full-time job, let alone a man who's already had one heart attack on the campaign trail. The presidency is a notoriously strenuous job. It visibly ages everyone who's ever done it. Bernie is a great guy, but he needs to retire. Warren still has a good fifteen years ahead of her!
2
Is it time to hear more about the new candidate Michael Bloomberg? It seems he could have the best chance to go against trump and win.
Each of the Democratic candidates are good people. But, Mr. Biden does not seem like someone who could mow down trump. Nor do Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders.
Let's hear more about and from Mr. Bloomberg. He could be the hope to beat trump. And, that is what must happen.
3
@EC Why is Bloomberg the best candidate? He's also a billionaire from New York whose main credibility is on economic policy.
The stock market and economy are booming and Trump owns it. Most people who value the economy above all would just vote for the original.
The truth is that this election is Trump's to lose. He's always underestimated in polls because people are ashamed to even say out loud they vote for him, just like in 2016.
The only chance Democrats have is by mobilizing those who are left behind by the economy and the minorities who can't stomach Trump's racism. Folks like Buttigieg and Bloomberg poll bad with minorities.
1
@EC
Actually, Michael Bloomberg is an Oligarch whom, in order to serve his own interests, just spent $100 MILLION dollars in personal ads to circumvent the democratic process run in the primary while choosing to sidestep any of the debates.
He is exactly, NOT, what must happen.
4
@Liz
Because I agree with you that the election is trumps to loose; i was hoping that Bloomberg seems like someone who could really take trump on.
It is extremely difficult. Bernie Sanders would be best but there would be attacks about his age and health.
Whoever runs it will be vicious. May the Democrats find someone who can win.
bernie is still not a Democrat, no matter that he "joined" the party this go-round. he has no business running as a Democrat. If he were an honest man, worthy of anyone's vote, he would run as an Independent or as a socialist.
1
@Norma
You might want to ask who are the REAL democrats here? Jeff Van Drew, the democrat who just turned Republican because he didn't want to vote for Trumps impeachment, OR the several corporate/establishment democrats who have voted on a number of occasions to support Trump initiatives and last but not least, Joe Manchin(W. Virginia), the only democrat who voted with Republicans to confirm Brett Cavanagh for the SC and stated on Fox that if Sanders was the candidate, he would support Trump?
From where I sit, it is not the labels but the policies and the only REAL democrat I see here is Bernie Sanders.
1
@Norma
I'm not a Democrat either Norma.
Should I and our tens of millions of Independents and abstainers/no-party-preference stay away?! You want our votes?! Yet won't give us a voice?!
That is why we left in the first place. People like you.
Bern has brought millions of us back under the Dem supposed Big Tent. You and your ilk drive us right back out.
Good luck winning without us Norma.
See ya at the convention.
3
I am an educated "older voter" that supports neither Sanders nor Warren. I dismiss polls as meaningless. Presently I support Amy Klobuchar.
4
If Sanders and Warren were a single candidate, they would be running away with this nomination right now. The American people are looking for change- meaning an improvement in our quality of life at every level. America has been dead in the water for decades, for everyone but the wealthy, and at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Enough is enough.
4
For me it's never about their "positions", it's about their electability....
... despite the fact that my politics align closest with Warren or Sanders, rather than the others.
1
@Bald Eagle
What exactly does electability mean? In reality, it is a rather nebulous term that was coined by someone who decided what candidates, in their mind were electable, yet, Hillary Clinton was a "can't miss" and the last two Presidents who were deemed "unelectable" by the so-called "pundits"were Barack Obama and Donald Trump!
1
@Bald Eagle This is what people said in 2016, that Hillary was the electable candidate. Then she lost to a reality TV host who campaigned on a populist platform.
Bernie is a populist, and would beat Trump handily in the Rust Belt. Remember he won Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016, two states that flipped towards Trump. Young voters would turn out for Sanders in droves.
Don't make the same mistake that many Democrats made in 2016!
1
I use to think the same way. Before 2016.
1
I am for Yang or nothing. I will not compromise. Yang or bust.
1
@CJT
You're right. But this is what got us Trump in 2016. The Bernie or Bust folks said no to Clinton, coupled with her lack of campaigning in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and that refusal to vote and stay home handed us the mess we got.
I like Yang, too, but there's no possible route for him. He makes exceptional arguments about what's happening in America, and it's true. And the rest of the Dem field? Good lord, awful.
I'm not convinced that Warren and Sanders are splitting the progressive vote, though it does seem that way on first glance. Didn't a Morning Consult poll earlier this year show that for both candidates' likely voters their next top choice was Biden vs. the other progressive candidate? Their supporters are quite different demographically, so this makes sense.
That being said, a Warren and Sanders ticket would generate a huge amount of excitement that I could get behind.
2
I’m leaning Warren for several reasons.
1 This is not the time for moderation; we are where we are because ‘moderation’ has turned into chasing after ever more extreme Republicans trying find ‘common ground’ There ain’t none left.
2 Moderate answers are not enough for extreme problems - authoritarianism, inequality, climate... the list keeps getting longer.
3 Warren is a teacher; she knows how to talk to people, how to get them to think, how to get them to engage.
4 Warren has plans - and she’s not afraid to get expert advice on how to make them work. She’s not afraid of competent people and she is able to learn.
Bernie has passion and ideas, but I think Warren’s skill set is what we need.
4
@Larry Roth
The problem is, despite her attributes, compared to Sanders, Warren still has much too small a connection to the working class in America that could be critical in Red States in a general election, her primary appeal is still towards New England white educated voters. Sanders also has an overwhelming superiority in support from the under 35 voters whom, in order to circumvent the rigging and gerrymandering in numerous districts, would have to come out in large numbers for the democratic candidate to win and Sanders has by far the best chance of motivating that age group to actually come out and vote.
3
@Larry Roth
Huh...could of sworn Warren was pivoting to Moderation.
Under a Bern Presidency, Warren and her skill set would still be needed and heeded.
One is a leader. One is a technocrat.
Both have their place and rolls to play.
1
@Dobbys sock Check again. Rumors of her turn are greatly exaggerated.
1
Bernie would be the better pick as he has a unique appeal that attracts voters no other Democrats can currently reach.
You can’t beat an incumbent in a great economy with a moderate candidate. You need to mobilize voters for whom the economy does not work or who value integrity more than anything after Trump. Bernie is the man.
5
The Democrats are all too far to the left. Bernie Sanders is practically in the Jeremy Corbyn camp and Elizabeth Warren is far behind. In politics winning is 'job one', if you don't win you can't do anything you promised your followers. Democrats ought to know this, but they act like adherence to narrow ideological standards is what really counts. Never mind what the voters want or where the votes are, they 'know' they're right, they can't compromise and it's the job of the voters to recognize it and come to them; the Democrats must want to lose. Have you noticed how Mr. Trump drops political positions when he sees that the voters are losing interest in them? When was the last time you heard about the wall, or immigration? Now, there's a smart politician, he wants to win; forget ideological consistency.
2
@Ronald B. Duke
The centrist Lib-Dems did so bad in Britain’s election even their leader lost her seat. But I guess that doesn’t fit the anti-progressive narrative.
2
@Ronald B. Duke
No, actually, the "corporate/establishment" democrats like Biden and Buttigieg are "too far right".
1
I love Warren, I love Sanders. I find Sanders so moving to listen to. He stirs something in me. He's exciting. Yesterday I decided to vote for Pete. Why? Fox News is the number 1 news station in this country! I find this shocking. And it tells me this country won't vote for a Progressive. Maybe the electorate will get used to the idea of a gay president in time. Since I live in AZ my vote won't matter too much since Biden will win here.
2
@Judy Petersen
Vote your conscience! If we all turn into pundits, trying to predict what other people will do in an effort to mold our own votes, we'll never get what we want or what we deserve.
4
I hate to be the obvious one in the room but Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sander have more problems than each other. Both are willing to turn our country into Venezuela just to fatten their own pockets. Someone like Trump who donates his entire salary (out of the goodness of his loving heart) is what the country is looking for, not Robin Hood
1
Literally nothing you wrote makes sense. Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.
4
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have another problem. Both have big hats and no cattle.
That is, they talk a lot about their ideas and plans, but neither has a whit of executive experience or shown any ability to implement their plans. Even at their ages.
For a president, implementation counts, not ideas. A candidate for chief executive who has no executive experience is no candidate at all.
Elizabeth Warren likes to say, "I've got a plan for that!". So what?
Remember former boxer Mike Tyson's somber warning: "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth".
6
It is painful for me to see these two compete with each other. One of them will need to bow out. I would love to see a female President but I think I'm going to vote for Bernie. He has been the real deal all his life and Warren used to be a Republican. I believe I can trust Bernie. It's always hard to know if you can really trust someone who has switched horses midstream.
5
Had no idea Highlanders had become so diverse and inclusive, recently...
Time was, you had to be of ornery Scottish descent...
No matter – in the end, there can be only one...
Though The Prize now comes with term limits – its pursuit deranges would-be seekers much as ever...
I am starting to ee a disquieting year ahead. The House Impeaches. The Senate acquits
The Dems nominate Joe Biden or there is a hung Convention and a compromise candidate. Either way, Bernie's voters sulk again- as does Bernie.
Trump gets re-elected.
Somebody tell me that this cannot happen.
3
Bernie, Bernie , Bernie. You have heart trouble, want. socialism and let’s face it your cute but you won’t get elected. Now it’s time to move on. See yah Bernie.
3
Bernie will win “by consolidating the left” when he fires a; loud, public, sustained, ‘in-the-streets’, but totally Non-violent “SHOUT (not shot) heard round the world” to ignite an essential Second American people’s peaceful & complete “Political/economic & social(ist) Revolution Against Empire” — “Our Revolution” Against Empire.
2
The biggest obstacle to winning the Democratic nomination for either of them is the unethical DNC or the 'liberal' establishemnt media
2
Watching the Democrat party wring itself into contortions trying to mollify the radical demands of the leftists like Warren, Sanders and the Squad is enjoyable. These people just don't get it. They believe simply because they were elected in solid blue states and left leaning congressional districts, that the rest of the nation should naturally and willingly fall into line. Memo to them all: Americans believe in capitalism, hard work, self reliance, and limited government. They will not vote for a complete reversal of our history and the American way.
69
Historically, the American state has always relied on government violence to suppress popular anti-capitalist movements--from the I.W.W. after World War I, to the C.P.U.S.A. in the 1950s and, of course, the Occupy Movement in 2012. It must be giving the rich coniptions, that their Two Capitalist Parties System is now presenting them--thanks to the Internet contributions--from within the system, a popular Socialist candidate with a real chance at winning.
22
@paul The American way is just right of Europe, not raw capitalism at the expense of people and environment.
To get there again we need a balance of progressive Democrats and moderate Republicans, not the moderate Democrats (which are really moderate Republicans from 30 years ago) and unhinged Republicans we have today.
By staying in the center position, there is no political room for moderate Republicans. It’s all connected.
21
@paul
They voted for Trump who has more in common with Venezuelan dictatorship. And expanding the military by 120 billion. And 200 billion in tax cuts with no way to pay for it. Americans seem to be all for big government the question is do you want it funding crony capitalists or services for every American?
32
Warren's 10 point drop to Buttigieg tells me that alot of that support wasn't really a left bloc. Her support comes from the Professional Managerial Class. Higher income and higher educated they are more likely moderates who were hoping to hop on board to boost her numbers hoping to then drain support for Bernie. Problem is she showed her cards too soon, by adopting Pete Care as her alternative to M4A she began triangulating too soon, her support began to crater as a sizable chunk went where it always had wanted to go, to the McKinsey consultant Mayor Pete. Voter ranked choice also prove this, as it's Biden voters not Warren voters who are more likely to back Bernie as their second choice.
4
This is an exercise in irrelevancy. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether Warren or Sanders "wins the left". As things now stand, not a single one of the Democratic candidates for the nomination has given any indication of even understanding what they'll get thrown at them when the eventual nominee will face off with Trump...
Oddly enough, the ONLY one I can imagine beating Trump is the other, but real, New York billionaire, Mike Bloomberg. Al the others are just too nice (and too poor).
5
He may be poor, but Bernie will not be nice to Trump, or the class he represents. Whatever one thinks of his politics, character wise, the Senator is a mensch, raised on the streets of Brooklyn. He will not be intimidated.
2
“Her pivot on health care, along with the support she enjoys from a handful of billionaires, represents the best opportunity to diminish liberal enthusiasm for Ms. Warren, say Sanders supporters.”
Since when Warren had any support from a handful of billionaires? Sanders supporters shouldn’t be slandering Warren in hope to get some of her supporters to support Bernie instead.
1
Take heed of the recent parliamentary election in UK. We cannot allow the challenge to defeat Trump in 2020 to be Corbyn-ized. If we do, long-time Democratic strongholds will flip in the same way Labor collapsed throughout England.
4
@rlschles I am devastated by Bojo's win and the Brexit train wreck being speeded up. However, our "Trump" will still be maintaining policies Warren and Sanders would be lucky to get activated - and the UK is infinitely poorer that the US (just spread more evenly)
This article presumes two mistaken premises. The first that the capitalist Mr. Bloomberg and other corporate Democratic politicians are, as they claim to be, worried that the Socialist Sanders will lose. On the contrary, what terrifies them--and what motivates Mr. Bloomberg's profligate entrance into the race--is exactly the increasing likelihood of Bernie Sanders and his anti-corporate movement winning . . . The second mistaken premise is that Senators Warren and Sanders are identical "progressives," and that therefore they should strike a transactional deal. The fact is, the opportunistic Leftist Senator Warren is a self-described "capitalist to her bones, " a corporate lawyer who voted for Ronald Reagan. Senator Sanders, by contrast, is a life-long Socialist activist whose political model is the working-class leader Eugene V. Debs. Journalists may not perceive any difference but the Democratic primary voters will . . . .
4
To me it is inconceivable that any Democratic candidate will collect--or come anywhere near collecting--enough delegate votes by mid July to win the nomination outright. In addition to the Bernie/Elizabeth fight for the left, Mike Bloomberg will share (at best) the moderate vote. He certainly will keep Biden from running away with the nomination.
This Party is headed for a Convention brawl that will make or break it. Perhaps Buttigieg, Booker, or Klobuchar can aid some sort of reconciliation, but I don't see how.
My own opinion is that if any of the four ancient campaigners--Sanders, Warren, Biden, or Bloomberg--is the nominee, the Dem's will be lucky to match Clintons vote count from 2016, but will not motivate sufficient black voters to the booth to win.
If that is the case, the Dem's will overhaul the party. That could be a good thing. But, not in the age of Trump.
1
Warren could have run in 2016 but didn’t. Bernie did. Then he campaigned hard for Hillary. It’s clear his heart is in it.
Warren has problems with honesty, as the Native American claim suggests. Bernie is the real deal honest deal. He’s never been anything other than what he is.
4
I can’t vote for Sanders after the way he and his followers treated Hillary and the Democratic Party in the last election. I am leaning towards Warren, but will vote for anyone in the party other than Sanders. I don’t think Sanders should underestimate the bad blood he left in the last campaign.
If he stays in the race to the bitter end, Sanders piece of history will be keeping two women out of the White House.
2
@Mathew D Goodrich Sanders endorsed Hillary and campaigned for her. What more could he do?
The truth is that the Democrats, by moving into the historically moderate Republican position, are covering too much ground to cover with one "left" candidate. Democrats will always lose votes on their left or right side, depending on which candidate makes it.
Buttigieg and Bloomberg should really be moderate Republican candidates in contrast with what are now called progressive candidates on the left.
The unhinged Republican leadership only exists because most Republican voters will never vote for a Democrat in their whole life. I'm convinced most of them would gradually follow their party back to the right center with candidates like Nikki Haley, when vacated by the Democrats.
1
Their new pact should be that one takes the other as their VP choice. I'd be interested in a Warren/Sanders ticket or a Sanders/Warren ticket. Either way I feel it would be a nice situation for the nation. Meanwhile voters need to concentrate on clearing out Washington by voting. Get a few of your unregistered friends to register and vote.
1
Simple solution: Liz as VP for 4 years, then Pres for 8. Bernie is too old to go for more than one term, but deserves to be Pres.
4
@Paolo : Deserves? Like Hillary, he deserves. Remember, it was Hillary"s turn.
1
Have been saying this for a while. Plus adding AOC in 2024 as VP for Warren and President in 2028 or 2032.
2
As someone on the Warren/Sanders side of the Democratic Party, I wish we had a candidate who stood between the Progressive wing and the neoliberal Wall Street wing so we don’t go into the 2020 election fatally fractured. Maybe if Klobuchar spent some time explaining why she is not a devoted Wall Street neoliberal instead of focusing only on attacking Warren and Sanders, she could fill that role. How will she deal with economic inequality and its noxious effects? That’s what I want to hear from her.
@Bill B
Re: Amy Klobuchar:
"not a devoted Wall Street neoliberal"? So, for starters, prove a negative?
Combat economic inequality? How about raising taxes on the rich, and corporations closer to previous levels; free 2 year college; more and larger Pell grants; rural broadband; public health insurance option; etc., etc. All AK positions.
Like so many others, you seem not to have listened to her ideas - they are all over YouTube - and, if you pay attention, you'll see she exhibits charm, humor and obvious inner steel.
I think she'd make a fine POTUS; at the least she'd be a valuable VP candidate vs Trump and a worthy successor to the Presidency.
2
Maybe a fight between these two will crystalize, humanize and normalize the progressive concepts, all while taking the air out of Biden?
1
It's pretty clear to me: it's a Sanders-Warren ticket.
The only downside to that is the fear of alienating black voters, latino voters, LGBTQ voters, conservatives at the building trades...feminists unhappy with second place on the ticket...
However I have a question for all those in these movements: does socio-economic class, status and income, no longer count? Medical care? Right to a job? Forgiveness on student debt? A new Civilian Conservation Corps? Remediation, and into the modern grid for the old energy leaking homes and apartments, which means savings on the bills...
The question haunts the progressive camps of the Democratic Party: are you going to sit it out because your Identity Politics took a back seat to more Universal values - economic and ecological ones...AKA The Green New Deal...with some tangible benefits for everyone in the Party...and especially the bottom 60-80% of the constituents. And the upper 20%, what do they get? Saving the planet! A more just society and less angry people. And healthier ones.
Hardly a "consolation" prize, is it?
2
I'm a Liberal (shun progressive euphemism) and voted for Bernie in 2016 NY primary. Either Bernie or Liz would be fine however the country has undergone a form of brainwashing by the smarmy GOP and the Federalist Society. This process began with Reagan and has continued where even the media has accepted their prevarications, so much so that many people cannot tell the difference between the C word and Socialism. I like Warren but if she wants to win, she has escape from the AOC strait-jacket.
Sanders knew he could split the party in 2016 and give Trump his dreadful win. He'd do it again before he'd bow out. It's what he does. He and Comey bear a great responsibility for Trump, imo.
3
They will never consolidate their votes before Biden consolidates the rest of the party. Warren has a better chance than Bernie and he won't leave the race no matter what happens -- because the only thing sacred to Bernie is the sound of his own voice - and 1/3 to 1/2 of his voters are too sexist to vote for a woman anyway. Biden-Harris 2020. No doubt about it.
1
@Karin
Biden-Harris 2020 is a recipe for disaster. Too centrist and too old.
This will not excite young voters to turn out.
Also Biden has already indicated if he on the election he'd only stay for one term. That tells me he's too old to be doing this, and he knows it.
3
And yet another reason for Ranked Choice Voting!
2
This is what the progressive left always does. They will cancel each other out; they will most likely end up helping the Republicans.
2
Just look at this headline and it is obvious that the problem here is not with Warren and Sanders. The problem is with the media who love nothing better than to stir up a cat fight between candidates. Better to boost reader or viewer numbers?
Warren and Sanders both want the same things, systemic change that will bring fairness to the 99 percent and an end to the corruption in Washington. There is no reason to fight one another but that makes for a boring story and the media loves sensationalism. Sometimes the media does wonderful things and at other times they endanger us all. It was definitely the media that was partially responsible for trump's election. Now so many of these media folks are doing the same things that got us to this horrible place. Knock it off, for crying out loud!!!!
2
They'll work it out. They know what is at stake.
3
The biggest obstacles to both Sanders and Warren are the corporate DNC democrats (i.e. the Clinton Wing) and the elite media.
That is what explains Biden, Buttigieg and the Billionaire. All they have is money - while Sanders and Warren have people, ethusiasm, and organization.
4
The problem for Bernie is not Warren. The problem is Bernie himself. I am very sad to see a significant part of our country making the same mistake other countries have made in the past and paid for dearly. The mistake us embracing left-wing radicalism as a response to right-wing populism. If Bernie is nominated, only two outcomes are possible: either he will suffer the fate of Corbyn and lose spectacularly or by some improbable chance he will win and destroy the country - or rather complete the destruction that Trump has begun. As for Warren, she is marginally better because she is not a socialist ( or at least says she is not) but she has no chance of winning. In the primaries, I am voting for Mayor Pete. I’ll happily vote for him in the general election, much less happily vote for Biden or Bloomberg. But if Bernie is the nominee, I am voting for Trump. Anything else would be a betrayal of history.
3
Always keep in mind ONE thing. Sanders and /or Warren are really the only two(especially Sanders) that can generate enough excitement and new voters coming to the polls for democrats and since that is the only way very high democratic turnouts will help circumvent the gerrymandering and malfeasance in Republican states, a vote for any other corporate/establishment candidate will almost guarantee another repeat of an "apathetic" 2016 and FOUR more years of Trump.
In 2020, the "lesser of two evils" will not be an option.
116
@Deus
Sanders and Warren represent a win for Trump.
Democrats cannot win on their own. They need to draw from Republicans. Sanders and Warren will not accomplish that.
I know Times readers do not want to hear this but start asking folks Republicans you know and those outside the East/West Coasts to see what they think. They will vote for what they believe to be the lessor of two evils, Trump being a known quantity and Sanders/Warren just plain scary. They need a reason to vote for the Democrats, not a reason to keep what they have. Sanders/Warren are not it.
That's one reason among many 2016 ushered in Trump.
10
I find it mind-boggling that anyone would even consider staying home for the 2020 election. If you've watched the Trump show for the past three years and you're still willing to sit it out if you don't get your preferred candidate, then that's on you.
I like some candidates more than others, but one thing is for certain: every Democrat in the field would be a better president than Trump. The "lesser of two evils" is absolutely an option. Vote Blue, no matter who.
15
@Deus "new voters coming to the polls for democrats "
Ah, yes, the mythical non-voter argument. Please provide citation when it's ever turned out to be the case.
3
A Warren and Sanders ticket would blow my mind with happiness! Then we could truly see what a progressive movement/support would look like.
I'm so over feeling like I need to support Biden because he is the safe choice, blah, blah, but of course I would, like so many other who are afraid of losing that we are willing to compromise and give up our dreams of a better America. Not that Biden wouldn't do a fine job, but I don't know that he will be able to withstand a run against Trump and if he does he isn't remarkable.
Top 2 contenders should always be our candidates. Why wouldn't we send our best and most popular, VP choices any other way are just a waste of time.
If everyone is just interested in the best for our country then this approach should be a slam dunk.
Warren & Sanders 2020
3
If Warren and Sanders merged campaigns and promised to make Buttigieg the Secretary of State I think they'd build a great coalition.
1
The real question.
Is this a populist versus establishment election?
Johnson in the U.K. is seen as a populist. Corbyn not so much.
1
Don't forget, my fellow lefties, before you get too caught up in imagining our ideal America, to ponder a moment or two the implications of Bader-Ginsberg leaving the court-- as she surely will within the next 5 years.
If you think a 5-4 SC is hard to live with, try imagining a 6-3 bench, with most of the 6 being very young.
Just something to think about.
Are you willing to risk this in order to place either Sanders or Warren in the WH, with a Senate and House nowhere near far enough left to pass the progressive legislation Bernie and Liz are now selling?
Oh, and one more thing to mull over. What do you think will happen to the earth between now and 2025 if trump remains in the WH, denying climate change and overturning environmental legislation?
How many more chances do you think we'll get to stop these dystopian nightmares from becoming reality?
2
@Sixofone Silly question. The lefties always are happier to let the Republican win than to compromise their precious principles: Nixon, W, and Trump (2016 & 2020) should send them gift baskets.
And for the record, I do acknowledge that most Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in the general. But by that time the damage was done, with their infantile behavior at the convention, incessant whining about superdelegates (never mind that she won 55% of the primary votes), and enthusiastic dissemination of right-wing anti-Clinton smears.
1
The Presidency will be determined by a few swing voters in a few swing states. Ever ask yourself if they like Sanders or Warren better? Turnout will be very high and the base on both sides will be energized. So people on the fence call the shots. I'm not happy about it but the electoral college situation is pretty clear. Winning the nomination or even the popular vote means nothing without the EC.
2
Actually the odds for any of Warren or Sanders are fairly good as in my view the media experts are making the same mistakes as in 2016. During the republican primaries, they all thought Trump would end up quitting and that the republican primaries would inevitably select a republican centrist and reject Trump’s populist appeal. Then in the election, everybody underestimated the strength of his populist appeal again as well as the fact that centrism just does not generate the passion nor the turn out needed to win. And Trump won.
Surest way to lose for the dems? Select yet again an other free trader centrist that is liberal on cultural issues and tone deaf on the plight of the working class. Basically democratic centrists are blind to the fact that they are seen as an elitist party that has relentlessly pushed free trade, pro-immigration and pro-business agendas over the past 40 years, and seen as mostly responsible for the stress and misery of the working class and its deterioration of quality of life and self respect.
One can disagree with this assessment but the point is, this is what most “Obama to Trump” voters believe. It’s by no mean certain but it is very possible that the only way to win in this day and age of winning on emotional appeal and populist ideas is to run broadly populist campaigns that working classes can respond do. What they will not be responding to are Biden, Bloomberg, Booker, Buttigieg, ... more of the same.
112
@R.
Good points and maybe all true.
However there is always a balance to strike that maximizes the voters for each of the candidates. Sanders and Warren might gain some, but they will also lose moderate capitalists and independents who would have voted for a moderate democrat.
The question is are there enough (democratic?) socialist supporters in this country to make up for the loss of moderates in the party.
4
@R.
How do you know this is what Obama to Trump voters think?
3
@R. The only problem with this is that some of the policies advocated by Sanders and/or Warren are not necessarily liked by the populist working class. Medicare for all scares union voters. Many in the working class fear the cost of environmental policies which they don't want to bear the cost of. Many in the working class don't like government regulation. Many in the working class are anti-immigration. I'm not saying they are right to feel this way, but be careful not to confuse progressives with the working class. They are not one and the same.
7
I will only vote for Sanders or Warren. None of the other Dems represent me or care about the main concerns of my family: the outrageous cost of for profit health care and high interest student debt.
3
@Zejee
That's the sort of attitude that put trump in the WH. Those who sat out the election are responsible. You want 4 more years of insanity?
Mature people are able to choose something unappealing in order to avoid the completely unacceptable. I'm hoping more voters show more maturity on election day next year than they did 3 years ago.
3
Headlines we'll never see:
"Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg Have a Problem: Each Other"
Of course, you won't see their policies picked about down to atom either. That budget scrutiny isn't for our eternally failing wars which have only begotten us more war (and massive profits for the weapons manufacturers, which lead to massive donations to the politicians willing to sacrifice human life for personal financial gain); isn't it funny that scrutiny is reserved for policies that might the world a better place?
4
@Trevor Bajus
Buttegig will hit the wall in SC. He is at 10% nationally. He is only over the 15% threshofd to get delegates in a handful of states. After Super Tuesday, he will be out of the race as hiis funding will dry up due to his failure to win delegates.
1
What the Democrats do not understand is that by running with ultra liberal or literally socialist candidates they are making a Trump reelection much more likely. Even if they win, the country does not support these ultra liberal ideas as a whole. Look at the polling for MFA - it's in the 30's! If they try and implement that it will be a congressional massacre in 2022 with the GOP picking up dozens of seats and welcome back to the era of Tea Party politics. Trump is probably going to be the weakest incumbent President of all time and only the Democrats could make this election so difficult.
2
@Ken Parcell :
"What the Democrats do not understand is that by running with ultra liberal or literally socialist candidates they are making a Trump reelection much more likely. "
You're describing neither Sanders nor the republican Warren.
"Even if they win, the country does not support these ultra liberal ideas as a whole."
Actually the citizenry largely support single payer medical, strengthening Social Security, breaking up big banks, and free state universities. An FT tax is also quite popular.
You read like so many who defended the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2015/16, when she clearly hadn't learnt her lessons from 2008.
Furthermore, Trump's base didn't elect him; it was 2X Obama voters switching or staying home. You're encouraging them to do the same in 2020.
2
No, they don't have to compete. They could easily join forces and win the upcoming election together. Ladies first, Warren as President, Sanders as Vice President.
2
Bernie is an independent and scares folks mid center. He needs to stop running and losing and support Warren.
1
@Meg Riley:
"Bernie is an independent and scares folks mid center. He needs to stop running and losing and support Warren."
We read garbage like this in 2016, how did that work out for you?
Warren spewed her Venezuela ignorance, she clearly is still a republican.
1
It was Clinton who lost, not Bernie, remember? Warren chose to support the loser, not Bernie, remember?
1
@Gary A.
Let's get real about Elizabeth Warren. She's brilliant, she's thoughtful, she's progressive, and she's a great debater. She'd be a phenomenal candidate under ordinary circumstances.
These are not ordinary times. Senator Warren is behind Sanders and Biden. There may very well be more moderates than progressives. There's nothing to indicate (as of now) that she'd run better against Trump than Sanders or Biden.
I'm also concerned that she wouldn't fare well against Trump: I don't see any sharp elbows or a willingness to hit Trump "below the belt." With all due respect to Bill Maher, she's another Democrat who would bring a knife to a gunfight.
3
There are two issues only in this campaign, and they are : defeat this menace in the White House before our country and its institutions are permanently damaged, and second stop the takeover of the judiciary by the hard right.
The error within our Left wing is the claim that only their two anointed ones (Sanders not even a Democrat, and in our primary only to prevent Nader 2.0) are the only hope for real change and decency in our country. The platforms and proposals of our moderate candidates are in no way GOP-lite. They are liberal, and decent and more importantly "do-able".
They are a world away from the Republicans and their harmful and hateful policies.
Senators Warren and Sanders are giving us aspiration and pie-in-the-sky with dubious revenue streams to fund massive spending programs in the trillions. But leave that out and you still have the issue of who can be elected. The true believers can't be instructed but clearer eyed persons know it is not the Left wing of our party. The recent UK election is an alarm bell sounding in the night. Take heed!
Trump will make immigration and the economy the top two issues. Americans favor planned immigration schemes, blocking illegal border crossings and visa overstays, blocking the flood of false asylum claims, and no catch-and-release. Wanders/Sarren favor paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants, weakening ICE, and more catch-and-release. Trump wins on this issue. Unless the economy tanks between now and November 2020, he wins on that issue too. Bottom line: only Biden or Bloomberg offer hope to the Democrats, and even then, not so much.
2
Sanders and Warren have bigger problems than each other. Two aging bolsheviks trying to sell economic anarchy disguised as socialism in a country enjoying full employment and a robust economy is not a plan for success. We have Trump in the White House because of Democratic mismanagement and all they (the Democrats) can offer us is this Burns & Allen (Google them) style duo. People want to package them as running mates? Let’s hope that the economy can survive Trump’s second term, because it’s coming.
2
A better idea is that they both drop out of the race together. Their platforms have no basis and are just demagoguery.
3
I have sad news for Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders and his supporters proved in the last presidential election that they would rather see a Republican (and a horrible one, at that) win than any Democrat. They somehow believe this will bring on “the revolution.”
As we now see, all Hillary Clinton’s defeat did is bring on is the destruction of our fragile Republic. Is there any doubt that while she was a middle of the road Democrat, she would not have damaged our Democracy and our norms in the way Donald Trump has.
Do you really think Sanders and his supporters have learned their lesson? Will they support the eventual Democratic nominee, or will they willfully refuse to accept reality and continue to carp and whine until they have fatally weakened the nominee and suppressed turnout among Democratic leaning voters. I know which path I believe they will take and it leads to another victory by Donald Trump.
4
By all means, let's ignore that a far left candidate in the UK running against a total buffoon lost in a landslide last week.
Neither Bernie nor Elizabeth can win the Electoral College. They have no appeal to swing voters in the Midwest. If you can't stand Biden vote for Klobuchar or Mayor Pete. Both Bill Clinton and Obama ran and won as political moderates.
I don't want democrats to occupy the moral high ground. I want democrats to occupy the White House in 2020.
7
More conflict driven press coverage obscuring what is actually important, and feeding the moderates, who in fact, are not moderates.
Moderates on both sides gave us what we have now, a stupid global mess when the earth can least afford it. Moderates won't take responsibility for the last forty years of decline, and neither will the press or party leaders dare state the truth. We've had incompetent leaders more or less all this time so now we are surrounded by challenges on every front. Why the technocrats look so good, mayor Pete, and I bet, Bloomberg will rise.
What once defined the middle class is no more. You want that then you better have at least a $60K job probably more. And really if you are just starting out, you will need much more.
Can't make it in America anymore!
2
Sanders should drop out. He is too old and had a heart attack because of the stress of running. He won't be able to deal with the stress of being President. He is just a dark horse candidate, siphoning votes and money away from a more viable female candidate, for the second time.
2
Tell that to the millions sending him their lunch money every month.
2
I think it’s clear that Hillary Clinton was not a more viable candidate. And I don’t say that just because she lost to Trump.
1
Two of the Democrat candidates that best represent the real party. March on!
2
Well we know Bernie's not going to withdraw.
[Circular firing squad]
2
That's why they should unite... Sanders / Warren winning ticket...!
2
After reading these comments, I can only think of a group of people fighting over a beach ball without noticing that a tidal wave is coming in.
Get out of your progressive bubble! Trump only needs to say, “illegal aliens,” “socialism,” “welfare,” “reparations,” and the election is lost.
I never fail to be amazed that anyone thinks Bernie & Liz are viable candidates. They have little chance of winning the purple states, and zero chance of winning any red ones.
Enjoy your fantasies while they last. Trump will be the Presidential Tweeter yet again.
4
The entire electorate will choose a president, not just progressives. Unless and until progressives persuade millions more voters to lean left, their enthusiasm dangerously ignores a statistical reality: most peoples’ views are clustered in the middle: it’s a little thing called the bell-shaped curve.
So, if Sanders or Warren can move significant numbers of voters to get on board with more progressive policies, then either one could have a chance of marshaling enough votes to win both the primary along with the general election. Otherwise, all of this idealistic talk detracts from the urgent need to defeat Trump.
So, my message to progressives is to either convince millions more voters to share your view, or let it go in 2020. The country can’t afford to bet the farm on idealistic progressive policies and let Trump leverage that into another Electoral college minority win.
1
I was once in a situation (I won't say in which role) in which there was a very pretty girl steadily heading toward engagement and marriage with a fellow. Just as being employed or occuppied in other contexts often helps open up other opportunities, this pre-engagement status triggered interest from other parties, and somewhat mutually damaging rivalries ensued. Neither, but somebody else, married the girl in the end.
I also read Hamlet, in which suitors for affection (Hamlet, Hamlet senior, Claudius, Laertes and others vie and attack and scheme and undercut -often to the total bewilderment of ladies involved- until, confirming "A house divided against itself cannot stand," all in Elsinore are dead and Fortinbras swoops in to take over, literally uncontested.
Who is the "belle" in this election? The presidency, but in short term, the nomination. Who the "Fortinbras" figure? Michael Bloomberg and/or Trump.
Democrats must settle this internally, and not Elsinore-style, to avoid catastrophe. Frankly, the best way may be a, intra-party referendum on every possible president-v.p. ticket. I mean, every possibility. Warren-Sanders, Sanders-Warren, Bloomberg-Sanders, Warren-Bloomberg, Buttegieg-Bloomberg etc etc etc.
Then have participants rank-order their preference. Do it fast, do it now, do it right. Otherwise sit back & enjoy pres. Trumpinbras' next 4 years.
1
Very interesting BUT the "belle" is the electoral college, which means the swing voters in a few swing states. Anybody can win the Democratic nomination. But if swing voters are afraid or angered by that person's policies -- we all lose. All of us and millions of people hurt by current US foreign policy.
The problem with both senators Warren and Sanders running on the same ticket is if they win the Democrats would be down two Senate seats until the special election in the respective States. Both Vermont and Massachusetts have Republican Governors right now who would appoint an interim replacement.
7
Here, the whole is LESS than the sum of its parts if one drops out. In other words, Bernie won’t take all of Warren’s votes, and vice versa. Therefore, the correct strategy for them is to stay separate and maintain their unspoken, non-aggression pact, until the last possible minute.
5
The math was obvious six months ago, but it is possible those in a thought bubble could have believed that just over half of the progressive vote was enough to beat Biden.
It is very easy to agree that (non law enforcement, non military) government should be smaller, it is much harder to agree that it should be bigger and how it should be bigger.
To save some time, notice that about the same number of people believe each extreme, so our government, as flawed as it is, might be, very approximately, at a locally optimal size. Given the madness of anarchy or a totalitarian state, there is also a good chance that an approximately locally optimal size is also globally optimal - the best possible.
If this is so, extreme candidates like Warren, Sanders and Yang have little chance in a general election against anyone less horrid than Trump. They have shaped the debate and highlighted injustices, but it will soon be time to focus on the median Wisconsin and Arizona voter.
1
It’s too late for incremental change. At the current pace:
- 5 years from now, 30% of U.S. renters will spend half of their income on rent.
- 7 years from now, healthcare will cost $17,000 per U.S. citizen per year (one fifth of GDP).
- 15 years from now, public college in the U.S. will cost $54,000 per year. Private college will cost $121,000 per year.
- 17 years from now, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted.
- 33 years from now, the top 10% of U.S. households will have 100% of the wealth.
- 80 years from now, sea levels will have risen 6 feet.
I'm leaning toward Sanders, but I'd be happy with Warren, too. All the other candidates are offering Band-Aids for bullet wounds.
12
Bernie’s commitment to M4A has been remarkably successful. First, he moved the Overton window, so that the public option is now considered the moderate position.
Second, it’s been kryptonite for any other candidate that touches it.
10
Senators Sanders and Warren have a lot to say and have earned the trust and respect of many. They’ve also had a long time to show what they can do in national positions of power. If Iowa and New Hampshire voters show they have confidence in a new generation of leadership represented by Pete Buttigieg, I hope both senators will also rally around the Mayor and help usher in a new era for Democrats and the nation.
2
@Seth Eisenberg - Iowa and New Hampshire lack any diversity. It would be a mistake for us to back Buttigieg, even if Iowa and New Hampshire voters select him. He will never, and I mean never, get the black vote, which is absolutely key to a Democrat being put over the top.
3
Pete is the same old oligarchy playbook in a younger body. No, thank you.
4
Tackling economic inequality is the one topic that the majority of Americans, Democratic and Republican, agree upon. Progressive Democrats should focus more on leveling the economic playing field, and a wealth tax of some kind.
Elizabeth Warren's interview with Lawrence O'Donnell, where she declared she would take all possible action to give Health Care relief to the American public, was the kind of argument we need to hear, rather than an inflexible proposal. With that kind of rhetoric, impassioned yet smart, she will be able to appeal to swing voters just fine.
I am a Warren supporter, but I am desperately worried about splitting the progressive vote and having the nomination go to a moderate who will just go back to the non-functional past. If only the Democratic primary could be ranked choice! Is it too late?
66
@As-I-Seeit Why ISN'T it ranked choice, anyhow?
4
@As-I-Seeit
It is not "inflexible" to come to the negotiating table with a strong position. In fact, it is the ONLY way to negotiate, especially when you are doing so on behalf of the American people. Yes, of course, we will have to make concessions when pushing the bill through Congress, and that is why, as a proponent of M4A, I don't want my starting position to be compromised (as Buttigieg admitted--before the billionaires began whispering in his ear--M4A already IS the compromise).
It is for this reason (and honestly many others, including a boilerplate establishment Dem foreign policy) that Elizabeth Warren is out. Her M4A plan is an unworkable mess, beginning with a broken public option, tied to funding achieved through immigration reform (!) and regressive taxes, and necessitating a minimum of two rounds of battles in Congress. For a woman who apparently has a plan for everything, this one is a disaster--a plan designed to fail.
Don't be fooled by the corporate-owned media: There is only one progressive in the race and you already know his name.
4
@As-I-Seeit There was a reason the nurses of America endorsed Bernie. They are in on the inside of what goes on in health care and you can bet they studied each candidates' plans carefully. I am with them.
9
Bernie is the choice. He can get people behind the big ideas. Warren wants to be a technocrat but you're not selling people on big ideas with detailed budgets and policy proposals. You lead with the idea and sort out the details later, and Bernie gets that.
14
I would suggest to anyone that still believes that the corporate/establishment/moderate/centrist neo-liberal democratic candidates like Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and others of their ilk are the answer to beating Trump, take a closer look at the leadership of the congress who just handed "on a platter" a $741 BILLION DOLLAR Pentagon handout which turned out to be everything Trump and his "Trumpublicans" wanted(and more) all concluded during the impeachment process.
Sanders, Warren, Gabbard and Yang are now really democrats only choice because they don't take bribes from lobbyists and they will fight for all Americans. The rest are just Republicans in disguise.
11
“Consolidating the Left”? Funny. How broadly are you defining that term—since “Liberal” now means neoliberal moderate Republican? Warren might be welcome to serve in a Sanders administration, but only Bernie is a Progressive. Only Bernie has the long-term dedication to the ideals and policies of the Left in America. Only Bernie beats Trump.
6
@Paul Tidwell
Paul, you need to spend some time outside California.
Bernie has zero- ZERO- chance of beating trump.
1
If Hillary had reached out to Bernie as her running mate, Trump would never have happened. Not by a long shot.
13
Hillary despises Progressive policies! That’s one reason why she lost!
1
@Lilly
Bernie wouldn't have stood a chance against Trump. But the two of them together? A moderate and a progressive on the ticket? If they had hooked up we wouldn't be in this absurd position.
1
Whose support is needed to ultimately win? If you want me in your “coalition” – young, black and female then your decision is easy – Bernie Sanders is your choice. But if the PUMAs of ’08 are your target then Elizabeth Warren serves your purpose.
4
And there is the tickets, president and VP. Thats how we consolidate and avoid the corporate interests that come with Biden and Buttigieg.
4
Elizabeth for PREZ, Bernie for VP
Or
Bernie for PREZ, Liz for VP.
I don’t care.
They both are for REAL Medicare for ALL (single payer). Not the half-baked M4ALL that the other candidates promote, which will leave a dysfunctional, unaffordable medical system in place.
Either scenarios are better than the other Dems, and 10^1000 power better than Czar Trump. What a dumpster fire of a President the U.S. mis-picked last time in 2016.
By the way, where can I get a written copy of Trump’s promised health care plan from last election? Trump in 2015 promised “we will have the best healthcare plan, it will be cheaper, and EVERYONE will be covered.” Seriously, can someone send this to me, or the NYT. I want to see his promised healthcare plan.
3
Create a Sanders-Warren ticket now!
10
Will happen. No worries.
The editors of the Times don’t like it but it will be Rock in the Casbah as The Clash sang in their better days :-)
2
Sanders and Warren are too extreme for the American public. Nominating either of them would be a gift to Trump. Biden is not my favorite candidate (Booker is) but I'll support him over the extremists any day.
7
Are you kidding? The main concerns of American families: the high cost of for profit health care and the burden of high interest student debt. I will not vote for any candidate who will not support Medicare for All.
1
This problem will sort itself out. When Bernie wins 3 out of the first 4 primaries it will be obvious to Warren that she should drop out and endorse him.
10
I’ve always thought that Sanders should have lent his support to Warren from the start of the race instead of running himself.
5
@Larry Figdill
Or, since Bernie ran in 2016, built a large grassroots movement and shifted the political discourse of the country away from its 40 year calamitous turn to the far Right, maybe she should have supported him instead of running herself?
1
IMHO - the winning ticket would be Biden/Warren - but that is far fetched-
That combination will avoid the Sanders/ Hillary episode- but egos are - well - egos.
1
Talk about ego. It’s Her turn...?! Not endorsing progressive policies until they can be used to further her power, now? Not to mention how many more fell behind and the brutality suffered by millions that is responsible for...? No. Bernie isn’t in this for his ego. He knows this isn’t about him. This is #NotMeUs.
1
Count me among Bernie Sanders diehard supporters who are not pleased with Elizabeth Warren's decision to become a 2020 presidential contender. Were she not in the picture, Bernie ,"the thought leader" to put it mildly ,would , with their combined numbers, 17 and 16 percent (2nd and third place) be leading leading Biden in the most recent poll by 33 to 27 percent. Moreover, Warren should have supported Bernie instead of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Bernie was beating Trump in every poll four years ago. A missed opportunity the consequences of which will take years to recover.
14
Why not make this same argument about Biden/Buttigeig/Kloubacher? Are they not splitting the moderate vote?
I don't think attacking each other would do either any good. Their supporters like both of them. One attacking the other risks alienating those supporters who see merits in both.
They should point out where they differ, of course. That's what races are about. But that's all.
My more conspiratorial side sees this article as an attempt to get the two progressive front-runners to tear each other apart in order to weaken the movement.
7
Only a moderate and non-confrontational Democrat has a realistic chance of beating Trump. Middle America is not buying into Sanders' or Warren's ideas because they are seen as being too extreme to pass through Congress. This is why Biden is still a strong contender.
53
@Jack Both Senators Sanders and Warren have been in the position to introduce the changes they are campaigning on, but failed because of the Republican Senate. So the purpose of running for the presidency is to obtain the majority mandate. It appears that their stance will threaten the down ballots for the senate and the house. The debate criteria (# of individual donors and poll) both depend on name recognition in the early stage of the primary, and therefore favor Washington insiders, and pretty much "weed" out candidates who are formally governors and actually have governing experience in recent past. Among newcomers, only Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Yang managed to break through. Now the Sanders and Warren campaign attack them for private fundraising and bundling, practices both Senators engaged for years, and even sent out fundraising email by insinuating impropriety. Most inexcusable is to mobilize their own supporters to protest at campaign rallies of other candidates for, for example, a climate plan targeting 2050 is not soon enough! If Senators Sanders and Warren care about progressive causes, they should take the long view to mentor and support rising young candidates. Mr. Buttigieg, in particular, has been exceptionally effective in advocating and articulating progressive values to voters in much wider political spectrum. Looking to two 70-year-old for leadership is not sustainable. The combative style of the Squad preaches only to the choir.
11
@Jack As a Middle American, I disagree. I am struggling over who I will caucus for - Warren or Sanders. Why does everyone outside of the Midwest think they know the Midwest?
16
@Jack
This is just false. Middle America largely voted for Bernie in the 2016 Democratic Primary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
It was the liberal elite bastions that supported the centrist candidate, not the Midwest.
11
I would vote for Warren if she is the nominee but not for Sanders. If Sanders is the nominee, I will write in someone else.
4
why....? they say the same things....have the same values...
1
@Judith Turpin
That's counterproductive and how Trump got in.
2
Do you care to explain why would you do something that sounds like a two year old’s temper tantrum.
4
This Bloc of uncompromising voters to the far left of center are responsible for Trump, and they will be responsible for his continuation in power. I recall Bernie supporters shrugging in 2015 at the possibility of a Trump win, saying to me that they wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party and that if Trump won that would be fine because things had to get worse before they got better. Sure. I remember some Bernie voters I knew sitting the election out, and others actually telling others to vote for Trump if Hillary was nominated. Right. I remember incredible stubbornness and refusals to engage whenever I asked reasonable questions about their health care ideas, their thoughts on banking, or about the very idea of corporations as a legal form. They weren't thinking clearly or considering reasonable alternatives, which is how they boxed themselves in with Medicare for All, an idea which makes no sense to me when there are easier and better fixes available. I remember them heckling and harassing and booing their way across the country -- including heckling and harassing me myself for supporting Hillary. I remember them running us through a gauntlet, and booing and heckling everything Hillary said, to her face, at her own local events, which they entered pretending to be her supporters. These "activists" were anything but democratic. They wanted a win by force, or to scuttle the ship.
19
@Joe
A large majority of the people who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary also voted for Clinton in the general election. Many Sanders supporters are not even registered Democrats; they’re independents. So why would anyone expect them to vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is, if they have major disagreements with the nominee? That makes no sense. If you want to keep dividing people and re-elect Trump, disparaging Warren and Sanders supporters is a good way to do it.
15
@Joe
No, the Sanders supporters wanted a candidate that actually worked for them, NOT a corporate/establishment neo-liberal like Hillary Clinton whose policies and history got Donald Trump elected in the first place.
1
@Joe - Boy, you've really fallen for Russia's version of what happened in 2016, hook, line and sinker. Check your facts. 95% of what you've written is simply not true.
1
One thing is for certain.
Trump will get more populist votes then Biden.
His ideas are just like moderate Republican ideas.
It will be a fight "inside the establishment"
And I can not really see any big change at all.
And he will have a minority of the Democrats behind him.
And certainly not the progressive part of the party.
If I was o decide I will give Sander the first four years with Warren as a VP, and then Warren as president for the next four years with AOC as VP. And then AOC as president with a man as VP. That should ensure some progression in the American society.
It will also engage the voters, especially the young one's today and in the future. That is what American needs because everything is about to change. Everything from how you see your connection with Israel, to this stupid secular thinking as grown-up Americans have today when it comes to religion. Informed, enlightened people is what the internet has brought us. And that is not the fact today.
In the future, we will shake our heads about this crazy two-party politics, the only contribution it has given to your country is that of protecting the rich and powerful.
And Biden and Trump, the democratic and republican establishment, both fight for this.
Tho the younger generations will fight for equality in rights for everyone, they do not want to be ruled by politicians, instead they want the politicians to rule on their behalf.
3
What if both of these candidates took part in state elections, limited to the Democratic Party, prior to the national election? The winner of these state elections would be chosen as the party nominee at a convention in say, Milwaukee, and candidate would run for the Democrats in the national election in November.
An idea?
1
When Barney Frank speaks, banks love it. Who cares what this neoliberal has to say.
Go, Bernie, go.
Time to send another $30.00
Ps. If Warren earns the nomination, I’ll vote for her in the general. Heck, I’ll vote for a dish towel over the narcissist con man.
11
Why can't the Dems ever just command the narrative, try new things? I will have Warren and Sanders' signs in my yard. I would love to see them run as a duo, now. Maybe it is not a practical plan; maybe it would be an utter failure.... Who knows? I do not trust the polls at all (thanks to Cassandra-like Theodor Adorno's insights).
If Warren and Sanders started having Town Hall events together, I think we would see an amazing groundswell and I know that we would be having a substantial, robust conversation with meaningful debate. Both are smart as whips and speak directly, with conviction. I have lots to quibble with for each candidate; still, I want the real deal--committed fighters for the common good, decency, and the working people of this country.
108
And the deck chairs on the Titanic will be beautifully arranged.
3
@Concerned
So you want to steal the liferaft?
5
@Concerned Ugh, this no time for pithiness. If you don’t want progressive change, fine. If you do, then support it.
5
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are no longer the key players trying to be the nominee of the Democratic party. Neither have a chance at the nomination. The establishment democrats have Biden as their top choice and Billionaire babbling Bloomberg is likely to move to the front with support from the mayors of American and congresspersons who have run for offices with his financial backing.
I don't think Sanders and Warren are a problem to each other. Their problem is they are going to be the bigger tax and spend advocates than any other in the field. I don't think more than 20% of the US population is going to be for self promoting socialists. Smart democrats will rally behind Bloomberg no matter how many attend Sanders and Warren rallies.
3
@Girish Kotwal
Bloomberg? Are you kidding me? it seems when we have a discussion about the threat of the Oligarchs destroying democracy in America, it seems you have no problem with it.
1
American families are struggling to afford expensive for profit health care and high interest student loans. I will not vote for any candidate who will not support Medicare for All. It’s a life and death issue for me. My expensive for profit health insurance almost killed me.
1
@Girish Kotwal
At least "tax and spend" is responsible. Trump is "cut taxes and spend". The deficit has ballooned on his watch.
1
They should get on the same ticket. Warren/ Sanders would be a brilliant duo.
7
@Andrew
You must be a conservative. Good joke. Right?
Older “progressives” sound so very cynical about any form of idealism. My god, is this what I have to look forward to? I’m already feeling the tug towards a more conservative outlook as I get older (age 38 here), but I can’t imagine that my current life trajectory will lead to such a lack of faith in dedicated, system-informed, experienced, and capable idealists. Observing these conversations are so instructive from a anthropological standpoint.
2
Idealism has its place. The next election could truly have existential implications for the country. Save the idealism until after we’re assured that we still have a semblance of a democracy.
2
Continue to ignore progressive issues—supported by the majority of American families —and continue to lose
1
Warren’s main issue is that the Bernie of Bust crowd want Bernie, and only Bernie.
If Warren was to win the contest between them both, Bernie’s people will not auto change to her. That’s not what they stand for. They want Bernie, no one else will do.
Bernie’s issue is not half as bad, as Warren’s fans do seem to say they will go to Bernie if he’s the one.
But on this Highlander contest, neither has to worry, since neither will win.
The DNC plays dirty, and the Bernie folk know very well how that feels. They saw DWS gift the DNC super delegates to Hillary to make sure she was The One. So far the DNC has been keeping a low profile, they learned from 2016 that you cannot show your cards too soon. They are waiting for Super Tuesday when they magically gift Biden just enough Super Delegates to ensure he’s The One.
So don’t worry Bernie Bros and Warren faithful, duke it out all you want, at the end you both loose anyway, courtesy of the DNC.
2
@AutumnLeaf
Why don't you look at the polls and actually see who the second choices are? Clearly, you have not.
1
The missus slapped a Warren sticker on the bumper of my car. I stuck a Sanders sticker next to it. That, to me, seems like the ticket: Sanders/Warren 2020.
8
@Chris Rasmussen
Yes, exactly. That is the ticket the Republicans are praying for.
1
It would be great to see them come together and announce: Liz for Prez and Bernie for VP. They would be Unstoppable.
1
Does not a Warren-Sanders ticket have the numbers to win?
Other tickets: Biden-Baldwin (Tammy); Klobachar-Booker.
Mayor Pete is a road to nowhere.
3
Democrats have two great candidates in Warren/Sanders and an unfit President, galvanized in crime and yet Warren/Sanders is somehow a problem? I don't think so----
5
Warren should be Bernies VP!
7
The problem Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have is less each other than that neither sufficiently acknowledges the real enemy: not President Trump (for the time being) but "moderate" Democrats, bent on denying them the Presidency at all costs, even if it results (again) in a Trump victory. Rather than deliver an easy knockout blow against Joe Biden, Sanders unfailingly refers to him as his good friend, just as he cordially excused Hillary Clinton's emails in 2016. Warren stammers when posed with a hypothetical reference to Biden's son, her poll numbers sinking in the process. Continued attacks from the sidelines from moderate heroine Hillary Clinton merit nary a response. Even news of threats from former President Obama to sabotage Mr. Sanders should he get too far meets respectful silence. Sanders (in particular) and Warren have a duty as viable candidates who arguably represent most closely the interests of the majority of Americans to aggressively punch through the distorting effects of establishment interests on the campaign.
59
@Edwin So if I, a democrat, don’t support Sanders or Warren, I’m the “real enemy”? Good luck winning the primaries with an attitude like that.
27
Unfortunately, we are in an age when “moderate” anything is irrelevant.
5
@Edwin
Biden will take himself out, by doing things like refusing to put a coherent sentence together, and yelling "let's do push your" at potential voters.
Even Centrists are trying to replace him already.
Bringing and Warren are wise not to attack fellow Democrats except to say surrender is not winning.
5
The takeaway: A Sanders Warren ticket is the winning ticket. While Biden may still top some polls, you add up the numbers for these two progressives and there is no doubt what kind of policies most democratic and many independent voters want.
10
Bernie is a socialist through and through. After spending most of his adult life in D.C., what can he tout as bills and policies that he provided leadership for and that have positively impacted American lives? Did I miss them? Warren is a tv ad target after claiming Native American heritage and then finally having to pony up her plan for wealth taxes to pay for Medicare of All. People vote their pocketbooks. Consider how the wealthy New Yorkers and Californians pushed back by trying to figure out a way to circumvent Trump's federal income tax changes that limit state and local tax deductions to $10,000. Consider the states with net outmigration. It's not the low income tax states.
2
So Americans can never ever have what citizens of every other first world nation have had for decades. American families must continue to suffer with expensive for profit health care and high interest student debt. No relief in sight. Thanks to “centrists”.
1
@Zejee How many people do you know who pay more in federal taxes than they owe; who think the federal gov't does a good job overall managing VA healthcare; want to give up their private health insurance; want to forgive student debt when they sacrificed to help their own kids through college?
The rules governing the Democratic primaries are as follows.
Primary candidates are awarded pledged delegates if they receive at least 15% of the vote--pledged delegates are awarded proportional to their vote among those passing the 15% threshold. There are lots of states where Sanders or Warren do not currently pass the 15% threshold. There are few where Biden does not currently pass the 15% threshold.
At the convention, if no one has a majority of pledged delegates on the first ballot, then unpledged delegates vote on subsequent ballots. Those are the rules.
The progressive wing of the party may dissipate its strength by splitting its vote. I don't see either Sanders or Warren dropping out "for the cause". If one of them doesn't win the nomination, I worry there will be acrimony and discord around the rules being "unfair", particularly if the vote goes to more than one ballot and unpledged delegates vote.
Joe Biden will need to run a spectacularly inept campaign to lose the nomination. Perhaps he will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He seems to be doing his level best to squander his advantages. Warren and Sanders supporters: Please check out the rules so you aren't surprised when they disadvantage your candidate. We won't have time for acrimony after the convention because the rules are "unfair" if we to beat Trump.
1
@MVonKorff
In 2016 Hilary Clinton ran a spectacularly inept campaign to to lose to Trump.
She never sufficiently address the email server issue, she did not campaign strongly in Michigan and Wisconsin. She did not focus enough on voter turnout especially in black and Latino communities.
Don't put it past Biden to screw this up. He's run for president before and been unsuccessful.
2
@Carl Right you are regarding Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. Biden does seem to be screwing up what should be a sure thing. Winning a few primaries can change the narrative and confidence of a candidate though. The fact that neither Sanders nor Warren has been able to pull away from Biden suggests their support is not very deep, although it is certainly enthusiastic.
If you go through the current polling data state by state, and add up the delegates, Biden gets close to winning on the first ballot. Neither Warren nor Sanders do, because they both have lots of states where they don't pass the 15% threshold. The 15% threshold will disadvantage them in forming a coalition, because fewer pledged delegates will be won than if there were a single candidate on the left, and they don't command a large majority even within the Democratic Party. This does not bode well for a convention able to throw its full support behind the winning candidate, whoever that may be, unless Sanders or Warren captures the nomination, which is not the most likely outcome.
It is remarkable that most Sanders and Warren supporters don't seem to know the primary rules. They aren't a secret. If neither Warren not Sanders is nominated, the rules will come as a big surprise to many of their supporters. It could be very divisive if the word is that they were cheated out of the nomination by the rules. If their supporters don't say this, social media trolls certainly will.
1
1) Bernie Sanders is just too old to be president, especially after a heart attack. He would be well past 80 by the end of his term. Do you really think voters would accept that prospect? Should they?
2) Bernie Sanders is not even a member of the Democratic Party. Will the Democratic Party commit itself wholeheartedly to him? If not, will he lose if nominated?
3) Bernie Sanders calls himself a Socialist. Elizabeth Warren says she is a capitalist down to her bones. Which of those is likely to resonate better with more voters?
4) "It’s Ms. Warren’s new posture on that issue, though, that has halted her momentum." Says who? How do you know that? Medicare for All cannot possibly pass Congress; during the debate over Obamacare, with Democrats in control, they couldn't even pass a public option.
Perhaps it is true that Bernie Sanders is too stubborn to drop out. Nevertheless, everyone who has his ear ought to try to persuade him. The main thrust of this article may well be true: there's really room for only one of them in the race, and it ain't him--it's her.
Senator Warren: Stay true to yourself! Do the right thing! Do not be distracted by anything Senator Sanders does or does not do. Be authentic!
5
Bernie’s long, grudging silence before supporting Hillary after it was over for him in 2016 seriously damaged her chances by allowing his many supporters to buy into all the disinformation about her. And lest we forget, he is the one who introduced the word “rigged” into the campaign. I like Bernie and what he stands for and he may not do the same thing with Warren because of their relationship, but he was a poor loser in the past and I don’t see him bowing out gracefully. The truth is, he’s not only too old, but he’s got the socialist label, which Warren doesn’t have, and unfortunately it makes him utterly unelectable in this country. His mission has been to popularize a progressive platform, and he’s done that magnificently.
82
Bernie’s supporters don’t want him to drop out. He continues to draw unprecedented crowds to rallies across the nation.
3
@Zejee You're right. But in the end, they will have to swallow a bitter pill--just like last time. Then the question becomes, will they help the nominee rid us of Donald Trump? Or will they get in bed with Trump? Ain't gonna be no other choices.
Together they have almost 50% of the Democratic primary vote. That is a problem for their detractors not progressives.
8
@Kent Hancock
No, together they have not quite 40% according to many polls. 60% of the party rejects them to date. There is no sign that is going to change.
6
Consolidation and victory in the nomination process of the left will be a disaster for the Democratic Party and for the nation, and the only question will be "Will the greater disaster come from guaranteeing the reelection of Donald Trump, or from the improbable victory of a hard left candidate and the damage that will deal to the conventional parts of our country?"
1
The majority of Americans want Medicare for All and free community college education. These are the two most important issues for American families.
1
I would be happy to see a Sanders-Warren or Warren-Sanders ticket in theory except that you know what would happen the moment that pairing became clear? An independent "moderate" run by a self-funded billionaire, probably Bloomberg. In some ways, it would be a really good learning experience for the country, to see the most progressive presidential candidate be one of the two major party candidates and the outsider be the moderate. Because the left, as we saw with Hillary and Gore, has this tendency to insist, when facing having to vote for a moderate to prevent the "worse evil," that the two party system is broken and that having third parties and independents, voting your heart not your head, is healthy democracy. We will see how long that idea lasts if the left is suddenly trying to hold everyone in line to vote Democratic Sanders-Warren in 2020 and centrists are the ones looking for another option. And then we get to see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot and it's the moderates who are being told to hold their noses for a candidate they don't care for, like they always insist the left flank must do. Do I trust moderate well off people to do the right thing and vote for a Sanders-Warren ticket? Not really. They hate Trump but they'll settle for hating him for another 4 years just to make sure they don't pay more in taxes. So we'll see a Bloomberg type get 10-15% and prevent Sanders-Warren from taking power and we get Trump 2 instead and we will deserve that.
3
I agree with Viv, people vote with their wallets. For my money, Bernie is not the one. Nor is Biden, never was. We need a sharper mind to lead on the world stage. Pete could, but shouldn't, a smart man but his moral compass is broken.
Warren has it. I can see her standing toe-to-toe with any other world leader, not being a buffoon like we have now. Her sometimes over the top policies must of course undergo necessary adjustments as the convention gets nearer. She will start to look more like the leader who can win over those who might be scared of Dems, but who will not vote for DT if given a hint of a better alternative.
Her proposals actually have the potential to put more money in the take-home pay of those who wish to have middle-class status restored as a viable goal to achieve in their lifetime. She could create real jobs rebuilding our sad infrastructure in a way that meets the reality of the climate crisis. That is what she needs to put into her arguments with real facts. Folks will have more funds available, not less. If she cannot do that she loses and she should.
I think she is more likely to do what DT said he would do and then did not do, "Make America Great Again". She should adopt his same slogan frankly, it is a good one. She needs to win Republicans over, but she can do that once she is elected. Provided the Dems control both houses. Without that it all stays the same.
2
Warren and Sanders have two more things in common besides the policies outlined in the article.
1. Neither of them have any significant support in the black community. Can we really nominate the White Peoples' candidate-even if the white people in question are all good-hearted progressives?
2. Neither one of them can beat Trump.
2
The talk of their lack of support among African Americans, doesn’t capture their large potential for overwhelming support. Remember, they/we were skeptical of Obama initially. Wouldn’t make a choice in a primary based upon that fear.
1
@Lefthalfbach
You post is not altogether true based on polling information.
First Sanders actually is polling better than Biden in Iowa and New Hampshire. Granted Biden has a huge lead in South Carolina. But California, a closely contested state, currently shows Biden with a very slim lead.
Unless things change dramatically we could headed for a Biden-Sanders runoff after Super Tuesday.
If Bernie Sanders can win the California primary he could build momentum and win the nomination.
Also as far as black voters, next to Biden he has the highest approval ratings of any Democratic candidate and he's much more popular among young black voters than Biden is.
2
Why not have them both? Bernie for president and Warren for vice president? Or the reverse of that. Or co-presidents.
3
Sure, one must prevail, but not by attacking the other. This heading and article is a cunning invitation to have them destroy each other and destroy the party's left. Do not fall for it. Perhaps they should even run in the same ticket together. That would be another solution. But resist the trap to tear each other apart to "win." It would be a loss in the long turn.
6
This is such an unnecessary and polarizing article. As if opposition and winning require animus. They’re distinct candidates and in either direction would make perfect running mates.
2
No, they donțt have a problem. Any ticket with either one as a President and the other one as a VP would be great.
1
This is exciting after the Republican clown car in 2016 we are witnessing true democracy in action.
2
Reality Check it be nice to hear some positive things about what our representives doing for our beautifull country.One thing putting people back work an build hyperloop so we can end this need for fossil fuels an save planet. We have tons of manufactoring faciltys sitting empty here in rochester ny . Question is when
One of them has to "give". Warren I believe is the likely one
1
Destined to join forces?
1
These two candidates alone appear to be getting as much as 40% of the primary voters’ support, depending on the poll. Therefore, if they attempt to consolidate their support at some point next year and neither wins the nomination, the party could have a rough time at the convention. If you sincerely want to defeat Trump, then disparaging their supporters or lying about their agendas is not helping. In fact, it could back fire against your goal.
4
Given the electoral college, gerrymandering and Russian and other misinformation, a candidate needs to win big to win against Trump. Putting out a lot of choices has helped the Democratic Party define what policies respond most positively with voters. At the same time, the variety of conversations has continued to fragment the party as a whole. We are close to primaries and it’s time to start severely winnowing the field of candidates and provide a cohesive platform.
All these candidates with low poll numbers are lovely but with a hubris problem. Message to them: you’re not going to win. Just because Obama was polling low when he ran until toward the end, does not mean it’s going to happen to you. Times are different. More importantly, Trump represents a much greater danger to our democracy than any past Republican contenders. You have to put your personal ambitions aside for the good of the country and all come together to form a powerful coalition.
Messages to Warren and Saunders: Either healthcare plan will work and over time morph into the most practical for everyone. Neither is going to get what you want without a supportive legislature. Work out a strong platform that candidates down the ballot can support.
There are record numbers of suicides - people dying because of lack of education and opportunities. Ditto handguns. Ditto coming from lack of regulations and environmental threats. If Democratic candidates can’t work together now, when?
I think Sanders should run with Georgia democrat Stacey Abrams or possibly with Tulsi Gabbard. Unless we have the authentic, people-first, new deal leadership Sanders brings, we will not be able to address climate or the corruption that has undermined our system. Sanders is our last chance as a nation.
5
I went to hear Bernie the first time he talked in Iowa City and I thought he was a snake oil salesman. Warren does not seem to be much better.
6
@JSN
"Snake oil"? In that case , all you have to do is look at who is sitting in the WH. He is the "poster child" for your description, whereas, Bernie Sanders has been preaching his working man philosophy his entire life.
2
I was hoping the NYT could be a troll free area. Perhaps not. Anyone who could characterize the most beloved politician in the country in those terms either hasn’t actually seen Bernie, or isn’t looking around and seeing reality.
6
Bernie and Elizabeth are the only 2 candidates who if elected president will reverse that absurd top 0.1 % tax relief. The route to the dem candidacy is whoever does better in the polls of African Americans.... Right now that is Bernie.
5
Keep some perspective, people. Nations all over the world hold elections where factions must come together to form a government.
Stop acting as if Democrats are some evil force unleashed by the satan of socialism or something. I know trump's ego is so bigly that it blots everything out for his followers, but try some human history for perspective on Warren/Sanders.
4
Democrats please do some math. Democrats are only 31% of the voters. Universal background checks,public healthcare option, free community college- ok. But whether you like us or not the 42% of voters that are independents will NOT support you if you go far left.
4
@Roger
I don’t think people care about upper middle class people in NY or any other state. These two candidates are working to help working class people, which are also included among independents in Midwest states.
6
Millennials, Independents and Progressives support Bernie. We are the largest voting block in the country.
5
@BK
I should clarify that I meant any blue state, not “any state”. Upper middle class people in blue states will have no influence in the general election.
2
Bernie supporters need to keep up with the news. He would garner fewer percentage of the votes that Corby did in recent UK election. Bernie has no track record other than being the angry old man who rants and raves but has no accomplishments in his history as a senator. Look it up.
4
This is not the UK and no one is going to smear his campaign based on accusations of antisemitism. Bernie genuinely represents respect and caring for everyone.
1
My attitude has evolved on this. I expect trump to win reelection in 2020 no matter who the Democratic nominee is. After 2016, when Bernie's fans believed he was "robbed" of the nomination by the DNC, a myth has grown around economic populism. It is time to end that or this kind intra-party suicide could go on for a long time. The only way to do that is for one or the other of Sanders or Warren to be the nominee. After a decisive loss to trump the hope is that, while the economic populists have a seat at the table on platform decisions, they are no longer a risk be the reason for a lost election. This one is lost so sacrificing an economic populist for the greater good is about the best that can be hoped for.
1
Bernie educates and engages voters in his core program of Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, as he has for decades, ignoring not only other candidates but the criticisms and deliberate avoidance by mainstream media. Even on Trump, he has a standard one-sentence line on pathological liar, racist, etc. He calls not only Joe Biden but Chuck Grassley “a friend.” By both strategy and temperament, Bernie doesn’t run against anyone or even ideas like climate denialism and white nationalism. His combination of inflexibility on issues and genuine concern for working people are why even voters who disagree with him trust him.
6
Except he never says how we’re gonna pay for it.
2
@GC : Easy:
1. Rescind the Bush and Trump tax cuts
2. Make it impossible for corporations to avoid taxation if they are profitable
3. Cut the world's most bloated and inefficient military budget, one that spends $2.3 TRILLION on a plane that doesn't work, and trillions on a futile war in Afghanistan, and still has enlisted personnel on food stamps, and stop trying to police the world. (For some reason, the deficit hawks turn into pussy cats when it comes to the Pentagon.)
2
The leftist Warren/Sanders/AOC/Tlaib/Omar/Sarsour wing of the Democratic party is at least 30% of its voters. It wants to radically remake the United States, and is essentially anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist, and anti-9-member-Supreme Court. It wants to affirm first graders with gender dysphoria, consider outcomes instead of opportunity as the measures of equality, and drastically expand government. No Democrat can win without its support, which is why so many mainstream Democrats realize that the natural allies of liberals are not leftists, but conservatives. We disagree fiercely on the role of American government, but do not want to tear down the greatest multicultural national experiment in human history.
4
Vote and donate blue no matter who.
To not vote or to vote for Trump/GOP is equivalent to being a German in the thirties.
3
Certainly NOT blue no matter who. We actually want to get money out of politics.
1
@Lilly
Someone who values Constitutional rights over personal interests will vote blue. Someone who watches the boxcars go by will vote red.
2
This is hilarious. These are two millionaire socialists debating how to steal money from more successful people. They are both too far left for most Democrats. Bernie is always very angry about everything and spends his time pointing down just like gang members do in angry confrontations. Elizabeth wanted to prove her uneducated lower-class bona fides by "getting me a beer" and then guzzling from a bottle. Trump already has those people under his thumb so why doesn't she act like the college professor she was. Let them prove they are socialist by redistributing their money first. It will take a centrist to win the nomination. We need someone who can beat Trump, not two hypocrite leftists.
7
Bernie beats Trump. So join us if that’s your objective. You’ll be creating a just, sustainable and civil society in the process.
6
“It will take a centrist to win...” maybe maybe not, you are mixing up your personal political opinion with facts. Actually, we know for a fact that a centrist lost to Trump in 2016. Why would anyone get back to voting for a “centrist” free trader which was one of the key reason they voted Trump in the first place, I am at a loss why most people can’t see that.
Polling indicate that in most states (including swing states) a large majority of Obama to Trump voters is not your stereotypical economically centrist democrat. It is working class voter who favor economically populist ideas, taxing the rich, cutting down in immigration and more US-centric trade policies.
From where I sit, this is far more Sanders or Warren than any of the other candidates. In short, you are blind-sighted by your political preferences.
2
Elizabeth and Bernie should run together on single ticket.
1
Best idea.
2
Sanders needs to drop out so Warren can consolidate the left and no longer need to appear so leftie. At some point, going too left will make both candidates unelectable.
2
Moot point, poll after poll shows convincingly neither will win the key states in 2020. Any one of our current Democratic candidates would be going into the ring like Floyd Patterson against Sonny Liston, except Trump is arguably a bigger thug than Liston. Paging the lady who won the last time by 3 million votes, our only hope is Ali-Frazier II.
1
Trump will win again in 2020. We’re doomed.
2
Don’t despair! Bernie beats Trump! Join us! Be involved!
1
Both Senators Sanders and Warren have been in the position to introduce the changes they are campaigning on, but their efforts have gone nowhere with the Republican Senate. So the purpose of running for the presidency is to obtain the majority mandate. It appears that their stance will threaten the down ballots for the senate and the house. The debate criteria (# of individual donors and poll) both depend on name recognition in the early stage of the primary, and therefore favor Washington insiders, and pretty much "weed" out candidates who are formally governors who actually have governing experience in recent past. Among newcomers, only Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Yang managed to break through. Now the Sanders and Warren campaign attack them for private fundraising and bundling, practices both Senators engaged for years, and even sent out fundraising email by insinuating impropriety. Most inexcusable is to mobilize their own supporters to protest at campaign rallies of other candidates for, for for example, a climate plan targeting 2050 is not soon enough! If Senators Sanders and Warren care about progressive causes, they should take the long view to mentor and support rising young candidates. Mr. Buttigieg, in particular, has been exceptionally effective in advocating and articulating progressive values to voters in much wider political spectrum. Looking to two 70-year-old for leadership is not sustainable. The combative style of the Squad preaches only to the choir.
7
Neither Warren nor Sanders is likely to win the nomination outright. They appeal to different groups of voters.
Biden holds the lead in probable primary votes nationwide, but Warren and Sanders' probable votes were together substantially more, until Buttigieg started attacking Warren and her polling dropped. As they appeal to some of the same voter demographics, he may be able to keep her votes under the 15% mark, so that she will get no primary delegate votes.
Buttigieg is very unlikely to get over 15% after the first two states vote, but may take 5% or so from Warren in future primaries which could keep her under the 15% threshold.
That certainly makes Buttigieg a very attractive candidate for the billionaires who don't want Warren. They will get Biden as the nominee if the race ends up being just between him and Sanders.
Meanwhile, nobody is asking any hard questions about Buttigieg's health insurance plan, which has no math or solid studies behind it. Yet his knocks against her on health insurance may have been the biggest factor in reducing her polling.
Of course, that's politics,where candidates do get support from vested interests just because they can reduce the chances of those who threaten those interests.
1
Warren did not need to corner the left-progressive block. She could have built a broad coalition within the party on fighting corruption as her main policy plank rather than competing with Sanders on delivering large social programs.
Trying to play on Sanders' turf was likely a mistake for Warren.
Her job now is merely to prevent the big-money Wall St candidates Biden/Buttigeig from getting to 51% so that a progressive nominee can emerge at the convention.
2
@CDP
As a Warren supporter, I probably agree with you here. She had never really focused on expanding the welfare state prior to this campaign. Her issues were reducing crony capitalism in regulatory agencies and adequately enforcing existing laws. If her primary legislative priorities were tax law reform and corporate governance, then she may not have encountered some of the problems she’s having now, particularly in response to her healthcare proposal.
3
....and lose the general election.
3
@GC A wide coalition of Democrats and Independents exists to take on corruption and money in politics if framed in a non-ideological way.
1
Huge fan of Elizabeth Warren. She is a fact based politician who knows how to work with others to get things done like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She works with experts and explains her policies in ways that are easy to understand and transparent. She is a candidate who understands that values matter.
I also love Bernie Sanders and his honesty and passion. I am grateful he ran last time and moved the needle on media reporting on what the people actually want. Go Bernie.
I will vote for Elizabeth Warren in the primary and whoever wins the primary gets my passion and vote in the general. This election is far too important too sit on the sidelines. I hope they continue to run by supporting each other instead of focusing on nitpicky differences.
6
This situation (both Sanders and Warren in the race and doing well) has always been the most intriguing part of the 2020 race. And as a centrist Democrat, I fully realize that having them both stay in is the best way to end with a centrist nominee.
Even if the final pledged delegate count is: Biden 45%, Sanders 30% and Warren 25% (i.e., Sanders + Warren > Biden), there's no way the superdelegates would go with other than Biden.
1
Here's why I'm working for Warren.
She has the interests, knowledge and skills to legislate a more equal economy, which is the common and primary goal of Warren and Sanders. Warren understands the legal and political structures that contribute to our economic divide; consequently, she sees the fight in specifics, not in generalities. Waving your arms against generalities only gets you so far.
I like that Warren listened to the outcry against single payer and that her response was to take three years to expand Medicare services and to regulate out of control billing (e.g. drug prices). She will then let the people decide if they still want private health insurance. So I see Warren as not dogmatic, she is someone who will put her plans on the line for us to approve. She has big, bold plans but, without backing down from her commitment to economic equality, Warren has found a to accommodate those not ready for a sharp left turn.
As an example of how Warren leads Sanders in ideas, it was Warren who understood the new economic thinking on economic inequality and built their ideas into her wealth tax. Several months later, as Warren's economic plans soared, Sanders enlisted Warren's economic advisers (Saez and Zucman) to help him develop his version of a wealth tax.
Given two candidates with the same message, I prefer the one with the message and the plans.
5
I prefer the candidate who doesn’t use his policies only when it suits him. Warren could have fought for Bernie’s progressivism and helped save us from four years of Trump. Instead she supported Clinton, who fought hammer and tongs against the Progressive Platform which BERNIE has made the national conversation. Bernie pushes the Overton window over into FDR territory. Bernie is trustworthy. Not Warren, who only supports this when it suits her own selfish interests.
1
"Two septuagenarian senators"?? One is 70, the other is 78. It's not the same, as anyone near that age or caring for parents that age well knows. Would be helpful if there were some analysis of middle-aged supporters of each candidate that examines what they think of their ages.
3
I am past the seventies and know that aging is a real thing. I will not be voting for anyone past 70 in the primary. I would vote for Warren in the general election if she is the nominee but actually prefer someone younger.
Age is the least of your concerns in this race. Buttigieg is young but he is a yes man for Wall Street, Big Tech (Zuckerberg is his buddy) and corporate America. Your logic implies you will vote for him over Bernie because he is less than half his age.
You must be not aging well up there sorry to say.
2
Since last summer I've been giving to both campaigns equally after having given money only to Sanders' campaign.
Warrens plans won me over.
What I fear, though, is business as usual, where the Republicans have ratcheted the government to the right and then we get a centrist Democrat to hold it in place until the Republicans ratchet it further to the right yet again.
6
It should be obvious to anyone that if Biden becomes the nominee there is no chance in the world Sanders can become his VP choice if for no other reason than Sander's age and gender, by remarkable coincidence, is pretty much the same as Biden's. That would be a losing ticket for sure.
So if Biden is the nominee, the smart money has to go to Warren as the VP candidate. And as of now the odds are the Biden will be the nominee.
4
All you need to know here is one thing.
Bernie Sanders will never give up or yield because his ego won't allow it. Even if it means that he and Elizabeth Warren cancel each other's votes out in the end.
He will also never win the Democratic nomination.
And neither will she.
Time to look beyond Iowa.
11
I believe Warren in office would unify the country differently than Bernie.
Warren will be focused on saving capitalism from itself through regulation. She is extremely capable in holding people accountable and they fear her laser focus on identifying their sneaky tactics and underhanded crony capitalism.
Bernie is more of a broad stroke painter that focuses on an elaborate tapestry of ideas. He doesn’t care about saving capitalism so I’m unsure how he will handle returning balance. I don’t see him burning it down but his path will be different than Warren as I’m unsure he sees the system as salvageable.
I believe Warren in the long run is more digestible for the American people and will handle the blowback temper tantrum from the wealthy when they dump the market.
Bernie may use their temper tantrum as an opportunity to socialize to the people instead of Wall Street. I would assume instead of bank bailouts he would send the bailout to the people to trickle up.
3
Warren is far more adaptable ideologically than Sanders. Sanders has not changed in 40 years. Warren changes all the time. She was a Republican at one point. And her shift to the far left really only occurred in the past year after her 'pragmatist with a plan for everything' wasn't gaining much traction. So she tried to become a 'pragmatist with a plan for everything that satisfies the far Left.' That worked for 4 or 5 months and she gained a lot of support. At least until the media and other candidates finally called her bluff on healthcare and it became clear that you can't have practical plans and satisfy the far Left at the same time. Her healthcare plan looked like a house of cards as would most of her plans if subjected to similar scrutiny.
What the NY Times doesn't seem to understand is how scary Leftist politics is to most Americans. And this includes people who would likely vote for Democratic candidates. Leftist politics is recognized in this paper as caring about the dispossessed, the environment, and so on. But we see very little discussion in this paper about how badly it can go. This paper doesn't understand the lessons of the 20th century with respect to this. (And even our current century. See Venezuela, etc.) But most Americans do. The path can be a scary one...possibly scarier than Donald Trump. The Democrats need to find a way not to nominate Sanders or Warren.
11
We just saw in the Conservative campaign in Great Britain, the central issue of Brexit took a back seat to dividing the Labour Party between progressives and centrists.
This is a tragedy for Britain now, as Brexit will lead to the disintegration of Great Britain, further currency depreciation with its large fiscal and trade deficits, and far less global influence. Their standard of living will decline.
The original Brexit referendum narrowly passed a confused public with a stream of lies and propaganda from Putin's GRU.
It is critical that Democrats realize the strategy of Putin-Trump. We cannot miss the fundamental issues that bind Democratic centrism and progressivism to defeat Trump.
Progressive and Centrist Democrats will both fight climate change; rebuild infrastructure; strengthen our sovereign elections, democratic alliances and national security.
Potential Democratic candidates cannot let their ego allow them to miss the primary objective - the defeat of Donald Trump.
No transformation, no progress, no return to law and equity can occur unless he is soundly defeated. All Democrats would do that.
Trump is not a Republican, a Democrat, a conservative, or a progressive. He is a con man who will lie, bribe, or seek foreign interference to enrich himself.
Democratic unity will beat Trump.
3
I don't know how they can do it, but Sanders and Warren have to stick together. One way would be for one to step down and back the other, an almost unbelievable act of political altruism, but I believe it would work. How about a public con toss.
2
democrats had 2 years to come up with strong a candidate and plan, yet they came forth with the same stuff that allowed Trump to be elected.
America doesn't need the pendulum to swing from far right to the far left.
4
The only job of the Democratic nominee is to beat Trump.
That's it.
Neither of these two can do it.
They should both step aside for the good of the country and support a Democrat who can win.
Period.
8
This one may not get settled until the convention if Biden isn't taken out as a major piece of the collateral damage in the impeachment hearings. If he doesn't drop out and stays in even after dropping some, if the polls have credibility he would likely end up with around the same numbers as Sanders and Warren. It could be just about a three way tie, which is the worst case scenario because any possibility of gaffe machine Joe winning facing Trump which would be a slaughter. I am hoping Biden does have to drop and another centrist gains traction, and that they and the winner over Warren versus Sanders present a clear defined choice between competing agendas, so that whoever does win has a majority of people with them when they go up against Trump. This is going to be a tough task, so unity might be a nice change if it can be achieved.
1
I'm not mad about candidates refraining from bashing each other. I've never been convinced by one party bad-mouthing another; I've always seen it as petty and unprofessional. I much prefer to look at how the individuals sell themselves and what their platforms are. Track records of each candidate are always available and should be reviewed independently before making a decision.
4
And they also both share the problem of Jeremy Corbyn: the British election has just demonstrated how dramatically voters will reject leftist positions.
9
What is interesting is the recent polling. Progressive policy is popular but progressive candidates are mediocre in polls. On one hand you have major support for policy but then the individual receives less votes.
The real problem is main stream neutrality calling things even and laundering republican talking points through this bias. Progressives don’t have a strong way to defend their message from propaganda on the right and biased neutrality on the media.
This is the disconnect between message and candidate popularity. The progressives need a stronger soap box to blast through the right wing propaganda.
1
Here’s the reality this article misses (like most mainstream news outlets). Bernie and Warren DO NOT have the same base. Not even close. Warren supporters are older, whiter, more educated and wealthier. They are, frankly, your classic coastal liberals. Bernie voters are more working class, more diverse and less educated. Warren voters are more likely to flock to a moderate in the unlikely event that she drops out. Bernie voters would seek another outsider (most likely Tulsi).
Why did Warren’s numbers slip a bit? Because Pete was pushed into the top tier by a compliant media. Her voters overlap with Pete and Biden....not Bernie. Warren is far less likely to appeal to firebrands and more likely to appeal to jilted Hillary voters.
All of this should tell us a lot about how bizarre voter allegiances are. Even though Warren has bobbled key policies like M4A she is still one of the most progressive candidates to ever make a serious run at the presidency. Yet, her base is not progressives, but largely older moderates.
The likelihood of a Bernie/Warren run-off is higher than people seem to realise.
5
A far bigger problem for both of them is that they are not going to win the election.
7
You were probably surprised when Trump won too...
3
Another issue that’s overlooked in this article is that Sanders supporters are extremely vitriolic toward Warren supporters both on and offline—just go check some Twitter or Instagram comments and after 5 seconds you’ll see what I mean. In person, too, I’ve heard many firsthand stories of Sanders supporters baiting Warren supporters into what seem like friendly conversations, just to then begin a verbal assault. Most of the time when I hear these stories the Bernie supporter is a man and the Warren supporter is a woman, and the woman feels concerned for her own safety, and like her opinion is being belittled in part because of her gender. It’s unfortunate because Sanders is the obvious second choice for Warren supporters, but the “Bernie Bros” are so aggressive that they’re definitely alienating a lot of would-be supporters should he win the nomination. How anyone thinks that viciously attacking supporters of the closest ideological candidate is good strategy is beyond me.
5
Berniebros just being Berniebros, all while they try to con the world into believing that no such thing exists.
1
Our elections have become like the hunger games, a near endless, relatively meaningless media spectacle in which the one left standing is installed by the electoral college.
2
There is the inevitable reality of these two Uber-left candidates, 1/2 of the young followers of these two will childishly decide to take their ball and go home when their horse doesn’t win - and stay there. The mantra is “If not mine then no one”. The facts are there to be seen. Here progressives just don’t show up at the polls. Warren has a plan for everything except how to get a significant bill through the Senate and Bernie is so mad at the world and uses the word socialist as if it will actually help him get elected. The real world says they are unelectable. The Dems need to stop worrying about these two and find a way to rally around a candidate that can win in November 2020. Otherwise we’ll be here in four more years wringing our hands over the same topics.
4
The big difference between the two… Bernie will never win a national election, Warren will.
1
You were probably one of the vast majority who was shocked when Trump won too, right?
2
You’re a broken record
1
If the two progressive candidates are sincerely expressing their views, then the lower polling candidate should take one for the cause and drop out.
That would be Warren, who has been amending her views in a centrist direction lately. Sanders has a decades-long history of progressive action. A few decades ago Warren was a Republican.
10
Meh, I see Bernie as too old, too unhealthy, and even though he's had more than thirty years in DC to think about it, no concrete plan to realize his vision. Warren is much younger, much fitter physically, and actually has plans to realize her vision. If Bernie's the nominee, he'll get my vote. Warren will get it in the primary.
6
I think a significant majority of Americans would like to see our government start working again. This, I feel sure, includes Trump voters who are exhausted by the turmoil he churns up on a daily basis, as well as by the self-dealing and nepotism he blatantly practices. They may like his tough talk on trade and immigration and even credit him with the strong economy. But four more years of this carnival? Who could stand it? Both Sanders and Warren spell more Washington dysfunction, even worse than what Obama endured over the ACA. They come across as intransigent, my-way-or-the-highway types. Older voters will remember how constructively Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill. Older voters - particularly in the all-important states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin - will decide the election. Their likely choice will be whoever they feel can get Washington back on track. It won't be Elizabeth or Bernie, who would likely produce gridlock as we've never seen before.
57
The majority you speak of are blind as bats. They have been blinded by a rhetoric that has brought us to Trump and the GOP of today. Americans became sheep to be shepherded by intelligent oligarchs and their servile media. The latter would want everyone to believe in myths like you do. The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy in its way to fascism. We already have our crackpot dictator straight from Central Casting.
Political revolution is a necessity and not luxury at this point. The conjuncture we are in is hardly different than 1789 or 1917. It didn’t end well then.
51
@Charles Michener
I don't see Elizabeth Warren as intransigent. She brought stakeholders together and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in spite of the highly partisan tenor of the times.
She has a viewpoint that big donors and lobbyists are gaming the system. That is not intransigence but a willingness to stand her ground on issues that matter to the American middle class.
39
Government works when everyone participates. That’s what democracy is. Bernie knows this and his campaign is based in knowing this and caring about everyone. Not just those who will vote for him. It isn’t about him. It’s about US.
23
As a Bernie supporter from 2016, I am glad to see his ideas setting the tone of the democratic party. He is still my favorite. His stance on war, economy. all issues really. Warren definitely feel like I can't make a choice. I think she spouts the same policies and approach. I just hope the two of them are able to beat Biden and convince the republican type democrats that the party needs to move to the left. The last 40 years moving to the right with the republicans leading the race has to stop. Both parties have lost credibility over these last 40 years. It is time for at least one of these parties to represent the progressive ideas in the country. If not we will need to form another one.
10
Sanders and Warren need to stick to their non-aggression pact and stick together. If they do, we will have a progressive nominee and a progressive platform, and we will go on to win in November. If they don't, we will wind up with a do-nothing Republican Lite candidate who will go down to defeat -- just like we did in 2016. Democrats need to give Americans something to vote FOR, not just something to vote AGAINST. If we decide this based on vision, values and policies, we will bring out the base, register new voters, and attract independents who are tired of business as usual. Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.
289
@Andy Dwyer I don't think Warren necessarily sees Sanders as her biggest competitor, which is why she doesn't attack him. She is fiercely attacking Buttigieg and Biden.
16
@Andy Dwyer do you think the country is ready to vote for a socialist? I think not.
10
@Andy Dwyer You're simply caught up in North East view of the world and not the practical realities of winning the WH that goes thru Mid-West states. The progressives will cost Dems the WH in 2020.
10
What a problem to have -- two great candidates with a vision of a better, more just America that works for all of us, not just those at the very top.
The time will come when Warren and Sanders will need to start working together to avoid a brokered convention, and the inevitable super delegate weight on the scale for Biden, assuming he lasts that long. But right now I'm thrilled to see them both out there widening and deepening their support.
If the Democrats are ever going to start representing the rest of the country -- not just the elites who fund the super pacs and the status quo candidates -- we need more Sanders and Warrens in the race, not less.
506
@avrds
It is a great problem to have, but as the article mentions therein lies the problem. If progressive voters are split but centrists have Biden, then there’s no way Sanders or Warren will consolidate enough votes. I am loathe to say it because I would be thrilled if either were the nominee, but one of them needs to drop out so progressives have a single candidate to rally around.
I would also note I have spoken to many people who are reluctantly planning to vote for Biden because they feel he is the most “electable.” Other Biden voters appear to be Republicans who don’t like trump but also don’t like Democratic ideals, so they’re trying to slide the party to the right. I don’t know if anyone who is excited for Biden, and both polling and fund raising show it. He had a massive cash influx the week he declared but has had trickles of donations since, whereas Warren and Sanders have had no problem with small individual donations. Biden is a good man who has served his country well, but he shouldn’t be in the race. He can barely form a cogent sentence, has no real vision for our country, and makes cringe worthy gaffes that will surely be used to question his question his stability (push up contest, anyone?).
Trump is trying to move the country 5 years backwards. Biden is trying to move the country 5 years backwards. Only Warren and Sanders are trying to move us forward.
33
Not everyone approve their free for all policies.
Most democrats are moderate not socialist
33
@Mash
Edit: Trump is trying to move the country 50 years backwards.
19
If we wanted to start a war, we would have the money (see Afghanistan Papers). If we wanted to relieve taxes on the richest individuals, we would have the money (see GOP Tax cut). If we needed to bail out banks and financial institutions, we would have the money (see TARP).
Only when asked for funding to transform healthcare, education, the environment, infrastructure, etc. do we say there is not enough money to go around. America deserves a candidate that will fight for the betterment of the people. Warren and Sanders speak to this desire.
The reality of life before Trump are in the past. Sanders and Warren speak of a vision for the future. I have yet to hear any other candidate not beholden to corporate interests or detached from the struggles of the American people in preference for a nostalgic past.
10
I reject the notion of many of the commenters that a progressive cannot win, only a centrist can. The policies of both Sanders and Warren are in line with the policies of presidents from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Johnson. Warren and Sanders stand for something, not just what the latest polls say. They can appeal to the working class voters of all backgrounds, people who abandoned the democrats because the dems gave them lip service but no results. Voters want leaders with clear values and beliefs, not mush and polling.
13
I suspect the other candidates would like to have that "problem." I don't think it will take long for Elizabeth and Bernie to combine their forces when one emerges as the clear winner.
10
@dan you mean like Bernie and Clinton? That’s what I’m afraid of…
This race, like all others, will come down to a handful of swing states. So Democrats would be wise to nominate the candidate who can win those states. I don’t buy into the view that only a moderate and not a progressive can win. But I need to see evidence. In the polls. And realizing that polls aren’t always right, I’d like to see some in depth reporting and some focus groups. Mostly I’d like to see each of the candidates on the ground in those states. And I need to see their strategies for winning debated, not just divisive debates about health care or other issues that won’t matter if they don’t beat Trump. As long as we have an electoral college, this is the system we must work with. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada may be first up for Democratic voters. I just hope they go to the polls with an eye on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and other swing states that will ultimately decide who wins.
81
@Mike Alexander
That evidence already exists in the database of small donors.
People vote with their wallets.
What candidate has the most small donors in swing states?
28
Didn't we test in 2016 if a "moderate" in fact proestablishment can win? The answer was NO.
16
@Viv
If this were the case, Bernie would have won the primary in 2016.
He didn't.
8
I think the polling analysis is all wrong. Nevermind the fact that most polls being publicized are from less than 1,000 respondents and rarely disclose geography.
What we’re looking at going into 2020 is most likely the same number (if not more) of Sanders supporters in 2016. The moderate and “only a female president” votes that went to Clinton will be split between Biden and Warren, and perhaps Buttigieg and Bloomberg.
As stated, the progressives, no matter what poll you look at going into the primary season, have the majority by as much as 20 points. Progressives will mobilize that majority at the convention, underscoring what direction the party must head in order to capture the White House in November.
9
@Charles Seiverd Well there is Nate Silver's site where they grade the polls. There is a minimum number for a poll to have accuracy but it's not that large a number. A national poll will have national coverage if it's any good.
I don't think there's any chance that Bernie will have as many supporters as last time at the start of voting, there's way more choices including another progressive, plus he's 4 years older and he's hasn't changed a bit. For some that's exactly what they like about him but there are those of us who would like to see a little growth.
Polls that do not sample large populations are suspect.
The general public might have gone for Warren back when she was simply a fierce, smart, articulate consumer protectionist. Throwing in single payer health care would have been consistent with that, protecting us from rapacious hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies.
But then she went all Big Rock Candy Mountain on us, offering up freebies left and right, things we can't afford. Presumably, this was to compete with Sanders. She should have stayed in her own lane. She was alone there, and stood out from the rest of the field.
So now, yes, Liz and Bernie will be splitting the far (by US standards) left, leaving a centrist to break the tape at the finish line. Which, for those of us whose first priority is to retire trump ASAP, seems for the best. A centrist is who most Americans want to see in the White House, almost by definition.
4
@Sixofone
"Freebies"? Republicans do give freebies, but those freebies are to big businesses and the wealthy. And we pay for them" We, the taxpayers! We pay for those but receive no benefit from them.
The mortgage debacle was the biggest example of that, with the little guys bearing - and still bearing - the brunt of it. How many people are still paying for those debts and the tax consequences of those debts? And, student loans, the transfer of that from the Federal gov't to private for-profit enterprises - that was a freebie for the rich, but is killing the middle class and the poor.
Political compromises will smooth out the edges of progressive ideals, but if we don't start with a "leftist" stance, we will move so far to the right, we might as well be Republicans who value their pockets over everything uniquely American, such as the rule of law and concern for those who are not wealthy.
1
This is a nonissue. Both candidates are so similar in position that one camp will support the other, especially against a monarch.
I’m an Elizabeth Warren supporter. But I support Bernie if Elizabeth doesn’t make it.
I think progressives who support Bernie feel the same way.
Democrats support the best candidate for the country. With us it’s country before Party.
With the Putin supporting Party, (Republicans), they put Party before country. They’ll even put the interests of another country before this country. And they always will.
Vote Bernie or vote Elizabeth. But vote for your country!
17
@PC If you're talking about the general election pretty much all of us Democrats will support whoever gets the nomination.
If you're talking about the primaries then as long as both are running we have to choose between them.
If one drops out don't assume the other will get almost all of the other's supporters. A lot of voters aren't that ideologically consistent.
A Sanders/Warren presidency would be just what most Americans have wanted since the 1960's - progressive change for the majority, including women. Obama/Biden failed. Time to do it right this time.
Contrarily a Biden presidency would be a victory over Trump but a loss for the large majority who've wanted change since Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes. A Biden presidency would be to win the battle but lose the war.
29
@Lawrence Chanin You claim a large majority for your side but based on what? Reagan won re-election in a landslide.
You're living in a bubble.
3
@Jack Toner I believe it's safe to say George Bush Jr and the Bush-Cheney War on Iraq were the most unpopular things to happen in America since the Nixon era. The entire world greeted Obama as someone close to a savior. Now the Trump administration is even more reviled throughout the world. The world is praying for a more honest, compassionate American president.
But, hey, I welcome an honest non-partisan poll that would accurately find the percentage of Americans that want progressive change away from the policies of both Bush and Trump.
Neither can win in the General Election this year. Each has not tuned in to bread and butter issues that are focused on citizens without any savings. Attacks on billionaires are not what these people can afford to make their concern. Unions, Obamacare, minimum Fed wage, infant and senior care, elementary and secondary education , public transportation, food deserts, prison and drug problems concern them more than the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans. They admire billionaires.
4
@Whatever Bernie's not tuned into bread & butter issues? What planet are you living on?
Do you admire Koch?
1
A more skillful politician than Sanders or Warren might actually have a chance at leading the left to victory in 2020. But both of these screeds are D.O.A. in the General Election. They are not leaders, they're complainers...and their endless need to outdo one another in the Woke Olympics has made them both entirely unelectable. Thank God there are two of them to split the vote or we'd be on the road to a drubbing the likes of which another dreamer who didn't have what it takes, Jeremy Corbyn, just had handed to him in the UK election.
11
@O My You got any examples of Bernie competing in the Woke Olympics? I think you're just making that up. No doubt he's somewhat woke but his focus has always been on economic issues.
If you're not just trolling us then I suggest paying a little more attention.
1
The pact that all Democratic voters should reach: Get out and vote next November whether it’s Biden or Bernie or whoever.
6
@lilly
Baloney! You clearly haven’t read or listened to Buttigieg’s plans. His approach to change is different than that of Warren or Sanders, but definite change it is. Time to do some independent critical thinking instead of repetitive twitterbot slogans (e.g: Wall Street Pete) you keep using. Don’t waste space if you can’t write something original.
3
A vote for Pete or Biden is a vote for more of the same, the same policies that are literally killing too many of us.
3
Note to Elizabeth Warren and who ever wrote this piece: you won’t win the nomination by consolidating the “left” in the Democratic Party. Putin tried that last time by throwing his trolls against Hillary through supporting Bernie. All it did was weaken the Party. Warren should know better anyway. Bernie believes in top down change, so he fell for it. But if Warren is that foolish politically, she, like him, should not be the nominee.
3
Bernie is the senior and he has had consistent positions for decades, he was for Medicare for all back in 1991. Warren should drop out to become Bernie's VP.
21
@JohnP who cares about seniority? Is everyone just supposed to fall in line in the name of seniority? It is remarkable to see a Bernie supporter gold such a conservative belief.
1
If Warren cared about the country, she should prove it this time by finally enforcing his policies because she knows how transformative they will be in our lives, .not. only because they can be used to help her personally gain power. Bernie is beloved because he makes it clear, this isn’t about him. It’s about US.
4
He was for Medicare for All in 1991 but couldn't put a bill together before 2017. That is some serious advocacy. He really plays the long game.
1
One of these leftists is going to have to quit the race because they occupy the same space. It will likely be money and poll driven and whoever runs out of money first will be gone. My bet is Liz is the one to leave, Bernie's support is more passionate, and Liz is taking a beating since she showed the cost of her healthcare plan. Also, Liz is not very likable now that she adopted the scold persona, demonizing wealth and the wealthy.
1
I don’t support Warren because her actions proved she only supports progressive policies when used to benefit her personally, instead of caring about the majority of citizens who are sinking, but characterizing her as scolding sounds borderline misogynistic to me. Please don’t look through that lens so easily, because it could be used to keep women, women who deserve to be, from the White House.
2
@sob
And Bernie doesn't scold and demonize wealth and the wealthy? Didn't he assert that billionaires have no right to exist? Neither Warren nor Bernie can win the general.
But it really doesn't matter who the eventual nominee will be. Democrats are simply not ruthless enough to play as dirty as Trump and win. Sadly, they are no match for Trump's lies and his Republican sycophants. While Trump is destroying the democratic institutions of this country and inflicting damage on the environment, giving tax cuts to those who don't need it, sabotaging health care, democrats are obsessing over diversity on the debate stage.
34
AND she’s a girl, amirite? Because only girls can be scolds.
Good grief.
3
The Democratic mantra of healthcare first, followed by the environment, education, and social equality is a siren song destined to re-elect Trump. The party lost in the last election for many reasons including the determination to run Hillary at any costs. But, they neglected to take the pulse of their own core supporters - the working class.
That same core today faces the same challenges as in the last election cycle. To put it bluntly, they haven't seen a raise in 40 years. The jobs they do hold on to are being outsourced and filled by bots that do the same work more efficiently. Their standards of living are precarious and they fear for the future of their children.
James Carville said in effect, it's the economy stupid. This might be a good time for the party to align and discontinue it's slice and dice policy tactics and develop a strategy that speaks clearly to workers in plain language. "The economy may be great for you, but we are sinking" might be better than "healthcare or free college for all."
38
@Rick Spanier
Sensing a Sanders win, the media is pushing a low rated Buttigieg on the public.
Bernie Sanders has an army of followers who are dedicated; his numbers are rising quite amazingly.
His movement scares the mainstream media and the democratic establishment, similar to Trump’s MAGA, Bernie Sanders has a people powered movement.
No other democrat candidate for President has a people powered movement.
Sanders (who robed last time) still receives practically zero coverage from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC,
Sanders is never mentioned on CNN, yet his movement keeps growing…remarkable.
I don’t think the new democratic establishment pick Pete Buttigieg , will stand a chance against the army that Bernie Sanders has in terms of dedicated followers. Newspaper endorsements no longer have any influence on voters.
Bernie is the Democrat version of Trump’s MAGA, it is near impossible to beat.
12
@Rick Spanier Not necessarily. I voted for Trump because Hillary won over Bernie. I would vote for a Bernie-Warren ticket.
8
@Alexgri
If you seriously though Trump would be the better choice, I wonder if you would not feel the same way again should the person you favor not be elected.
Whatever your choice will be in the end, I hope you will at least rethink voting out of anger.
9
Like a previous commenter, I’m not a fan of either Warren or Sanders but would vote for either against Trump. Still, I think they represent one of the Trumpers’ strongest weapons for re-election.
13
Andrew Yang is the new Bernie. Bernie would do well to drop out and concede to a fresher view, more practical, more innovative. He’d be a great senator and support. Words like socialism and Medicare for All divide and fracture. They’re stuck in the past. Yang, Buttigeg bring new energy.
4
@Az Yang is better than New-Bernie. Yang isn’t my top choice but I am very impressed with his ideas, his demeanor, his obvious passion. Unlike Bernie, Yang doesn’t rant and yell, instead he “MATH” - asks that America think harder and explains his whys and hows. And frankly, the Yang Gang are the best bunch of supporters out there, persuasive without being pushy and never hostile or demeaning. Bernie and his supporters could learn a thing or two from Yang and his.I hope Yang will play some kind of role in politics moving forward.
3
@Az So many buzzwords and dog whistles. What you mean is Bernie's old and doesn't use the right catchphrases. Sorry, some people are capable of seeing through propaganda.
@Az Yang yes. Buttigeig no.
1
I'm an independent, and am watching a bit from a distance (have voted for both Republicans and Democracts in the past - often in the same election), but I'm actually quite puzzled as to why more Democrats aren't demanding (and didn't demand in 2016) that Bernie join the Party.
I mean, how could anyone nominate, as the Democratic Party's candidate for President, someone who isn't even a registered Democrat?
I'm not certain I can remember that happening before, like, ever.
11
@JRC Because the Democrats are the new old pre-Trump Republicans, they want no changes to the status quo that might benefit the American citizen. They only differ when it comes to open borders, weakness on crime, and some minor gun control regulations.
1
This is the first time I have heard this question asked. It’s overdue by months!
I would like to ask another question: would there be any validity or is it even sensible, for for a presidential candidate to announce their vice presidential choice during their election campaign? It seems to me that the Democrats do not have a single anti-democracy sleaze ball running for the presidency so it might be tough to announce at union during the campaign but the more I think about the more I feel that, overall, the Democratic field looks like a political dream-team. I suppose I am asking, can more be done at this stage to strengthen the platform and the discussion that does not pander to the politics-blood- sport crowd?
1
I’m not interested in either of them but if either wins the nomination, I’ll vote for him or her in the general election. BUT I am really dreading the complaints and conspiracy theories if either loses (primary or general). Losing gracefully hasn’t been a strong suit of some very vocal Sanders supporters and, after 2016 and again now, I am so sick of the divisiveness. Voters skeptical of progressives’ campaign promises and how any of these promises will see the light of day are simply doing their due diligence, not functioning as mindless DNC cogs or corporate tools or secret Republicans or whatever other nonsense Warren/Sanders supporters attack “non-believers” with. I’m also deeply skeptical of the polls and twitter-driven journalism meant to further gin up conflict (and ad revenues) during the primary process, regardless of candidate. Between the progressives and the press, I gotta ask: what’s the goal here? Voter turn-out or tune-out? I just hope the rest of us hang in there, trust the process, and, yes, vote.
9
I love Warren as a candidate for her wealth tax. It's an ingenious solution to the rampant income inequality plaguing America, and we could do so much good for the public with that money. As long as Warren backs her wealth tax, I back Warren.
12
Hello, is anyone out there? The wealthy will simply move their money overseas. Warren is another career politician with grandiose ideas that doesn’t put rubber to the road for anyone with economic common sense.
7
@Anonymously Only--let's not call it a 'wealth tax". Let's call it a progressive tax.
1
It’s pretty simple. Both should stay in until the convention, and whoever’s behind should endorse the other. If Bernie’s ahead, Warren should be his VP. That will be the end of Trump and the beginning of real change for the first time in 50 years.
20
No, that will guarantee a Trump win, and be the beginning of the end.
3
@StephenKoffler Yes, but what if Warren is ahead? No one seriously doubts that she will buckle down and support whomever the nominee is, on the basis that we have to beat Trump. But Bernie has baggage from the last election, and I lack certainty that he would gracefully accept a loss, even to someone he generally agrees with.
2
Sadly, BOTH Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are promising what they must know cannot be delivered: Medicare For All, at a cost that will not bankrupt our nation OR drive personal Medicare tax rates into the ionosphere. Their followers, are as deluded as the followers of Trump-Pence in their beliefs.
IF the two exceptional progressive Senators truly cared for our nation, they'd have long ago replaced their ego driven populism with calls for sound judgement in governance. . .in essence, a centrist approach requiring disclosure of all data and discussions based upon full data devoid of puffery.
5
@Jim Not sure how M4A would bankrupt the country, since others manage it with lower per capita costs.
1
@Jim
How come the US, the richest country in the world, can't afford the social programs, like healthcare for all, that so many other countries can afford?
I suppose our six trillion dollar wars that will never be won, and having the most obscene, colossal and growing inequality where the richest ,1 percent take in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent...
are the status quo you want to protect.
1
@Jim Try leaving California for Europe or Australia sometime. Oddly enough those countries have not been bankrupted by their national health care systems.
1
Both Sanders and Warren represent the unelectable left. We can only hope they self-immolate or destroy each other. Unlike other never Trumpers/Centrists, this is not about just winning (though that is paramount), the shared Warren/Sanders vision of a quasi socialist state is as appalling as is the continuation of Trump.
13
Neither Warren or Sanders has a chance. Trying to win an election based on false promises, freebies, and failed socialism policies is not going to be successful.
16
@G G Yeah, that failed state of Canada sure should have given up on the idea of universal healthcare fifty years ago.
1
@G G Yeah, the Canadian, British, Danish, German, Dutch, French health systems are all total failures while our system is the envy of the world.
2
@G G
Yeah Americans prefer Venezuela under Trump dictatorship.
1
Can you say, "40 States go for Trump"?
The 45th president is a danger and a disaster; however, he will win in a landslide over either Sanders or Warren. Klochubar or Biden have a chance in Texas and mountain states, maybe. Warren and Sanders have none, and none in much of the rest of the middle of the country. We don't want socialism.
8
@VH Warren has stated that she's a "capitalist to her bones." Also, social safety nets are simply not the same as "socialism." It's a fear tactic.
1
@VH Is Social Security socialist? You instinctively say no because you like Social Security and hate socialism but take a moment and think.
Social Security is a single-payer, government-run retirement system which offers no choice to anybody. If you earn income you must participate. (Yes I know there are certain specific exceptions but there is no individual choice at all.)
2
While Bernie Sanders is personally more admiral, the US is not ready for a socialist President, and the fact remains that as a Senator, he has accomplished little. Elizabeth Warren is the tougher candidate who has the political savvy. She is the one who has become the primary target of the superrich - because she has a workable 2% plan to tax them, and they are very afraid. Such talk that the center must prevail is a bad metaphor.What must prevail is the beating heart of democracy and the fundamental rights of all-not the rule of billionaires. Lincoln and FDR were both assailed as extremists. Warren has yet to prove herself, but she may well fit that mold.
7
Given the Republican stand against inpeahent, the only way for Deocrats to rid the country of corruption is to get out the vote and defeat Trump and take back the Senate. To do that effectively Deocrats must creat a ticket that is attractive to black and mirority voters that includes a person of color. This is especially true as all the front runners are white; 3 are male. If the Deocratic ticket was both female and a person of color than there woud be a decent chance that voters would come out in numbers sufficent to defeat Trump.
@rose6 Your position is not supported by facts. The 2016 election was lost because the Dems lost white males, who comprise more than 30 percent of the total electorate. They also lost a lot of white women, who comprise more than 30 percent of the total electorate. That's more than 60 percent, I did the math for you.
Many here slamming Sanders/ Warren as losers in a match up with Trump, with the insinuation that they might hold back their votes if a progressive wins the primary, taking consolation in their investment portfolios even if under an unthinkable Trump second term.
And so... anybody but Biden or Buttigieg. Touche?
5
@Apple Jack It's disgusting, but not surprising. People tend to vote for whatever will directly benefit THEM rather than the moral and ethical choice.
2
One of the worst ways in which Hillary Clinton was a multi-whammy for the Democratic party in 2016 was that she snookered Elizabeth Warren from playing her proper role. Warren was forced to support Clinton because of her gender, because the alternative would have been political harakiri. Can any one doubt that without that problem, Warren would have endorsed Sanders, and the momentum from that endorsement would have carried Sanders to victory.
10
Snookered? Warren proved to be untrustworthy. If she were the leader we need, she would have placed the despair and suffering of the people above her our political ambitions.
4
Right. A lot of those mid-western swing state voters that went for Trump over Clinton would have voted for Sanders instead. They’ve been clamoring for a Democratic Socialist to vote for.
5
@whaddoino I can and do doubt your claim. In 2016 most actual Democratic primary voters didn't know who Elizabeth Warren was. You & I pay close attention to politics. Most voters don't.
I think that this column belabors the obvious. Surely the two candidates, and their campaigns, are entirely aware that only one can win the nomination, and both could lose out. Why is this column appearing now, well before a single Primary has been held? Sanders and Warren are different enough from one another that they present voters with a real choice. Does having both of them in the race really hurt the Progressive cause? I guess centrist or center-left Democrats would like to think so, and that's where the NYTimes opinions usually rest their case: Let's help people make up their minds by telling them what others think. This gets tiresome after a while.
8
@Jon Quitslund Yep. Useless speculation until some votes are actually cast.
Bigger problem-authenticity.
Liz' economic projections are so divorced from reality the WSJ called it a fairy tale. $32 billion suddenly is $20 billion, gonna tax wealth at 3%-wait 6%...and no one is going to evade these taxes! France collected less revenue after a wealth tax. She does this because free universities, free day care, and free medical care can be done without the middle class paying? Who believes this?
While Bernie is honest enough to admit all the free stuff will require taxes, he isn't being honest either. Every debate he spews the lie there are 80 million uninsured or UNDERINSURED Americans. During the ACA debate there were 40 million uninsured, Medicare expansion covered half of them and the exchanges another 12 million. There are less than 10 million uninsured Americans and that's because they choose to be. After all they could buy subsidized insurance on the exchanges too.
So, Bernie is going to take insurance away from 140 million Americans who buy it because he decided half of them don't have enough insurance? Do they have enough car insurance or homeowner's insurance? Who is he to decide what's appropriate and then take it away? This isn't socialism, it's Marxism.
Then he lies; "speculators" are responsible for the high cost of housing. Bernie has 3 houses, bought with federal money from his wife's job as president of a college that went bankrupt. And he accuses others of abusing the system?
They're both full of it. That's their problem.
7
@jkemp Your understanding of the insurance exchanges in inadequate. Many people in Medicaid expansion states fall into the gap between Medicaid eligibility and subsidy eligibility. Even with subsidies the prices are often out of reach for many. I worked on that project for several years and the prices have gone increasingly out of reach. This is the exact problem with medicare for all who want it, it is not universal and so it becomes unmanageable because of the false stigma associated with government run healthcare.
Your scale is also incorrect in terms of wealth. People with three modest homes are not the problem. Funny how when poor people ask for socialist programs they are accused of just wanting free stuff, while those who are even moderately well off are accused of hypocrisy. You need to re-evaluate your view.
1
@jkemp
Nick,
There are plenty of people on exchanges who can not afford all the insurance they need or who don't feel the subsidy is adequate, all true. But there are also plenty of people on Medicare who can't get psychiatric services or dental services. Bernie's solution of giving Medicare to everyone solves none of these problems either. The point remains valid there are not 80 million uninsured Americans and it is not Bernie's job to determine how much insurance each American should buy and therefore his claim regarding the "underinsured" is nonsense.
Even if it were true the solution of taking private insurance away from 140 million Americans that they bought and want because it's unfair to someone else is Marxism.
Bernie's homes are hardly modest, but that's not my point. Who is a "speculator"? Is someone taking out short term loans in order to repair a house inhabitable again (i.e. flipping) a "speculator"? Is someone investing in rental property a "speculator"? These people provide jobs and housing. The left has always blamed "speculators" for high prices and their solution is price controls. All this does is create shortages. But for Bernie to blame "speculators" for a housing shortage when he owns 3 houses is pure hypocrisy.
My points are as valid as when I made them.
@jkemp If you believe the WSJ...
Warren and Sanders come across like two grumpy school teachers, scolding their charges.
7
@robert west I couldn't care less. I'm more interested in the fate of our nation.
3
Being in Bernie’s presence one feels his compassion, sense of humor and passion, nothing else. Everything he does is centered in his deep caring for the people and increasing participation in democracy. Everything else is meaningless.
2
Democratic voters have a difficult choice - Sanders, or Warren, or the same plutocrats that has kept the average Americans real income stagnant for 50 years while they became filthy rich.
Oh, wait. Maybe that's not so difficult.
11
Not so sure, if their partly near identical propositions actually comped so much for support or rather kind of make them sound more “debatable” and “normal” as, this time, its more than one “exotic bird touting the song of a revolution”. So, if Bernie was still on his own, I guess, he wouldn’t have twice as much support, maybe not even the support he has now.
Let us see, if Democrats will still support these progressive Socialists and Big Plan Revolutionists next March. Maybe, by then, many a democrat has come to conclude, that to actually beat Trump and start unifying the country from Oval Office, it will take credibility and tons of Energy. Things you do not expect from people well over 70 years and preaching socialist revolutions.
The problem that Warren and Sanders have with each other is who can promise the biggest free ride to the American people.
3
And Trump’s tariffs cost Americans—no, not the Chinese, Americans—$88, 000, 000, 000 so far, plus another $28, 000, 000, 000 in farm subsidies.
That adds up to, lessee, $116, 000, 000, 000. From American taxpayers. While we’re told that the Chinese are paying, which they are not.
So while we’re on the topic of free rides...
2
@Robert
What does US-China trade policy have to do with Sanders and Warren's promise of a free ride to those unable or unequipped to deal with a free market economy?
1
@Southern Boy Nah, they just actually recognize that the rich have been stealing us working people's money far too blatantly in the last forty-five years. I, for one, have the self-respect to want it to stop.
3
Both would be great as Senators.
8
That they already are. Maybe the news didn’t reach you yet in New Jersey :-)
3
Let’s not forget the spectacle known as the 2016 Republican run up to the primary. There was ample time to see what was on offer. The combative and destructive Mr. Trump’s basest instincts were on full display. And here we are today, becoming president did not mellow him, it only intensified his degeneracy.
This article is nonsense. Democrats will choose their candidate and then unite to elect her/him. There is no need for any of them to engage in more than civil debate in an honest forum. Warren and Sanders deserve respect for keeping the discourse elevated as it should be.
8
@MG They do deserve respect for their civil debate. Will they continue?
1
When HRC became the nominee in 2016 both supported her.
2
We are voting for Delegates to a Convention.
We pick Delegates who share our views, choosing a Delegate pledged to the candidate we favor.
But if no one wins the first ballot (seems likely) then the candidates and supporters have a choice:
1) all out attack and anger at other candidates, or
2) work together to select a candidate who will support shared goals, from universal health care (whether you think "fixing" the ACA or moving to single payer is fastest/best approach), investment in sustainability and green jobs, immigration reform, protection from gun violence, overturning Citizens United, foreign policy built on alliances not bullying, trade policy that protects workers and the environment, a long list of shared Democratic goals, a huge improvement over Trump
Based upon Bernie's ongoing divisive purity attacks right into the Convention in 2016, I do not expect him to play a constructive role at this convention either and so would prefer to vote for delegates who will follow the lead of a more unifying progressive candidate.
Just look at the list of legislation passed by a unified Democratic House since Pelosi became Speaker---if we had a Democratic President and Senate, that would be law instead of bottled up on McConnell's desk---- all terrific progress.
We can argue about going forward from there, but first let's work together to get to there.
3
The problem is Warren wants to pivot center and Bernie won't let her. That's a good problem to have. Normally, I would support letting both candidates rack up delegates and we can decide between the two at the convention. However, Bloomberg et al. changes the math on this strategy. They are intentionally trying to provoke a brokered convention. They figure uncertainty is the best way to secure a moderate candidate in a primary moderates are clearly losing.
Moderates are attempting the same strategy. They have a field of well-funded candidates rack up delegates in a sort of conservative choose-your-own-adventure nomination. As long as they prevent a progressive from claiming a clear majority, they throw the decision to the establishment who will obviously choose a moderate candidate. Progressives can't afford to run the clock. They need the majority.
And while a Sanders-Warren or Warren-Sanders ticket is tempting, you'll hamstring future diplomatic outreach. The VP is supposed to balance the ticket. You're better served appointing either candidate to a high level cabinet position and leaving them alone. Secretary of Treasury, Commerce, Labor. You name it. Actually, the recusing candidate should have the option to negotiate more than one.
The question is how do we decide? Most progressives would be satisfied with either one even if they have a personal preference. As an ideas person, I think Bernie is the better executive. However, Warren is the better executor. Tough call.
1
There's no way Bloomberg is getting the Democratic nomination at this point. He knows it, and he's not throwing his money away to that end. Bloomberg obviously is using the Democratic field as a means to elevate his name recognition before shifting gears to run as a to-be-named third party, moderate Independent. The Democrats should not count on the November 2020 election choice being a choice between Trump and whomever turns out to be the most palatable progressive.
3
@Carl
My guess is that Bloomberg is too smart to run as a third party candidate and that his goal is bringing enough delegates into the convention to influence the selection of the Democratic candidate----he would like that to be him, of course, but that is not likely
1
@Lynn As middle class person, I freely concede my and Bloomberg's ideas likely differ considerably as to what constitutes a reasonable use of $100,000,000 (the amount he recently is reported to be spending on his campaign ads in key states), but spending that much as a downpayment for the mere chance of influencing the selection of the Democratic candidate seems pretty whacked.
As the Democrats coalesce around the center, which they have for decades, those who represent the left in the party will try to generate enthusiasm. The only problem this year is that there are two of those people. Sanders and Warren must fight each other, without appearing to fight each other, for a smaller pool on the left. This leaves Joe Biden with the bulk of the support. So after Super Tuesday it is highly likely that Biden will have all the delegates he needs for the convention and being good party people, when push comes to show, the two at the left of center will re-align because, getting rid of the impeached president is the only real issue.
1
While I think that the idea of a combined ticket sounds good, I think it is important that if one of the two wins, the other remain in the Senate to galvanize support there. Having the consolidated support there would make either candidate more effective in the Presidency.
7
@Noah
Yes, people forget how important it will be to have a Democratic Senate majority.
Remember 2016, when Bernie Bros picketed Clooney's home because Clooney had a fund raiser to raise money to support Democratic Senate candidates?
You are absolutely right that everyone should consider the best route to a Democratic majority in the Senate
1
Having two candidates also shows the strength of progressive policy. Even the U.K. conservatives who recently won supported heath care, green policy, and education. Polling in the US also supports that policy. Propaganda is what holds it back.
11
Bernie and Elizabeth are not equivalent by any stretch. The playing field is so far right now that only one candidate could possibly stand out as being truly for the people. We all know who that is.
7
Yang is the new Bernie.
Yang isn’t the president we need yet.
1
Who?
As a lifelong, more than progressive Democrat, I'm nearly exhausted already: by the previous debates, by the haranguing about the various strengths and weaknesses and positions of the plethora of candidates, and by the fear that Trump like an evil spirit seems to be in continuous ascension. The Senate hasn't yet taken up an impeachment vote, some of us are mourning a Trump victory in 2020, and yet there are folks who think Sanders or Warren could defeat the autocrat (I like both).
Why aren't Democrats instead focused on a massive, all-out media campaign -- as a Democratic party -- to lay out the widespread scandals and immoralities of the man (and party) who is defeating our country? Naive maybe. I get the logic of the current candidate winnowing. But it's not leading to winning, in the long-term.
10
@SGK Yes and we need a media campaign and activists constantly pointing to the excellent set of bills that have passed the Democratic House unified under Pelosi, which languish due to Republicans in the Senate
What readers should remember is that the combined votes for Sanders and Warren far outweigh the support for Biden or any other centrist. Moreover, their supporters are more enthusiastic: more willing to donate, to attend rallies, to hand out leaflets, to organize house parties, to fight disinformation, to write posts and letters to newspapers, to take a role in the campaign.
The Democratic Party has moved left. It encourages more women candidates, more blacks, more Muslims, more Asian Americans, and more democratic socialists. It depends more on smaller donors than fat cats. It is the party fighting climate change, more critical of authoritarian regimes like China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran, more likely to take active steps to get rid of nuclear weapons, more willing to adopt a modest foreign policy.
Unlike those who say: Beware of what happened in Britain, I say that things are so different in the two countries that comparisons are likely to be misleading.
I would vote for Biden, but I would prefer either Sanders or Warren.
25
Any liberal voter must ultimately decide between Warren vs. Sanders. Although I could enthusiastically support either, it seems clear to me that Warren is the more electable of the two.
Wrapping one's self in the moniker of "Socialist,"as Bernie does, will alienate many otherwise persuadable voters from the start. Having a running grudge match with Democratic party leaders is a handicap faced by Bernie, but not by Liz. Personalities don't change, and Warren comes across as more warm & approachable than Bernie ever can; that is why people consistently like her more as they get to know her better.
Biden is destined to fade due to his frequent gaffes & a "GOP light" platform which most liberals cannot support. Buttigieg is too young, too gay, & too unproven to be taken seriously as a candidate in 2020. The vacuum should thereby be filled by either Warren or Sanders.
Historically low participation by younger voters, anti-establishment types, & the politically disengaged represents the biggest obstacle to a Democrat defeating Trump. Warren will generate the enthusiasm necessary to bring these anti-Trump voters out in large numbers.
Once enough votes are cast to establish that she is the preferred candidate among primary voters, Democrats should coalesce around Warren to head into the election strongly united.
Warren for President!
5
@Doctor B
Biden is Biden. At times he has had to take his foot out of his mouth. He’s an Irishman who is not a good debater, but in interviews, uninterrupted , he’s knowledgeable, experienced in all aspects of governing, and a fighter for what he believes. He is moderate and judicious in forming political compromises. Joe hasn’t changed and has always been a winner. No ageism,please.
@Whatever
My preference for Warren, who is 70 y.o., has nothing to do with ageism. Biden is a creature of a bygone political era. What you call "compromises" amounts to a betrayal of the values Democrats have traditionally supported. Joe's idea of a compromise is to give the Republicans 95% of what they ask for; that gives us Clarence Thomas on the SCOTUS.
Joe is not a winner. He has sought the Democratic presidential nomination twice. Both times, he was an unmitigated disaster. In 1988, he plagiarized a speech by a British politician (Neil Kinnock) without an acknowledgment, & withdrew soon after being caught, before a single vote had been cast. In 2008, he started his candidacy early, but did so poorly in Iowa (got no delegates) & New Hampshire (got less than 1% of the vote) that he withdrew in February.
You're right about 1 thing. Joe hasn't changed. That, in a nutshell, is the problem.
1
Warren has copied many of Sanders programs. She claims to "support" most of his goals and yet did not support him in 2016. He had the guts to take on the whole establishment in 2016 and deserves her support in this race yet it is her own vanity that drives her to divide the progressive wing. Don't be so sure she doesn't make a deal with Biden if she thinks it's in her own interests.
12
I have a lot of friends undecided between Sanders and Warren. I bet I'm not alone.
4
@David S.
To help you decide,
A Republican governor would appoint the person to fill Warren's Senate seat.
Sanders is more knowledgeable on foreign policy and is more likely to have the ideas, vision, courage and strength to insist on a demilitarized foreign policy.
Warren's foreign policy advisor is from the Washington foreign policy establishment and her policy is likely to be business as usual.
8
If Warren actually has the country’s best interests at heart, she would have wholeheartedly endorsed BERNIE and saved us from four years of this nightmare. If she actually was running because she believed in the progressive policies she copies now, from Bernie, she would have fought for them four years ago and saved the, what, hundred thousand more who have joined the homeless ranks from being denied healthcare, from ObamaCare, and countless other catastrophes and despair caused by this rigged economy that she pretends to care about.
2
Like the vast majority of Canadians, I fervently hope that Trump will be defeated in 2020. But the US will never adopt our excellent “Healthcare For All” model and a Democratic far left agenda will not work. The Dems need a smart, moderate candidate (fiscal conservative; generally liberal on social issues) to restore the White House to sanity.
8
@Jack Noon
So democrats need to keep the economics of republicans that causes all the problems while pretending to care about social issues.
1
Our center has vigor and stability. Yang, Buttigeg, Klobuchar
1
@Jack Noon And lose in 2022.
It is not surprising that only in the New York Times and their readers can we find people that actually think that either Warren or Sanders is electable. It shows a misunderstanding of our country. We are not a progressive country we are a center/center right country.
10
Sure, when you realize that the electoral college disproportionally discriminates against the larger( blue) states,SCOTUS has wrongly voided law regarding campaign finance reform while also disemboweling voter suppression laws.and realize that the 10 smallest states in population ( about 12 million) have an equal number of Senators ( 20) as the 10 largest states ( 129 million). So, yes, of course our government is center to center right because the election systems are antiquated and anti-democratic.
2
@Mitchell myrin Leadership requires seeing things that others don't. If nothing else, a progressive push on climate change policy will be absolutely necessary if we are to save the planet. This is not a normal election.
6
You’re right, this is not a ‘normal’ election, our lives depend on electing and after winning, actively supporting and pushing for policies that will reach out across the globe and unite humanity to fight our common enemy, climate change. This is what I have heard Bernie talk about specifically and one I trust he will accomplish, with all our help.
1
Both campaigns are doomed. Either in the Primary or the General. Collectively these candidates appeal to a loud but marginal slice of Democrats (only about 1/3 of Dems identify as progressive or very liberal). Yes, many moderate Dems will get on board with whomever wins the nomination, but some won't and will either sit out the election or vote 3rd party. No matter how you slice it, Bernie and Warren do not appeal to the majority or moderates, swing voters and Independents. And regardless of what progressives will say about "firing up the base" it's the swing voters and the Independents that will decide the election. So in the end, if either is nominated get ready for another 4 years of Trump. Hate to say I told ya so.....
11
@John Except that Sanders has great appeal among Independents and many other voters in what some write off as "Trump country." More than trying to fire up bases, liberal or conservative, what's important is getting people to the polls. The usual view of politics tends to take in only voters rather than the whole picture of the electorate. The reality is that large sections of the population have simply dropped out of the formal political process because they recognize it usually doesn't do anything for them.
10
Bernie rallies idealists and loses those who view Socialism and Medicare for All as disruptive and antiquated. Yang is the new Bernie
Bernie understands that the way to get representation in our politics is to mobilize, and care about, everyone! This isn’t about red or blue for him and those volunteers who care about his policies. It’s about every single citizen participating in democracy!
7
Warren and Sanders: The seeds you have planted for a better
U.S. will take hold, someday, probably sooner than later. For now,
stop the rants, realize neither of you are safe choices to beat
any Republican (I'm saying Trump's not going to be the GOP nominee!), and teach your young and zealous followers some
political skills by throwing support to a winner.
1
I'm glad the Democratic Party is open to new ideas, like those of Sanders, Yang and Warren!
8
Warren’s ideas are copied from Sanders. It would be a great thing if she wasn’t using them to get power for herself. She demonstrated this when she stayed quiet in her support of them last election. So, proving Warren only cares about progress policies if they give Her power. Not trustworthy. Bernie is trustworthiness incarnate.
7
if Warren and Sanders formed a "unity ticket" as they put it.....we would all be very, very lucky people. my hope is that after Iowa, NH, Nevada, SC, the one with most delegates gets endorsed by the other. wow, I'm jittery thinking about that....
7
Sanders may have resisted calls to join the Democratic Party but, as far as we know, he, unlike Warren, wasn't a libertarian Republican into his mid 40s.
For her to explain that her change to progressive Democrat occurred only after she learned what a problem bankruptcy was but didn't notice all the policies of the Nixon and Reagan administrations that negatively affected those down the economic scale is impossible to believe.
9
As this primary has moved along, the gap between their positions has only widened (Warren's 180 on Medicare for all, for example), and I'm sure it will only continue to do so from here on out.
4
Sanders is intellectually and temperamentally unfit to be President. He possess no policy chops whatsoever. (ask him a policy follow up question and the hands start waving). He mounted character (not policy) attacks against Clinton and lied about not only his record but the Democrats record ,helping hand the 2016 election to Trump. For a candidate talking about unity, he hires people who are either loyal to him alone (which has led to too many racist, sexist, homo- and transphobic accusations that have led to firings and "unendorsements") or did not vote for 2016 Democratic nominee. Nominating Sanders to head a party he disparages is rewarding bad behavior. Warren is easily baited into dumb arguments by both Trump and Buttigieg and cries foul when she gets called on it. She is condescending (1) telling Biden he shouldn't be running as a Democrat when she was a Republican for a significant portion of her life and (2) coming after Rehema Ellis in the most inappropriate manner after she expressed skepticism for her wealth tax. The fact that she shows little solidarity for the women in the race (but is happy to either steal their ideas or fundraise off of their misfortunes) is bothersome. Neither have no use for marginalized populations unless they agree with them in lockstep. Neither Sanders nor Warren are progressive. They are just tax and spend populist politicians.
17
@scm18 vote blue period.
2
I'm for Sanders and Warren because they not only speak truth to power, but together they have won over a large percentage of the voters. They both say Medicare for all won't happen overnight, but they're committed to it because it is so long overdue.
And a Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders ticket will unite the party behind a progressive agenda that has a good chance of flipping the senate. People are clamoring for clean air, water and food, affordable healthcare and education, and taxing corporations and wealthy individuals at a fair rate.
37
Both should drop out now. Viz Jeremy Corbyn.
Either if they were to be elected, it would just be another swing of the pendulum to the edges - which would produce no real legislation, just endless partisan fights.
Ethically, morally, practically and strategically, the only way to save the union is to rebuild the center.
33
@T
Amen to that. Political polarization serves the very few and leaves the rest of us feeling isolated and cold. Progressives love to view themselves as the party of the people, yet only 1/3 of Democrats actually support their platform. That's not even a majority within their own party!
7
@T
Ethically, morally, practically and strategically, the only way to save the union is to have a healthy, educated citizenry living in a country with decent infrastructure on a sustainable planet.
Sanders' policies of medicare for ALL, paid family leave for ALL, free/affordable QUALITY child care for ALL, free QUALITY education early childhood through high school for all, tuition free continuing public education... these policies will begin to create more equal opportunity for all, and a more just and thriving society and economy.
The US is the world's wealthiest country.
People like you might prefer to incarcerate people, rather than educate them, but education is cheaper and has other positive benefits,
Of course, you may prefer the status quo of the US having the world's highest rate of incarceration,
and obscene, colossal and growing inequality, where the richest.1 percent take in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.
https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/
14
@Lucy Cooke
Your insinuations about my positions are incorrect and presumptuous, your understanding of the powers of the Presidency are clearly flawed.
NONE of those policies will happen if Sanders is elected.
For whatever reason, reasonable or illogically discriminatory on the part of voters, Warren will not be able to beat Trump in swing states Trump converted Red in 2016 -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin -- but Sanders will.
IMHO, the winning ticket for progressives would be P: Sanders; VP: Warren. Joe Kennedy replaces Warren in the Senate, and Markey keeps his.
10
At some point there will have to be for the good of the country and the Democratic Party a grand compromise.
I love both of theses candidates and have given money to both. But objectively because of her age, health and even her sex ,if I may be so bold to mention it, Warren is the better choice to beat Trump.
How this comes about completely depends on Bernie doing the right thing.
Will he? I sincerely hope so.
4
@Edward B. Blau
Last time he quit, he quit and went house shopping with his wife before coming back to give Clinton a lukewarm endorsement. Does he deserve trust of Party?
Go Joe Biden
This is an inaccuracy promoted by Clinton. Bernie went all out to get Clinton elected, and made a lot of his supporters angry, including me, in telling us to make sure Clinton beat Trump. She lost on Her own. Don’t blame Bernie.
1
save this for "Dewey defeats Truman" moment when they both win.
1
You only have to view the unofficial Facebook groups for Bernie Sanders to understand their mentality is that of uninhibited piranhas. Anyone who steps out of line, anyone who deviates from a hard left is eaten alive by the others. For the die hard Bernie supporters Elizabeth Warren supporters are reactionaries, and they won't vote for Warren almost to spite her supporters. Remember, Laura Loomer was a Bernie supporter. The number of memes shared indicating that it's "Bernie or bust" is incredible. And if you don't share that view get ready for a barge of hate. They will not consider voting for anyone else. So if Warren does win look for her to recover very little from the Bernie camp.
12
@Josue Azul
I know a lot of Bernie supporters and nothing you say is true. Why are you saying this if it's not true? Limited circle of friends? Propaganda?
6
@Josue Azul I have a hard time believing that, on the political spectrum of what exists, and has existed for the last 50 years is a bogged down center/right to hard right agenda, with spurts of republican light from the democrats. These two candidates are so close ideologically that there's very little light to what we've had, and I think this entire op-ed is over the top political navel gazing. This is the kind of mindset that undermines any meaningful change in our entire country, and it's being pedaled by the same people that foisted Hillary on us. If democrats are serious about winning they have to offer a different direction and inspire people, which is what Liz 'n Bernie do. Who can get excited over Joe Biden, or Mayor Pete?
3
@Josue Azul
Check our “The Damage Report” with John I. Using Facebook where extremism from the right wing runs rampant as your example is crazy. As the rights rhetoric increases expect the left to counter balance.
Want to fix it deal with republicans and pull them back to compromise with liberal policy. Because of the electoral college, senate, gerrymandering they don’t have to compromise.
Fox the right and the response from the left will fade away. Blame who is causing this not the response to it.
1
I have no problem with Bernie as a candidate, and voted for him in 2016. What I have a problem with is his supporters, who smear every candidate, including Warren, as a "corporate shill." One of the most important things about a candidate for me is their effect on supporters, and I don't know why, but Bernie generates a cult of personality that I find disturbing, and very unhelpful for the party and for the country. Instead of reaching out to people who support other candidates, they attack them. It's a mean-spirited club I don't want to join this time around. I imagine much more division and yelling in a Trump/Bernie contest, and that would continue no matter which one wins. This is one of the reasons I support Pete Buttigieg this time around. Mayor Pete is a unifier who wants nothing more than to bring this country back together.
15
@Ryan H Mayor Pete has shown himself to really be Wall Street Pete. He sings a lullaby like a Hallmark card but look at the facts- he has gladly accepted billionaire funding and has become the primary attacker of Warren, even using right-wing think tank arguments against her. Unfortunately, that combination of acts does qualify him as a corporate shill. We must judge our candidates not by how soothing the sound, but by their proven sincerity to the working and middle class people in fighting for our rights and opposing billionaire-rule.
7
@Ryan H
I understand you want to just be able to walk in the room and have everyone come together but this is a primary. Consider any attacks a warm up to what will happen in the general. Don’t expect the progressives to lie for democrats.
Also Pete offers nothing of substance. He is playing games to become president. It’s extremely obvious. He said he was a progressive and moved right. He puts his fingers in the air and simply says what is expedient.
All I hear about him is how well he talks etc. nothing of substance. His policies are thrown together half baked ideas with no actual desire to implement them. A great example is his college which denies wealthy people’s children. Putting people outside the community isn’t a unifier. It also leaves the door wide open for the wealthy to attack the system.
What exactly is he unifying beyond stringing fancy words together to win?
2
@Ryan H
a unifier...
with NOTHING MORE...
1
I've admired Elizabeth Warren for a long time. It is her expertise in bankruptcy law and her firm grasp of financial issues that has propelled her to where she is today. I hope voters will recognize that we will be best served by Elizabeth Warren if she is focused on our economy and our fiscal house.
That means she should be Secretary of the treasury under Sanders who has a broader resume and the resolve to do the necessary fighting needed to pass progressive programs.
14
@WalterZ
We all need to remember that a Republican governor would be appointing Warren's replacement to the Senate.
She would still be a phenomenal ally to President Sanders while serving in the Senate.
4
Oh, I'm sure The Times would love it if they started attacking each other. It's not going to happen.
Sanders is the real deal. Warren is, like, "What he said."
22
@Joe
Arguments from this level this usually come from the Trump people.
2
@Joe
‘The Times would love it if they started attacking each other. It's not going to happen’
The times does not have to. All you have to see is the Bernie Bros and Warren Faithful go at eat other on a daily basis. Go look, they hate each other as much as they hate Trump.
And why? Because of this:
‘Sanders is the real deal. Warren is, like, "What he said."’
That is why.
The Sanders camp does not mince words or even look at Warren fans as people, they are more than willing to tear the other camp apart. There is no need to attack either, they are consuming each other already.
Let them fight it out, let them take each other out. As long as you do that there is no unity in the Democrat camp, just when you needed it the most.
1
Early days, Mr. Martin.
They will consolidate this spring and then march together over the summer.
But can we expect your next column to be about "The Bidens" consolidating soon? Joe Biden, Biden 2 (Bloomberg), Young Biden (Buttigieg), Lady Biden (Klobuchar)?
Yes, I thought not.
39
@Will Flaherty
'They will consolidate this spring and then march together over the summer.'
If you believe that, there's a bridge for sale in your neighborhood.
@AutumnLeaf
If you don't think when one wins the primaries this spring that the other won't throw their weight behind the other at the convention this summer I only have one recommendation for you: see your doctor.
1
I keep reading comments about Elizabeth Warren being "unelectable." I reminds me of what friends told me 12 years ago this month: "America will never elect a Black man with the middle name Hussein." I replied, "Just watch." Obama had some ups and downs that campaign season, just as Warren is experiencing now. I predict that I will be doing next November what I did in November 2008. Then it was knocking on doors in Pennsylvania for the person who would become the our first Black president. Next November it will be for the person who will become our first female president, Elizabeth Warren.
25
Both are terrible and divisive....Bernie supporters are aggressive.
They both do serious damage to democratic party.
I will vote moderate .. I can stand their everything free policies..
9
That process will take care of itself w/o internecine warfare among the true Democrats, much as the NY Times desires it. Bernie and Elizabeth need to do a better job of differentiating themselves from the so-called centrist, neoliberal, status quo candidates, Joe Biden and Buttigieg. From what I’ve read about Buttigieg he’s a ruthkess careerist who won’t hesitate in stabbing fellow Dems in the back. They should go after him, among other things, for his McKinsey work urging layoffs and privatizing the US Postal Service. That should further endear him to African-American voters.
6
The Liberal party just got slaughtered in Britain.. because they called for revolution when voters just want progress & stability.
--And the majority of voters here want the same..-
6
@mike
You know, I haven't yet heard the percentage of elilgible voters that actually cast a ballot in the UK election. Could be that the Labor party (NOT the "Liberal party") had too many that decided they weren't enthusiastic at all and decided to stay home.
Sound familiar?
3
@mike
Aren't "progress" and "progressive" the same? And "stability" is found in the "center left," surely? No revolution is necessary, just a fair chance in life for all, equally.
1
Yes.
Two contenders both having egos the size of Trump.
Bernard's take no prisoner troops.
Warren with her ragtag band of "progressives".
Neither will yield to the other in very heavy traffic.
Like the peace treaty between Hitler and Stalin, something has to give.
Combined, they could take this thing easily.
But they have split the far left vote and that can only benefit the next president, Pete.
Historians will marvel that the far left blew it in such grand fashion.
Pete will be our next and best president, a strong progressive centrist who will lead us into the post-Trump era.
4
@Simon Sez
You disparage those who support Warren and Sanders, but no other candidate has any chance of winning the general election if their supporters don’t show up. This just reads as propaganda to suppress turnout.
2
@Simon Sez
You're right except for this:
'Pete will be our next and best president'
That's never going to happen.
He appeals at a tini sliver f the voting block. And you are going against a solid, united red block.
You need to coalesce around a candidate, and Pete is not capable of doing that.
In the 1980's Warren, Sanders and I were all about the same age and Reagan was starting the destruction of the American middle class, environment and Central America. I could understand that, my friends could understand that and Bernie could understand that. But Warren didn't and remained a Republican, although she has said she didn't vote for her party. Hmm...and Bill didn't inhale. This may seem like ancient history, but I think it is important to remember who got it right when it mattered.
13
@Concerned Reader Sanders also has the foresight that the drum beating to Iraq war was no good. Most of his colleagues lacked that kind of insight and foresight. Having said that, Liz knows how the Republican mind works she has first hand knowledge experience so I see it as a strength. Once again no one is really born a democrat or republican. We can each decide our party with our conscience.
6
@Concerned Reader
Bernie has made bad mistakes in judgement too, and much more recently than the 1980s---such as when he voted for the so-called "Defense of Lawful Commerce" Act, which uniquely protects those who sell and promote guns
(protections that manufacturers of no other product enjoy).
Bernie also voted against the Brady Bill (ie there would be NO background checks if Bernie had his way then) which, by the way, the much-maligned Clinton signed, along with the Assault Weapons Ban that protected us for a decade)
2
Amber Alert, Minutemen. He voted against CHIP, the auto industry bailout. He also voted to deregulate derivatives, which led to the 2008 recession. Even though he voted against the Iraq Act (or for more testing to look for weapons), Bush still used the AUMF for Iraq,which he voted for as well. He was asleep at the wheel during the VA scandal so his bill, put together under the position of weakness, has certain VA services privatized. He is definitely not immune from bad judgment.
1
Warren-Sanders. Unites the ideological left with practical senate experience. Answers questions about age and heart issues. Capitalizes on the women's vote.
6
@Terry I could live with Sanders-Warren or Warren-Sanders.
8
@Terry
and loses in a landslide
1
@GMooG Extremely doubtful.
1
Anyone who thinks they know who will be elected is mistaken. Hillary Clinton, like Biden, was a centrist and she lost. (Popular vote, as we all know, doesn’t matter; neither does the will of the American people.)
People tend to vote their party, but even so this is too close to call. Voter suppression is probably the strongest tactic and the GOP seems to be getting away with it again. But who knows?
8
Neither candidate has offered any real viable solution to solve the urgent healthcare affordability crisis. To simply offer platitudes like, "take down the insurance companies and big pharma" and "free healthcare for all" isn't a solution. Reading the details of their policies doesn't give any reassurance that we will have an immediate solution to get everyone covered. They rely on a number of pie in the sky proposals to pass before they can even begin to implement their plans. That's why I don't believe that either can claim to be honestly progressive. They both aggressively attack the one candidate, Buttigieg, who sees the urgent need to get everyone affordable healthcare coverage immediately and proposes a viable plan to do this. He has made it clear that he favors M4A, but his goal is to get everyone covered and proposes the best way to do that. I don't expect that most people will read the details of his climate change proposals. It would be interesting to have a debate just devoted to this.
4
Despite this article I am still skeptical that there is a substantial overlap between Bernie and Warren voters. Warren voters, seem to be more educated and have a higher proportion of women, also some moderate voters have been drawn to her because of her command of issues and policies. Now that Warren seems to have driven off some of her more moderate supporters I don't see a good path for her.
Bernie does not have sufficient support within the democratic party, his only hope is a division of votes of his non supporters among the rest of the moderates.
I dislike Trump as much as anyone out here, but I will still pick "him" or rather his party over Bernie.
Maybe the best outcome to go forward from, is that Bernie win the nomination this time and get crushed in the general, and hopefully that will put to put to rest the screams that Socialism is the only way.
1
pi@John
No sir, you could not dislike Trump as much as I do, or as much as a bunch of millions of us do. We would vote for a nematode before we'd vote for Trump. Or a pinworm.
Factually inaccurate analysis here. Sanders has the backing of young working class people and people of color, largely. Warren has almost exclusively middle aged overeducated whites. As counterintuitive as this situation seems, the two demographics actually don't overlap much. So in truth Warren needs to expand her base generally and Sanders needs to focus on pulling support from Biden, who also has a lot of the (older) working class vote.
7
Sanders has very little of the people of color vote.
1
That is inaccurate. Bernie loves, respects and supports every single citizen.
1
White liberals need to understand that they're not the only constituency. I want a candidate that can appeal to a broad ethnic spectrum, and I'm not convinced either Sanders or Warren can do that.
The liberals also need to understand that this is not a parliamentary system where small parties can still have a significant influence. This is a 2-party system, which means there will have to be compromise. If another candidate wins the nomination and Warren and Bernie backers sit out election day, the results could be disastrous. If Warren or Bernie wins the nomination, moderates will have to make a similar compromise decision.
4
Frankly, we are weary of the Democratic Party telling us with each election what we CANNOT have and yet supporting all the things we CAN have-- such as endless war, as they without fail collude with the vile Republicans who live and breathe war.
Bernie and Warren demonstrate what we CAN have, if we put our mind and energy to it. Bear in mind, these items may take time, but they comprise something called a "vision" for our society, based on supporting one another and making a better world. It's government for the people. What a concept.
The poor showing by democratic candidates election after election has been a marked lack of discernible vision. The message has repeatedly been, "We will tweak this and we will tweak that." Very uninspiring.
Please, let's change course. We beg you.
26
We’ve often discussed the “strength” of Joe Biden because he consistently leads the pack, but that overlooks the share of voters who endorse these two candidates. Reality may be more complicated though.
Bernie bros I’ve talked to sometimes have a visceral reaction to Warren that is similar to reactions I’ve witnessed in men who nurture private misogyny. Its not clear they would support Warren if Bernie were off the table. Jacobin (the publication), among others, has noted relevant discrepancies in Warren’s rhetoric that may turn off others. She seems to want to be everything to everyone, whereas Bernie maintains his positions and realistically admits their implications (middle-class taxes, for example).
Its also not clear voters see these candidates as Bernie vs Elizabeth. A look at polls indicates that when Warren’s support plateaued then began to erode, both Buttigieg and Sanders gained the equivalent support. Biden’s, meanwhile, remained unchanged. This implies there is a not-Biden group of voters who may be splitting their support between Sanders, Buttigieg, and Warren.
1
If voters cast their votes based on policies they wanted, Sanders would easily win.
But the media focuses on labels and smears—similarly to how the British media treated Corbyn.
So, we may very well get the corporate friendly Biden who will serve his corporate sponsors and do little or nothing to address the actual crises we face. Pretty much like Trump and the GOP, albeit with less glee about the cruelty.
9
Regardless of the actual politics of personalities involved, again we see as we always see, an election contest turned into some sort of perverse strategy and distancing game because we overwhelmingly continue to use the 'first past the post' election system. The deep, theoretical, anti-democratic, choice-destroying problems with first past the post, including the major problem of 'blocking' where similar candidates in effect steal each others votes, have been known for millenia.
I understand why such a terrible system persists in national elections: 'first past the post' essentially makes for a two party system (even if the results are not always democratic, since they are regularly spoiled by relatively minor third party candidates). But for the life of me I cannot understand why any serious private political party, such as the democrats or republicans, would internally continue to use such a horrible system if their goal is find the best possible candidate.
"First past the post" is not democracy. Because we continue to use it, the USA and Britain are not democracies because they knowingly, provably, use electoral systems that suppress the will of the electorate. The voting system in use today, especially, in multi-candidate elections, is not democracy. Its fundamentally broken and getting rid of it should be the first task for any reform movement. If you don't know what I'm talking about, do an internet search for "score voting" or "range voting."
5
More delusions. A Warren-Sanders combination would be a dream come true for Trump. Even if they’re the smartest, most virtuous creatures in the galaxy. ::sigh::
8
How do we survive 2020 period?
2
Green New Deal, one of the policies Bernie fights for with our help. Democracy means we all participate.
To decide between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, one should answer the following: Which version of Jeremy Corbyn do you prefer, and how big a loss in the Electoral College would satisfy you?
12
@A
The greater the loss the sooner the EC ends.
1
They both understand that consolidating the left is not about smearing the other one. That’s what makes the left unique.
12
@Jeremiah Crotser The just smear the moderates
That’s what makes .Bernie. unique. Clinton has no problem attacking and undermining Bernie last election.
I’m afraid the plan to gut our entire healthcare system makes Warren unelectable. Bernie is too old. And those of us in blue states should probably not bother to vote. It’s a waste of time. It all comes down to what Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would like for the rest of us. What a sorry system we have.
8
@Josh
Unfair as our electoral system is, an overwhelming popular vote against T. would be an obstacle to his tyranny, whereas if that vote isn't there, he'd say he has a mandate.
Not bothering to vote is horrible.
5
@Josh
Currently, roughly 37 percent of the US population doesn't have private health insurance coverage. Since Trump took office, the number of citizens without healthcare insurance at all rose by 7 million. But you aren't troubled by this, no doubt.
4
What this column fails to mention is that Warren’s dip in the polls coincides with Buttigieg’s rise. Which leads to the strong possibility that Sanders and Warren are playing in adjacent but different lanes.
Or, they are seen as such by those who have been polled.
It makes sense for both Sanders and Warren to stay in the race and consolidate the left of center vote.
Both will struggle to expand their coalitions. And should acknowledge that reality. Warren will find it difficult to attract the core Bernie supporter, who only believes in him. And Team Sanders (Faiz Shakir) has acknowledged that a movement that grows is a movement that’s welcoming and joyful (which was an implicit acknowledgment that they are not so currently, or at least seen as such). There’s a lot of hurt left over from 2016, legitimate or not, that limits Bernie from expanding his base.
Both campaigns likely see that they will need each other at the convention. It’s smart for them to keep out of each other way as they are natural allies. Compared to the other centrists running.
12
@Patrician
Nice to hear from my Bernie friend with your ideas that will only benefit one candidate, Bernard.
The simple fact is that Bernard cannot win the midwest and obviously not any general election.
Everyone agrees he is a nice person like we all think that one on one Biden is a good person.
Both are way too old and in the case of Bernard, the fact that he proclaims himself a proud Socialist and, as has not been mentioned as much as it might, a very proud atheist, doesn't help their cases.
Pete is the antidote to this madness.
He will be our next and best president.
4
I'm sorry, Bernie is not a nice person. He doesn't take care of his child for the first ten years of his life. He endorses loyalists despite whatever disgusting things they say. He encourages the attacks against other candidates, even if he actually does nothing. If he was a nicer guy, he may have had more superdelegates in 2016. With that campaign, the fish rots from the head.
4
@Simon Sez
Ageism is as nasty and as ignorant as any other ugly ism. Wait. You'll get your turn to face it.
1
Both are miserably poor candidates. They advocate radically larger government of the kind that continues to fail once great states like California & New York. Neither Senator will consider that one of our best run states, Utah, has far more limited government than what they propose. Lastly, neither can point to any substantial life experience or success outside of government. Why America would seriously consider either candidate is beyond rational thought.
13
I wish you were more informed. You criticize Elizabeth Warren for not having experience outside govt. SHE WAS A LAW PROFESSOR FOR OVER 20 YEARS WITH EXPERTISE ON BANKRUPTCY BEFORE GOING INTO GOVT.
Also the California economy is extremely strong, so why is it a failure?
14
@Once From Rome
Did you know that Utah is being sued by neighboring states because they have a policy of buying their homeless population bus tickets to neighboring states?
Classic conservatism. Sweep all of the problems under the rug and any problem they can’t cover up they shove onto someone else so they have to deal with it.
Best run state government... what a joke.
8
@Once From Rome
Utah? With over half of the population Mormon? Yikes.
1
I would vote for a Sanders-Warren ticket. But I would do so with great anxiety that Trump would get re-elected. Despite the attention the debates have placed on The Green New Deal, and the media on Greta Thunberg, the world is not taking climate change seriously enough. Mankind has never faced this kind of existential threat, which is too large for most people or the political process to react to. None of the things that Sanders and Warren (or Trump) focus on are going to matter when the population at large, of both parties, finally wakes up and realizes that we have launched the equivalent of a deadly asteroid barreling toward our and our children's future. Of all of the outrages that Donald Trump and his Republican enablers will be remembered for, none will matter as much as their selfish, cynical and short-sighted war on the environment.
15
The problem for Warren and Sanders is that if either is nominated, the Democrats will lose decisively in the November election. Corbyn's defeat is the warning shot across the bow. Will the Dems heed it?
15
@The Logger You are right, unless millennials can vote twice. Impeachment was a huge roll of the dice that Nancy Pelosi wisely resisted. If either of them gets the nomination we are sunk -- 8 years of Trumpian destruction.
@The Logger I'm curious why you think Corbyn's defeat to the Conservative party has anything to do with American politics. Are we to believe that for political candidates to be viable that they should share traits with the Conservative party of Britain? If so, the Conservative Party has supported free, publicly-funded healthcare since 1945. So by this comparison, aren't ONLY Sanders and Warren electable?
9
It is no small miracle that they are keeping one another low in the polls. Both are entirely unelectable for one simple reason: Americans reflexively hate socialism, and trump will easily weaponize that word to destroy their chances. It will be a 40 state blowout if either is the nominee and we can say goodbye to our democracy.
10
@CP He will call any Democrat a socialist. Even Joe Biden. Maybe even Bloomberg.
1
Who cares? Neither candidate has a shot at being President, much less any chance of implementing their Grand Plans if they somehow snuck into the Oval Office.
This is a fight over the last scraps from Thanksgiving, not a Presidential contest. A real viable political party would have had one candidate ready to run by now, not this assortment of grotesques. The Dems are going to lose. The only question now is by how much, and to whom.
8
I am completely turned off by the divisiveness promoted by Sander’s and Warren’s supporters which is encouraged by the candidates’ painting everyone not on the far left with a broad brush as the enemy. This Democratic circular firing squad will backfire on all of us in November.
35
@AJBF
Yet you have no problem with the media constantly targeting them and yelling republican talking points of "How are we going to pay for that!?" Then increasing 120 billion in military spending above what they pentagon asked for without so much as a question of how can we afford that? On top of a 200 billion tax cut?
How much education would 120 billion dollars pay for? All of it for everyone who wants to go to school?
Funny isn't it we sure can afford more capitalist militaristic adventures to protect the rich with our wealth, our blood and our lives.
Their real problem is a shared one: views far to the left of most voters. The landslide in the UK should be a warning to them both.
18
@ehillesum
You can not use the UK as an example.
Most people in the UK endorse and agree with the policy of the left. They did not like Boris, but they really disliked the Labor leader Corbin much much more.
Actually you can not use western Europe as an example at all. Because of the fight the progressive fight in the US. Already exist all over the EU.
All of western Europe is Social Democracies, but that does not mean that they are socialist countries.
When we in Europe talk about Social Democracy.
The Social part is that we have a social network that are funded by the state that is paying from everything from labor money to health care, the education system so that you do not have to pay a fee to go to University.
We are not socialistic countries we are Social Countries. And that goes for all the Scandinavia and the rest of western Europe. So that when I as a Norwegian goes to Germany, I have the right to the same free health care as the citizens. And if they do not have as good health care as in Norway, I can use private healthcare and the Norwegian state will pay for it. That is because we have what we call a European health care Card.
So forget about the conservative slide in the UK, they already have NHS (National Health Service)
And that is also why Boris after his win promise that he will boost NHS with a lot of new fresh money as his first act as a New Prime minister.
14
@ehillesum Instead Corbyn would have won had he just supported Brexit & not teeter-totter on the issue. The landslide in the UK was a re-inforcement of the Brexit vote, a populist, anti-globalist, anti-neo-liberal, anti-immigrant vote. It was a pro-nativist & pro-isolationist vote, nothing to do with the "Left" Their people already have & will not dismantle their social welfare state. If only we could be so lucky as to have HALF of what they already take for granted such as their NHS, mandatory vacation days or paid family leave!
2
I have hope that Senator Sanders can bargain with Sen Warren to have him as 2nd fiddle, she is the stronger candidate but he can drag her to the 2nd tier. Richard Reich suggested this in The Guardian this morning and I second it.
As a VP, Senator Sanders would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, if only his heart holds out. I believe that Sen Warren wants to have a strong black lady as her running mate to carry more of us black people. My feelings are that that would help in carrying SC but would be more ammo for Trump.
So, my vote is for Warren-Sanders 2020.
11
You got a couple of things wrong.
It is Robert not Richard Reich.
He did not suggest the order in the ticket but if anything he would be comfortable with Sanders as President with Warren as VP in 2020 and Bernie not running in 2024.
I would add that Warren-AOC in 2028 would be a corollary to that great idea.
1
This analysis is correct. Neither of these candidates is likely to cede to the other, and they are assuredly splitting precisely the vote that can actuality defeat Trump by motivating vast populations to come vote who last time stayed home — or who were in 2016 underage. These voters are grossly underrepresented in polls of likely voters, obviously, which helps create an illusion of Biden’s strength. But Biden has no legs. He’s not sharp like either Sanders or Warren. Trump will outshout him. And the Hunter Biden poison is not being effectively neutralized— certainly not by Biden losing his temper at town meetings. Biden would need to admit that his son got a sinecure only because money flows toward power, and that’s a form of soft corruption. But Biden will never say this.
My ideal ticket wouldn’t be of two septuagenarians. But this need not be a disaster if they’re smart. Warren should be the presidential candidates: the woman, younger, with no health issues, who can attract a broader coalition of legislators to push her reforms. Sanders should be the VP and partner, bringing his immense and loyal democratic socialist movement.
Let these two model for all of us how grownups of integrity and good will value the needs of the many over personal ambition.
10
Simple choice that comes down to this:
Buy the Original, or buy the Knockoff?
If it was a nice watch, which one would you pick?
9
@GregP
The wristwatch metaphor isn't really helpful to the Sanders campaign, given that we know he has a faulty ticker.
1
I will vote for either Sanders or Warren over every single other candidate running. Personally, I stand to do better with 4 more of Trump, but I am more concerned for this nation than my personal welfare. As a soon to be retired teacher I do not have unlimited disposable income, but I will manage. I would rather pay more in taxes for governments that do the jobs they are supposed to do--local, state, federal.
I have speculated if Warren and Sanders would consider running as a team, but that seems unlikely. I do not trust Buttigieg because he withholds so much in his calculated and highly crafted ability to discuss his ideas. He's hidden who he really is for so much of his life to get to where he is, it's hard to believe he's stopped. Biden is nice but has been unable to persuade me that he will change anything other than the resident at 1600. Bloomberg makes me sick, but he does demonstrate strong goals for some things that would improve the US. He's at least a billionaire who thinks. I pray for Warren or Sanders to find a way to the top.
55
Desperate times call for desperate measures. If Sanders and Warren split the progressive vote to the degree that a "moderate" would take the nomination (and lose the general election, like last time), let them run as co-presidents. In a public event, a coin can be tossed to determine who heads the ticket. This way their largely non-overlapping bases could be combined and there could be no complaints of bias about the selection. Once elected, they would be equals in formulating policy. They don't agree about every single thing, but that's fine; nobody's right all the time.
10
@Frank da Cruz - I disagree. Hillary didnt lose because she was a moderate, she lost because she ran one of the WORST campaigns in the history of the U.S. An example: she never even made an appearance in Wisconsin, a key swing state that Obama won handily. instead, vote count droped by 50,000 in Milwaukee alone. Trump won the state by 23,000. Then add in the fact that over 10% of Bernie's primary voters ended up voting for Trump in the presidential election, and the result isn't hard to understand.
5
The great thing about Sanders and Warren is their non aggression pact gives Democrats a chance to win the Election by cancelling each other out.
The Democrat candidate is far from determined. The candidate who wins the nomination has to last through the long haul. Warren and Sanders are wearing thin and not holding up to scrutiny. Sanders is unelectable and Warren comes across as inflexible and failing to answer questions without falling back to the same speeches.
I hope the time is coming for Klobuchar. She seems pragmatic, calm, flexible, more experienced than Buttigieg and a proven winner in the Midwest. I’ve not understood why she has yet to catch on but believe her time is coming.
What also must be recognized is Bloomberg’s ability to draw votes from Republicans. That may not appeal to the Warren/Sanders supporters but this is about beating Trump, nothing else.
Keep it up Elizabeth and Bernie! Maybe Trump can actually be defeated but it won’t be by either of you.
7
The new old Left in US politics was made by Bernie, in his image.
Like his movement, Bernie scorns anyone whose pronouncements don't go as far as his. He, too, would rather be pure and right, than in charge. His rhetoric about his "political revolution" being about "us" is just that - rhetoric. He can't be bothered to craft policies that address today's needs; to him, that would involve admitting that he's been wrong for 40 years. Bernie won't change.
And, of course, he couldn't even be bothered to join the Democratic Party (until he had to, to advance his personal ambition); why would anyone expect Bernie to team up with Warren?
6
I have been in Warren’s corner ever since meeting her shortly after she had written her first book. Her concern for ordinary working people and the poor is heartfelt and genuine. Her ability to translate that concern into concrete solutions is driven by an unmatched insight and intellect. But I see no need to tear Sanders down just to build her up. I could just as easily come up with the same kind of baseless, contextless slander about him that another commenter here has spewed out about her. I happen to believe, however, that we should follow our favorite candidates’ example in this regard and abstain from tearing flesh, however self righteously superior it may make us feel.
24
All real debate, anything that concerns practical policy, takes place within the Second or Socialist International -- the extreme right-hand edge of which might be Presidents Clinton and Obama. Beyond them, there is nothing but the yelping of jackals in the wild.
Nevertheless, the jackals are in government in a number of places, thanks to the unholy union of Ayn Rand's popular teaching and the dying embers of evangelical Christianism. In Hungary, for instance, "Atlas Shrugged" had sold 700,000 copies the last time I looked -- before Orban's election.
The debate between Warren and Sanders is the everyday politics of every healthy polity in the world. In the United States, by contrast, it is a dangerous distraction from the need of the moment, preserving lawful and constitutional government.
2
@David Lloyd-Jones
Christianity is being good to your neighbor, guided by God, and doing it quietly and without show.
1
I'm a Warren supporter and have always thought she would best combine with someone like Cory Booker (a more moderate, African-American male). But a Warren-Sanders ticket might actually be a strong one, as Sanders has more appeal to the White working class and to African-Americans than many like to admit.
More broadly, I think the Democrats face a dilemma as, since Reagan, their leadership has consistently tried to paint the party as neoliberal centrists and not leftists. In fact, the Democratic leadership has, in response to the political dominance of Reaganism, mostly adopted Bill Clinton's "triangulation" strategy, where Democrats adopt a lot of Republican ideas, but moderate them a bit, and surround them with more pleasant, less racist rhetoric. Just as significantly, they have joined the Republicans in tossing dirt at leftist ideas, branding them as impractical and as radical socialism.
The consequence of this strategy is that the Democrats are not well differentiated from the Republicans, appearing as Republican-lite, and the people have been frightened away from the true alternative to Republicanism, progressivism, which has been consistently and vigorously attacked by both Republicans and the Democratic leadership.
Warren and Bernie face an uphill battle because progressivism is fighting a 40 year history of both Republican and centrist Democratic attacks against it. Triangulation has left the party divided, its brand muddled, and its hopes for real victory slim.
8
Right now, I don't think there is a likelihood of any candidate getting a first ballot nomination. So, in the meantime, lefties who think Sanders is too old can support Warren, as can those who demand a female candidate. At the convention, after the first ballot, things will work out.
4
The battle to become the Democratic Party's Jeremy Corbyn.
8
I think it's great that we have two strong, viable progressive candidates to choose from and that they are not ripping each other to shreds. I like both and on my more moderate days I also rather like Amy Klobuchar despite the fact that she's not exactly in sync with me on many issues.
I was a Sanders supporter in 2016 and he still gets my vote. I like his consistency, his solid pro worker record and the fact that, despite his liberal position on most social issues, he does not come off as a social justice warrior making him more palatable to blue collar voters of all ethnic backgrounds than Warren.
I totally respect Warren's intellect and expertise on the issues however and if she's the eventual nominee I'd happily support her in any way I could.
So please, Uncle Bernie and Aunt Liz, let's keep up the good will. Those of us at the kids table hate it when our favorite grownups fight. My goal in this primary season is to vote against Trump no matter who the Democrats nominate. I'm rather not have to do undue damage to my nose in the process.
30
Each other? Not at all. Their biggest obstacles to winning the primary are corporate media naysayers and other wealthy and well-connected interests pitching obedience to the status quo in the guise of pragmatic incrementalism.
136
@Matt
Heard this all before..bla bla bla..- And sounds the same every time..
@mike
That's not a very insightful critique. If you disagree, perhaps you should say why. Just saying you've heard it before and it sounds the same every time has no bearing on its veracity. You could say the same about general relativity or plate tectonics.
As a lifelong Democrat I will never vote for a ticket that includes Bernie.
I sympathize with many of his positions but he is not a team player. Last time, when he didn’t win the nomination, he picked up his ball and went home.
I believe Bernie cost the Democrats the election and I fear he will do the same again if he does not get his way.
In the end, Politics is a team sport and Bernie is not a team player.
19
This is complete nonsense. Sanders held 39 rallies in support of HRC after he lost nomination. Less of his supporters deflected to Republicans during the general that Hilary supporters deflected to Republicans when she lost to Obama. It was the DNC cheating and putting their hand on scale that wasn't behaving in team spirit way. This is old song first the centrist attack him then ask why he isn't a team player.
75
@Not Bernie and he is not a Democrat! Why does he think he should have the nomination if he can't even join the party?
5
@Not Bernie
I do not agree. Bernie did not cost the Democrats an election. The DNC and HRC and the NYT trashed Bernie, and if Bernie had been the candidate, we would not be in this mess. I am probably wrong, but I am not blaming Bernie.
15
Both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are moderate reformers. They're liberals in the New Deal and Great Society tradition, but not more. To describe Warren and Sanders as more than liberal is a mistake. They're not calling for government ownership of public utilities, banks, or corporations. They want to reform the system of government and that threatens a lot of fat cats (read the very wealthy) and some in the mass media. As a simple example, a single-payer health care system (Sanders is closer to single-payer than Warren), wouldn't change doctor or hospital earnings in a substantial way, but it would get rid of the wasteful middle-"man" insurance companies and that scares those with medical insurance company interests It, single-payer, would also reduce the cost of prescriptions.
322
@Howie Lisnoff I don't think Warren or Sanders are really commited to the causes they claim to defend. They both are fully aware that the "bold" proposals designed to solidify support from a certain voter base, are not going to happen as they claim. They have been in Washington long enough. I think it's more honest, and progressive to explain that M4A, for example, would be the best solution, but since that won't happen anytime soon, our goal should just be to find a way to make sure that everyone has affordable coverage immediately. What Buttigieg is proposing. An honest progressive
2
Sanders spent several years building a movement of more than a million activists. With THEM (actually US), he can defy the political establishment and get things done.
30
@Howie Lisnoff
Isn't it funny how their Medicare for All plans are considered radical left wing ideas while in the UK Johnson not only ran on continued support for their version of this, the NHS, but promised to spend billions more to make it better.
Maybe the message from the UK elections is that people actually believe a national health insurance plan is the best way to go.
34
Guess what solves this problem beautifully:
RANKED CHOICE VOTING
Many other benefits too, but this is a big one—when the majority of voters prefer a certain ideology represented by multiple candidates, that preference is carved up and you can end up with a winner who’s ideology only holds minority support. A corporate centrist like Biden would gain immensely from the large progressive movement being split between Sanders and Warren.
57
@Hmmm
You're assuming that every state votes the same way. Not all states count their primary votes the same way. There is no notion of one person = one vote.
If there was anything even remotely democratic about the primary race, everyone would vote on the same day and have it be like a real election.
8
@Viv
The Democratic Party could make Ranked Choice Voting happen if they wanted to.
Make them want to.
Same day voting would be good too
After watching the French left sabotage itself into irrelevancy, I cannot emphasize how reassuring it is to see the level of respect and sympathy both the candidates and their supporters display to one another.
To be sure, I did notice attempts here and there by fringe supporters to diminish the other candidate, but they've been negligible.
The parallel with France has clear limits, but also potential warnings. In a blinking game, Warren can't win. Her supporters care more about "electability" than Sanders', and they risk going for the "strategic" vote (which might not go for Sanders). Without a deal she would need a strong standing in the polls; and good early results. I don't think she can wait.
Meanwhile, the same parallel suggests that Sanders really can't just hope to win without reaching out. He is no Melenchon, but that ~10% crowd Warren captured for some time is probably outside his reach. That throw of dice proved ill-advised in France.
Finally, I think both candidates are "there to win", and do think they have the best chances.
After the sixth debate should be when they should seriously start tackling it, or my fear is they might get too committed to prevent a split.
7
@François
Merci, in 2016 I was heard to say, “Trump can’t win, people will never vote for him. “
This is a problem ranked voting would fix. Maybe both of them should bring up that idea at least to avoid this problem in the future
40
The Democrat who can win over Trump will need to:
1. Not embrace open borders but a more humane approach to immigration enforcement, coupled with:
2. A foreign policy vision that sees that the USA's #1 extramural (pun intended) national security goal is not in Eurasia, but rather the lack of a thriving MesoAmerica (Trump's approach is precisely the most counterproductive in this regard).
3. Not threaten Americans with loss of health insurance coverage they have and want to keep.
4. Commit to protecting the franchise of American citizens as the foundation of restoring our constitutional polity, and appointing judges to see that it is protected.
5. Reform the 2005 bankruptcy act (this is one area where Warren would be the natural leader, and Biden the culprit).
21
@Karl
It can't be said enough. No open borders. No unrestricted immigration. No amnesty. Fix the legal pathway to citizenship and fix the southern border.
Open borders are incompatible with a strong social safety net. Open borders are incompatible with wages that track the cost of living.
10
@DisplayName I have yet to hear a candidate advocate for open borders. The term "open borders" was coined by the far right to paint a false narrative of the priorities of the left. Even using the phrase "open borders" serves to legitimize the right wing and Fox news deceit. Please do not call for that rhetoric and do not imply that anyone in the Democratic field is in favor of open borders. It just isn't true!
9
@Elizabeth you are so right! The GOP is masterful at putting words in other people’s mouths. Once Fox News accuses a candidate of saying something, no facts are allowed. What is really being stated is ignored! Makes me crazy.
3
I think Ms. Warren will be an excellent VP to President Sanders. I hope she does not continue to drift rightward/pro-private sector greed on health care. America is at war, and I don't mean the taxpayer-funded corporate profit wars in the Middle East. The fascist right has to be defeated in America and this is our moment, our 'Normandy', to take them out.
68
@Eugene Debs
With all due respect, I'm not sure I understand why she would be the one to play second fiddle.
Senator Sanders is a wonderful mission statement writer but he has no specifics while she's strategic, smart, and accomplished. Hers are the only plans that actually outmaneuver McConnell while all candidates are just wishing for him and his enablers to miraculously change into decent humans. We saw that movie with Obama, it wasn't a happy ending. I hope Warren prevails.
Democrats have a problem...with Warren and Sanders. They simply cannot defeat Donald Trump.
15
@Virginia
The recent Quinnipiac Poll disagrees. All 5 top polling Democrats beat Trump handily.
10
@Virginia
The polls say otherwise.
7
@Virginia vote blue no matter who.
3
The Dems really have to figure this out. There simply cannot be 4 more years of the rolling dumpster fire called the trump fiasco.
12
Each of Sanders and Warren is attractive enough to the left segment of the Democratic political spectrum to win the Democratic party nomination. Neither is attractive enough to the population as a whole to win election as President. Either of them as Democratic candidate will ensure that Trump wins four more years as President. Time for the registered Democrats to focus on electability rather than fashionable socialism. Remember Corbyn in the UK.
13
@debating union
Sure. Trump could never win the nomination. Hillary Clinton was a sure thing to defeat Trump.
Why should I remember Corbyn? Brexit and the UK election have nothing to do with our election.
This election will be similar in some respects to the 2016 fiasco. It will be decided by a handful of swing states and the under 30 crowd. If they stay at home it is lights out for democrats.
Who excites young voters? It sure isn't Corporate Joe and his more of the same policies and backwards think ideas. You know who excites young voters. You can even feel it.
23
@debating union The Labour Party lost in the UK because unfortunately, Corbyn was not respected/admired- not because of progressive issues. I don't know one person who doesn't even grudgingly admire Bernie- even if they voted for Trump and deride "Free Stuff." You know, the kind of stuff the rest of the countries in the world enjoy and take for granted. I'd say both Sanders and Warren are much more attractive than Trump!
8
@debating union Corbyn was terrible though and as a progressive I disliked him. He had no strategy and looked weak. It’s not a great comparison.
9
These two are attempting to address social issues of concern to American but they both share a problem that losers have not learned from history.
1-Go slow on progress. Even if it is right, it takes time for Americans to accept it. Start with one issue like a national, affordable, quality health plan like almost all of our peer countries have and not an immediate socialist hanging of all the HMO/big pharmacies execs.
2-Use accepted methods. Bringing up socialism or massive changes in the system is a losing cause trying to convince Americans of almost any stripe.
18
@Paul
Go slow status quo i no longer viable do the the climate reality and the power of corporate influence.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
10
@Al M thank you for your reply. The radicals have said that throughout history in democracies and they usually have been proven wrong.
The classic case were the abolitionists in America. They could not do from 1776 to 1865 what Lincoln did in app. 4+ yrs., abolish slavery.
The former divided, the latter united.
Sometimes you have to put up with an evil for awhile in order to eliminate it. Lincoln was the supreme teacher on that.
1
It's a faulty assumption that candidates must denigrate their competition to prevail. For some voters, the tactic will cause us to reconsider our support for the "aggressive" candidate.
All they need do is point out how their policies are distinct from the other candidates.
38
Sanders and Warren on the same ticket will give Trump a second term and ensure a reactionary Supreme Court for a generation. This 69 year old Florida Democrat will vote for whoever is the nominee, but for neither of the above in our primary. Wake up Democrats, they can't win.
16
Boomer here.My husband and all of our friends support Bernie,many in the midwest.All of our kids in their 20's and 30's support Bernie.Of course we support Liz too.I so respect they do not attack each other. Either of them will do the right thing after the initial primary votes, and join together. Both of them have a moral compass, and will do the right thing.
329
@Nora
I completely agree with your thoughts about W/S doing the right thing. The cynicism expressed by some pundits and commenters is understandable considering what we’ve been hearing from our so called leaders for some time. Democrats, with some exceptions, generally behave better.
10
@Nora GenX here.
Bernie's positions are economically and socially unworkable, and as long as Unions exempt themselves from Social Secutity while maintaining flush retirement plans holding blue chip stocks....Dems will continue to reinforce the limousine liberal stereotype.
2
@MScott GenX here. Sanders' plans are not only workable, they are absolutely necessary. So say I and the Silent Generation member of the house.
Are we all done showing our Generation Cards now?
4
Love love them both. Adore them. They woke us up. They educated our kids on what was really going on in this country. They gave our kids a vision of how wonderful their future could be while at the same time saving the planet and unburdening our kids with Health and education bills and debts. Thank you, both. We pray for your good health your wisdom please continue to enlighten us.
189
@petey tone
They "woke us up"? Right, because we were stumbling along in the darkness until Bernie and Liz came along. Please.
@Mexico Mike
Look at where the country is now, with a president who literally governs as if he is King, and Centrists who are afraid to say so.
Life expectancy is falling!
We ARE stumbling around in the dark.
The total economic numbers look good, because the mega-rich bring the averages up, and corporate media refuses to point out that getting is DOWN 1/3 from the stagflation of the 1970s because wages are essentially flat for forty years. Centrist Democrats refuse to point out that most people are hurting despite a rising stock market.
Bernie was the only viable presidential candidate since Eisenhower who was willing to call out the buying of our government by global corporations.
Now we have at least three, including Steyer.
2
@NoToGMOs
Actually, Warren was testifying against Biden when he was gutting bankruptcy protections for workers decades ago, and created the Consumer Protection Bureau before she was even in the Senate.
They are both doing the right thing for the right reasons and we will be better if of they work together.
I thought their shared problem was attracting black votes? Oh, sorry those facts are only mentioned for non-progressives. A two party ticket combining two New England candidates averaging 75 years old is one sure way to lose the electoral college vote.
21
Should neither Sanders nor Warren be the nominee, the Progressive Left has a choice to make that will have ramifications for many years (RBG won't live forever). Support the Democratic nominee whomever s/he may be, or witness further unraveling of the Democracy.
37
@HPower vote blue does not matter who.
4
@HPower And if one of them wins, the centrists will have to make the same choice. Let's see what they do, and whether their commitment to the welfare of the country outweighs their commitment to their wallets.
1
@HPower
Progressives haven't been in power for generations. Moderate corporate democrats brought us here. Are you sure they are a safe bet or just a holding pattern of all talk with no action?
I am surprised to see almost no comments strongly supporting Warren. I strongly support her.
I feel that she has many great strengths and one of them is that she is able to look at facts and modify her position based upon her new understanding. She started out as a Republican many years ago but realized that right-wing ideas did not serve the majority. She modified her views on Medicare For All to make them more practical. The reason "She Has a Plan for That" is because she has thought deeply about the problems of America. She is a thinker and that's the sort of person I want in the White House.
As for likability, anyone who has heard her speak at a rally knows she is exceptionally likable. The more people become acquainted with her, the more they like her.
And she is a Democrat who grew up in Oklahoma! She ran as a Democrat for the Senate. She fought for and led her ground-breaking consumer protection work as a Democrat.
While I respect Mr. Sanders, and would campaign for him if he got the nomination, it sticks in my craw that he is a Democrat only when he wants to run for president. I'd prefer to nominate someone who isn't embarrassed to be a member of the party.
234
@Gary A. You said it all but explicitly. Explicitly, Bernie Sanders is NOT a Partisan Politician! He puts the people and country before party.
22
@Gary A.
She's a Dem now but was a libertarian Republican throughout the Nixon and Reagan administrations.
Anybody who couldn't see the destructiveness of their policies is of questionable judgment.
13
@Gary A. I love her as well. I was a Sanders supported in '16 only because Warren didn't run. I think she's smart, practical, and cares about ordinary Americans. I worry about Bernie's health and his tendency to come across as an angry old man.
My larger worry is that Bernie supporters often come off as purists who like to attack Warren as some kind of corporate stooge (never mind that she created the Consumer Protection Bureau and raked billions from corporations while refusing to play nice with Big Banks) -- nobody but Bernie, in their minds, is pure and honest and decent. If Bernie doesn't win, or if Bernie has a heart attack, I don't know what they'll do because they've gotten themselves into such a froth about how everyone else is a dishonest corporate tool except their own perfect guy.
I love Warren. I like Sanders. But I will vote for Buttigieg or Biden or Klobuchar or pretty much anyone else in the party (except Tulsi Gabbard, who is just bizarre and probably as bad as Trump.) The purist rhetoric from the Bernie people worries me. And I voted for him.
16
If and when the time comes, and it might, then both senators will honestly highlight differences and let the voters decide.
I know this is almost impossible for The Adults in the Room, addicted to PR and various forms of horserace lies and trickery, to understand. And they'll miss it when it happens, expand any minor testiness that might arise, if any. Invent it if it doesn't.
The idea is to divide and conquer progressives. They don't care that the only political trend in this country that might be fit for the purpose of decent survival in the pretty near term is the active progressive wing of the Democrats. I'm sure they know, too -- but then again, the ability to believe what you want, to wallow in illusion, is at least as strong as clear-eyed, cynical self-interest.
Always hard to tell, and never important. The output is the same, whatever's inside the black box.
5
The Democratic Party is running right off the electoral college map. Are we going to forget, like we did in 2016, that its not the popular vote that wins the presidency? Promising to give stuff to everyone doesn't win elections here, just like it didn't in England.
Hubris doesn't win elections. If you don't win you don't get to make policy... any policy. No matter how much you believe in it.
Remember all the polls that showed Hillary had an over 80% chance of winning? Virtually no path for trump to win. Yet here we are. And here we'll be again if coastal ideologues forget that Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado and Virginia will decide the election.
I'll vote for any Dem who wins the primary, be it Biden, Bernie, Warren or Santa Claus. But then again, I'm from NY.
Vote trump OUT!
48
@MIPHIMO
So will I vote (vote for the Dem nominee whoever it is) and I am from red state Tennessee. Wish my vote would matter though I know ultimately it won’t thanks to the EC. However, I think it’s important to make sure T loses the popular vote again. If for no other reason than it rankles him terribly, you can tell.
25
@MIPHIMO Boris Johnson promised to increase funding for Britain’s system of socialized medicine by billions. But mostly he won on Brexit, a working-class political reaction against globalization.
Trump - and Bernie - are both anti-globalization; Hillary was (and I think still is) pro-globalization. Is it surprising that she lost the Electoral College by losing the Rust Belt?
Trump - and Hillary - were against universal health coverage; Bernie was and is for it. People who went from union manufacturing work to low-wage service work get lousy health insurance or none at all.
If the Rust Belt votes like Britain, Bernie will be our next president.
9
@MIPHIMO : Many of Hillary Clinton's largest wins in the 2016 Democratic primaries were in states like Alabama and Mississippi, which are unlikely to go Democratic in my lifetime unless every white person stays home and every black person votes.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders won Minnesota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Oregon, West Virginia, Indiana, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Hampshire, Vermont, and was in a statistical tie with Clinton (lost by less than 1% difference) in Iowa, Missouri, and Kentucky.
Some of these states are unlikely to go Democratic either, but to say that Sanders' policies have no appeal in Middle America is either ignorant or cynical.
8
Before Democrats go crazy over ANY candidate they really need to be focusing on head-to-head matchup polls, Trump vs Whoever, in swing, battleground states.
It's fun to look at national polling, but, as a reminder, it's the Electoral College that puts a candidate in the White House, not the popular vote.
Just sayin'.
45
@BruceM
The thing is that Biden, Sanders and Warren are all pretty much tied with Trump or within the margin of error in those polls. None of them lose in a landslide. Warren's apparant weakness with working class whites does raise some alarms but Sanders and Biden both poll well with that demographic.
9
@Brooklyncowgirl
She could make that up with support from women though. Especially in areas where abortion is under siege by religious extremists.
1
@BruceM
Polling is a mess. Polls are no longer representative of the population.
There used to be 90% responses to polls. Now it's 9%.
Scientific polls only call landlines. Only old people have landlines now.
Online polls are not scientific. They are self selecting, which means they are easy to manipulate.
I have a masters in political science so I understand polling and the most important thing to know about polling now is that they miss most of the population.
Go ask young people who they want, because the polls are missing them.
By the way, any poll that asks people if they are "liberal," is missing half of the Left, because the left doesn't call themselves liberal.
1
All this faux competition among the Democrats is not accomplishing very much. Let's largely be done with it and join together Sanders and Warren as a team, one will run as Pres. and the other as Veep. There will be a synergistic result and they will rise in the polls together. Enough with the "gaming" of the political "race."
27
Has Bernie declared that he is a Democrat, that should be the number one parameter for even standing in the party’s nominating contest or else run as an Independent. I’m shocked that the DNC does not insist on this,haven’t they learnt from 2016 that he is likely to produce only a soft endorsement on the eventual nominee.
20
Really. Who cares? Why is it important to you that he be declared a Democrat? I don’t care one whit and I’m a Democrat.
216
@KM
I get that you prefer a nominee who's a member of the party but for many left leaning, fed up with politics as usual voters the fact that Bernie's not a Democrat is a plus not a negative. As for Bernie running as an independent, maybe you're the one who needs to learn a lesson from the past. You have heard of Ralph Nader, haven't you?
29
@KM
The Democratic Party is a shambles of spinelessness, being trampled over repeatedly by the most unfit, dishonest, disgraceful and destructive president of all time.
Bernie's not being a Democrat is the Best reason, among many other good ones, for voting for him.
And Warren is also an excellent candidate Despite being a member of the party which helped enable the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, the disastrous Iraq invasion, and the election of Trump, and now timidly advancing the long totally stalled, later rushed and aimed-at-failing-to-remove, narrow and weak impeachment.
47
This is a class war. Warren is here to help the plutocracy win.
7
@Lilly
Is this sarcasm? The plutocracy doesn’t like her. Are you familiar with what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau does and the difference it has made for consumers? Ever had any problems with your credit report? You would have no idea if a lender discriminated against you and charged you a higher interest rate than a similarly situated man.
3
Bernie is awful. He’s not a democrat. He’s a socialist. He’s disrupting the party like he did Hillary with no chance of winning.
Elizabeth had a chance but went too far left. No chance now.
They should both drop out.
We need to beat Trump and can’t afford their nonsense.
146
@Jane So, I feel the same way about the non-prog candidates. And if one of them wins, I'll back them to the hilt. *Because* I think they'll be in a weaker position vs Trump.
You, of course, who want Trump beaten, of course agree, right? You'll fight even harder to get Trump out if it's Sanders or Warren. Right? Because that's your overarching concern, right?
Cue the crickets.
129
Yeah, because the centrist path worked SO WELL for the Dems in 2016...
162
@Jane
In every single poll, the least acceptable presidential candidate is an atheist.
Bernard describes himself as a proud Socialist and a proud atheist. Google it and you will see it for yourself.
Sounds perfect to beat Trump.
Warren really hasn't figured out who she is since she is changing her positions so often.
Maybe Bernard Lite.
7
They should unify. Bernie POTUS for 4 years, then Warren after that. The American people deserve it, after decades of corporate shills.
99
@JJ I've been thinking the exact same thing! Warren can spend time campaigning for re-election while Bernie gets stuff done!
12
@JJ
When I try to imagine Bernie meeting with world leaders, I wince.
8
@klm Got to ask - How do you feel when Trump meets with world leaders? Better still how do you think world leaders will feel about meetings with Trump vs Bernie?
11
I do believe Elizabeth has had her 15 minutes, Bernie is Bernie, he will never go away.
Once folks realized Warren's pie in the sky considerations they realized there was no way she could pay for the plan, in addition those with good plans didn't and don't want to rock the boat.
Sorry Liz, times up.
19
@Tom ,Retired Florida Junkman
I see this phrase, “pie in the sky”, used by centrists and conservatives often when describing Warren’s and Sanders’ policy proposals. Pie in the sky is Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar claiming they can unite the country and get things done in DC. In fact, that’s not just a pie in the sky aspiration, they’re flat out lying to people when they say they will do that.
Republicans in Congress have worked hard against the last two Democratic Presidents. Remember Whitewater and Merrick Garland? Even Hillary Clinton knew they would have obstructed her and she never claimed she would unite everyone.
7
Neither of them can win in the key midwestern Electoral College states.
42
Thats why poles are showing Bernie is beating Trump there?
59
@J.
Since you are so good at guaranteeing what will happen in the future, perhaps you could email me the winning numbers for the next PowerBall.
Not to mention that Sanders is polling ahead of Trump in those very Midwestern states. Just as he was doing better in head to head competition with trump than was Clinton in 2016.
How about we let voters decide who can win where? If we nominate a candidate of change...one who can excite young voters and get them to polls...we have an excellent chance of defeating Trump.
But no guarantees from me. I can't predict the future. Otherwise, I wouldn't be asking you for those lottery numbers.
17
@gene polls show sentiment of the day...we all know people change their minds when they are inside the voting booth. A lot can happen between now and primaries but pollsters need a job and it’s basically a betting game for them, just like they predict sports. How can you quantify people’s hearts and brains?
3
"To win the Democratic nomination, one must prevail over the other by consolidating the left."
This is quite unpersuasive. There are dozens of scenarios whereby either Sanders or Warren might prevail or fail without seriously confronting the other. (And by the way, both have platforms going way beyond trite left vs right classifications).
The press has been extending the already excessive presidential debating season by publicizing doubtful poll results as a kind of series of pre-primary primaries. But how Sanders and Warren eventually combine a large in-toto support has to realistically depend on actual results of actual elections.
They might preferably talk to each other directly more often, but both have issues-based campaigns (more credible and consistent than most others), and see eye to eye on nearly all fundamentals. Assuming both remain top candidates, they'll eventually need to huddle and work something out, but that should not be too difficult. Sanders did not have great trouble supporting Clinton in 2016 (and those differences were monumental in comparison); supporting Warren would be much easier. Warren, less experienced and younger than Sanders, yet a very compelling and solid political leader, would surely have a substantive positive role to play if it is Sanders who pulls ahead at the ballot box.
This looks like another installment of a systematic series aimed crowning the father of Hunter Biden as Hillary 2.0, by bashing the other candidates, one by one.
22
The Sanders heartbreak of 2016 (and Democratic Committee and superdelegate misbehavior) could repeat. Biden as candidate would be the 2020 Hilary. Come on Dems, get creative!
31
@Kirk Cornwell, I don't think it is fair for you to mention Sanders heart attack in this piece. The chance of a second stroke for someone eighty years old is less than 50% and he certainly will be able to run this country, with the same managerial skills he runs his Senate office, throughout his eighties.
6
I didn’t, read again. Age is a factor.
8
@DoctorRPP
I don't think he was. He meant the heartbreak suffered by Sanders supporters in 2016, when HRC was chosen over him. A lot of those supporters ended up staying home or voting for third parties. He's saying the same heartbreak could repeat if Biden wins this time. He's saying Biden is 2020's HRC.
9
It’s great to have more than one progressive in the race - and even better that, together, they out-poll Biden by far.
If we had only one progressive in the debates, the corporate Democrats would be better able to make him or her seem marginal or extreme, which, of course, is their dishonest tactic.
A clear majority of Americans, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats, agree with Bernie and Elizabeth on the issues. If together they arrive at the convention with 50%+ of the delegates, the American people will have won the Democratic primary.
247
@DC Let me help get you started. 56% of Americans support Medicare for All in one poll. But support drops into the 30s if it means an increase in taxes and/or longer waits for care.
Context matters in assessing poll numbers.
26
@DC Well look at polls on the wealth tax. Yup, including republicans and independents.
And that is just one example.
11
@DC Yeah, and it's 55 percent if you include the fact that you keep your doctors and hospitals. And that includes Republicans. Of course wording matters.
2
To me both would seem to be unelectable.
78
@John RowT
Where is your proof of your assertion?
From the Real Clear Politics average of national polls:
Trump vs Sanders: Sanders +8.1
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html
Trump vs Warren: Warren +6.7
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_warren-6251.html
Both seem mighty electable to me.
94
@El Chicano : the same polls "told you" that HIllary Clinton had a 95% chance of victory (and "long tails" that would sweep Congress).
Polls told you that Hillary had an unassailable "blue wall" in the Electoral College.
Polls are often wrong. They are biased, because the pollsters are biased.
Stop believing in polls.
Go out, into Middle America and actually talk to voters.
5
The only poll that matters is the one on election day. It is obvious that neither is electable. The repblicans would make short work of them in a campaign - just tarnish them as mad socialists who will bury the country in debt, etc. Sadly, among the Dems candidates none that I see offer much in terms of electability, and electability is by far the most important criteria for the challenger.
4
Warren does not enjoy the same support that Bernie does nationally among independents, nor does she have the same bonafides with people of color. The NY Times itself did a piece on this only a few weeks ago.
In short, she can't win the rustbelt. And she's had, and is going to continue having the same "authenticity/likability" problem that plagued Clinton.
I like and support both, but between the two of them, only Bernie can beat Trump.
98
@Sharon
In 2016, Bernie lost SC 70-30 to Hillary. He lost MS 80-20.
What bonafides does Bernie have, exactly, with people of color?
7
@Sharon
How do you know this? National polling? What's the integrity of what polls are you consulting? You read it somewhere? Hmmm...
7
@Roger Binion
Polls have Sanders leading among under 35 African-Americans and among Latinos (of all ages). His campaign demographics also show the majority of his support is non-white. The massive losses Sanders took in SC and MS in 2016 were largely due to a lack of name recognition and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
8
Sanders is the most progressive candidate. He’s to the left of Warren on foreign policy, doesn’t identify as a capitalist “to his bones,” and is the only candidate still advocating Medicare for All (after Warren backed away from her initially strong stance on M4A).
Sanders isn’t losing supporters at this point to Warren. It seems like Warren is losing voters to Pete.
41
No, they do not have to go the route of aggression. Allow the voters to indicate whom they refer. If one or the other is number 1 and the other number 2 after the initial primaries, then they can join forces. Just come out with a ticket with either Bernie or Elizabeth as the presidential choice and the other as vice presidential pick. The move forward with a unified Democratic party and message early.
43