Are Bernie and Warren finally going to clash?

[laughing dog]

A socialist Jew who distances himself from organized religion is different.

A brown bear would be different as well, but like Mr. Sanders, would not necessarily be an improvement.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But we've only elected one person who wasn't a white guy as POTUS since we began and he was a black guy.

Obama was half White.

Maybe we could try something different?

A socialist Jew who distances himself from organized religion is different.

The content of the candidate's character matters to me personally more than their color, sex, ethnicity, creed, or religion: Most of the Democrats are decent and Trump is a monster.

For once I agree with you completely. And yes Yang is still in the race. He's still my top pick, though I don't expect he will win. Sanders is my number two. All for policy reasons. No, I don't support Yang because he is Asian as I am.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Would you Bernie haters show up to vote for him against Trump? Or will you stay home?

 

[Toni]

Would you Bernie haters show up to vote for him against Trump? Or will you stay home?

I don't hate Bernie. I'm not a vindictive adolescent, so I'd hold my nose and vote for him if I had to.

Unless his running mate is Tulsi. In which case, I'd immigrate. I honestly wouldn't expect Sanders to finish his first term.

 

[Toni]

Obama was half White.



A socialist Jew who distances himself from organized religion is different.

The content of the candidate's character matters to me personally more than their color, sex, ethnicity, creed, or religion: Most of the Democrats are decent and Trump is a monster.

For once I agree with you completely. And yes Yang is still in the race. He's still my top pick, though I don't expect he will win. Sanders is my number two. All for policy reasons. No, I don't support Yang because he is Asian as I am.

But not Warren?

What is it about any of Yang's stances that draws your support?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Would you Bernie haters show up to vote for him against Trump? Or will you stay home?

I don't hate Bernie. I'm not a vindictive adolescent, so I'd hold my nose and vote for him if I had to.

Unless his running mate is Tulsi. In which case, I'd immigrate. I honestly wouldn't expect Sanders to finish his first term.

You'd leave the USA if Bernie/Tulsi were up against Trump in the election? Really? I ask because so many Americans make this claim every election cycle, and we see so few actually show up at our frozen border.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But not Warren?

Warren is my 3rd choice now, and was my first choice in 2015 before she declined to run and I learned about Bernie. I was for him over Hillary in 2016 because he was running well to the left of her, and I'm for him over Warren for the same reason. I'm impressed with Bernie's tenacity and how much change he has helped bring to the Democratic party. Medicare for all would not be a popular talking point in the debates on that stage today had Bernie not been pushing it on the stage in 2016. Nor would you have OAC, the Justice Democrats (they've said as much) and many others in office today. I'd still happily support Warren if Bernie and Yang were not options. She, Bernie, and Yang are the three that I would be happy to see take the nomination. They are the three actually pushing for progressive policy and who appear not to be bought.

What is it about any of Yang's stances that draws your support?

UBI. I'd think that obvious given you've argued against me as I've advocated for it numerous times on this very forum, prior to either of us hearing anything about Yang.

Who do you support?

 

[Toni]

But not Warren?

Warren is my 3rd choice now, and was my first choice in 2015 before she declined to run and I learned about Bernie. I was for him over Hillary in 2016 because he was running well to the left of her, and I'm for him over Warren for the same reason. I'm impressed with Bernie's tenacity and how much change he has helped bring to the Democratic party. Medicare for all would not be a popular talking point in the debates on that stage today had Bernie not been pushing it on the stage in 2016. Nor would you have OAC, the Justice Democrats (they've said as much) and many others in office today. I'd still happily support Warren if Bernie and Yang were not options. She, Bernie, and Yang are the three that I would be happy to see take the nomination. They are the three actually pushing for progressive policy and who appear not to be bought.

What is it about any of Yang's stances that draws your support?

UBI. I'd think that obvious given you've argued against me as I've advocated for it numerous times on this very forum, prior to either of us hearing anything about Yang.

Who do you support?

I don't think you really know much about the history of the Democratic Party or about American political history, to be honest.

Bernie hasn't even held the tide against the slide towards middle ground that started after Ronald Reagan. There's a new generation in town right now, one who is rediscovering activism from the 60's and 70's where Bernie was a participant but hardly a driving force.

I believe you are wrong about me arguing against UBI on the forum. You keep saying that you've argued against you numerous times about UBI but I don't think that's accurate. I actually am fence sitting about it. I don't think it's an issue that is passable at this time in the US and I'm not entirely sure that I think it is a good idea--but I'm willing to be convinced.

As far as Yang's other positions go, he's not as progressive as either Sanders or Warren and frankly, Warren is more progressive, IMO, has better fleshed out plans and is a much better bet for actually accomplishing anything.

The truth is that what I'm really looking for is a good, decent, hard working, dedicated to the public good public servant with some stones and some courage who can work well with others. There is zero chance that a progressive agenda will be passed in the next 4 years. We need Trump out of office and we need to mend a lot of fences, domestically and abroad. I don't think that Sanders is capable of any of that, even if he doesn't have another major health event or mental decline. It's one of the reasons I am happy to support more middle of the road candidates and regret that Harris and Booker dropped out.

 

[Toni]

Would you Bernie haters show up to vote for him against Trump? Or will you stay home?

The real question is whether Bernie bros would turn out to vote for any candidate other than Bernie. Online, they seem like a bunch of vindictive spoiled brats, the other side of the same coin as Trumpsters. They seem more interested in electing 'their' candidate than what happens next or what happens if Bernie doesn't win or how anything would actually get accomplished. They seem to just want to win. This is not a football game.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't think you really know much about the history of the Democratic Party or about American political history, to be honest.

Bernie hasn't even held the tide against the slide towards middle ground that started after Ronald Reagan. There's a new generation in town right now, one who is rediscovering activism from the 60's and 70's where Bernie was a participant but hardly a driving force.

Irrelevant. I was talking about since 2015, not since the 70s. Bernie has made a significant difference in the Democratic party since 2015 due to his involvement in the last Democrat primary. He led the charge to shift the window leftward from corporate oriented Democrats like the Clintons.

I believe you are wrong about me arguing against UBI on the forum. You keep saying that you've argued against you numerous times about UBI but I don't think that's accurate. I actually am fence sitting about it. I don't think it's an issue that is passable at this time in the US

That's what you said then as well, same reaction from you when I advocate for single layer universal health care. That plus you wouldn't support and work for it. That's an argument against it whether you realize it or not. You are standing in the way.

and I'm not entirely sure that I think it is a good idea--but I'm willing to be convinced.

That's good that you haven't completely closed your mind. I am willing to be convinced to change my mind about most of what I oppose too.

As far as Yang's other positions go, he's not as progressive as either Sanders or Warren

He is less progressive on some issues and more progressive on others. UBI is the prime example of him being more progressive than both of them on an issue.

and frankly, Warren is more progressive

Than who? Yang? On some issues yes. On others no. Than Bernie? Not on any single issue that I am aware of. What would you have in mind there?

The truth is that what I'm really looking for is a good, decent, hard working, dedicated to the public good public servant with some stones and some courage who can work well with others. There is zero chance that a progressive agenda will be passed in the next 4 years.

Doubly so with that defeatist attitude. It's how you keep sliding to the right. It's a big reason why Hillary lost. As Yang has out it, the reaction to "Make America Great Again" shouldn't be "America's already great". You already ran a "moderate" against Trump, and you lost.

You need to inspire people and get people to come out to vote for something rather than against something. Liberals win when pushing hope, change, and vision (even if much of it doesn't turn out to be true, like with Obama). It's conservatives who win by pushing the status quo, or fear and animosity towards the other side.

We need Trump out of office and we need to mend a lot of fences, domestically and abroad. I don't think that Sanders is capable of any of that, even if he doesn't have another major health event or mental decline. It's one of the reasons I am happy to support more middle of the road candidates and regret that Harris and Booker dropped out.

Both irrelevant now, but I agree Booker was one of the better ones, though his voting record isn't as great as the image he projected on the debate stage. Harris same, plus you may want to look into her work as a prosecutor if you have any illusions about her. What Tulsi said of her in the debate was not false.

And You still haven't answered the question. Who do you now support? Is it somebody on thr progressive end or is it a corporate Democrats like Klobuchar? Biden? Buttigieg in his wine cave? Bloomberg looking to buy your vote?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is why I think Warren would be a far better POTUS than Sanders.

I still feel there is a context is missing because we are talking about the 2020 election, not whether a woman can win the Presidency.

I disagree with the sentiment in either situation. Defeating the enigma that is Trump can be done by either a man or a woman, but there needs to be a plan.

 

[Toni]

This is why I think Warren would be a far better POTUS than Sanders.

I still feel there is a context is missing because we are talking about the 2020 election, not whether a woman can win the Presidency.

I disagree with the sentiment in either situation. Defeating the enigma that is Trump can be done by either a man or a woman, but there needs to be a plan.

Yes, but the premise of this thread is that there is some huge clash between Sanders and Warren over whether or not he said a woman could win POTUS. AFAIK, he supported Warren's candidacy in 2016--although she did not want to run at that time and threw his hat into the ring after she demurred. It seems to be the case or at least possibly the case that more recently, with regards to the 2020 election, Sanders told Warren that he didn't believe a woman could win.

I actually understand that sentiment: that the nation is skittish about any large changes, even as most of us are anxious to get rid of Trump. A lot of people want a safe bet as Democratic candidate, which for many people, means a white male. This is the explanation I've read of the support from black voters that Biden has enjoyed: he's a safe white man who is seen as very electable.

I do understand those sentiments: that it is more important to elect someone who is not Trump than it is to elect a woman. I badly want to elect a woman. Several, in fact. I want to elect so many women, so many black and brown faces, so many people of different ethnic and cultural and religious backgrounds--including none--that these are no longer an issue that is ever raised about any candidate ever.

I will support almost any democratic candidate who wins the nomination. I hope it's not Sanders because I don't think he's actually electable and I think he's too old by at least a decade and really, two decades--no slam against him, just an acknowledgment of reality. I also have grave concerns about Sanders' ability and even willingness to work well with others. I'm not convinced that he is able to see or value perspectives outside of his own. I don't think he'd do well with other foreign leaders and I think he'd be antagonistic to both GOP and Democratic legislators.

My favorite candidates have leaned more towards the middle because I actually want someone to be elected and I want someone who can get something done. Those are the reasons that I've liked Harris and Booker, both of whom have dropped out and both of whom I hope to see on the national stage again soon. I also like Amy Klobuchar for the same reason. All are decent, hard working people who aren't quite as progressive as I like to imagine myself but who have shown courage, tenacity and an ability to work to accomplish goals, even if it means working with others. The outlier is Liz Warren: my favorite for a long time precisely because she is progressive, she has a broad life experience and a broad work experience, she works hard, she's extremely smart and extremely personable and honest.

 

[Ford]

Are Bernie and Warren finally going to clash?

This assumes that there's been a beef brewing between them, and given that we know the media loves a beef, I'd write this story off as CNN trying to stir shit in order to get ratings and/or clicks.

They - and the other news outlets - live for this shit. Whenever two candidates have "gone after each other" on the debate stage, that becomes the big story the next day. Now they're trying to pre-load the story before this debate, and I guarantee they're licking their lips hoping a tussle will break out between Sanders and Warren.

Oh, and the Republicans? They're loving this. Anything that derails any Democratic candidate is a plus in their book, and they can't wait to tout how the Democrats are "in disarray."

Creating a fake "clash" between Warren and Sanders is not helping.

 

[Toni]

Irrelevant

Nope. On point.

. I was talking about since 2015, not since the 70s.

Thanks for the clarification. So, since you, personally started paying attention.

Bernie has made a significant difference in the Democratic party since 2015 due to his involvement in the last Democrat primary. He led the charge to shift the window leftward from corporate oriented Democrats like the Clintons.

Not really. Sure, he made a lot of noise but Liz Warren was pushing as well, and much more effectively, imo. FWIW, Bernie is only a Democrat when it's personally convenient to himself. So, 2015-2016 and then he re-upped in 2019. I'm not impressed with his willingness to work with others and I'm not impressed with his ability or dedication to moving the Democratic party left of center (or center right, depending on perspective.)

That's what you said then as well,

Yes: you keep saying that you and I have had a discussion about UBI but that's never really happened. I keep pointing that out to you and you keep using evidence of me telling you that we've never discussed it as...evidence that we've discussed it.

same reaction from you when I advocate for single layer universal health care. That plus you wouldn't support and work for it.

Again, a pretty dramatic misrepresentation of my oft stated position of liking the idea but having concerns about its implementation in the US in the current political climate, followed by lengthy posts about the ways that Medicare and Medicaid in the US are not adequately compensating providers for services provided, have onerous and conflicting rules sometimes, and in general, are pulling down the US health care system as other insurers use Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement schedules to set their own reimbursement schedules. Plus all the nonsense about how coverage of women's reproductive and gynecological needs has been attacked politically as part of the UCA legislation and implementation. I may be mistaken but I believe that you were among those who argued against coverage for women's birth control. So: part of the problem from outside this country, to boot.

That's an argument against it whether you realize it or not. You are standing in the way.

You're wrong, whether your realize it or not. You aren't a citizen of the US. You aren't providing us with particulars of how well the Canadian system works and where it could use some improvement. You argue as though you had a dog in the fight and you don't. And you're not even well informed about the US system.

and frankly, Warren is more progressive

Than who? Yang? On some issues yes. On others no. Than Bernie? Not on any single issue that I am aware of. What would you have in mind there?

Politico has a good run down comparison of candidates.
Liz and Bernie agree on a lot of things but here are some differences:

.Student loan forgiveness
Restoring the right to vote to felons
Strengthen farm worker protections and USDA's civil rights record
Banning assault rifles---Bernie has support from the NRA.
Reinstitute Clean Water Act

The truth is that what I'm really looking for is a good, decent, hard working, dedicated to the public good public servant with some stones and some courage who can work well with others. There is zero chance that a progressive agenda will be passed in the next 4 years.

Doubly so with that defeatist attitude. It's how you keep sliding to the right. It's a big reason why Hillary lost. As Yang has out it, the reaction to "Make America Great Again" shouldn't be "America's already great". You already ran a "moderate" against Trump, and you lost.

I'm sorry that you are misinformed. There are a lot of reasons that Hillary lost the electoral vote--she won the popular vote. Some of the fault was with her campaign and some of it was with a very successful campaign of disinformation. A lot of people were like me: Ready to vote for her but she was never my ideal candidate. I never cared much for Bill Clinton and was very wary of Hillary. But she proved herself to be extremely effective and well respected in her roles in the Senate and as Sec of State.

You need to inspire people and get people to come out to vote for something rather than against something. Liberals win when pushing hope, change, and vision (even if much of it doesn't turn out to be true, like with Obama). It's conservatives who win by pushing the status quo, or fear and animosity towards the other side.

Bernie isn't inspirational to me. To me, he represents a self-identified maverick who wants to exploit the system for his own glorification.
I find Warren inspirational. Also Booker, Klobuchar and Harris.

We need Trump out of office and we need to mend a lot of fences, domestically and abroad. I don't think that Sanders is capable of any of that, even if he doesn't have another major health event or mental decline. It's one of the reasons I am happy to support more middle of the road candidates and regret that Harris and Booker dropped out.

Both irrelevant now, but I agree Booker was one of the better ones, though his voting record isn't as great as the image he projected on the debate stage. Harris same, plus you may want to look into her work as a prosecutor if you have any illusions about her. What Tulsi said of her in the debate was not false.

Harris's record as prosecutor has been largely misrepresented. Tulsi shouldn't throw stones. AFAIK, she only deals in falsehoods.

And You still haven't answered the question. Who do you now support? Is it somebody on thr progressive end or is it a corporate Democrats like Klobuchar? Biden? Buttigieg in his wine cave? Bloomberg looking to buy your vote?

Sorry if you've missed it but I've repeatedly said who I like.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is why I think Warren would be a far better POTUS than Sanders.

I still feel there is a context is missing because we are talking about the 2020 election, not whether a woman can win the Presidency.

I disagree with the sentiment in either situation. Defeating the enigma that is Trump can be done by either a man or a woman, but there needs to be a plan.

I think an empty stage could defeat Trump. This has to be about more than defeating Trump if you want your country to more forward.

 

[Toni]

This is why I think Warren would be a far better POTUS than Sanders.

I still feel there is a context is missing because we are talking about the 2020 election, not whether a woman can win the Presidency.

I disagree with the sentiment in either situation. Defeating the enigma that is Trump can be done by either a man or a woman, but there needs to be a plan.

I think an empty stage could defeat Trump. This has to be about more than defeating Trump if you want your country to more forward.

We thought an empty stage could defeat Trump last time. We put up an exceptionally well qualified candidate and Trump still won.

But I agree that this must be about more than defeating Trump. Still: defeating Trump is a necessary step, even if it not the only step.

 

[Derec]

We thought an empty stage could defeat Trump last time. We put up an exceptionally well qualified candidate and Trump still won.

Hillary was well qualified but it would be hyperbole to call her "exceptionally well qualified". She had 8 years in US Senate and a 4 year stint as SecState. Even Bernie had more experience than her in 2016. He was mayor of Bloomington (i.e. executive experience unlike Hillary) for 8 years, Congressman for 16 years and US Senator for 9 years, where he also chaired the VA Committee for 2 years and was ranking member of the Budget Committee for a year. I.e he had a much longer and more importantly much more varied elected office and government experience than supposedly "exceptional" Hillary.

But I agree that this must be about more than defeating Trump. Still: defeating Trump is a necessary step, even if it not the only step.

True. But people can disagree about what this "more" should be. And also about who has the best chance to beat Trump.

 

[Toni]

We thought an empty stage could defeat Trump last time. We put up an exceptionally well qualified candidate and Trump still won.

Hillary was well qualified but it would be hyperbole to call her "exceptionally well qualified". She had 8 years in US Senate and a 4 year stint as SecState. Even Bernie had more experience than her in 2016. He was mayor of Bloomington (i.e. executive experience unlike Hillary) for 8 years, Congressman for 16 years and US Senator for 9 years, where he also chaired the VA Committee for 2 years and was ranking member of the Budget Committee for a year. I.e he had a much longer and more importantly much more varied elected office and government experience than supposedly "exceptional" Hillary.

But I agree that this must be about more than defeating Trump. Still: defeating Trump is a necessary step, even if it not the only step.

True. But people can disagree about what this "more" should be. And also about who has the best chance to beat Trump.

Agree to disagree re: Bernie and Hillary qualifications. Sanders has been around a long time and he hasn’t accomplished much, IMO.

My big problems with Bernie are his age/health. It’s a serious concern or should be. I honestly don’t like his chances or Biden’s of surviving a full term with anything resembling good health for their ages. I also think Warren is too old but she seems much more vigorous and energetic. And she’s good at working with people, the other major priblem I have with Bernie who is far too in love with his Him Against The World stance to be very effective as POTUS—domestically or internationally. He is a very good gadfly. I think he’s most valuable there—and that’s not an insult. Hey, back in the day, I liked to play basketball but at under 5’2, I knew my limitations and I knew where and how to take my shots. Bernie should be so wise as I was at..,15.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Hillary was well qualified but it would be hyperbole to call her "exceptionally well qualified". She had 8 years in US Senate and a 4 year stint as SecState. Even Bernie had more experience than her in 2016. He was mayor of Bloomington (i.e. executive experience unlike Hillary) for 8 years, Congressman for 16 years and US Senator for 9 years, where he also chaired the VA Committee for 2 years and was ranking member of the Budget Committee for a year. I.e he had a much longer and more importantly much more varied elected office and government experience than supposedly "exceptional" Hillary.

Agree to disagree re: Bernie and Hillary qualifications. Sanders has been around a long time and he hasn’t accomplished much, IMO.

My big problems with Bernie are his age/health. It’s a serious concern or should be. I honestly don’t like his chances or Biden’s of surviving a full term with anything resembling good health for their ages. I also think Warren is too old but she seems much more vigorous and energetic. And she’s good at working with people, the other major priblem I have with Bernie who is far too in love with his Him Against The World stance to be very effective as POTUS—domestically or internationally. He is a very good gadfly. I think he’s most valuable there—and that’s not an insult. Hey, back in the day, I liked to play basketball but at under 5’2, I knew my limitations and I knew where and how to take my shots. Bernie should be so wise as I was at..,15.

There's experience and there's realizing you've maxed out your potential. I recognized this in Bernie debating Hillary. He had no answer for some questions so he time and again circled around to big banks, one percent, Wall Street.

More recently I was reading this tortured exchange in the WP.

Finally, Sanders had a confusing and somewhat incoherent exchange on economics and immigration. He began by equivocating on whether immigration has the effect of depressing wages for Americans already here, seeming to contradict statements he made on Lou Dobbs’s TV program in 2007, which Sanders said was “250 years ago.” The conversation continued, with the editorial board’s annotations in brackets:

Binyamin Appelbaum: But you don’t think that that exploitation results in lower wages for domestic workers?
Sanders: Sure it does. Right now, we have people who are being exploited. If you’re undocumented, and you’re being paid five bucks an hour, why am I going to pay her $12 an hour? [The prevailing view of economists is that immigration increases economic growth, so it is not tethered to lower wages or less employment for American workers.]
BA: So, I’m confused about what has changed about your position.
Sanders: What did I just say again?
BA: You said that the exploitation of undocumented workers results in lower wages for domestic workers.
Sanders: Yeah, if you’re being paid $5 — If you’re being paid $5 an hour, now of course it’s going to lower wages. Why would I hire at a higher wage?
BA: But just a minute ago you said that was no longer your position. Is it your position that immigration, and exploitation ——
Sanders: I didn’t say “immigration.” I said that if you are paid, anybody is paid, exploited and illegally paid low wages, of course that’s going to lower wage standards in America.
BA: And that’s what’s happening right now?
Sanders: You said that. I didn’t say that. I don’t know how big a deal it is, but if people are being exploited by their employers, of course it lowers wages in America. Why do I — If I can get you for cheap labor, why do I pay her a living wage? Do you deny that? I mean, I don’t know. That’s ——
BA: I just wanted to understand your position. Thank you.
Sanders: Do you disagree with that?
BA: I think that there’s a lot of research suggesting that that’s not actually the case, yes. [Even George Borjas, the Harvard economist cited by the Trump administration in efforts to argue that immigration drives down wages, has said there is no economic justification for restricting skilled immigration.]
Sanders: That if I pay you five bucks an hour, it doesn’t have an impact on her wages.
BA: That immigration ——
Sanders: I didn’t say immigration.
BA: The immigration under current circumstances, which is substantially under ——
Sanders: Buh-buh-buh-buh-buh. Hold on. You’re misstating me. All I am saying is that if for whatever reason, I’m paying you $5 an hour, O.K.? You don’t think that’s going to lower the wages that she gets?
BA: There’s a lot of economic research suggesting that it does not.
Sanders: Not that I have seen.
BA: O.K.
Sanders: I mean I think that’s kind of common sense. It’s called a race to the bottom.

Sanders seems unwilling to recognize that his argument about exploitation applies in the immigration context, is widely disputed and is the one made by immigration exclusionists. Moreover, his difficulty in responding authoritatively and crisply to questions that require more than platitudinous attacks on Republicans should disturb Democrats looking for a sharp contrast with the rambling, unfocused and often ignorant president.

I hope someone catches him out in tonight's debate.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think an empty stage could defeat Trump. This has to be about more than defeating Trump if you want your country to more forward.

We thought an empty stage could defeat Trump last time.

It could have. You ran one of the very few who could manage a loss of the presidency to Trump. Both Trump and Hillary had remarkably negative favourability ratings. She was a worse choice than a random unknown.