I think the finance industry got spooked that Warren might actually win, and so the MSM (including the NYT), which had been giving her very favorable coverage, turned on a dime and started attacking her. I'm a Warren supporter, but Bernie's my #2 choice -- my plea to both of you -- patch it up -- don't get played by the media and the dynamics of a primary.
4
So, wait. There was a private meeting between Sanders and Warren back in 2018. Nobody else was there. Yet 4 anonymous sources reported on what was said.
How is that possible?
1
The difference between Warren and Sanders are Miniscule. The problem is both camps are dug in deep. Democrats had better learn that they can Not go with their heart in November. Whom ever gets the Nomination All Democrats had better get behind that person and Vote. The Real Object is to send Trump to his new Home in Florida.
1
Why call these corporate democrats “moderate”? How doesn’t the modifier “corporate” give a more honest and vivid picture of their sentiments, their loyalties, and their funding?
1
Please, dear God... save us from Bernie Sanders. He doesn’t stand a chance in the general election!
Bernie is my top candidate and Elizabeth my second. It’s disheartening to see Elizabeth go low. I agree with peter wolf below. Bernies statement was most likely misinterpreted. Elizabeth would not be a presidential candidate if it were not for the hard work Bernie has done over the years. She voted for all the wats and I just don’t trust her to back peddle on tough decisions.
Like many politicians, they are putting their ambitions ahead of the future of American democracy. They’re doing the opposite of what is required to win, which is which to reach out to the moderates who will swing the election, who have learned to extremists. They can’t even deal with each other, and they have mostly the same views. They have learned from Trump the seductive power of division.
She couldn't badmouth Bernie's public record, so she created a gender issue storm in a glass of private meeting water. Bernie is on record prompting her to run. Nevertheless she is persisting. I can't even.
Here is someone very pathetically and unexpectedly making the mistake of running a "be with her" admonishment campaign again.
7
Either Sanders or Warren as the nominee spells almost certain defeat in November. Left-wing Democrats apparently can't fathom that most of their agenda is anathema to a majority of the electorate. It's fortunate that both are running; otherwise McGovern redux would be the nominee in 2020.
Of course, the moderates in the field are hardly first-raters. But every Democratic winner since 1948 has been a moderate and not a left-winger. The two moderates who lost in 2000 and 2016 actually carried the popular vote in spite of being bad candidates. And indeed both lost the presidency because the far left voted Green instead of Democratic. The far left is responsible for both Bush-Cheney and Trump.
1
Sanders has been a feminist for 50 years. Why would he say such a thing? First, the anti-feminist idea itself makes no sense and, second, Sanders would never make such a statement. Senator Warren's clumsy attempt at character assassination is outrageous. And the only witness Senator Warren can produce is--Senator Warren? . . How can Sanders defend himself? What is Bernie supposed to do, challenge her to duel at dawn to defend his honor?
5
I would be very careful about claiming that Sanders has been a feminist for 50 years. In the 70s he wrote a not very feminist article which could come back to haunt you.
1
The only people interviewed in this article are men which is why they are all brushing what Sanders (maybe) said off. Would love to hear what more women think about this and it would have been insightful and worthwhile to include some quotes from more women in this article.
4
Warren has struggled recently in the polls and sought to improve her position by disclosing elements of a private conversation. That lacks integrity. Even more to the point, I believe she misrepresented the contents of that private meeting.
I believe Bernie.
8
He was just being honest, not his fault that 53 % of White women voted for Trump. The first woman elected will be a Republican, not a Democrat.
1
And the circular firing squad continues.
Have we all forgotten that the goal is to beat TRUMP? And to save democracy itself? Not to beat your imperfect “wing” of the Democrat party, as someone is quoted as saying in the article!
If you are not scared by the very real prospect of 4 more years of this racist dictator in chief, then you have a major blind spot as to what less advantaged people are facing!
8
And this behavior is another reason why voters will not support either one of them. We need a candidate with more emotional maturity than these two. Do they not know that Mom and Dad should not fight in front of the kids if they want to keep the family together. Just sayin...
6
Bernie denied that his campaign instructed his supporters to say negative things about Warren. Now it turns out that is a lie.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786
5
You can't unring a bell.
Rather than shut it down and push past it – Warren's choose to continue the advancement of her insinuation. And underlined it twice with the misleading press release and brief video interview.
For those who foster ill-will towards Bernie (on twitter and in the media), Warren's public scolding of Bernie validated their long-held biases. And to top it off, now the gender wagons, like Gillibrand and Harris, have circled around her.
3
Because Warren and Sanders report the incident differently, we do not know exactly what Sanders said. What we do know is that the conversation took place more than a year ago and yet the rumors of its content are just being released, opportunistically, now -- right before the Iowa caucuses. This appears a last ditch effort to inject the issue of sexism into the campaign to benefit a female candidate. I have been leaning toward voting for Warren, but I think this will backfire on her. If she wins, it will not be because she's a woman. She is perhaps the most accomplished candidate in the field, and should continue to run on the merits of her record and her proposals, both of which are impressive. If the two are smart, they will downplay and smooth over this tiff, which the media is sure to play up because it does not want either of them to win.
7
I despise our media, such dishonest actors. Elizabeth Warren viciously attacks the best chance we have to beat Trump by making him out to be sexist by leaking to CNN (the worst news network, worse than Fox IMHO) a CONVERSATION they had a year ago which was no doubt misconstrued for purposes to hurt Bernie and help Warren.
AND AFTER THAT, the media makes articles like this:"Bernie Sanders attacks Warren", "Bernie Sanders is a misogynist and doesn't want a woman to be president". I have never been so infuriated with our media and terrible media in my life.
9
@Steve it’s dishonest but predictable. I was just waiting to see how they’d try to take down Bernie. Didn’t realize they’d try to use Warren!! It’s a great tactic. Cause they can’t use Pete or Biden, it’s the perfect foil. They’d get two birds with one hand.
7
It looks like the fix is in. If a woman can’t even be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Director in the so-called #MeToo Generation, then what chance does a woman have in the white male dominated world of 2020 politics? Especially an intelligent, experienced woman who advocates for the people against the corrupt, corporate interests that have run amok in America.
The DNC wants us to think that Joe Biden has the “experience” to beat Donald Trump. He also has a track record most Republicans would envy: Voting against Social Security under Reagan; leading the tar and feathering of Anita Hill and pushing through the dangerously flawed crime bill that helped incarcerate and demonize a whole generation of African-Americans. His pro-Iraq war vote didn’t help, yet he is more viable than Elizabeth Warren? When it keeps the status quo in power, Biden is perfect.
7
neither of them is my first choice.
2
The primary is not for cooperation. It’s not a team sport. Once the candidate is determined, then call for cooperation. But now, this is all practice for general and a chance to see temperament under fire.
3
I’m a Warren fan and am not ready to forgive him for his slow support of Hillary, his whining about DNC and his failure to turn out his supporters in Nov ‘16. Sorry but he’s not a Democrat, a supporter of women or physically fit to be president.
8
I am not supporting either one but this discussion is absurd. First of all, it is very likely that Bernie's word is taken out of context to make him look bad. Secondly, despite of sexism and bigotry, a woman candidate can win Presidency. Just look at Hillary in 2016 - she won the popular votes by almost three million and she is perhaps the most hated politician in the last 30 years! We just need to find the right female candidate, the same as the right male candidate.
9
We need Biden.
4
@ H A to drop out, right,? : - )
5
Sanders, if he said at all, would be correct. The US is a misogynistic country. The average rube, on the fruited plain, would rather have a corrupt, loud-mouth like Trump in the WH rather than an accomplished woman like HRC. Bigly sad, but there it is.
5
For months, too many Bernie supporters have been saying things like:
"She's a liar."
"You can't trust her."
"She used to be a Republican."
"She stole Bernie's platform."
"Bernie's the only one who can beat Trump."
I'm fed up with listening to it. Let the primary sort out who the better candidate is without the whining and the bullying.
10
Maybe each of them will destroy the candidacy of the other.
We can hope . . . . .
Meanwhile, given enough time, perhaps the Democratic Party will take notice of Amy Klobuchar.
5
Thank you NYT for your reporting on this. Whether my fellow Democrats like it or not, it is newsworthy when two of the top three polling candidates for the Democratic nomination for President dispute what was said during a private conversation on this subject. The NYT has no duty whatsoever to help ensure that the eventual Democratic nominee defeats Donald Trump, though many of its readers seem to think so. It does have a duty to report things that are newsworthy and that meet rigorous journalistic standards. So let the Times do their job, and remember: Blue No Matter Who!
1
Sanders and Warren are strident. They believe they know the holy word and they seek to enlighten us from high above. They do not listen to anyone. They know the Gospel truth. If we don’t sign on, we are forever damned.
Sanders and Warren know nothing about how to listen and, so when I say they are unfit, they don’t get the message.
3
You are being very unfair to Warren. HRC should have called him out.
3
I think these perilous times call for “stridency”.
Obama’s exasperating unwilling to fight for the common person led us further down the destruction of the American Dream.
1
"...Ms. Warren on Monday confirmed a news report that Mr. Sanders told her in a meeting in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency. Mr. Sanders strongly denied he said that."
Something's off about the use of the word "confirmed" in the line above, as if one side of a two-sided story is all that's required for said story to be confirmed. Particularly when, chronologically, Bernie's denial preceded Ms. Warren's confirmation. (While the NYT had already ran a full headline trumpeting the latter -- linked in the line I quoted.)
Yes, I am a nitpicking Bernie supporter. But there are plenty of other ways these events could have been described without so blatantly giving one person's word more weight than the other.
9
Both Warren and Sanders should know that the establishment party hacks are roiling the waters so their voters can be diced up. They shouldn’t take the bait. I doubt Bernie will be drawn in to this nonsense. I hope Warren isn’t either.
The fact is that Democrats have hurt themselves by selling identity politics and I imagine Sanders was probably pointing out that a woman would not win just because she’s a woman, not that a woman can’t win. I happen to agree with that.
4
@Jazz Paw We obviously don't know what he said, but a contested statement to which there were no witnesses should not be the subject of a headline and prominent story in a "respected" newspaper. The timing of the release of the conversation to the public is suspect, and I hold Warren to account for that, even though I have been leaning toward her. If I do vote for her, it will be because I conclude she has the best platform and a record to back it up, not because she's a woman or will be the target of sexism, which she obviously has and will be. Her proposals have and should stand on their own.
3
The self-factionalism of Democrats is maddening. There is so little difference in what can actually be accomplished by any of the candidates, but Trump continues to destroy the country.
5
I think if they proposed a Warren Bernie ticket, flipped a coin for VP, they would win easily. Combine their polling and you are in the lead. The coin flip would show that they don't care about the title, the power, the glory, they care about the people. We need to win and we need drastic changes, to me it's obvious they should combine forces.
5
@z —
Do you really think Bernie would accept the VP position? I have strong doubts.
1
Tonight the two will try to diminish this bitter disagreement which harms both and the Democratic party. He will say I am certain a woman can win the presidency and that he is sure Warren honestly misinterpreted his remarks about sexism He will add how he has supported women's rights. Warren would be very wise to not try to repeat her charge. Bernie has a justified reputation for being honest and consistent; Warrant does not. Both should say we need to be talking about issues and defeating Trump.Obama has worried about a circular firing squad. It has opened fire.
3
@alan brown Agreed.
How ironic that it is usually the Third Way dems lamenting the "firing squad" even as they make sure they're first to squeeze the trigger.
1
I am not voting for a septuagenarian in the primary. I favor the younger candidates for their ideas and that they will inhabit the world they shape long after my passing.
2
More like grandpa and grandma being on egg nog and being petty. One thing tricky Dick Nixon said right was "Never be petty"
2
I’m a 53 year old woman who has supported both Sanders and Warren. However, it’s Bernie who has been my champion way longer than Elizabeth. I’m sticking with Bernie, but will vote blue no matter who in November. Heck, I’ll vote for a dish towel before I cast a vote for the narcissistic con man.
4
Speaking bluntly, a woman has about as much of a chance of getting elected as a socialist.
1
Divide and conquer. So, who’s behind it this time??
4
It's not Mom and Dad. More like Great Grandpa and Great Grandma. How many votes do you think either of two old white elitist Yankees will get from key battleground states? Either one is fine with Trump.
3
Trump is an old white elite Yankee. More elite than either Warrens or Sanders. The guy is 200 and something on the most recent Forbes 500 richest Americans list. (Bloomberg is number 8. So he is REALLY elite.)
1
Mom and dad aren’t fighting, the media just says they are.
3
If he said it, it's only because he is speaking to the way the world ACTUALLY IS. Not the way certain people wish it SHOULD BE!!!
As my mother says - "We'll have a gay man or a trans-gender person elected before a woman".
3
If he said it, it's only because he is speaking to the way the world ACTUALLY IS. Not the way certain people wish it SHOULD BE!!!
As my mother says - "We'll have a gay man or a trans-gender person elected before a woman".
1
The sexism is pathetic.
2
Bernie Sanders is right. In this sexist society a woman cannot be elected president. The problem for him is that neither can an ancient socialist who promises to take away private health insurance from 150 million Americans. That will never happen,
and anyone with half a brain knows it's a losing proposition that will guarantee Trump's re-election. Democrats need to stop whining about "corporate" politicians until they can overturn Citizens United. Even if you find it distasteful, get behind Joe Biden. He's the only one who can win.
2
This seems so manufactured. Rift? Breach? Back and forth? Schism? Controversy? Come on.
5
Give us just 1 term with a moderate to bring down temperatures after 12 years of insane partisanship. Then progressives can have their day (and we can start the whole cycle over again).
3
Obama WAS a moderate and Republicans still refused to work with him.
5
Bernie Sanders is our road map to Donald Trump's re-election. (I am not a fan of Warren.) The non-democrat, Sanders, is a grouchy "spoiler". The democratic party will lose by more than it lost to Nixon in his re-election bid. The republicans will have a field day if Sanders is the nominee. NONE of what he proposes will EVER be passed. WAKE-UP democrats. Do not make this man our nominee for the sake of all of us on the planet.
6
@Scrumpie0
You wake up, the people are being robbed by corporations and our Congress is complicit.
3
Well at least this brings the truth to the surface: the goal of the far left is not to beat Trump. It’s to attack and defeat the rest of the Democratic Party.
5
This dust-up, snit, misunderstanding, mischaracterization or whatzit is much ado about absolutely nothing. There are real issues to be concerned about. Impeachment. Climate change. Our role in the Middle East. Recovery in Puerto Rico. If you want scandal, there is the (continuing) scandal of health care in the U.S. From a former industry executive:
"How the Health Insurance Industry (And I) Invented the "Choice" Talking Point
"The truth, of course, is that Americans now have little “choice” when it comes to managing their health care. Most can’t choose their own plan or how long they retain it, or even use it to select the doctor or hospital they prefer. But some reforms being discussed this election, such as “Medicare for all,” would provide these basic freedoms to users. In other words, the proposed reforms offer more choice than the status quo, not less.
My advice to voters is that if politicians tell you they oppose reforming the health care system because they want to preserve your “choice” as a consumer, they don’t know what they’re talking about or they’re willfully ignoring the truth. Either way, the insurance industry is delighted.
I should know"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/opinion/healthcare-choice-democratic-debate.html
There are approximately . . . two candidates who understand what's going on here.
6
These two better team up and run together after one wins the nomination.
That was the biggest mistake Hillary and Bernie made.
She should have had him run as her VP. They would have crushed it. He would have forwarded the Progressive agenda and the country wouldn't have taken 5 steps back socially and environmentally under Trump.
8
I agree with Kamala Harris - a woman can win. Even Hillary, a weak candidate, outpolled Trump in 2016, only to lose the electoral vote by a hair.
This fight, just like the article suggested has divided my own family. If Sanders' campaigners went on the attack against Warren, Bernie should apologize. Warren after going after Sanders, has an obligation not to double down.
Progressive voters, not campaign staffs, will decide which one of them will become the progressive candidate. Any more of this childish stuff will damage both Sanders and Warren, perhaps fatally.
Trigger happy supporters, some on display here, mean that with friends like these neither Warren nor Sanders will need enemies.
Go big, not petty. The notion of the Biden wing that a return to a status quo ante Trump is possible stretches credulity. It's why Bret Stephens (who apparently prefers Trump to Bernie) is correct that Bernie (and I include Warren as well) has the best shot at whomping Trump.
The time is akin to 1932. To effectively replace a failed administration did not require America to repair to Coolidge's front porch but elect a radical reformer like Roosevelt. FDR's Social Security was a Social Democratic idea. So too, LBJ's Medicare. To save Medicare requires expanding it, e.g.., some form of Medicare for All for which "the public option" is a euphemism.
In the early 1950s I had almost free tuition. It's doable again, if we elect a President with imagination.
5
If Warren wins the nomination, the Bernie supporters will fume and sit on their hands. If Bernie wins the nomination, the Warren supporters will do the same. True believers never waver.
And if Biden or Buttigieg wins the nomination, the progressives will all stay home.
It's 2016 all over again.
Neither Sanders nor Warren will win as many states as Clinton won, and Trump wins reelection.
It
2
@Mike
Well, why is it the people cannot get behind a man who wants healthcare and education for all, when every other country in the world provides these things to their citizens? Why? And then, as story after story is told depicting bankruptcy for those burdened by medical expenses, we get candidates back-peddling or the moderates refusing to enact Medicare for All. Although, the ACA provided medical care to our poor, many employed by Wally World, the ACA is a failure when it asks a few to cover the costs. Corporations avoid proper wages, benefits, and taxes, and send us the bill for the profits they keep. This is baloney. And not supporting candidates like Senator Sanders and Medicare for All s beyond cruel and inhuman.
3
@Mike I haven't seen from Warren supporters anywhere near the vitriol towards Sanders that Bernie supporters baselessly spew constantly towards Warren.
4
Three things matter here:
1. According to nearly every poll so far, Warren and Sanders together are way ahead of Biden nationally and in most swing states.
2. Because both Warren and Sanders have more enthusiatic support than Biden, either of them is more likely (than Biden) to help "flip" the Senate.
3. In terms of key issues, the positions of Sanders and Warren are quite close. Almost anyone voting for one of these two candidate based on policy positions will logically be comfortable with voting for the other.
Focus on what Warren and Sanders together stand for, and not on artificially created "rifts" between them.
6
@Sage “According to nearly every poll...” This is so laughably untrue, and such a fabrication, that it undermines all your point. I just looked at RealClear Polling (five minutes ago) and there is not a single national poll that Biden does not lead by 7-10 points. Stop making stuff up.
3
@Sterno No. What Sage said was that Warren and Sanders *together* are way ahead of Biden, which is completely true. You misunderstood.
4
I don't understand the fuss. During primary season, all the candidates must campaign against each other. This includes Sanders and Warren, whatever their similarities. In the end, there will be one Presidential candidate.
4
Maybe it's just me, but I sincerely believe that any progressive candidate will continue their work to push through universal healthcare, to push through regulation of tertiary education funding and address the loan crisis, and invest in infrastructure.
I think that each candidate does believe they are best placed to be most effective but I don't think that any of them think they are the only choice. Progressives will compromise, unite and continue to try to do right by every American.
I don't think that among principled voting adults, there is any question about that.
The only people we are apparently worried about are people who treat politics as a team sport, who value "relatability" (sameness) above principle, and who apparently can't decide whether a real estate baron or a lawyer and former secretary of state would be better placed to run a country.
For those folks, do Democrats stand a chance?
Think about it: the people who are looking for a relatable candidate are the same people who are disappointed about how their lives turned out.
The qualifications they are looking for are diametrically opposed to competence.
So can we stop worrying about it?
As Sanders himself pointed out, a woman can win, and a woman DID win. Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders would both be incredible tickets and either would be the most accomplished VP our country has ever seen and they both know it.
So enough with the drama. Save it for the drama queens.
5
There are just not enough union members and progressives in this country to be divided...and win. We need solidarity or else we get Biden. Who wants to campaign for Biden this summer?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
3
If he said it, he said it. Fascinating to watch all these commenters pile on Warren, as if showing exactly what he meant.
9
I like them both. Why are they fighting each other now? Biden is the real target and nothing they can say about Biden will be as bad as what Trump will say about Biden. Go Bernie Go Liz
2
I think one of the things nagging at the back ( maybe, even the front) of Elizabeth Warren's mind is the Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He is an Independent.
If she wanted to make an issue of it, she should emphasize this.
She could legitimately claim she is the Progressive candidate of the Democratic Party.
Other than than that, for me it is anyone but Trump.
1
Then. Warren’s still a Republican, with that logic.
8
Warren (who I don’t support) changed her registration years ago. Sanders (who I support even less) hasn’t gotten around to it yet.
2
@Jay Warren re-registered as a Republican to vote for Arlen Specter in the 90s. and then changed her registration.
Progressives should fight just as hard for Ranked Choice Voting. That way their power isn’t split and they can show support for all (both) progressive candidates.
8
The kid gloves need to come off so that the left can consolidate around a single candidate. It is legitimate to point out that Bernie is 78 and has had a heart attack or that Warren rails against the type of fundraisers that she happily participated in.
1
I never thought that Elizabeth Warren would do anything that I would consider disqualifying, but if you consider this smear campaign in light of her medicare for all debacle, it's becoming increasingly evident that she has little regard for the truth.
11
If this conversation did happen than the way Senator Warren is reporting it is probably out of context at best. Bernie is a feminist ( his record demonstrates that) and expressing concern about a woman's chances based on the pervasive sexism and misogyny women must endure in America is not the same as expressing the opinion that a woman cannot win the Presidency. I do recall that during the last Presidential election that both Warren and Sanders openly discussed the fact that Senator Sanders had approached Senator Warren and pleaded with her to run. She decided against running. It was at that point that Bernie decided to take on the task himself. Does that sound like a man who believes that a woman cannot win the Presidency?Elizabeth Warren is dissembling on this and on some other issues now because people have figured out who the true progressive in the race actually is. Personally for me the question is why would anybody want a cheap imitation of a steadfast freedom fighting progressive? Like the song says "Aint nothin like the real thing".
5
So many comments supporting Bernie and criticizing Warren. My reaction is the opposite. This story confirms my impression of Bernie as an old male, with not much respect for women. That's how he comes off to me every time I see him. He apologized for his staff's misconduct with women earlier as he should have, but it seems likely to me that he hired these staff because he wasn't sensitive to women's issues.
11
@UU I agree completely!
1
A long time ago, back in the 70s, Bernie Sanders wrote an article with some troubling ideas about women and rape fantasies. It does not age well at all, especially in the current climate. If misogyny is going to be an issue, it is something which could come back and bite him hard. I’m surprised it hasn’t been used against him yet, but I’m sure that if Sanders wins the primary, it will be publicized by the Trump campaign along with Bernie’s honeymoon in the Soviet Union. None of it will play well. I like Bernie, but this idea that his most cultish followers have of him being a perfect saint and the hero of the people who would win the general election in a heartbeat if only the evil corporate moderates would give him a chance—is just as delusional as the picture Trump followers have of Trump. It’s time to put pride aside.
4
And so the social media and Twitter-driven news cycle plows on over the hopes and aspirations of the American people.
You know, my parents ended up divorcing when I was young. After 27 years together, they went their separate ways. They were both gentle, honorable people who always put the good of their children first. They never attacked the other. Ever. They stayed each other's most trusted friend, even and especially when one moved back in with the other to help through the final terrible months of a fight against terminal cancer.
"Mom and dad are fighting." No. One pol revealed what bad instincts and terrible advisors are at the center of her campaign. A gambit for short-term political gain may well prove to be what blows up our only real chance to effect the change she claims to champion.
'Disappointed' is a way too anemic word to describe by indelible reaction to this maneuver.
#WomanForSanders
6
This is leading to a civil war in the party. The next few months are going to be very mean and nasty.
3
This has been in the news for a couple days now and I haven’t heard anything factual beyond the conversation that took place 2 years ago. Looks like the media is making much more of this than there is. Trump is going to say “This isn’t about me so I should bomb somebody”. I’m sure the media would prefer that.
1
Warren has lied about her ethnic heritage so I am inclined to believe Sanders.
10
As we used to say at the playground: “Fight! Fight! Fight!l and everybody would come running. The media is loving this - so much better than all that talk about policy, and it fits nicely into the narrative about Democrats shooting themselves in the foot, or forming a circular firing squad, or whatever. Trump is such a moneymaker for the news industry, it’s almost like even the liberal news outlets want to see him elected, oops, sorry, I said that back in 2016. I mean “re-elected.” How surprised will you be if the sound bites you hear tomorrow are all about how Sanders and Warren answered questions relating to this?
2
Oh whatever.. They're politicians not saints.
Though it is kinda pathetic how so many Democrats see each other as the 'enemy', when the real danger is in the White House.
15
@mike — That has been my complaint since this cast of thousands began “debating” last summer. It was way, way, way too soon to start that, and as a result it became an “eating their own” affair with the party looking like it was in total disarray (as usual). Meanwhile, Trump played to his base. The Democrats should have joined forces and made the case as to why Trump has been, is, and will continue to be a threat to us all. Perception is everything, especially to the public, the majority of which only pays the barest of attention to current events to begin with.
Thankfully, this sideshow is nearing an end. I hope it is not repeated in 2024.
2
The NT and MSM should feel very proud of themselves for successfully creating a rift between Sanders and Warren when in fact there really shouldn't be one. But with their under-handed reporting they've managed to spin and twist words, and magnify small things into large ones to "divide and conquer" their most feared opposition. Sanders and Warren are the ones who want to upend the Status Quo, which the oligarchs who control most of America, and the media don't want changed. They much prefer Biden, or if not him, Buttigieg or Klobuchar who are more inclined to keep things the way the are, with some window dressing changes to mollify the masses.
I really hope that Bernie and Liz are able to step back out of this manufactured food fight and work with each other to continue their fight against the oligarchy. Tearing each other apart won't help them individually, and will allow the Establishment to win once again.
7
I like Sanders' energy, but he simply doesn't have Warren's smarts, or her legislative and regulatory track record.
America may not want to elect a woman, but she would be the best choice we have to deal with the coming existential crises (climate crisis and Trump-level debt), regardless of gender.
10
@Alex Warren is anything but the best choice. She continues to pander to the left with her ridiculous talk of a wealth tax that will pay for free college, childcare, paying off all student loans, healthcare and anything else she can come up with to try and buy votes. I tend to be more of a moderate, but given a choice between the two far left candidates I will take Bernie over Warren.
At some point it had to happen when there is only room for one person. Warren is also on the defensive as she is clearly falling behind. Just look at some of the other things that she came out with today - her statement on moving forward with forgiving student debt day 1 without getting Congressional approval and her demand for a federal investigation into what Trump may have told people at his resort right before the killing of the Iranian general. Sadly these look more like desperate attempts to get voters attention and "look at me" actions than it does of the more rational Warren we saw earlier.
7
Sanders, Warren, as well as the remaining field of candidates need to create space between each other as well as find ways to energize their campaigns when threats are perceived,stooping to accusations, innuendo and statements out of context is political fodder. An educated voter knows who and why they support their candidate. These stories seem to serve a purpose beyond good reporting, MSM needs to keep their hands off the scale.
3
Maybe it's time for Mom & Dad to exit stage left or far left?
I've support Warren in all her campaigns except this one. Great Senator but I think the Medicaid for All is a sure loser.
For Sanders fans, search on Norman Thomas or, more recently, George McGovern..
The Dems need a candidate who can carry the Electoral College states HRC didn't. Without those states, Trump wins.
8
With all due respect to Senator Sanders, he ought to have stepped out of the 2020 race and allowed the nation a better chance at having, finally, a female POTUS. Once he had the recent heart attack, he definitely should have stepped aside.
Instead, his insistance on remaining in the race has diverted funds and time and effort that would have gone a long way toward helping a woman or other candidate who is actually electable and likely to win against Trump/Pence.
4
@ENOUGH Bernie is a much stronger candidate than Warren, and even if he pulled out of the race, many of his supporters would not migrate to Warren. He is everything that she is not: Honest and forthcoming. She continues to promise free stuff to be paid for by confiscating the wealth of the upper 1% but has not explained how she will ever get that through the Congress. She is desperate and grasping at straws while Bernie continues on.
5
@TrumpsGOPsucks
Elisabeth Warren is not, and was not, the only woman running in the 2020 election, nor was she the only woman trying to get the Demo nomination when Sanders announced.
I see no reason for Sanders and Warrant to take media up on its insistence that Sanders and Warren fight.
If I have my will they will not, I repeat Not, engage. They need to move together in lock step to beat the so called Moderates (really the corporate incumbent democratic shills for Wall Street's plutocrats) and the two outright billionaires trying to buy their way to the office of POTUS.
5
You are really getting nervous one of them might actually win aren’t you. Expect more media-driven attempts to sow division as Sanders and Warren do well in primaries.
8
All this bickering over trivia weakens any Dem possibility of getting rid of Trump. There is zero chance of a far left candidate becoming President. The sooner the extremists drop out the quicker we can focus on supporting a Democratic candidate who has some chance of winning against the Republican slate.
3
Oh get over it. It's a primary and the media is going to blow up any disagreement or spat. Support your preference. Just make sure you come out to vote for the winner in November,
It also smells a bit of corporate media bashing Sanders in his turn, as his numbers rose after the three week onslaught of blistering negative reportage and punditry that drove Warren down in the polls. Our panicked billionaires must be served.
6
Bernie and Warren both want the same job.
There is only room for one.
Bernie is winning and Warren needs to do something real quick, like win an early primary, or she is duck soup.
She is not going to win any early primary. Everyone knows that, most of all Warren.
So, of course, she is bitter and will use any ammo she can against her dear friend.
Lot's more where this came from.
The debate tonight is her last chance to fight for her chance to beat Bernie.
She needs to let us know why he is not fit to be president and she is.
Neither of them is an angel.
In the end, the voters will reject both and, if by some miracle, one of them gets to the Dem convention, in the second round, the superdelegates will overrule Bernie. Way too risky for us Dems to have our party led by someone who refuses .to join our party, calls himself a Socialist and wants a Revolution.
Ain't gonna play in the mid west.
3
This article, like all "news" of this "issue", is nothing more than gossip, typical of sports-like coverage of American and world politics. This "reporting" is irrelevant to actual key proposed policies and actions of the Democratic candidates, particularly Sanders and Warren. But then, Mr. Bezos and his editors no doubt are nervous ("conventional Beltway 'wisdom') about the popularity of Sanders and Warren's shared positions on economic justice, military spending and the megawealthy/corporate owners of our political system.
2
“Bezos”? You took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. This ain’t the Post.
3
@Jay Good point about my miss. On the other hand, the Post and NYT are following the same playbook I described. I'll pay closer attention next time I'm in New Mexico.
This disappoints me in Warren, as did her attack on Buttigieg during the last debate. Frankly, although I like her she's wearing a bit thin with me, and I don't care how many selfies she's taken.
10
Corporate media making this story for their own use, and to discredit both to pave the way for Biden. Too obvious.
7
Contrary to what the authors write, the difference in memory of a private conversation was not an "acrimonious exchange" between Sanders and Warren. Some supporters of each may be more acrimonious, but not the candidates themselves. It is the media that wants to make a big deal about this, both because they wish to undercut both candidates and because stirring up a fight is good for writing about.
I am confident that Sanders and Warren will both focus on the issues that matter. We should also.
6
It appears that the Stalinist wing of the party is imploding upon itself with continued purity tests and identify politics. Perhaps that’s why Warren is now doubling down on her pledge of give aways by autocratic decree.
We already have Juan Peron in the White House. We don’t need Evita in 2020.
6
@Mrs Ming you have all your analogies wrong. People who are originally from communist regimes seem to have a scary notion of social democrats.
8
@petey tonei
Sorry, but thanks for playing. 3rd generation Chicagoan here. The fringes of both major parties have autocratic tendencies in common.
2
"Mom and dad", how appropriate. Because these people are children. The left are a bunch of babies that think they deserve everything. The only thing you hear from them is what they want, you never hear a word about what they're willing to work for.
Mom and dad. Perfect analogy.
19
@Mike
Yet another example of the old adage... Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
10
@Eye by the Sea
Which is why Republicans get what they want. They know getting 80% of what they want is better than nothing. The left thinks that isn’t fair. Which is why they get nothing.
2
@Mike
And the right is nothing but a bunch of can't-be-bothered, emotionally unavailable dads who ignore the needs of their children until they're crying in distress, only to then respond with "if you don't stop crying, I'l give you something to cry about."
4
The problem with Bernie supporters is they are so ideologically rigid they can't fathom voting for someone other than him.
49
@J I was a Bernie primary voter/Clinton election voter in 2016. All of the Sanders supporters I know voted for Clinton. Will you do the same if Sanders takes the nomination?
18
@J 2016 Voters who voted for Bernie in the Primary, overwhelming voted for Clinton in the general. Your accusation does not stand up to the facts.
13
@J
That's true of some Bernie supporters, but not all. It isn't true of Bernie himself. I do share your irritation with the loud minority, though.
7
Every generation or so - and sometimes more frequently - liberals need a McGovern-style blowout defeat to remind them that most of the country just isn't that into them.
So please, nominate the cranky old Socialist or the fake Indian wealth confiscator and see what happens. If you nominate the other old white guy, you will also lose, but just not quite as bigly.
6
As is depressingly usual with our party's Left, it is always about "our way or the Highway" and self-importance. "Justice" Democrats? You mean the group that proudly declares it's about beating good liberal but not socialist Democrats, and winning general elections is at best an afterthought. The group that loses in competitive purple territory.
Stay strong Elizabeth. You are up against a cult which has every attribute of that phenomenon. I'm convinced you want to win even if some of us support other moderates. Sander's crowd is about, in their hero's phrase, "a revolution". Some of them would be unhappy but not terrified of a Trump victory. "To further the revolution"of course in the face of even more tyranny and mendacity. Mix it up Elizabeth, your Senate colleague's baggage is extensive, and the Republican negative ads will write themselves. He's undetectable with his zealots already ready to blame the Electoral College and the Constitution.
Time to stop making nice and point out his program's flaws and his abysmal personal history and questionable choices. The GOP will have no hesitation to do so. See if the old boy can take a punch.
4
Though I'm not a Warren supporter, it's nice seeing political strategy accomplished without personal insults and crass behavior. Warren's ploy is brilliant. She knows she must change the dynamic, because momentum was with Sanders. Leaking what Sanders said will force him to call her a liar, which will make him look bad. She will say that she is just repeating what he said. She's not attacking him, but merely recalling a conversation. From my vantage point she can't lose. How or if it will change anything remains to be seen, but she, and her staff deserve a tip of the hat.
3
Non-issue. It’s brought up in the debate, Sanders say something like, “I would never say something like that. I do not feel that way. Look at my record on where I stand with women’s rights.” Flatline.
3
@Adam Watstein She could then bring up his essay which talked about women fantasizing rape, though I doubt she will. I don't doubt that Trump will on the off chance he gets the nomination.
2
Nice to see the Times maintain its usual objectivity in its coverage of Bernie and Liz. No difference whatsoever in the photos accompanying this article - except for the fact that Bernie is cropped so it appears he is speaking to a handful of people while Liz is at the center of an adoring crowd.
7
Of course the misogynist NYTimes frames this as Warren "heightens" the tension, when it was the Politico article regarding the Sanders talking points which escalated. Warren responded. And of course, if a woman fights back, it's her fault. So tired of this same old same old from an otherwise often reasonable journalistic source.
2
There isn't a "sudden breach between the two leading liberals in the Democratic primary" as only Warren is arguably a liberal, at the left of the Democratic Party, while Sanders is a self-identified Socialist and Independent, who runs in Democratic primaries only because he needs the very party and organization he's railed against his entire career in order to have any chance of winning elections.
This is not some picky academic distinction. Even as these two have been allies in the Senate, they have fundamentally different views of the Democratic Party, American politics, and world politics, meaning they were always going to wind up in conflict if they both ran for the presidency. The press wrongly focuses on the common, if prominent, positions the two have without understanding this difference.
Warren, a Democrat at the left of the Democratic Party, always works from within that Democratic Party. If she seeks to reform the Party she does so from within by forging a consensus with other liberals within the Party.
Sanders is Socialist and an insurrectionist who while using the Democratic Party for electoral purposes has little use for it beyond that. Sanders has no desire to change the Democratic Party from within, it he cannot get it to yield to everything he believes, he will take it apart from the outside.
This schism was destined to happen as no matter how similar some positions of Warren and Sanders might seem, Warren is a Democrat and Sander is not.
7
Agreed. Warren isn’t my first or second choice but at least she’s a Democrat.
This is easily could be where two people talk past each other, maybe misspeak or mishear each other.
This has happened to me more times than I care to remember. And with peopleI I love and greatly admire.
3
Let's hope the feud/in-fighting provides an advantage to the more moderate candidates. We need a moderate, not someone who's going to try to swing the country to the far left after we've seen the debacle of the Trump administration going in the opposite direction. We need someone with a cool head, who realizes that you govern in nuance.
1
Children are watching. Anyone from Bernie and Liz campaigns can you please pass them a message: this is a teachable moment. Show our children examples of best behavior manners dignity humility courtesy civil discourse. The opposite of Trump. That’s what we are all waiting for. Our country is in PTSD mode with trump we need respite from that nastiness he exhibits day in day out (although his followers cheer him on).
3
“A Bernie-Warren battle doesn’t do Bernie or Warren any good,” he went on, “nor our bases, nor our movement. There is a whole corporate wing of the Democratic Party we need to defeat.”
So, the self-proclaimed "progressive" wing of the Democratic party wants to "defeat" a significant portion of the Democratic party. And then what? They expect that the wing thus defeated will wholeheartedly jump on board their train?
This is precisely the same insanity demonstrated in 2016 by the Bernie or Bust and Bernie Bro crowds. A terrifically LOSING strategy, again. Thanks guys.
4
Sanders did the same thing to Clinton. He started out as "respecting" her but by the time the debates were over, he was trashing her, almost repeating the right-wing tag lines. Remember his "delayed" endorsement?
Doesn't matter. Sanders and Warren absolutely would not, could not turn right wing Trump voters into their supporters. Ever. They are both completely tone deaf to the cries for aid -- equity, even -- coming from often rural, white Republican America. That's what's going to do the left in. Again.
3
I partially blame the Bernie or Bust supporters for getting Trump elected. We need a new generation running the show. I will vote for Mayor Pete, I like his more moderate views and intelligence. However, as I see it Biden will be the nominee, he probably has the best chance at picking up swing voters and beating Trump.
3
I can’t support a son of Eugene Debs but Warren’s background seems intellectually, not programmatically, acquired. If the electorate behaves as it usually does it will continue the process of splitting power between the exec and legis branches. That would render Bernie impotent.
2
I don't trust Bernie. He's nothing more than the Trump of the left. The Bernie Bros and the Trump supporters have much in common. If he's the candidate, I will reluctantly support him. But I sure hope it's not him, and that his supporters don't pull the same stuff that they did in 2016. In the scariest time in our country's history, Bernie and his supporters are a huge threat to our taking back the Presidency.
6
@Rubad the Trump of the left? Really?
Hilary and her supporters were and are a huge threat.
1
The odd thing here is- assuming Bernie did say that- is that he is pointing out bigotry against women. That is not exactly sexist.
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that he said something about the difficulty for a woman to win but it got misinterpreted as impossible. Who knows.
72
@Peter Wolf
That's like saying you don't want your kid to be gay because "other peoplee" would treat them poorly.
Giving in to bias encourages bias.
7
@Peter Wolf She didn't misinterpret anything. Bernie is not stupid enough to have made that statement. She lied again.
3
@Peter Wolf
Who cares? A small, activist wing of the Sem party. The rest of us couldn't care less what Bernie and Warren are saying to each other. This country needs a salve right now, not a leftist revolution.
2
As a Bernie supporter, I honestly do not think he has it in him to lie. Concerns of Warren's sincerity have plagued me for months. Her backpedaling on M4A is a prime example of my doubts about her. This ploy by Warren has made me lose all respect for her. She would have been my 2nd choice, but not anymore.
94
@Sue M. Seriously? Did you read the Politico article about Sanders' campaign trashing Warren? The Daily Beast article about the New Hampshire voice mail trashing Warren from the Sanders campaign?
Please know all the facts before you judge.
19
A politician that doesn’t have it in him to lie? The accusations of a cult around St. Bernie seem to be true, if you can actually believe that. Bernie is definitely more honest than most, but he certainly isn’t absolutely, completely honest. No politician is.
17
@Sue M. Why are you still supporting the non-democratic spoiler? He has no chance whatsoever of beating Trump. His run against Trump will make Jeb Bush's run look brilliant. Bernie is not presidential. He made us lose to Trump last time with his belligerence and nasty attitude all the way through the convention in 2016. NONE of his policies will EVER get through Congress. PLEASE don't vote for him. He is our ticket to Trump's re-election.
2
I am not concerned. I am voting for Warren in the primary but i am worried that the reason she is second to Biden, Sanders and Buttigeg supporters IS because she is a woman. Which means everybody is worried about her being a woman.
But she is the best candidate and the most qualified.
88
@Stedman88
I wonder why it's ok for you or myself to say this, but Bernie is a villain is he supposedly says the exact same thing.
8
@Stedman88 maybe it is because she is a progressive, not a woman. Remember Warren surged somewhat in the polls months ago while Sanders was dismissed by the media although his polling was not considerably different than it is today. Then the media believing they could ignore Sanders and his politics turned its dislike towards Warren, especially when she did not bend M4A. Now there new thing is the realization of what they regard as the inevitable conflict between the 2. Could not really get there with issues, so CNN pursues a story on this conversation that took place a year ago. In typical MSM fashion, they are following ESPN tactics of building up conflict before the big game
2
Warren needs to change course and quickly.
It was her disingenuous attack this past weekend on the Sanders' campaign's electability script that touched this off. This despite the fact that her campaign has been—and not unreasonably—running their own electability script claiming a Sanders nomination would be divisive.
Both arguments were legitimate. What was ugly was Warren's ridiculous claim that Bernie was "trashing" her, implying it was a personal attack.
Warren's ploys reek of desperation and a reckless disregard for the need to unite behind whoever is nominated later on.
114
Bernie has fought for the working people, women, and minorities all his life, and none of it as far as I can tell out of personal ambition. In fact, he continues tirelessly and selflessly campaigning for the people despite his health scare last year. The suggestion that Bernie is somehow a sexist is absurd and defies 40 years of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps we should ask Anita Hill whether good ole Joe might be a better champion of women's and human rights. This press smear is unlikely to stick. We have the opportunity this year to not only get rid of Trump and his project of cruelty and corruption and replace with a society directed toward human needs and saving our planet. Can enough people see through the fog that will only get thicker? The stakes could not be bigger.
109
@Michael Whitehead
"The suggestion that Bernie is somehow a sexist is absurd and defies 40 years of evidence to the contrary."
Just take a look at Old Bernie debating Hillary in 2016. Shouting her down, interrupting her, jabbing his finger at her, waving his hands in front of her, demeaning her with sarcasm, etc. Typical of man vs. woman. Sexist.
17
@Pecan Oh please. He does that to everyone. Strong women can handle people yelling. How wonderful was Ms. Clinton when she lost that she left all the people who had worked tirelessly for her with no words at all and holed up for days before speaking to them. THAT is why she lost. She ran a horrible campaign, insulted half the country and proved that she cared not one iota for this country or its people. She just wanted to win. If she truly cared she would still be involved and would be working to help this country not running around whining about why and how she lost.
20
@Pecan Pretty sure he does that all the time.
Go easy on her because she's a broad, you say?
10
I believe that this is a minor issue that does not signify negative campaigning on the part of either candidate. I believe that the press has chosen to escalate for proprietary reasons.
We all want both these candidates to be above the Trump-style of campaigning and I believe they are. I think the press believes there is a difference also and I wish the contrast between Trump campaigning and Democratic campaigning were mentioned in the pertinent articles and reports.
131
I was a very enthusiastic Elizabeth Warren devotee until I met and heard about Bernie Sanders. I enthusiastically supported and still support some of Elizabeth Warren's key initiatives, such as the CFPB. I am currently an enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporter/volunteer.
It just pains me enormously to see these stories, furthered with nary any notion of journalistic integrity or basic human decency. Even though the term Bernie Bro was coined by people clearly part of the establishment to weaken the progressive movement, the establishment (media, parties and those in corporate America) cynically seem to want to further this narrative.
I am not white. And last I checked, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, AOC and Ilhan Omar aren't either. And every Bernie event I have been to has more women than men. Because economic issues are feminism issues. And feminism issues are domestic bread and butter issues. And Bernie Sanders has been a feminist since way before it was cool to be so.
Moms and Dads fighting everywhere: ask yourself this. While you are fighting, who wins? Does your fighting solve the problems in this country? Who wins when politicians hide behind the latest culture fight?
Don't fall for this manufactured outrage furthered gleefully by the media. They win with this outrage--ads and more revenue. Who's going to put more money in _your_ bank account?
Think. And vote in the primaries and the general election. And for heavens sake, stop fighting.
179
This feels like a disagreement hyped up and spun off by the media to give the appearance of the progressives tearing eachother down.
Sanders was commenting that the electability of a candidate favored them being men. It has anything to do with competence or stability.
200
@Robert Worry more about the split between the moderate and progressive wings than between 2 progressives. Let's not hand Trump another term. Imagine his gloating, and do the right thing.
14
The NYT might want to check the latest in a long line of polls that show neither Sen. Warren nor Sen. Sanders is leading. They have shown up on top of one poll here or one poll there, but in poll after poll, national or statewide, Joseph R. Biden has consistently been in front, often by a wide measure.
8
"Elizabeth, just between you and me, I don't think a woman can beat trump."
2
I'm now waiting for a couple of retractions/corrections from the NYT. (And Politico)
First of all, the campaign DID NOT distribute an organizing script to volunteers instructing them to portray Ms. Warren as "elite and out of touch".
Here’s what actually happened: A random user who’s only ever posted ONCE before posted a document advising volunteers to tell people that Warren appeals primarily to more “highly-educated, affluent people,” in the Sanders volunteer. A moderator promptly removed it and stated that it was NOT a campaign source.
The campaign trains its volunteers not to talk about other candidates when canvassing and calling.
6
It could advantage the party's moderate candidates as well as... Donald Trump? Good job The New York Times for publishing a story with little evidence.
2
Only a fool didn't see this crack coming down the road, and there's no reason to doubt that it's true given the near-rabid response of many Sanders supporters when it comes to their candidate.
And even though Sanders has perfected the mask of kind-hearted benevolent Grandpa, it's not enough to mask his unrelenting ego that will never give up. Never give in. And never change.
6
This is a continuing hit piece based on nothing again demonstrating that the corporate media will do anything to discredit and undermine anyone who challenges the rule of money in this country. How about an article on Biden's history of trying to reduce Social Security payments or the corporate (Banking, Insurance, fossil fuel) support for Biden or Buttigeig?
4
Why would the Democrats want a moderate candidate when they prefer a strong, misogynist? Go Bernie, Go.
2
I’d like to see my two favorite candidates sling kindness at one another, sincerely reaffirming their mutual admiration, preferably during tonight’s debate.
For me, the highlights of the debates have been the times when candidates both moderate and progressive have paid each other compliments and acknowledged their achievements and ideas. Respect is an integral part of our brand.
2
Obama says the world is better off with women leaders. For 2000 years patriarchy has denied women equal rights but they were not always left behind. There’s evidence of amazon women who were soldiers. There was always goddess worship in the ancient world. It’s in our veins, we just have to allow support women in every aspect of life, top down and sideways. Bernie knows it, his wife is a very independent women who raised independent daughters. Bernie has tremendous respect for women.
4
@petey tonei
If Obama really believed that, why didn't he stand down and allow Hillary to be the nominee in 2008?
1
After reading this article it appears likely that trump will get his second term. The democratic party cannot afford to have a philosophical war this time around, something the liberal side seem to want badly. Maybe they don't remember what happened in 1968, Nixon vs McGovern.
When the liberals accuse moderate democrats of being supporters of corporate greed, they''re treading on dangerous ground. Yes, the democratic party is mainly controlled by corporate big business, but that is not what will excite most voters in the upcoming election. We can't afford to be divided this time around. Let each candidate present their platforms, skipping ideological labels, and let the voters decide who will be the strongest opponent in the fight against trump.
3
You know, most of us don’t donate money to these candidates to sit back while another candidate runs over them and the things they (we) support. I hope Bernie understands this, coming from someone who has been sending in her $27.
They could be both correct. It reminds me of conversations where people say things but the underlined intent is lost. We weren’t there and each persons perspective of how the conversation went and intent is simply conjecture at this point.
The corporate media and moderates see an opportunity to draw more blood and undermine the so called socialists. They need to keep their socialism for the rich at all costs.
3
They can fight all they want as long as the Bernie Bros. and Warren Wonks back the eventual nominee, unlike 2016.
6
Bernie and Liz SHOULD reconcile ASAP.
Not superficially, but by working together on their programs in order to present a Warren-Sanders ticket for the elections. Then ask a minority candidate to join their ticket as a vice-vice so that a triumvirat representing all of Dems' trends can be sent to DC with popular AND electoral college support.
United they'd gain support from all other candidates and win.
1
I have no doubt Bernie's voters will cast their primary votes. And when he doesn't get the nomination, they will take their votes and go home. Again....
7
This only depicts how weak the progressive candidates within the Democratic party are. Biden is weak, he can hardly string together a few sentences in a debate and yet he is leading in most of the country and in the states that matter. The conclusion here is regardless of the antics, neither of them stand a chance in the general election.
The articles and comments here are limited to a minute section of the voting public and hence nothing but a tempest in a teacup.
5
For the sake of the nation, at this critical time in our history, Sanders and Warren should declare openly on national TV that they support each other. This is a rift created by the media, CNN, for publicity reasons and /or by the Russians who are already working to corrupt the 2020 elections. Putin's friend in the House House is delighted.
3
Trump has succeeded in taking our country backward, so the question of whether a woman can be elected president is actually more of a legitimate one these days than it was back when Sanders is reputed by his supporters to have insisted a woman could win. No one is sure anymore because we live in such a backward, sexist country today. Still, it’s a dispiriting thing to say aloud to a woman candidate and not helpful in any way. I don’t doubt he said it. I also don’t appreciate the Times fixating on this minor rift between Warren and Sanders. Stick to Megan and Harry if you want to keep reporting on this kind of stuff. At least those fluff pieces don’t further jeopardize our democracy.
I am not a Bernie supporter. That said what Bernie said was not sexist. It is his opinion that a woman cannot get elected in America in 2020. That's an arguable argument to make.
I'd say a 79 year old socialist with a recent heart attack who refuses to understand that many in middle would never vote for him, even if they dislike Trump (they might just stay home).
As a progressive I fear the Dems are pushing too far to the left to bring the middle of the country with them. That doesn't make me less of a progressive; it is just my opinion. This whole thing is much ado about nothing.
4
bernie reminds me of trump too much. his inflexibility, his apparent inability to grow at all and the way he clings to the certainty of his own view. i see him as incredibly angry, dismissive of those to don't agree with him and as someone who would rather burn the house down than let any other democrat win...in my humble opinion that is...
it's the arrogance of certainly...don't like it.
2
It is a media concocted fight. If you look at what the two candidates actually said, there's nothing there. CNN wants fireworks for the debate, and Chirs Cuomo is going to make sure it happens.
2
Warren has really terrible instincts. This reflects in her instinct to hire the offscourings of the loser candidates. What people forget is that many of these overpriced mercenary stooges were a massive detriment to Hillary's 2016 campaign. The unwillingness to take any responsibility for that disaster resulted in Russiagate, the Steele dossier and Mueller Report. All of which failed to take Trump down. However enough people have begun to believe their own hype. Hiring all the consultants and whiz kids and wonks, and watching every single campaign that hired them go up in flames. This was a desperate gamble to revive the 2016 split in the hopes of it distracting from the discussion of Iran and foreign policy. The fact that she was backed by Third Way and CAP to me makes her immediately suspect, this attack only confirms my suspicions. She's all the cringe of Hillary with none of her ruthlessness.
5
Both are highly unelectable and hand loads of ammunition to trump and his billion dollars in super PACs to run vicious attack ads. By disavowing both candidates are unilaterally disarming. This is now how you beat the most underhanded and unscrupulous candidate (and party) in the history of our republic.
12
@CP did you think trump was electable?
1
Yes, indeed. So true, so true.
1
The facts are the female nominee didn’t win in 2016 and the majority of her peers (white women) didn’t vote for her. Bernie didn’t lie.
6
@Lynn in DC
The fact is she did win the popular vote in spite of being the most unliked woman and running a terrible campaign.
2
@Lynn in DC
Let’s not forget HRC Received 3,000,000 more votes than Trump in 2016.
Trump is loathed by at least half the electorate. Of course any woman with the right leadership abilities, charisma, brains, and reasonably progressive policies can win.
2
@Lynn in DC
He also did nothing to help.
2
Time for Bernie and Elizabeth to prove that they are not just another couple of politicians with the same mentality as the rest. If you wish to claim that your policies are more enlightened then the usual policies on offer,your behavior should to be too. I hope they rise to the occasion.
10
Don't you have anything of more substance to opine?
Reasonable people aren't concerned over the semantics of a private conversation between two candidates when the candidates themselves have said it is inconsequential.
Please do us all a favor and drop the hyperbole; our lives are anxiety ridden enough with Trump's daily blunders.
20
Things always get nasty with Sanders. It seems to be what he brings out in others, including his supporters.
23
@Sharon
Things always get nasty when people speak truth to power and challenge that power politically.
No other candidate, of any campaign I can recall, has been judged by the perceived flaws of his individual supporters - and whose supporters have been so dishonestly characterized by the opposition. Its remarkable to me how incredibly civil Senator Sanders has remained over these last 5 years in spite of the lies, smears, and the media's attempts to ignore hist best and shine the spotlight as brightly as possible the moment anyone (no matter how loosely associated with his campaign) says something less than perfect. The standard to which he and 10's of millions of private American citizens are held is laughable.
6
It's not "mom and dad", Bloomberg and Biden are the adults. These are two rebellious teenagers who have never had to pay a bill and have lived in a bubble that are arguing
14
@Chris no it’s correct because both of them believe in big govt mama and big govt papa solving all of our societal ills through massive tax programs and top down social welfare. They’d be right at home with Uncle Xi in Beijing.
2
@Chris
"Never had to pay a bill."??
-I'm not a Sanders/Warren supporter. But it seems pretty juvenile (& very counter-productive) to start smearing them..
1
@mike - actually mike, pointing out that these two candidates both advocate massive deficit policies (medicare for all/free college/wipeout 1.5T in debt), have lived in an Ivory tower having never been responsible for a payroll is hardly a smear but simply accurate
3
“If” the supporters of one demand that the other should drop out? Bernie stans have done little else BUT demand that Warren drop out and endorse early. Personally, I hope she doesn’t. There is no reason why this old man and his fanatics should run her off the road.
10
@M
Warren supporter calling Bernie “old” is rich. She’s 70, that ain’t young.
Pot meet kettle.
1
Bernie is 79 with a failing heart and high risk of another major cardiac event and should step aside and let her get a far shot. His ego seems to be bigger than his commitment to the ideals he professes. He should have taken better care of himself if he wanted to run for President at 80 years old.
17
@EPMD Medically speaking, you are incorrect and spreading disinformation. But I'm betting you know that. "Step aside!" Risible.
Is it any wonder that so many Americans dislike politicians and journalists. I would vote for either Sanders and Warren. I like Sanders more, because he is more progressive, but I concede that Warren is much sharper when it comes to the details of policy. I do not believe that Sen. Sanders, a lifelong politician, would say something this dumb to his friend and rival, Sen. Warren. I suspect that Sanders's comments got twisted and amplified during the re-telling. I think that journalists Herndon and Goldmacher have pounced on this trivial story to gain attention for themselves by influencing the course of the Democratic campaign, rather than do the hard work of reporting on issues. I won't say that the Times did this in order to undercut the two progressive candidates in the race, but I can only imagine that the incurably centrist, pro-corporate Times is pleased to tarnish both Sanders and Warren. I won't call these articles "fake news," but this issue is silly, as is this reporting.
14
@Chris Rasmussen This story is all over the internet, it isn't just two reporters from the Times.
1
In terms of Bernie's relationship with women, Bernie spent a huge amount of time and energy trashing Hillary in 2016 - even after it was crystal clear Hillary would be the Democratic nominee. Some would say Bernie did Trump's job of trashing Hillary and Bernie in effect destroyed Hillary's chances of being elected president. Why would Bernie do that? With Hillary's defeat in 2016, Bernie now has another bite of the presidential apple. But don't buy the narrative that Bernie does not trash women candidates, if he thinks it would work for him.
14
@David In Colorado he campaigned for her more than she and Bill combined.
2
@David
Sanders is not my first or second choice but I don't buy your argument. I don’t recall him trashing HRC the person as much as the obviously tainted process tilted in her direction.
3
This “rift” is a silly news story. Obviously, the sooner the left consolidates behind one candidate, the sooner they can finish off the moderates. Just as obviously, all on the left “ have no choice” but to rally around the left winner. It’s absurd to allow the corporate media to “split” the left or cause hard feelings. Soon enough, either Bernie or Warren will be the last one standing. Either would be yugely better than a Dem moderate, much less Trump.
10
@Fred White But don't count on everyone falling in line; especially not the great "middle" which truly constitutes about 60% of the country with the two extreme wings of each party holding down 20% at the extremes.
3
Lost in the noise surrounding the latest "spat" between Senators Warren and Sanders is the silliness of what the spat is about, i.e. Warren's accusation that Sanders told her in a private meeting in 2018 that a woman could not win the 2020 presidential election. So what if he said it? Did he say that a woman is not fit to be President? No, he just expressed his opinion about political realities. The fact that Warren called Sanders out and Sanders felt it necessary to deny having made the statement shows that when it comes to "wokeness" progressive Democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee and cut out this nonsense.
16
@Jay Orchard Wokeness will be the death of the Democratic nominee, just like 2016.
1
That any voter would refer to any politicians as “Mom and Dad,” even in jest, is a huge part of the problem with voters this election cycle. More critical analysis, less Freudian nightmare please.
4
@Jolton Speaking of Freud, didn't he say something about the narcissism of small differences? Please Democrats, you need to do a better job or it will be Trump redux.
This is nothing but media junk. None of the dems have any hope of unseating the reds. I am a true progressive, but these wannabes are so far from reality, not one has a chance. And the Democratic party has wasted every opportunity to work for the people the claim to represent. They vote yes to every Red piece of corporate legislation, they ignore the working class, but they all seem to be doing ok financially.
4
Does no one appreciate nuance anymore? Saying you don’t believe a woman can win this election is not the same as saying that a woman can’t be president. Nor does it necessarily follow that the speaker does not support women. To be sure, it’s the kind of excuse that people who don’t really support women might make to sanitize said lack of support, but one does not necessarily follow the other.
What’s troubling about this to me is that one of the two is clearly lying about the conversation. Warren quickly rebutted Bernie’s claim that what he said was more nuanced, suggesting she may have misinterpreted it, and he quickly denied her rebuttal. I’ve been lied to by the person occupying the Oval Office enough for a lifetime.
Finally, I do think that whether a woman can win this election is an open question. It doesn’t mean a woman shouldn’t be able to or that she wouldn’t make a great president. I’d have total respect for Bernie if he’d said, “yeah, it’s a concern. When this country rejected Hillary Clinton in favor of the Cheetoh in Chief, it called this very concept into question. We want to be careful how we talk about this, but we need to talk about this.”
9
Last chance to ask the show some unity among the candidates for the common goal of work for the common good improving people’s lives. No fighting about Medicare for all or Medicare option and other small details in the big picture of what is wrong with the present government of the Big Money, by the Big Money, and for the Big Money. The handwriting is on the wall, the American people and environment are in poor health. America’s last stand....
4
Each of the candidates, not only Sanders and Warren, must clearly declare that everyone on the stage would be a capable president who can erase the stain of 4 years of Trump's reign.
2
My dream is that they walk onto the debate stage and say "We've agreed that one of us will run for president and the other vice president." Combine the progressive vote and get on with it. One can dream!
4
@Ann
Combine the Progressive Vote, lose 49 states- just like in 72 and 84.
3
@Ann And elbow out the entire moderate wing and expect that they will just come along? Don't count on it. THIS is precisely why the party is doomed again this year.
1
I wish the two of them would fight each other into oblivion so we could get a candidate that might actually beat Trump. Neither one can win key states needed to carry the election like PA, MI and WI. Yes, we need change in the party, but anyone who remembers the '72 election will remember all the adoring celebrities embracing McGovern, a good person like Bernie and Liz whose policies were way too far left for the era, and losing 49 states in the process. It took 20 years to recover from that debacle. Please, AOC and all you impatient zealots, don't do this again. Support someone who can beat Trump now and focus on taking control of both Houses. That's the only way we'll get the changes you want to see happen. Bernie and Liz can get a lot more done in the Senate with a Democratic majority.
7
I want Joe. Warren or Buttigieg for VP would be perfect, and then either one of them for President in 2024.
We need normalcy, proven foreign diplomacy, and domestically we need to stay in the center lane for at least 4 years to mindfully undo Trump’s damage.
6
The think the media bears the burden for this brouhaha. As someone once said, it takes two people to hurt you: The one who says or does something and the "friend" who tells you.
In this case, the "friend" is the mainstream media looking for something to boost their bottom line and cause a rift among progressives.
What we have seen over the past year between Bernie and Warren is that they are mutually supportive friends. This faux scandal is dividing - if not them - their supporters.
It is a non-scandal. No foreign involvement; no money laundering; no election rule violations. Just an opinion offered that is not different from what pundits in this publication have been saying.
If this was an issue for Warren, why hold it in for more than a year and play tag team during the debates? I don't think she took it the way the media presents it. I don't even know that the comment, minus any context, was even delivered as represented.
Progressives, this helps two camps: It is clickbait for the press, and it smooths the road for the centrists.
Both Bernie and Warren have pulled ahead of Ol' Joe in the polls. I believe that is the reason this non-story was hyped in the press that does not want a progressive to win the nomination.
Progressives, neither Warren nor Bernie is at fault. Solidarity is needed to keep the centrists from tearing us apart. Don't let them get away with it.
11
Still voting for Warren. Sanders still my second choice. Don't care what kind of tempest in a teapot y'all are trying to brew.
12
Trumps job approval rating is up to 67%, those that oppose impeachment are 59% and those that oppose removal are over 70%. I would say by the numbers Trump is like a full speed freight train, you should get on or get run over. Why not be on the winning side of history for a change?
1
Not likely. Never voting for him. We are talking about which D not whether we are voting for a D.
2
Can you please provide a link to those poll results? It's just that those numbers are so extraordinarily different to every other poll in the United States at the moment, I'd love to know where they came from. It's not a poll of "Red State" readers, is it?
2
@RS Trump's approval rating hovers at 45% in pretty much every national poll, even Fox News. Your 67% number is pure fabrication, muck like everything Trump says on a daily basis.
2
What I am reading is both sides using conspiracy theories to blame anything they can think of for this spat. Apparently, the cause of the fight is not one or the other lying or mis-remembering or whatnot but rather (a) a plot by the DNC to elect Biden, (b) a plot by the Russians to re-elect Trump, (c) a conspiracy by the media to do some thing or the other. It's an annoying situation, and I hope that Warren's recent salvo at least helps people to get over that kind of thinking and see that this is caused by one or both of these two candidates and not some outside plot.
How could they possibly not disagree when only one can win in the primaries? And there is no arrow they can shoot at each other that the Republicans
won’t be using in the general election. Better to see how they cope with this now.
1
All I can say is if it weren't for AOC, a woman, endorsing Sanders after he had a heart-attack, Sanders would not be where he is right now.
Maybe he's had a change of heart?
Well, in the Land of the Pure, some are just not pure enough, it would seem. For all those who think neither of these candidates lies, you'd better think again. You can call it a change of mind in Warren's case (Republican to Democrat, or no new taxes for the middle class, representing big business in bankruptcy to heading up the CPB, wine cave luncheons...), and for all those who think Bernie walks on water, especially with regards to the Iraq war vote litmus test, don't forget he voted for years for budgets that approved the war machinery that had to be in place to fight the war. When asked about assembling nuke Mirv'ed missle warheads in Vermont, he said, you have to build them somewhere. This is hardly the genuine resolve of a peace first, non US aggression candidate. Noam Chomsky would never have voted for that. There are lies of commission, and lies of omission. Vermont has always been a net taker, not giver of money back to DC, as are most deep blue states. Let's finally be honest and not pretend these two are so real, or that they are so genuine. Sometimes genuine is a euphemism for stuck in the past. No matter how much I disagree with their 'free ice cream' platforms (which they can never get the money to pay for it all), I'd take either over the guy in the WH, if they are the nominee. Sometimes voting is making the least worst choice. So, let them duke it out like the rest of the field is doing to each other.
@Mark
Disagree. Most deep blue states are net givers of taxes to DC. Red states tend to be proverbial Takers and receive a lot more back than they give.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have more in common than not. In fact, they said so. Why all the fuss? Let's see what they say tonight? I hope they'll reject the avalanche of questions about this insubstantial flap. It's not fake news but it ain't real either.
5
I love Elizabeth Warren. I've loved her for a long, long time. I've sent money to her campaign. And I'd love a Warren presidency.
But do I think she could win? Honestly, no. I think more than her policies, her personality does not play well with the general public. And as unfortunate as that is, well, that's politics. It's a bit of show business.
Does this mean that I think a woman could not win? Not at all. This time around, I actually think Klobuchar has a pretty decent chance, more than the other centrists running.
I'm not sure what is true about these accusations against Sanders, but for sure just voicing the opinion that a particular female candidate can't win, or that sexism will be a factor in a campaign, does not a woman-hater make.
5
@ELJ
That’s interesting. I tend to support Klobuchar over Warren but consider Warren the more engaging and inspiring of the two. Would vote for whomever of the two is nominated.
1
@Mrs Ming
Warren is more engaging in my opinion as well, but I think she comes off as too "nerdy" or "elitist" for most people.
I'd happily vote for either one too.
@ELJ
True. Unfortunately any well educated candidate who can articulate a fact based plan is labeled elitist. That’s why we have the President of Green Acres.
1
It's disheartening to see that so many responses to a story about a private conversation on the subject of whether a woman can become president in this country right now, are to attack the woman who took part in the conversation. This and especially the previous article here in the Times have countless comments accusing Warren of lying or being conniving or underhanded or desperate or of 'playing the woman card' and even some demanding that she apologise to Sanders. I think every woman will recognize these kind of accusations. You can still love Sanders and believe this is something he said, he's a human being who says words and sometimes they're not the perfect thing in hindsight- this certainly wouldn't be his first gaffe when it comes to speaking about gender. The truth is that this collective response shows us more about how 'progressive' Americans really are than anything either candidate has said.
@E And one can very easily and immediately think this was a conversation that happened two years ago between two people that no one else can verify. Why would it be offered as an accusation for public consumption and why now, one is left to wonder and supply the answer.
I don't think it goes beyond he said-she said and therefore should never have been brought up at all. Hence, desperate.
1
One needn't look further than 4 years ago to see that the Washington Post, NY Times, and Politico don't want Bernie elected. We're taught to be thoughtful and thorough in our analyses of the media - did they think we wouldn't notice the anti Bernie spin?
Anyway, regarding this controversy with Warren and Sanders it sounds completely made up or spun to make Bernie look bad.
For the record, I don't think there's a lefty here in Wisconsin that hasn't questioned whether or not our state would elect a woman as president. It's called "assessing reality."
5
Oh yawn. If this is the biggest 'schism' between Sanders and Warren, we're in pretty good shape.
I remember when some guy accused Reagan of practicing "voodoo economics". Oh yeah, it was George H. W. Bush, who later became Reagan's Vice President.
4
It looks like Warren inherited the Clinton Hit team, and now that her polls are tanking, she cries Havoc and let's loose the dogs of war (aka mercenary political operatives).
I would not be surprised that many of the negative rumors about Biden were from her.
Warren got the greatest media hype and it did very little as her own self contradictions blew up for Medicare for All and no tax hike for the middle class.
In Canada, the way the left gets around this is by defining the rich as a 2 income family making about US$90k (~CDN$120)- yup two people making 40-50k is rich. Meanwhile the real rich, whose income was generated a generation or two ago and live off Capital Gains , seem to be AOK.
3
First things first: Neither one of them are my parents and the metaphor merely underlines the infantilization of leftists and progressives by this paper. Stop positioning Sanders as "your weird uncle" he isn't my uncle, he is a man who has devoted his life to progressive causes. Let us also stop with the WASP chiding of any conflict while smearing others into silence. I for one am looking forward to once in my life maybe getting to vote for someone that I would like as a candidate, I'm 57 and haven't seen one yet. Bernie has my vote.
5
As a rock-rib progressive, I hate to have to tell my fellow traveling idealogues this, but the 2020 presidential election is not about issues. It's not about Medicare for All or free college education or any of our other high-minded policy ideas. It's about removing "Mafia" Don and his sordid crew from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That progressive agenda we embrace will go nowhere if the Orange Menace stays in and consolidates his power. There's plenty of time to enact pro-equality, pro-human, and pro-environment goals once we've dumped The Don. Remember, a journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step and that step, in 2020, will be to return the nation to the people.
6
Frankly, I am a little sceptical of this supposed exchange, at least in the way it is being presented.
Warren is slipping, slipping, slipping in the polls. She needs something with which to gain traction ahead of tonight's debate (and I, for one, have been less and less impressed by her as the debates have progressed). Voila, a deus ex machina statement worthy of the metoo moment appears.
As other commenters have observed, this was first reported totally relying on anonymous sources: for such a minor issue what's the rationale behind anonymizing sources? The conspiracy theorist in me whispers that the idea gets floated publically by anonymous sources so the handlers can see if it is worth going full-bore with. It catches and the principal steps in to confirm, thereby minimizing the political risk of a power play, and letting it seem that she only does so reluctantly.
As a meta conspiracy theory, news outlets that have for years tried their hardest to marginalize Bernie are being forced to report on him and they find it irksome. Working to focus back on Warren at any cost!
Meh. Just politics. Really boring politics.
2
Bernie's view towards women is very similar to that of the Catholic Church - women deserve "respect" so long as they don't try to take over and lead anything. The moment women get above their assigned role in life, they need to be put down, and Sanders' campaign has consistently worked at marginalizing women activists and voters. In 2016, the Sanders' campaign put men in charge with a free hand to sexually harass women campaign workers. Also in 2016, Sanders encouraged the open misogyny and sexism against Clinton and any woman who supported her by his core of male supporters on social media. In 2019/2020 Sanders was shocked, "just shocked," that he had sexually predatory campaign managers and that his followers had "disrespected" Hillary Clinton and women voters. In 2016, about 10-12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump rather than vote for a woman. If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, or the WH, he will be sending women's rights back to the middle ages. When it comes to equality between the sexes, and races, there really isn't much daylight between Trump and Sanders.
Bernie had his moment, folks. How about we let the long-time (true blue) Democrat, Ms. Warren, represent us in the FDR wing of the Democratic Party?
What really concerns me is that the Democratic party has become the British Labor party. It leaves me, as with millions of other voters, no option for 2020. To vote for Trump is unimaginable. To vote for a left wing democrat is also unimaginable.
On the domestic scene, neither party has the courage to address the 8 ton elephant in the room: an incredibly poor K-12 education system. On the foreign affairs scene, the left wing shows such a dislike for America that they cannot formulate a vigorous foreign policy. The right wing seems to have forgotten the lost cause that is Iraq.
1
The real "non-aggression pact" would be one sitting out the primary and endorsing the other early. That would make it FAR more likely to get a progressive over the hump and into the general election.
Both of them running means A) neither trusts the other to lead, no matter how much they play up their friendship, and B) a moderate like Biden's chances of winning are much higher.
Their need for personal glory may well guarantee neither can be president.
9
The goal is actually to win the nomination and neither Sanders nor Warren can do that by sticking together. Rather then making calculations on how attacking each other will help the leading center-left candidate (or in progressive language, the leading corporate Democrat candidate) they have to face the fact that they need a strategy to win since both can't win. For the progressive wing the problem is both decided to run. There is no easy fix for that problem. That's politics. Some politicians have the goal of being president and will pursue that regardless of how it affects political infighting in a political party. In a sense they are on the same team but in another sense they are not.
6
@Bob
And she can’t let the people decide?
I like Warren but I would hesitate to call her a real progressive like Sanders. Her combined assets pretty much argue otherwise. And while I think she's an astute campaigner and tactician, they are qualities, ever since the reveal of the Pied Piper Strategy of 2016 and inner machinations of the DNC, that many of us are wary of. At the end of the day I think the ground support for Bernie will prevail and I believe Warren has the vision and decency to support that.
13
If the Democratic Party nominates Bernie Sanders, he will lose in forty states, and maybe more. Donald Trump will win another term, and a second-term Donald Trump will destroy your country - your institutions, laws, andconstitution will be annihilated. PLEASE don't nominate a hard-left candidate. They will lose, and lose hard. I know Bernie gives you an idealogical inner-glow, and you're sure that Bernie will cause a revolution in the states away from the Coast and romp it in when his promise of a socialist wonderland makes them rise-up against their oppressors, but you're just wrong.
5
Many commentators fail to realize that Hillary won the popular vote in Democrat California by over 7,000,000 votes but won the overall US Vote count by about 3,000,000 votes. This of course, means that in 49 states other than California, Trump had a total of about 4,000,000 votes more than Hillary received. Start dealing with reality and not statements like “I will get rid of your Obamacare and employer provided insurance and replace it with something else that will cost taxpayers more”.
2
That's an assumption not supported by data. Some of us who are older remember the advantages left by FDR's Neal Deal and an America that was far more equitable before the onslaught of Neoliberalism, Murdoch and Reaganomics. Now there's a younger generation who are well informed and are not afraid to experience the changes we so desperately need to keep from falling into further in to the black hole of the Corporate Oligarchy.
Bring it the infighting. The more the better. Sanders or Warren could win the nomination among the progressive fringe who vote in big numbers in caucuses and primaries. But either will lose the general election. The broader population of Democrats (those who may not vote in primaries) and independents simply have no appetite for their brand of socialism and income redistribution. Nominating them will hand the general election to Trump. Win the battle, lose the war. So let them brawl, let them weaken each other -- and create a path to victory for Biden, Pete, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, none of whom propose a social and economic revolution that is a sure losing platform in November.
26
@AK
Progressive "fringe" or New Deal Democrats in the tradition of FDR?
Our politics has drifted so far to the right that we define these people as radical? Meanwhile, the real fringe marches on with their tiki torches and lazy, unthinking citizens accept it as a new normal. Sad.
And no, there is not much value in the so-called moderates you listed: apologizing to the right wing for not being conservative enough isn't going to bring about any meaningful change, it will not inspire voters to the polls, and Trump will be handed another victory.
The only reasonable electoral math is to expand the electorate (why do you think the GOP is fighting this so aggressively with their various voter suppression tactics?).
I'm only aware of one candidate who has built his strategy on the principle of expanding the electorate. I think it's high time we see an truly democratic strategy put to work in the general election for a change.
4
@AK
It would seem you wish to indulge AGAIN in the world of "strategic failure"(and insanity). Did you learn nothing from 2016? ALL of the candidates you mention in your last paragraph which represent "corrupt, corporate/establishment do nothing moderates who would be guaranteed NOT to generate any excitement in the electorate whatsoever, and more importantly, NOT to generate the substantial increased voter turnout that would be vital in circumventing gerrymandering and actually winning the election.
History and practically is NOT on your side, Some democrats never, ever learn.
3
@Deus
Some Democrats learned and remembered.
George McGovern.
1
Absent a verbatim transcript of the meeting, it's hard to conclude what was said and what were the motivations behind it. To me, it would not be out of line for two prominent politicians to discuss the pluses and minuses of the existing political environment. One may have thought he was making a realistic political assessment while the other took it as a personal affront.
We need to stop retreating into the comforting arms of our tribal cohorts and think more of the common good and how we promote it.
33
The notion that the party needs these two to stick together for the sake of the party as absolutely laughable. This race is a zero sum game capped at the total number of registered Democrats. And in the case of Warren and Sanders, there's an even finer zero sum game capped at the total number of registered Democrats who are comfortable with some of the more progressive ideas and policies these two candidates have embraced. Split this last game down the middle and Warren and Sanders are both likely to lose to one of the other candidates. Therefore, it is necessary for each of them to go after the others' voters. So it's actually a little shocking that it's taken this long for them to go after each other. That said, Warren's move yesterday (her campaign's claim that Sanders told her a woman couldn't win in a private conversation over a year ago) may backfire. It seems like a low blow that, if it doesn't disturb her supporters, it will certainly upset Sanders' supporters (who are fiercely loyal) to the point where they would never shift to support Warren.
18
@SJG - How many millions of eligible voters did not vote in 2016 and 2018? It is NOT a zero sum game.
How may who supported Obama did not vote in 2016? These voters are far larger number than the Trump electoral college win margin.
1
Timing is everything. This is good for ratings.
7
Sanders should look Warren in the eye tonight and say, "Liz, we have been friends and allies for many years. Do you know me to be a feminist and a consistent, strong advocate on issues of critical importance to women in this country?"
When Warren hems, dodges, and finally concedes, "Yes, Bernie, I do," he should kindly ask her to then stop spreading malicious lies to the contrary.
38
He may have made the comment. It is a valid question wether a woman can win the general election. After all we still do not have an ERA amendment.
2
@MB
You have to be incredibly naive to think that that is how she will answer. It's more likely she says something like, "Well, Bernie, that's what I thought at one time, but the facts show otherwise. First, you told me a woman couldn't win. Second, there are numerous reports of how your campaign pays women less than men. Third, we know you abandoned the mother of your only child, and left her to raise your son on welfare."
4
@MB Berni is not a feminist, unless it's convenient.
4
And what exactly is wrong with a moderate nominee? Since the liberal, whoops excuse me, progressive wing has little change of electing a progressive house and no chance of electing a filibuster-proof senate majority, neither Sanders nor Warren have any hope of enacting their agenda.
"Oh yeah?, then we'll replace all these DINOs with our people," And how do you know the American people will cooperate with your plans?
17
The progressive will fight tooth and nails for changes, the moderates will just concede to the Conservative as they did in the past.
4
@Paulie
What is wrong with a moderate nominee?
Their fundraising strategy, for starters.
1
@Paulie I will tell you what is wrong and you can look it up yourself. So called moderates are really republicans and often vote with republicans and take huge bribes from corporations and hey guess what? They are funded by the same corporations who now own them and make them vote in favor of these corporations. I do not know exactly how competing corporations work this out, but you can go look at their donors and then their voting record. And read Ryan Grim's book We Got The People for the inner workings in DC. In short moderates do not represent the voters at all and in fact vote against their interests but pretend to care.
High maintenance crooks. Even the mob has more integrity. Fancy talking grifters. That is why Billy Graham was such a favorite of the elite. They are cut out of the same cloth and often use that same kind of folksy, smarmy rhetoric. It is very southern in some way even if these entities come from all over. They are the upper class of the honeyed talkers of the grifting clan. They would see through the two swindlers in Huckleberry Finn in a second, and use them royally for their own ends, no loyalty even with their own kind. So that is what moderates are. If you want to suffer more, elect them and watch them get rich from bribes but you, not so much.
1
The real question is: If it is determined that a centrist/moderate candidate has the best chances of beating Trump, will the progressive candidates throw their full support (online & offline) to the candidate? So, no rerun of Sanders’ supporters not supporting HRC.
After all, the US system of democracy is broken (and this requires a progressive candidate) but many of the non-voters don’t really care who’s President – their miserable lives won’t change much. And the Obama-Trump voters won’t go progressive.
Get over it and #VoteBlueNoMatterWho.
14
@L in NL
Bernie has said REPEATEDLY that he will support the winner no matter who.
4
@L in NL
It's a false narrative. 90% of Sanders' supporters voted for Clinton in the general election.
Take note, also, that only 75% or fewer of HRC supporters voted for Obama in 2008 (25% voted for John McCain).
But your point is fair. If an uninspiring corporate hack gets the nomination, again, it is still in the interests of the country to vote for that candidate over the fascist alternative.
1
@L in NL
Sorry, but most of the Bernie camp will just stay home. Definitely will not be donating money or volunteering or phone banking either.
Looks like you have no choice if defeating Trump is your only priority, you gotta support the guy with the largest army that will not budge.
1
I really don’t want Sanders because I don’t want to empower all the misogynistic men of all ages who turned out for him in the last election.
Bernie Boys don’t seem to like, or trust, women. Bernie divides.
35
@Dorothy I completely agree with you. The level of gloating misogyny among the "Berni Bros" in 2016 was revolting. Permanent turn-off for me. I support Elizabeth Warren but I'd be far happier to vote for Biden than Sanders because Sanders attracts the very worst kind of liberal male behavior, and there's a reason for that. That kind of misogynistic vibe starts at the top.
9
@Dorothy Good God, lady you done swallowed a whole lot of lies. Bernie is the opposite of what you say. And why don't you actually listen to his speeches on women's rights and look at his clips from over 20 years ago telling little girls they can be president and times are changing for women in politics but not fast enough and his demands that women should have complete control of their bodies . And how he voted for a horrible crime bill which he disagreed with because it was so important to get the section that gave official protection for women from abusive husbands or boy friends. He has fought for women's rights all his adult life and the reason he is so adamant about H4all is he watched his mother die from lack of medical care from cancer when he was in college and dropped out to care for her. You are trashing a good man who has always done all he could to help women. Wow are you missing out. He is in your corner, but if is more important to you that you want to please those who have fed you that false narrative for their own selfish interests to spit on Bernie, He will still fight for your rights anyway. Because that is the kind of guy he is. It is the real American way to fight for all people's rights no matter what.
11
@Dorothy As a Libertarian/Independent voter, I had the opportunity to watch the 2016 Democratic Primary with some objectivity. This line you provide is peak Democrats sinking their own 2016 ship. Bernie brought out throngs of enthusiastic voters while HRC, hardly running, used a primary process with a predetermined outcome to coast to victory, despite being wildly unpopular for her hawkish and conservative policies. The rest of the party, who would have beat her, refused to run. The superdelegates we're all here from the outset. The fact that she didn't have the courage to support gay marriage until polling on the subject was over 50% should have been a disqualifier enough for winning the primary. Tritely dismissing this as mere sexism hurts the party when they need to be selecting a winner, not ordaining a predetermined party boss
11
There in lies the problem: Republicans fight Democrats. Democrats fight other Democrats.
Republicans win and make policy and Democrats settle for online petitions and late night jokes.
Debate the primaries but in the end resolve to vote for the winner to defeat the corruption incompetence in the White House and Congress. Just do it.
12
When I read some of the blindly supportive comments here that suggest Sanders could never lie (he lied about revealing his health info after his heart attack) has never had a problem with women (uh, no) and is going to save us all, I feel like I could just as easily be at a MAGA rally.
49
@Sparky - I think most people believe that Sanders' consistency is a testament to his honesty, especially against a charge of sexism that is contrary to beliefs he has expressed in the past. You are mistaken about Sanders lying about releasing his health information after his heart attack. He did release this information to the media (including the New York Times) a few weeks ago.
2
I believe the media has overblown what was said in a private conversation. I hope Warren and Sanders quickly defuse this hyped controversy and turn the focus back on defeating Trump. For heavens sake, we have a president who almost started a war with Iran last week and this is what the candidates are arguing about! Also I am dismayed by the very harsh comments directed at Warren by the Bernie supporters in this forum. Some of them already proclaiming they will vote for a third party candidate rather than Warren. Unlike baseball, there is crying in politics. But, more importantly, if you don’t support your team for the big game, you are a loser. Any Democrat is better than Trump.
12
@Mary Beth
When the players cheat, people don’t show up for the big game.
@Mary Beth
Considering how close we are to the Apocalypse for many younger people, there isn't much difference between any democrat and Trump. This is it for them, their last chance to effectively change the disastrous trajectory we are on. Warren broke the non aggression pact, her supporters have given nothing but constant bad faith attacks considering any form of policy comparison to be violence and now push the toxic Clinton 16' line. Politics is zero sum, they're losing, they're desperate and the fact they hit Sanders rather than Biden for a boost reveals alot. Then immediately roll over and show their bellies calling for unity, these calls were nowhere to be heard when they were ahead, it was just "drop out Bernie."
I don't trust them any further then i can throw them, I truly in my heart of hearts believe they're a trojan horse attempting to divide Bernie's base in favor of a centrist.
2
She tried. He didn’t.
Neither of them will defeat Trump. Printing stories like this mzkes it more difficult for all the candidates.
1
When you looked at their *combined* support, Sanders and Warren together are at 35%. The NYT and other center-left publications (and people) should take note.
10
Oh they're "fighting" are they? Or is it that there is just not enough controversy there to make a juicy story so the Times and other media are stirring some up to get more eyeballs.
11
Actually it is more like Grandad and Gramma are fighting.
17
This seems more media manufactured than real.
Bernie is not telling his campaign to attack Elizabeth.
Warren is not telling her campaign to attack Bernie.
Some supporters can be really obnoxious. We who lean left and forward need to rise above a few unfortunate comments by supporters, and remember that Trump and Republicans are the problem, not ANY Democrat
Vote BLUE no matter who, come November!!!
16
No fighting. Let’s be loving toward one another, please. Don’t make this a news story.
6
Unfortunately, this feels like 11th hour pettiness and competition on Warren’s part to me. She’s falling behind; it’s looking lost for her. And she’s getting terrible, panicked advice from her managers.
How likely is it that Sanders, the top dog of a campaign, instructed volunteers to speak against her door-to-door? Very unlikely. And her calling it “trash talk” is ironically trash talking. It’s all beneath her.
12
Real life Game of Thrones. Everyone knows the king is illegitimate, everyone wants the crown, and everyone will backstab allies on the way.
3
No, mom and dad are not fighting. It would be such juicy news if they were, but sorry to say to you news editors... we're just seeing that they are human and there is a little stress, apparently, involved in running for president. You can count on mom and dad. Just watch. It's better than juicy news.
7
Why did every version of your coverage of this story make it sound "explosive," "acrimonious," "vehement." The NYT is verging into tabloid territory with the selection of stories it puts on the front page and the misleading adjectives it uses. Please start covering those with progressive views fairly ... the NYT's bashing of Sanders 4 years ago did help elect Trump.
21
Regardless of what Sanders said (and I don’t belittle what he said), at some point they were going to have to fight it out. They’re going for a nomination where you can only have one winner. A clash is inevitable.
7
@Brad
They have to take dirty cheap shots at others, instead of letting the people decide?
1
Of course, he said it and is now lying about it.
He also refuses—on the rare occasion that he's questioned about it—to acknowledge, apologize for, or otherwise speak to his rape fantasy essay published in the alternative paper Vermont Freeman in 1972.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/
Bernie doesn't make it difficult to locate moments of fairly overt sexism.
2
I am always amazed at the radio silence when this gets brought up. You can bet the GOP has this and is ready to pounce in order to further divide us inside of the Democratic party.
This is a problem:
“We have an opportunity to defeat the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, and that’s where this primary should be focused,” said Charles Chamberlain, who leads the left-wing group Democracy for America."
No. This primary should be focused on finding the candidate who can win the election. At this moment, it does not matter whether that candidate is a progressive or moderate, it only matters that a Democrat win.
As much as I like to think America would elect a woman, our last candidate was as or more qualified to be president than the last half dozen men to hold the office, and she lost--popular vote aside. If Sanders said he does not think a woman can win, he has history on his side.
8
@WC So then you do NOT want to "defeat the corporate wing of the Democratic Party"? With regard to "he has history on his side", if that was true Barack Obama would never have been elected President - not a good argument.
2
@rls
I said that what I want is a Democrat to win.
Saying Sanders has history on his side is correct, but it is not intended to be an all-time prohibition against a woman being elected; the argument is a good one until it is disproved. If there were no validity to it, we wouldn't be having the discussion because we would have had a female president, but women cannot get elected at the state level in significant numbers, 51% of the population and 24% of Congress, which indicates the barrier to the highest office is high.
Not surprised. I would vote for one but not the other if they were the nominee but neither is my first choice. I am looking for someone whose kindergarten report card would have said “plays well with others”.
4
Fascinating -- and meaningless since Trump, ably abetted by the federal courts which he and McConnell have stacked with sycophants, will win due to voter suppression, Russian and GOP disinformation campaigns, old school deterrents, like broken voting machines and hours-long lines in low-income areas, and, of course, the good old Electoral College. As evidence, consider that Trump won Wisconsin by about 23,000 votes; right now, the Wisconsin courts are ordering a purge of 230,000 from the voter rolls. This will continue unabated right up to election day. I would love to be optimistic, but this is the state of our democracy as I see it.
13
I personally don't want to hear 20th century "my way or the highway" "wine cave" candidates anymore than Trump. I just want a practical leader that isn't corrupt, who can steer our nation from the financial to cultural abyss.
Warren nor Sanders were never my candidates to begin with. They're out of touch with the common people, and speak to different classes than who they claim they represent.
Biden/Abrams ticket would secure the Southern voters, and also bring the old and young together. I'm in my 50s and seen the old, but also know we need level thinkers side-by-side with a new generation of ideas, to fix the mess we're in. Not Warren and Sanders style politics that doesn't unite, The People.
7
Not surprised. I would vote for one but not the other if they were the nominee but neither is my first choice. I am looking for someone whose kindergarten report card would have said “plays well with others”.
1
I'd say most of the comments come from a place that gives Senator Sanders the benefit of doubt, but won't extend the same courtesy to Senator Warren. Worth asking oneself, why?
10
@Andrew
Because, she accused Sanders’s staff of trashing her. I went to her rally, because I’d been going back and forth between her and Bernie. When she opened her rally with a line like , ”How many of you are teachers?” Well, I was left out, and if this is considered trashing her, so be it. Does she want to be the President of the teachers or the people?
7
@Andrew I was a Warren supporter up until this debacle. There are a couple of reasons why I favor the Sanders narrative here.
First is that Warren's biggest strength and weakness is her proclivity toward adding melodramic flair to her her stories--it's how she makes banking regulations interesting, but also how she got into hot water with the whole Native American thing. Bernie, by contrast, says the same thing over and over (including that he does support women candidates, and that a woman can be president). If one candidate is known for spicy storytelling and the other is known for stubbornly sticking to a script for 30 years, it's just easier to believe that she's mischaracterizing his remarks.
Second, I side with the progressive movement more than I do with either candidate. If a candidate makes a public statement that damages *both* progressives in the races, helps Biden, and helps Trump...frankly I'm going to hold them accountable for it. I believe that's what Warren is doing here.
13
It appearsthat at this stage all the speeches about Democrats hanging together have once more degenerated into food fights that the party seems unable or unwilling to forego. There has been all but no regard for how severely the acts or-non-acts and slavish dictator "brown-nosing" the current President has engaged have rendered the nation an impotent international bystander.
All the governmental machinery for keeping the world running is at the point of coming to a creaking halt from lack of US and foreign winding of the mainspring. It looks now as though internal dissension and personal politics have become more important than the maintaining of a world governing system like that which dealt with the potential ozone hole disaster of the last century, even as the US central government was run by the conservative Reagan administration. Our media, too, like our politicians, given up any sense of responsibility for the future in favor of navel gazing & nationalist politics and similar pie throwing political infighting.
We are now reduced to amateurs playing at the Three Stooges , instead of righting the world's problems as at the Montreal Protocol.
2
This sounds like something that steve Bannon or Newt Gingrich would've dreamed up to smear opponents.
I hope that these two great candidates, Liz and Bernie, can reconcile this and move on to defeating Trump.
10
Whether or not Sanders really said what Warren alleges, this imbroglio may redound to his benefit. If he said what she says he said, it was a faux pas but not a sexist faux pas. After all, he said that he didn't think a woman could win, not that he didn't want a woman to win. So he made a mistake, but not a major mistake.
Warren - on the other hand - has divulged the content of what was supposed to be a private conversation. Not sure how voters will respond to that. In general, snitching is frowned upon.
10
Inter "left" fighting is to be expected, it is what the left does best. Perfect is the enemy of the good, and so what is happening between Sanders and Warren shouldn't be a surprise.
4
@Henry
You mean the Far Left. They are the ones obsessed with purity, a qualification anyone but a saint would be able to meet.
If in fact Elizabeth Warren brought up the subject, as another commenter wrote who said she had information from people who heard this at the dinner itself and that Warren said “ do you believe a woman can win “?, that question can be interpreted different ways . Does it mean “ does a woman have the ability to win” or “ do you think a woman can win against a misogynist like Donald Trump “ and Bernie replied that “Trump would use everything in the book because she’s a woman “ . Warren probably resented that answer and took it to mean that she couldn’t handle a man. Now it’s irritating her .
But if Warren wasn’t ready for the answer , whatever that answer was , she shouldn’t have asked the question.
6
If they want a socialist to run versus Trump and their ideology is so important to them why do they not cooperate with one being the proposed VP candidate. They would probably get the nomination but neither has a chance of beating Trump in November.
2
It was inevitable that the two progressives would ultimately come into conflict with one another, given that only one person can ultimately be the nominee. It would be very unfortunate if their conflict was petty in nature.
8
When the heat got HOT (polling downturn before Iowa), Warren blinked.....showed her real character (true colors) and willingness to stoop to "win".
I'd STILL vote for her over 45, but I'd do so KNOWING that she's not to be trusted (same as all the other "corporate democrats").
SO disappointing.
4
I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you that Senator Sanders thinks he would be a better candidate than Senator Warren or that she thinks she would be a better candidate than him. They are, after all, politicians.
Both candidates have passionate followers some of whom like both but one a bit better than the other and others who dislike and distrust the other candidate.
Enter the media who both love nothing better than a political bloodbath and whose corporate owners would stand to lose if either of these candidates became president and the supporters of other candidates and you have a situation where the benefactor of this storm will most likely be a third candidate and of course ultimately Donald Trump.
4
It's too bad Warren went this route, but, hey, eyes on the prize, people. She went a bit dirty, true.
So?
I've been all in for Sanders since 2015. My wife and I have given $3200 so far and I'm canvassing in NH from 2/7 through 2/11.
And I have no problem backing her to the hilt if she wins the nom. Warren supporters should say the same about Sanders; other Sanders supporters should say the same as I am. Sure, be annoyed, but get over it and yourselves.
I'm to the left of Sanders, and I'd go all in for Biden or Bloomberg. Or my cat.
Enough with the hurt fee-fees and the over-identification with these politicians. They aren't "mom and dad," for the love of...they're people we're hiring to beat Trump and give us half a chance of avoiding civilizational collapse within our lifetimes. Literally. Those are the stakes.
So if Liz hatched a slimy but pretty typical stunt-plot, well, that's not helpful, but I'm not going to compound it by going hysterical.
Nor, I guarantee you, will Sanders tonight in the debate. I doubt Warren will, either.
If you find this "disloyal," you don't understand at least small-d democratic politics. Even Bloomberg gets is: he can't stand Sanders but against Trump, if it's Sanders, he'll throw down millions to get him elected.
So, fellow progs, can you rise to the level of a billionaire on this issue?
Up to you.
54
Beautifully said. Nothing needs to be added to your comment. Thank you
8
@Doug Tarnopol I will respect the process and pull for whoever wins the nomination.
What happens afterward, once the world is "saved" and evil defeated....that depends on who got chosen. Remember that.
1
@Doug Tarnopol
Thank you, I agree with you on every thing but one: I‘m not so sure that Bloomberg wouldn’t enter the general as a 3rd party candidate in the event that Sanders (and maybe even Warren) wins the D nomination. Hope I‘m wrong..
2
"There is also fear among liberals that the dispute would become a focal point of Tuesday’s presidential debate — the last one before the Feb. 3 caucuses."
Tonight's debate is already a snoozefest without Yang, Castro, Harris or Booker. Especially Yang.
Let everyone who still wishes to be in the race debate, and air the debate on Public Broadcasting so voters--regardless of cable subscriptions or internet access--can watch and learn. How is this not a thing?
6
What concerns me far more than "mom and dad" fighting is the "kids" (Dem. voters) fighting. The negative attacks between supporters on twitter are really ugly. I've supported both Sanders and Warren in the past; they both represent an exciting opportunity for this country to get back to--I'll say it--FDR. He said something, she heard something different; he doesn't remember exactly what he said, she does or thinks she does: who cares? We know the core beliefs and policies of these two. We know where the real fight lies. Let's keep it positive, kids.
8
This is a mark of desperation on Warren’s part and nothing more than acting like the amoral politicians she despises. It’s an accusation which will be brought up again and again during the primary season. I guess she had a “plan” for that.
1
Warren doesn’t want Sanders giving his tried-and-true, slam-dunk talking points at the debate, which would effectively cement his momentum going into the Iowa Caucus. It’s advantageous (to her) for him to eat up his debate air-time answering to the spurious charge of sexism with which she‘s smeared his campaign. This is a deliberate misreading of Sanders’ private remarks in response to the citation of accurate polling statistics concerning Warren’s chief demographics in a Bernie campaign volunteer cheat-sheet. What Warren is potentially jeopardizing here is the crossover appeal between the two liberal candidates, which might effectively hand the nomination to the increasingly enfeebled Joe Biden, and furthermore weaken the chances of Sanders. It’s a petty, petty move, that centre-left and right wing media organizations have glommed onto to deter the surge of the populist left.
Let’s hope this is not another 2016 repeat, as Warren’s last ditch strategy might prove to spectacularly backfire.
5
Anyone who thinks female candidates do not face hurdles because of their gender isn't familiar with America. Warren and Klobuchar are surely both well aware and positioned to counter the gender discrimination they'll face if nominated. If not, they'll lose. America just isn't perfect yet.
This isn't a fight the Warren camp should be launching now.
Wait for the great battle with Trump.
5
And these are the examples, playing dirty, we set for our children - stay away from mine! Warren needs to apologize to all of the progressives.
6
They can't both win the nomination. By the morning after Super Tuesday (Mar 3), there are likely to be only two viable candidates, one moderate and one progressive. That one progressive will be Bernie or Liz. If neither is going to concede, they will have to fight it out; the sooner this is settled the better. No, they aren't a "team". They're ambitious rivals vying for a big prize; the dogs of war have been unleashed.
16
Agreed. And the one should right off the bat ask the other to be VP before they win the nomination.
4
@Tom Meadowcroft
I’m not even sure she’s a progressive- more like a snake in sheep’s clothing, and certainly not happy to let the people sort it out!
2
@Brooklyn Dog Geek
I don't they can win as double Progressive-double white running mates.
They are going to need a little more variety. Keep in mind most of the country is not Progressive. They do not wander to far from Center. Be careful not to drive them towards Trump.
Except for gender, both speak with the same voice. At lot of people are going to feel left out.
2
It's great to be passionate about the candidate we favor, but I certainly hope lots of Democrats don't plan to take their toys and go home if they don't get their way. I have never been so impressed with the quality of choices the Democrats have presented us. Let's hope at least one of them wins it all, even if it's one of the "corporate" ones.
25
@Bob exactly what the "corporate ones" want....that's why this was done (made up!).
Not saying "take your toys"...just saying, this predicament proves the "corporate ones" have their ways and they're going to use them with some degree of success!
1
I knocked doors getting signatures to put Bernie on the ballot in NY last weekend. I was surprised by how many voters I talked to that were undecided and trying to choose between Warren and Sanders. It made me think that either of them (and I don't care which) could easily win the primary if the other dropped out and endorsed.
18
Well, I can't stand Old Bernie, but in this case I have to agree with him. A woman cannot be elected president in the current climate.
(That was made clear in the comments sections of the NYT during the 2016 campaign. So many haters swore they would never vote for a woman. They kept their promises.)
I know Hillary received more popular votes, but she's not president. I know Old Bernie stayed in the race long after he was eliminated, and I know he did little/nothing to bring the bros around to voting for the woman who won the nomination. I know he sat there at the Democratic convention with his angry red face on. Etc.
There is a tendency among Democrats to underestimate the strength of the woman-hate that keeps many men (and some women) for voting for a woman. I wish it weren't true, but the candidates and the political climate make nominating a woman a losing idea. I think Bernie was doing Elizabeth a favor by imparting that message to her.
I'd like to see them both step down and endorse Bloomberg. (With Swalwell as his running mate.) Then, once the repair work is well under way, women can emerge from the Senate, from the governors' offices, from the House, etc. and run successfully for president.
20
My state (Washington) has already had two female Governors, currently has two female Senators, the largest city has a female mayor, and the speaker of the House in the Legislature is a woman. What more can we do to show you that women make fine leaders. Our state matches up pretty well with the other 49 in many ways.
4
@Pecan That's what he said when he ran against Madeleine Kuhn for governor - she beat the pants off him - nothing has changed - we'd just be changing one misogynist for another. No.Thank,You.
2
@Pecan Now that sounds good.....Bloomberg-Swallwell! Almost as good as Biden-Buttigieg. Either set would be winners!
3
This is just the nature of the Warren tribe. if somebody tells you an uncomfortable truth you don't like, accuse them of sexism. Even if the truth is a useful one to consider, like the fact that we still see systematic sexism that makes it challenging to elect women leaders for high offices, accuse the person stating it of sexism. The right response is "yes, I know it's hard for women to get elected, but we're going to try hard anyway, and eventually, we will win".
16
Interesting ,Newton Iowa,only one of thousands of American small town industrial centers decimated by NAFTA. Maytag USA ,moving to Mexico lost Newton some 30 thousand jobs all tolled in the factories and suppliers.Trump talks about this ,Democrats ,not so much.Our American jobs and factories put our children through college bought our autos and homes and lifted everyone from poverty.Democrats talk about further open borders and financial support for all immigrants on the back of the US tax payer,yet fault the President while he attempts to correct the faults of past administrations.This tactic by Democrats will insure the loss in 2020.
14
This "breach" between Warren and Sanders is not a real breach. It is a media creation, driven by mediocre journalists who don't realize how deeply biased they are against anyone to the left of Clinton.
These two brilliant candidates embody a genuine alternative to the status quo, and it is blowing the minds of mainstream journalists. All such journalists and pundits can do is try to reduce these big transformative ideas down to preexisting narratives they already felt comfortable with, such as leftist infighting and socialist sexism. We the voters will not be brainwashed this time. We clearly see what the NY Times and other beltway mediocrities are up to.
119
@Chrissy sure, but you're ignoring the role Warren HAD to play in this charade.
1
@Chrissy So a "Media creation" is Not to blame only when it has been created to go after Trump...very convenient thinking by Liberals...
2
@Chrissy I couldn't agree more about this being a media creation. Just look at the opening line in this article: "Following Monday’s acrimonious exchanges between Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren..."
Warren's statement was anything but acrimonious, as anyone can tell who either 1) has two functioning brain cells or 2) is not a media person trying to stir up a fabricated hornet's nest.
Sanders made one statement emphatically denying an inflammatory charge.
If CNN does ask about this topic tonight, I hope both Sanders and Warren turn tables on them and ask whether running a year old story the day before they were hosting the debate was anything other than a callous move to drive up flagging ratings.
16
Well, it is a big calculated risk by Warren; playing the women card, her unsubstantiated claim that Sanders doesn't think a woman can win therefore he's a sexist and a bad person... The media is picking up this story and feasting on it and soon it will be etched in stone. I expect the debate tonight will spend a lot of energy on it.
Should the Sander's supporters counter with: "Remember, is this the Native American Warren making the claim?" I bet they don't.
So here's my family anecdote. In the 90's I ran into Bernie Sanders at the Brattleboro Fair (the running of the heifers). He was with his young granddaughter, buying her an ice cream. No security. No aides. No hangers-on. I wish I was able to post the picture here of Bernie holding his granddaughter. Yeah he looked a little disheveled as usual and he was a bit of a curmudgeon about granting the photo until I told him that it was for my daughter at college, a fan of his. She's now a progressive Democrat and works as a financial analyst for an NGO. She's smart and a feminist and a fan of Sanders. She was one of the many millions of Americans however that gave Hillary Clinton that 3 million vote plurality. She hopes now that she has the opportunity to vote for Bernie this time around.
Me, I'm still looking at Klobuchar. But my daughter and I discuss the policies and shake our head at the politics. We are especially shaking our head at Elizabeth Warren right now. Back and forth. Not up and down.
19
So they are typical politicians. Not news unless one was foolish enough to believe the adoring press and the candidates’ handlers.
5
Can we please get back to talking about the most important issues again? Healthcare, jobs, climate, declining life expectancy in the U.S.(!), voter suppression / gerrymandering (i.e. hijacking the entire democratic process).
38
There would be nothing to see here were it not for Warren, at best, purposefully misrepresenting or, at worst, outright lying about something Sanders said to her in a private conversation some time ago. I would have thought/hoped that something like this was beneath Warren. Apparently, not. Warren should apologize.
21
um, why should Warren apologize for something Bernie said to her? Honestly, these comments, many of them, are truly absurd. I am not in either camp (in fact I'm in no one's democratic primary camp yet), but Bernie supporters in particular strike me as sounding very much like Trump supporters, just on the other side.
Seriously, slow your roll there. You can like Bernie all you want and disagree all you want, but asking someone to apologize for something someone else said to them (and suggest they're lying, as if you personally were in the room with them) is profoundly disturbing. In fact, its one short step away from "lock her up!"
In short, it makes me less interested in Bernie as a candidate, not more.
10
This scandal could become bigger than Arugula-gate. It’s on the verge of moving Trump’s “imminent threat” lie off the front pages.
2
Make both the leading lefties look bad so the status-quo guy Wall Street wants gets the nomination.
9
A Kamala Harris moment. Bad for the Dems in general.
6
Woe! Since Elizabeth bought the “woman” issue on all by herself, why do females fight the way they do? What Warren did to Sanders was dirty and rotten. My husband has always said girls fight to win and boys fight to get even. Gross!
7
Sadly, if either is the nominee, Don the Con’s chances of winning increase. They will be labeled socialists by the Party of Putin: the GOP.
6
citations needed
Mom and Dad are fighting. Uncle Joe is running out of cash. Tiffany has stormed upstairs to her ear buds.
And meanwhile Mikey has just signed the deed to America during Family Drama hour.
Good job, Justice Democrats. Good job.
6
They should join forces against Joe Biden.
4
Great news. If either Sanders or Warren is nominated, Trump wins.
For goodness sake. The US doesn't need yet more radical ideology.
13
@Ernest Montague
She’ll never get past Trump with this stunt.
6
@Ernest Montague I disagree. For goodness' sake, I think we do need more radical ideology that will invest in people vs. corporations. The status quo need to go.
The basis for this disagreement is a bit silly, as it sounds like Senator Sanders was just trying to make a political point, but both of these Senators must try to force the other out of the race, because there is room for only one candidate in the radical liberal lane. The only way to do that is to make a case for yourself over the other person. If any politician running for President cannot summon up the will to confront their opponent, then they shouldn't be running for the office, because President Trump is not going to be so shy.
9
Sounds like Bernie looked at 2016 and thought that because Hillary was a woman that had something to do with her narrowly losing the general election, and it could happen again to another woman. Was his assumption accurate? Probably, many Americans are pretty backwards, hard to know for sure, but that's not the issue.
Whether or not he's right, that's not a very bright thing to say to a woman who is considering running for President. Perhaps he was trying to convince her not to in order to increase his chances. No idea why you would tell a woman that though.
And denying he said it and turning it into a "he said, she said" situation is also the worst way to handle it. Bernie is already hijacking the Democratic party to be President (he's an independent, remember) and getting into a gender debate with their most progressive woman candidate won't help him in any polls.
Bernie sympathizers are already saying this is overblown, and they're totally right. But it is overblown, out there, and this will be the end of his campaign for President. He can't win, not with this over his head. Even if he gets the nomination this is too much fodder for Trump, and the suburban women the Democrats need will stay home again.
Shame, I liked Bernie. But this just isn't something you can do and still become President as a Democrat. If Trump said it, his supporters wouldn't leave him. But you can't do it as a Democrat.
7
Even if he said it (and if he did, he made a big mistake), if he is the Democrat’s nominee I’ll vote for him. The most important thing to me is to keep trump from getting another 4 years. He may still get them, thanks to the Electoral College, but I won’t let a smudge like this keep me from voting blue, no matter who.
2
"Calm down and move on, and have both candidates and their supporters focus on working together to defeat the party’s moderate wing." And here I thought the goal was to defeat Trump not alienate moderate voters. Silly me.
13
@ExPatMX Not until the primary is over. Welcome to adversarial politics.
2
They deserve each other. Let's nominate a candidate who can win in the swing states, not a socialist who will be the next George McGovern.
11
Perhaps a corporate-friendly establishment centrist, like Hillary Clinton?
2
This is what really happened, but certain media are trying to spin the story against Bernie. The same Bernie that wanted Warren to run in 2016 instead of himself.
“Two people with knowledge of the conversation at the 2018 dinner at Warren’s home told The Washington Post that Warren brought up the issue by asking Sanders whether he believed a woman could win. One of the people with knowledge of the conversation said Sanders did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee.”
“What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” Sanders said in the statement. “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”
50
The media has been desperate to divide and attempt to weaken the liberal wing of the party for months, and this new false narrative of a major split is the latest tactic. Sanders was all but ignored for months, and now that he is leading the polls and can no longer be ignored, we are given this nonsense.
Give me a break.
17
"...Those in Ms. Warren’s orbit have been frustrated by repeated attacks from the decentralized, ideologically rigid universe of Mr. Sanders’s online supporters".
Best description I've seen yet of Sanders folks. They do not understand how obnoxious they are. It's too bad, because ultimately that culture is what will lead to Sanders' defeat and likely Warren's.
All that progressive momentum because of dogma and sexism.
12
Nothing Trump would like better than ring side seat to mud pit fight between Sanders and Warren --slinging at each other. Both Camps must work overtime to avoid this. By the way, Trump not touting "Pocahontas" lately--because he figures with this Warren/Sanders fight--he can relax. We do not want Trump relaxed and reloading......
7
Anybody but Traitor Trump. That's the first priority The "left-wing" needs to get it straight. Warren or Sanders as the Democratic nominee will be a pyrrhic victory.
8
Sanders and Warren aren't fighting. The media certainly wants you to think so, though.
14
I read both Warren’s & Sanders’s statements. I would not call this “acrimonious.”
I think we progressives will do a good job of remembering that our opponent is Trump, not each other. I’m not worried about this fairly dumb bit of “controversy.”
14
"Acrimonious" is hardly the right word to describe their exchanges. We've seen plenty of acrimony in recent years - this was not it. Please, NYTimes, I count on you not to sensationalize the news.
18
Says this article: “The back-and-forth was not only the most serious schism between the two in the primary race”
Another media blitz to create clicks over nothing!! What baloney!!
11
Clickbait. Manufactured spin on so-called “news”.
16
Absolutely correct! This story is the attack of the centrists who are terrified that a majority of people voting in the caucuses and primaries will choose a Progressive. It also provides establishment Democrats and trolls for Trump the opportunity to make nefarious comments and turn the discussion away from important issues. How many minutes of tonight’s debate will be wasted on this nonsense?
Both Warren and Sanders are excellent choices. Don’t be ensnared by the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. This story is as significant as “Bernie Bro” or DNA testing.
2
So the Times is approaching the Democratic debates as a football game?
What, you didn’t get enough of that garbage in last night’s 4-and-a-half hour college football slog?
Do better.
10
Boy has this been blown out of proportion. Enough already. This is not a story.
49
If we lived in a country where the candidate receiving the most votes wins the presidency, Hillary Clinton would have proved that a stupid, pathologically lying man could not win.
4
Ok, ok, the requests for me to mediate this dispute have poured in and I accept. My fee is a modest $10,000.
First, please pay close attention to the language used to try to describe what Senator Sanders may or may not have said. Anticipate a recording to show up soon, real or faked.
There is a big difference between saying that a woman might not be able to beat Trump in 2020, contrasted to saying the more sweeping assertion that a woman can't win the presidency. The language I've seen floats between these two poles and the difference is enormous. The assertion that a woman might not be able to beat Trump is more tactical, dependent on his tactics and persona, not a gender fiat of limitations for the future.
While I don't know about the accuracy of the tactical statement of a woman being unable to beat Trump, for that's a tough call, turning on the mysteries of "turnout," I can't imagine a Bernie Sanders married to Jane Sanders and from progressive Vermont ever saying the more theoretical version which is surfacing.
And of course the timing is suspect. So let's cool it.
And send that $10,000 check to me at Progressive Mediations, somewhere out in the mountains of Western Maryland.
15
My experience of the Socialist party over the years is that it has never had women’’s rights or the environment as priority issues.
i believe Bernie demonstrated that during the last election.
Maybe he’s begun to absorb the traditional Democratic party agenda.
My experience of his advocates is that they were never all that interested in history, government, or politics, but like the idea that he will make everything free. The Pied Piper scenario still seems to work.
20
@linda Bernie's Green New Deal is FAR beyond any other candidate, as is his history of support for women.
Let's be real. The only reason we're talking about this is because Liz's team made the tactical decision to stay relevant by launching this attack. As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. This is particularly true in politics. She was drifting quickly towards irrelevancy, so they created this "moment." I don't think it'll go well for them.
49
The bickering between Senators Sanders and Warren is really trivial. What is really worrisome and should alarm Democrats and anyone who does not want to see another four year of Trump is the upcoming digital campaign sponsored by Justice Democrats: “Americans need to know about Biden’s and Buttigieg’s records and their relationships with corporate executives and donors” -- Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats and president of Organize for Justice’s board, said in a statement.
My monthly health insurance premium for myself alone is about 20% of my monthly paycheck. So yes, I hope to see we all have access to affordable adequate healthcare. But the discussion in this democratic primary has been hijacked and narrowly focus on Medicare for All, which is just one potential solutions. The rigid "my way or the high way" mentality is going to lose not only the presidential election, all also the down ballots.
Indeed, I could care less about the bickering between two
septuagenarians.
11
I think the potential hazard is not that a moderate Democrat will get the nomination because of tit-for-tat progressive fighting, but that Trump will win. First the fighting might start among the progressives, who feel they have an uphill battle anyway to win over the press and business-minded Democrats. (Attacks on corporations are popular, but according to Times reporting, most Americans work at large corporations. Perhaps highlighting greed is more effective?) Then the fighting could break out among moderates––"this candidate is the only one who can defeat Trump." As I know from some of my own work, being collegial and talking about ideas instead of events and people is hard. It takes a laser-like focus to stay above the fray and the candidate who manages to rally the electorate to their ideas without descending to political attacks will be seen as the leader we need to move on from Trump's attack-based politics.
All he said--she said fights should be resolved by letting the speaker say, "well, this is what I really believe." There is more error in hearing than in speaking. This so called argument is insignificant and must be dropped.
6
This is definitely not good for Warren who has seen herself sliding in the polls and struggling to keep up with top tier fundraising. Bernie on the other hand has been surging in polls and has what might be the largest base of un-capped donors ever. It seems like she has no other play than to attack her more progressive, more popular rival. She will have to stand on the debate stage with a straight face and accuse Bernie Sanders of what? Having too little faith in a women being president? Of course we'd have to set aside decades of recorded statements where he insists on that possibility and necessity. We'd also have to set aside his vigorous campaigning for Hilary Clinton, more support than she gave to Obama in '08 I might add, after he was defeated. Sanders will likely force her to defend all of this on the debate stage and I doubt she can pull it off unscathed. Warren once again seems to be poorly advised by people with very bad political instincts.
10
Sadly, this is where we knew this would go. Small differences and imagined slights would be amplified and exaggerated by the media and stories would follow to pit these two progressives against each other. If you make a rift here, then you advance someone like Biden. Be careful to all of the Sanders or Warren voters. You are helping the Biden campaign more than you are helping your own.
I am genuinely sad about this. Both Warren and Sanders are candidates that we need right now. Bernie has a lifetime of video clips and public statements that promote women in politics and support equality to ALL people. Warren will have nothing to use as evidence that Bernie would ever make the statement that a "woman can't be elected".
Reality is, there are several polls out there that sadly support the idea that many people are still openly admitting that they will not vote for a woman no matter how qualified they are but I won't believe that Bernie ever said that.
Sorry Elizabeth, but you just stepped into this much like the mess surrounding your heritage. Someone is giving her bad advice right now with the suggestion of chasing this nonsense to hurt Bernie.
7
Warren started losing me with the DNA test. That was absurd. She brought it on herself. Donald ordered a murder to stay relevant, and Warren made a dumb accusation to stay relevant.
Can't see who this Dem infighting helps except for Republicans. Some might see it benefiting the moderates in the primary but ultimately it just shows that Dems can't mobilize behind their candidate without endless infighting over semantics and he said/she said-isms. Instead of supporting each other and focusing on beating Republicans, supporters from every Dem faction are cannibalizing each other. I hope this will change by November but we all saw how many Dems were pushing anti-Hillary nonsense before the 2016 election. I will be supporting whomever the Dem nominee is, but this type of fighting certainly doesn't bring anyone new to the ballot box.
6
The whole "fight" was created by the press making front page news of Warren's offhand comment. Warren then backtracked and said she didn't want to go into it. Suddenly this situation deserved front page attention and exaggerated drama. Meanwhile it's a miracle we're not in a war with Iran, but in exchange for that blessing we have to suffer with content-free dumb articles about a non-issue between two very exciting candidates.
We all knew some beef would be forthcoming; this is politics, not nursery school. We also all know that when one wins they're going to give the other one a prominent place in their administration. I'd suggest everyone just calm down and enjoy the fact that Bernie is probably going to win Iowa, which says a lot about the popularity of progressive ideas and the country's current willingness to take some risks. If that thought doesn't make you happy, reflect upon how happy we'll be with ANY of the remaining candidates compared to Cheeto.
12
It would be enjoyable watching Sanders and Warren trying to out-liberal each other if not for the dire consequences their free stuff for everyone socialist policies would have for the country if either one of them were somehow elected president. Nobel Prize winner in economics Paul Krugman once predicted that the economy and stock markets would collapse if Trump was elected. He would actually be correct if he predicted the same result if Sanders or Warren were in the White House.
5
Warren and Sanders share the same pool of voters and either would probably be the first choice of the other's supporters if the other dropped out. Ideally the two should go into a closed room and flip a coin with the winner becoming THE candidate who best represents the Liberal/Progressive component of Democratic voters. And the coin-flip loser fully enthusiastically supporting the coin-flip winner. Either, alone, would far surpass the number of voters supporting Biden, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar. The real question is what if the race were down to Biden v. Warren or Biden v. Sanders?
1
That Warren is willing to throw Sanders under the bus over a private statement on such a divisive theme shows that she lacks the judgement needed to be president. If she weaponizes women's purported political victimization she stands zero chance to win at the national level. Centrist voters will abandon the democrats in droves. I already never cared for Warren's stridency, but this move takes the cake. She could learn a lot from Amy Klobuchar.
16
Bernie Bros seem to be more concerned about hurting other Democrats (and the party itself) than defeating Trump.
It’s 2016 all over again...
23
During the last election, despite the Bernie Blackout and many other transgressions by mainstream media, I was extremely struck by the fact that the media itself did very little soul searching after the Trump victory.
One would think that reflection would be second nature to those who call themselves journalists.
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone was among the very few who probed deeply into the shortcomings of his colleagues as well as his own missteps.
He called the whole lot arrogant and at times extremely reckless, unable to criticize themselves or reckon with the power they have to make or break good candidates for trivial reasons or for sport.
The NY Times, by ridding itself of its public editor, basically indicates that self-criticism in journalism is not sacrosanct; indeed they say they are fully capable of policing themselves. Margaret Sullivan, before leaving her post, indicated as much.
If Trump is reelected, or if we have to revert to slow and steady but basically ineffectual because of the antics and/or outright malevolence of the mainstream media, I think I will, at 72, just throw in the towel.
13
"... Sanders told her in a meeting in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency ..."
As a woman, who would like to see a progressive woman win, I've said that as well. I hope I'm wrong. I also said a black man couldn't win but I voted for Obama twice because I thought he was the better choice both times.
12
Again, stop the infighting. This is playing right into HIS tiny hands.
Divide and Conquer, the “Secret “ to GOP success.
Seriously.
10
The real issue is that Bernie won't drop out, and he should. Between Warren and Sanders, he's the one who's too old and too unabashedly socialist for the US in 2020.
He'll continue on his ego trip, hanging on to his diehard supporters and denying Warren (the more electable candidate) a shot at a majority.
Maybe his play is to force a contested convention, and then strongarm Warren into giving him her delegates. And, as in 2016, this strategy will sow deep acrimony and turn off enough people to hand Trump another 4 years.
Good grief, I am so sick of Bernie Sanders.
16
I don’t get it.
I’m a woman & have actually been a Warren supporter (though I’ve been wavering lately).
What’s so wrong with Sanders saying a female candidate will face an uphill battle?
Isn’t that the sad truth in this still-sexist country?
78
I worry about this too. What if Bernie is actually ... right? What if a critical majority of people have this bias and aren’t even aware of it? What if they agree with Warren (or Klobuchar) on the issues but find them, somehow, “unlikable”? What if an influential bloc of our country’s voters (including women) would willingly elect an African American, Jewish, or gay man over any woman?
9
The media has been ITCHING for rift between Sanders and Warren.
Everyone else, not so much.
23
Corporate-owned media would like nothing more than the two progressives in this race to tear each other down. From what I've read, this story from CNN was pretty weak to begin with, and whatever "fighting" existed, or exists, between the two campaigns seems rather muted. Eyes on the prize, everyone.
14
This “in fighting” battle is necessary practice for the war that’s to come. Start sharpening those verbal swords because Sanders is right, Trump won’t hold back.
3
@Lionel Schmidt
Old Bernie IS right. But Trump won't hold back on HIM, either. Does he think/hope the Republican oppo research men (!) aren't ready for him and "Doctor" Jane?
1
Senator Sanders initiated the attacks on Senator Warren with his script for calling voters in Iowa. This is part of his long-standing style that did in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. To imitate Bernie, "Let Me Be Clea-ah! I start out saying I will not attack Democratic rivals, but if they have a chance of beating me, I will savage them."
7
@Dr. Robert K. Musil Attacks? How is stating easily verifiable facts, shown in the cross-tabs of every poll to date, regarding the candidates respective bases of support, an "attack"?? If you dislike the facts so much that you consider merely stating them out loud an "attack", you may want to seriously consider why that is.
6
Zero attacks from Bernie Sanders. This news is no news at all. It's a push by the authors to try to help Warren's deflating campaign. Notice how it lacks the citation to "elite and out of touch". I ask the authors, please, can you provide the citation? Also"rigid ideology"? What does this mean other than covert red baiting? Herndon and Goldmacher, can you please explain?
I'm copying this now and posting it to social media so we can have a good discussion about it in the open. I hope it gets published soon so we can continue the discussion.
9
Mom and Dad are fighting. What a sad picture of Millennial mentality that thought conveys. More like grandmom and granddad are trying to remember who said what over a year ago. I find it hard to believe that Sanders thinks of Warren as a friend after her cynical back stab in 2016 to position herself to run this year. This "truce" has worked to Warren's advantage. Her campaign blew her foot off. He'll bury her now.
5
What if what Sanders said was true? In the context of the first race against Trump many people thought a woman couldn’t win— and guess what, a woman lost, in large part due to old fashioned and new fashioned ways of turning her gender against her. From BOTH SIDES, including the virulently ideological Bernie bro’s, who I witnessed personally bullying the Democratic caucus in Seattle.
Zealots in the left wing of the Democratic Party want it both ways. They want truth-telling and authenticity, but when someone dares to say a really hard truth they reframe it as simplistic crimes of thought, like sexism or “mansplaining” or patriarchy. It makes Bloomberg look good.
7
Sanders/Warren would make a great ticket. No arguing!
6
If what Sanders said to Warren was in a private meeting, how did the press find out about it to need a confirmation from Warren? And why are we just hearing about this now? Is this because Sanders is leading Warren in the Iowa polls?
209
@Doug R Yes, this is because the media just realized that Sanders is going to win.
15
@Doug R
This was reported in 2018. Warren told two close friends about Bernie's statements on women. There are also two others who are privy to what went on. Three of these people support Warren; the other can't recall.
I have no use for Warren but she is right about what Bernie said.
Bernie has a very selective memory when it comes to things he doesn't want to hear.
Thankfully, neither of them will rise above being a Senator.
4
If Mom and Dad are fighting it often means that they are both anxious about their futures. So cut the Senators some slack. They both have good reason to be concerned about theirs.
7
More than anything, liberals are lamenting the obvious anti-progressive motivation here. This is a story written originally by Politico, with no one going on record, designed to set Warren and Sanders supporters against each other. Politico understood, as do the NYTimes and cable news, that Warren will have a tough time disputing it, because it's essentially offers her a free negative attack on her closest opponent (in terms of politics) at a tough time in her campaign.
As every major news outlet in this country is terrified of a progressive presidency, it behooves them to help Biden and hurt anyone to his left. Ironically, however, since the centrist corporate media has lost much of its credibility and all of its influence over a generation of progressive readers and would-be followers, they have essentially only hurt Warren (a more centrist option than Bernie) and possibly even helped Sanders.
This article, as with this entire charade, shows how spectacularly out of touch the Times has become with the thrust of modern American culture.
In order to view this story int he way intended, Sanders supporters would need to ignore the decades of recorded interviews with Sanders where he says literally the opposite of this accusation. We'd have to ignore the multiple in-print testimonials supporting Warren for president. And We'd have to ignore the fact that Biden has made a similar claim to the one alleged in the original Politico story, yet found none of this push back.
334
@Andrew G Well-done!!
16
@Andrew G
This is what really happened, but certain media are trying to spin the story against Bernie. The same Bernie that wanted Warren to run in 2016 instead of himself.
“Two people with knowledge of the conversation at the 2018 dinner at Warren’s home told The Washington Post that Warren brought up the issue by asking Sanders whether he believed a woman could win. One of the people with knowledge of the conversation said Sanders did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee.”
“What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” Sanders said in the statement. “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”
32
@Andrew G
Absolutely spot on analysis of the situation. The former gatekeepers and narrative setters can no longer deliver the goods the way they had in the past. The public is too well informed, too rightly cynical and has access to too much unfiltered information. Fake news may be the flip side of this but I'll take a better informed polity able to bat this nonsense away with the disdain it deserves everytime.
22
Thank Hid we are finally to the stage where no punches are being pulled. Donald Trump will day and do anything to get elected. If Warren already folded on Medicare for All. If she can’t stand up to Bernie, Trump will eat her for lunch.
7
I'm disappointed in Warren's cynical attitude toward women. But then again, she was a conservative for most of her life. And now we're seeing this same desperate and manufactured posture in the rhetoric of many longtime liberal operatives in storied publications and the lobbying industry. For as much time as the political press spends time covering Trump's many horrors, one would think that it would have have stopped dissecting everything from the lens of what monoliths such as "women," "African Americans," and, more than any other category, the "Political Party" is meant to want. In doing so, individuals on the ground with varied and nuanced views on issues such as gender and power will only turn away from those that seek to keep establishments intact. Hence, why those like Warren---someone who once stood for something different---resort to what we're seeing. She's devolved into a product update as opposed to the new platform ordinary people need.
19
@ballerscience Warren is showing herself to be the Democratic version of Susan Collins. Lots of convenient posturings in order to gain political advantage.
7
Thankfully their are two women that will be participating in the debate tonight. As well a non heterosexual and a Jewish person. There's even someone under 60! Of course they won't all play nice. They shouldn't. It's politics.
This is basically a non story. The real issue with the Democrats at this stage of the campaign is all the people of color have been pushed off the stage. Even Andrew Yang who has somehow managed to make himself relevant yet didn't qualify for this debate and will not be included.
While 10 participants on stage didn't give anyone adequate time to fully express their views, 6 could easily be 7 or 8 to accommodate disparate views from a more diverse field.
12
It’s not so much that mom and dad are fighting, but that the MSM is picking up the argument and broadcasting it on a really loud radio at the family picnic.
274
@Area Man I wish this were true, but look at #warren on Twitter. There's vehemence from the Bernie supporters who basically assume Warren is a liar because Bernie is their god. I'm not even on twitter, and I'm not American, but from where I stand, this is just one more example of how Bernie can do no wrong, except when he does, and even then, it's the other person's fault. Warren HAS tried to push this off the agenda, actually. But in their eyes, she's just playing a game (see the quote at the end of the article).
15
@Area Man Agree! The bickering between Senators Sanders and Warren is trivial. It is significant only to those who subscribe to Cancel Culture, who believes in guilt by association, and who issue guilty verdict based on impression, not evidence.
What is truly worrisome and should alarm Democrats and anyone who does not want to see another four year of Trump is the upcoming digital campaign sponsored by Justice Democrats: “Americans need to know about Biden’s and Buttigieg’s records and their relationships with corporate executives and donors” -- Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats and president of Organize for Justice’s board, said in a statement. Instead of making a strong case to convince and inspire voters about progressive agenda, the Justice Democrats choose to continue purity tests and cancel culture to bring down all candidates .
I am liberal and support progressive agenda. My monthly health insurance premium for myself alone is about 20% of my monthly paycheck. So yes, I hope to see we all have access to affordable adequate healthcare. But the discussion in this democratic primary has been hijacked and narrowly focused on Medicare for All, which is just one potential solutions. The rigid "my way or the high way" mentality is going get us to lose not only the presidential election, but also the down ballots.
Indeed, I could care less about the bickering between two septuagenarians.
11
@Kim With all due respect, there may be some plenty of zealous Sanders supporters on Twitter, but Twitter is also full of hyper-aggressive Warren people, a number of whom are re-litigating 2016 every single day. Passions run high. To claim it's all on the Bernie side isn't fair or accurate.
Sanders' treatment at the hands of the major media outlets has been demonstrably, systematically, consistently antagonistic, too, so it's no wonder people are primed to jump.
Imagine if Team Sanders did something equivalent. It'd be a bloodbath. And no one - looking at you, The View - would be indulging in baseless innuendo.
Plus, it's Twitter : )
2
2016: the media ignored Bernie and his supporters as if they did not exist until after the superdelegates, ie party insiders with their outsized voting power, committed to Clinton to assure her nomination. 2020: This time the media has thrown its support to Biden, no matter how out of touch or tainted he may be. Will I vote for Biden? (Will Hunter be Attorney General?). In the meantime the press/media continue to trash Bernie. He may win it anyway. And well he should. 100% of the Democrats' position points are now ones that prior to Bernie 2016 did not exist in the conversation. It was and is his positions that are where the party has gone, and rightly so. Haven't we had enough of corporatist Democrats? Did FDR court the corporations? No. Does Bernie? No. And this is why the press/media hate him because they are, after all, just corporate mouthpieces. Eyes on the ball, please. "Surprise" last minute accusations before an election are nothing new. They are always inaccurate and we should tune them out.
129
@Dennis Do you think that actual corporations will dissolve when Bernie is elected? That private insurance companies will happily pack their bags when Elizabeth Warren is elected? While CITIZENS UNITED exists? With Trump gone there will be years of transition. Let us be realistic. The country will not change overnight. We'll still have a conservative Supreme Court. It's very depressing. Most important is to get the maniac OUT.
14
@Dennis 'The media' have thrown their support to Biden? You must be kidding. The media will always look for a good story and a new angle. Biden, for all of his strengths, comes up short on both. If anything, Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar have benefited from the media's desire for fresh faces. Nothing wrong with that, and good for the political debate. In the end, this is all about electability and defeating Trump. Nothing else, and no one's pet candidate, matters, period.
9
Curious when the Democrats stop battling each other and decide to contest the next election which is less than a year away. Not a long time to heal rifts with the various factions within the party.
5
This Warren/Sanders feud was likely orchestrated by the warmongering, Wall Street supporting, status quo protecting. corporate, Establishment Republicans and Democrats.
I am embarrassed and sad for Warren, that she seems to have fallen for this scheme aiming to weaken Progressives.
As I would have expected, Sanders. is too wise to fall for this trap.
America desperately needs the integrity, bold ideas, vision and courage of Sanders.
Not only does America desperately need his domestic policies to revive the now dead American dream, but America and the world desperately need his foreign policy based on keeping people at the table, talking, disagreeing, but looking for common ground... instead of arming everyone to shoot and bomb each other.
Sanders domestic policies will heal America.
His domestic policies will heal the world.
A Future To Believe In! President Bernie Sanders!
posted at 8:52amPST
157
@Lucy Cooke He is too wise? He responded first, denying he said it but she needed to keep quiet otherwise she “fell for” the scheme? This is straight out of the way we treat sexual assault survivors. She defended her own recollection after he refuted the story but she is the attacker?
11
@Lucy Cooke The only way Trump is going to get replaced is if a moderate runs. Otherwise you lose the millions of disgruntled former Trump supporters, who are very middle of the road, and despise "socialism."
Like it or not...
6
@Lucy Cooke if she falls for this scheme, how can it possibly go well for her in a race with Trump!?
1
I’d really love to comment, but my number ONE Reader Pick comment on this topic, by the same Writers, mysteriously disappeared.
Way to reward loyal readers, subscribers and, especially, loyal commenters. NOT the first time, either.
SAD.
28
@Phyliss Dalmatian ~
Thank you for writing this. I've had comments of mine disappear for seemingly no reason because I never use bad language or make personal attacks etc. I also have been a loyal reader since 1970 (days of paper) and paid for the digital version from the beginning. I'm not usually an early adapter but for the NYT, I was because I value it so much. More than I am valued as a loyal reader and commenter, it appears at times.
Doubt that this will post but wanted to thank you nonetheless. I enjoy reading your comments.
5
@Mary Ann Donahue
Thank you, and I recognize your name. Normally, I would let this slide and not nag. But it’s happened several times, so there IS a problem. Maybe this will get some attention.
Cheers.
5
Slipping fast in the polls, it seems Warren just pulled a desperate and destructive move. If this meeting happened privately between her and Bernie way back in 2016, why is she bringing it up now? I seriously doubt Sanders said what she claims he did, unless it was taken way out of context. And it was a violation of the trust between them. It was a private meeting between close friends. I would feel stabbed in the back if I were Bernie. Who do I believe? The less desperate candidate. So disappointed, I used to love Warren, and now I don't. Bernie is clearly more trustworthy.
77
@Laura Philips
Why do you believe Warren "pulled a move"?Why are you believing anything about this media-cooked tidbit that amounts to nothing?
15
If they can’t get along with each other, how are they going to get along with congress to get legislation done?
7
I am glad that it is not my money being spent on a lost cause.
1
Much too much is being made of "party unity" at this stage of the game. Recent presidential elections have looked nothing like the knock-down, drag out primary seasons of the past.
This is the time for candidates to voice differing ideas, philosophies and approaches. the time to pull it all together is later, over the summer, then come out together and tell the country, "We've worked it out, and here's what we plan to do."
I also question whether "acrimonious" is the right word to describe the supposed rift between Senators Sanders and Warren. Let's all just take a chill pill and recognize that they are jockeying for position. It's how the game is played, whether we like the game or not.
If you think this is acrimonious, what till the fall, when the eventual chosen candidate will be treated to the tender mercies of the Trump exchanges!
12
Wow. I can’t believe Democrat voters apparently can’t decide who to vote for without the media having to hold their hand. It’s not that long ago when Chicago and New York City has at least 8 daily newspapers, but somehow voters could make a decision. Today, this article describes a party that can’t handle controversy. Incredible.
4
I wouldn’t characterize us as fighting. I see us more as observing a failed strategy to discredit Bernie and struggling to keep the truth and civility in our sights. It is disappointing, as I know Bernie encourages powerful women everywhere and in fact urged Warren to run, in spite of her supporting Clinton and the DNC’s attempts to discredit and sabotage everything about the progressive agenda Americans so desperately want and need to live any kind of quality of life in this country. We are observing character, judgement and actions. That’s how we choose who we want to lead us.
29
As a die hard member of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, I worry less about a female being our standard bearer, than I do an avowed socialist. Bernie embraces the socialist moniker, while Warren does not. Trump and the GOP are already weaponizing the term socialism, making it a core part of their message to scare Americans from voting for a progressive. And they have ignorance on their side, because most Americans don't really understand the term, they conflate it with communism, a command and control economy. While it's true that many aspects of the progressive agenda could fall under the guise of socialism, the term itself is so toxic now that progressives should chose a new descriptor that is more accurate. How about "Progressive Capitalist?" That describes Warren to a T.
26
"[The loser] and the GOP are already weaponizing the term socialism, making it a core part of their message to scare Americans from voting for a progressive."
And you are rewarding them by choosing not to vote for the "socialist"?
Candidates are only electable when we vote for them!
8
No. We don’t need capitalists.
4
@Fed up I hope you aren’t reading this on an iPhone, computer, or using Starbucks Free WiFi. All of these were financed by private investments. Socialists really don’t have a clue.
1
So a story comes out that Bernie said he didn't think a woman could win. Even if those exact words did not come out of his mouth, that is how she interpreted his comments during the conversation. He denies he said it. She *responds* by confirming that he did actually say it. She did not say she thinks he is sexist, just that he did actually imply that he didn't think a woman could win. And only "she" is making the political play? Women are not supposed to defend themselves but men are allowed to? On twitter, it is lit up with "she brought this on herself". By daring to defend her own recollection? He is allowed to though, right?
42
@sonia I don't think that's it. People are, I think rightfully, assuming that the initial leak about what was discussed in the meeting 2 years ago came from Warren's camp and at a suspiciously close time to the debate and the Iowa primaries.
They see political opportunism, which most people did not associate with Warren's campaign.
16
@sonia
I completely agree.
A man commits a textbook ‘micro aggression’. But, the woman is called a liar for responding how she saw what happened.
We only believe women when it’s a man we don’t care about (cue the defense of Biden in these comments when it came to Anita Hill).
Cultural misogyny runs deep in our country and is not limited to the right.
19
@sonia thank you Sonia for your comment—that is exactly it, person below.
Not to mention the fact that Sanders and his campaign started the attacks on warren with that volunteer script trying to flip EW supporters. Okay. Is she not supposed to defend herself? Is she supposed to not respond, as Sonia said, to the Sanders denials of this more recent story with what she believes is the truth?
The unfairness is glaring.
15
The biggest problem is the headline. It is Grandpa and Grandma who are fighting, not Mom and Dad.
79
@Arnold Harshen And look at the picture of Bernie taken on Saturday. He does not look healthy to me.
2
@Arnold Hirshon
Ageism at its finest.
And by the way, I'm 34.
5