Warren v. Sanders

Posted by: logtroll

Warren v. Sanders - 01/16/20 10:05 AM

Warren accused Sanders of saying, in 2018, that a woman canít win the presidency in 2020.

By doing that she split the Progressives and gave the nomination to Biden. Does that mean Bernie was right?
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/16/20 12:22 PM

Mountain out of a Mole Hill.

With audio, it sounds like a fight between friends.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/16/20 06:50 PM

Just more very public Democratic lunacy and food fight. I didn't watch the great debate but awaited the judgement of media. This was made a big deal because there really wasn't, as far as I can tell, must to tell. They get an opportunity to state their positions and they start a food fight. Yep, that's helpful. I gotta give them credit. They are determined to lose to Trump and, as far as I can tell, so far, they are going to get their wish <sigh>

As far as I can tell there are only 3 debate candidates who actually want to win actually give a damn about the nation and its unlikely and is really unlikely one of them get the nod.
Tom Steyer
Amy Klobuchar
Michael Bloomberg

The rest are either too old, have too much baggage, etc. Some, like Bernie, makes a Republican salivate with gratitude, wonder and excitement. If he runs they will destroy him - almost literally. I could go through the whole bunch but why bother. What they are, obviously, is competent food fighters who miss the point and little else. I know, not nice. Should add that whoever wins I will vote for whilst holding my nose. The simple fact is that Trump is incredibly dangerous and, as far as I am concerned, a genuine criminal and female molester.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/18/20 02:46 PM

1. The Media are bored, and want drama to report on.

2. The center-left Media (such as your CNN types, who appear to have sought to drive this story) are probably more Warren-leaning, and have good reason to want to hobble Bernie at this point, hoping his supporters will shift to Warren.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/18/20 06:13 PM

Warren is washed up, finished, kaput. A handful of feminists and progressive liberals will stick with her for a little while but from the looks of things she's unlikely to win a single state in the primaries. It was a good run and she should be proud of it.
I had high hopes for Warren but she didn't have the chops to pull it off.

She should also apologize to Bernie for even bringing this private conversation up without the context. It was a cheap shot that hurt progressive chances.

The issue is not so much this little rift between two candidates as it is Sanders suddenly leading Biden in some national polls. That scares the bejeezus out of corporate democrats. Not because he might lose to Trump, but because he represents a change from the status quo.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/18/20 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Just more very public Democratic lunacy and food fight. I didn't watch the great debate Some, like Bernie, makes a Republican salivate with gratitude, wonder and excitement. If he runs they will destroy him - almost literally. I could go through the whole bunch but why bother.


How will they destroy him?
By launching a rusty John Birch Society red-baiting campaign?
By pointing to a couple of slightly juicy stories from his youth in the 60's, stuff that pales by comparison to a fully mobbed up gangster with criminal ties to a hostile foreign adversary?
The Trump double standard only works with hardcore Trump supporters who will never vote for any Democrat.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/18/20 07:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
...She should also apologize to Bernie for even bringing this private conversation up without the context. It was a cheap shot that hurt progressive chances....

Bow
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 03:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: jgw
Just more very public Democratic lunacy and food fight. I didn't watch the great debate Some, like Bernie, makes a Republican salivate with gratitude, wonder and excitement. If he runs they will destroy him - almost literally. I could go through the whole bunch but why bother.


How will they destroy him?
By launching a rusty John Birch Society red-baiting campaign?
By pointing to a couple of slightly juicy stories from his youth in the 60's, stuff that pales by comparison to a fully mobbed up gangster with criminal ties to a hostile foreign adversary?


The question is - what information will be new to the typical voter, particularly the kind of swing state white-working-class voter that Trump took from the Democrats in enough numbers in key areas to win in 2020?

Because Trump Being Trump (and all the immoral crap that entails) is already baked in the numbers. What isn't is a deeper dive into Bernie.

Respectfully, I think you may be projecting your valuation a bit, there.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 03:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Warren is washed up, finished, kaput. A handful of feminists and progressive liberals will stick with her for a little while but from the looks of things she's unlikely to win a single state in the primaries. It was a good run and she should be proud of it.
I had high hopes for Warren but she didn't have the chops to pull it off.

She should also apologize to Bernie for even bringing this private conversation up without the context. It was a cheap shot that hurt progressive chances.

The issue is not so much this little rift between two candidates as it is Sanders suddenly leading Biden in some national polls. That scares the bejeezus out of corporate democrats. Not because he might lose to Trump, but because he represents a change from the status quo.


Warren still has CNN, and is the Preferable Progressive (because everyone knows she doesn't actually mean the crazy parts, but is simply saying them because That's What The Kids Want To Hear, These Days) for the general mass of the tribe that hasn't already fallen in behind Biden or Buttigieg. Those aren't nothing.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 03:56 AM

Hide and watch, pardner, she's toast.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 04:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Hide and watch, pardner, she's toast.


ENTIRELY possible. I think, ultimately, it's likely - her brand here is not as solid as Bernie's. I simply note that that is not a foregone conclusion at this point, and that she retains powerful advocates in her corner. If she loses the CNN crowd, I agree, she's in real trouble.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 05:34 PM

I tend not to be wishy washy in my opinions. Toast. I expect to see Buttigieg pass her in national polls soon. Or Bloomberg.
And with voting beginning soon it will be the kiss of death for her. There's no time to recover now.

I was hoping Biden might begin to fade a bit by now but it looks like he'll be losing to Trump in November. Democrats are going to be terribly upset. I'ma laugh my ass off...
Posted by: jgw

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 05:54 PM

If Bernie and Warren fixed their split one of them could win the election. If Bernie gets it he will lose the election. He simply has too much baggage and that title of Socialist doesn't help even a little bit. He is fair game. I have heard that the Republicans, right now, have a plan to get him the nod by voting for him in every primary that they can vote in. They would LOVE to see him run!

Now, about conservatives and Trump. The current Republican party is the party of Trump. Conservatives that vote for him do so holding their noses but they WILL vote for him. They consider, with some reason, the hate a declared Socialist. Sorry, its just the way it is. I have no problem with anybody supporting whoever they care to, its their right just as its my right to not support who they support. The Warren vs. Sanders thing is kinda helpful, from my standpoint, because they will split that vote and neither will get the nod.

I think its kindofa shame. The far left "Democratic Socialists" will, I believe, be responsible for giving Trump another term. Its really too bad. They had a chance to run and not scare away the independents, etc. but, instead, just had to run their mouths and spout absolutely nonsensical promises that cannot be kept. The reason for that is the incredible debt and payments thereof. This is not rocket science but a simple fact.

From my standpoint, wanting Trump gone more than any other thing for 2020 stands. My hope is that even the Democratic Socialists will understand that and vote Democratic regardless of who is the candidate for the Dems. Anybody who is not on board for that will be, as far as I am concerned, be responsible for the possible loss of Democracy in America. I know, its a kinda extreme position but I got lots of fellow travelers on this one and I believe our concerns have reason.

Just saying...............
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 06:53 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
If Bernie and Warren fixed their split one of them could win the election. If Bernie gets it he will lose the election. He simply has too much baggage and that title of Socialist doesn't help even a little bit. He is fair game. I have heard that the Republicans, right now, have a plan to get him the nod by voting for him in every primary that they can vote in. They would LOVE to see him run!

Now, about conservatives and Trump. The current Republican party is the party of Trump. Conservatives that vote for him do so holding their noses but they WILL vote for him. They consider, with some reason, the hate a declared Socialist. Sorry, its just the way it is. I have no problem with anybody supporting whoever they care to, its their right just as its my right to not support who they support. The Warren vs. Sanders thing is kinda helpful, from my standpoint, because they will split that vote and neither will get the nod.

I think its kindofa shame. The far left "Democratic Socialists" will, I believe, be responsible for giving Trump another term. Its really too bad. They had a chance to run and not scare away the independents, etc. but, instead, just had to run their mouths and spout absolutely nonsensical promises that cannot be kept. The reason for that is the incredible debt and payments thereof. This is not rocket science but a simple fact.

From my standpoint, wanting Trump gone more than any other thing for 2020 stands. My hope is that even the Democratic Socialists will understand that and vote Democratic regardless of who is the candidate for the Dems. Anybody who is not on board for that will be, as far as I am concerned, be responsible for the possible loss of Democracy in America. I know, its a kinda extreme position but I got lots of fellow travelers on this one and I believe our concerns have reason.

Just saying...............


You sound like me in 2012 frown. Here's hoping you don't end up as bitter as I did.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 07:42 PM

I'm perfectly fine with a second term for Trump. If Democrats can't nominate a progressive candidate then a second Trump term works better for me than Biden or some other neoliberal candidate.

Contrary to what jgw says, I believe that Sanders will inspire non voting independents who lean left to vote by the millions. The very people he accuses of costing Clinton the election will come out in droves to vote for him. It's not my worry if the vote blue no matter who crowd decides not to vote. Because SOCIALIZMS. Wooden that be a whooot! If the rightie dems sat it out and cost Sanders the election.

See, I'm not a big Bernie fan...I've got serious doubts about his executive skills and serious doubts that he will be successful as a president. But right now, he's probably the best of the batch as far as moving my agenda forward. A second term for Trump might move it forward faster.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/19/20 09:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm perfectly fine with a second term for Trump. If Democrats can't nominate a progressive candidate then a second Trump term works better for me than Biden or some other neoliberal candidate.

Contrary to what jgw says, I believe that Sanders will inspire non voting independents who lean left to vote by the millions. The very people he accuses of costing Clinton the election will come out in droves to vote for him. It's not my worry if the vote blue no matter who crowd decides not to vote. Because SOCIALIZMS. Wooden that be a whooot! If the rightie dems sat it out and cost Sanders the election.

See, I'm not a big Bernie fan...I've got serious doubts about his executive skills and serious doubts that he will be successful as a president. But right now, he's probably the best of the batch as far as moving my agenda forward. A second term for Trump might move it forward faster.


David French makes a similar argument, but, I'm curious about that last sentence - how do you mean?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/20/20 12:01 AM

Every day that Trump is in office he does more and more damage to the Republican Party. It's kind of a death by a thousand cuts thing.

Beyond that I see Biden as a single term do nothing president. Not popular with Democrats and much maligned by Republicans and the press. He will be defeated in 2024 by a Republican who will likely serve two terms. It will be 2032 before Democrats get another shot at it.

A second Trump term won't be as successful as the first, or as pretty. It'll be easy to elect a progressive on Trump's heels in 2024, then Democrats will hold the White House until 2032 and beyond.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/20/20 12:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Every day that Trump is in office he does more and more damage to the Republican Party. It's kind of a death by a thousand cuts thing.

Beyond that I see Biden as a single term do nothing president. Not popular with Democrats and much maligned by Republicans and the press. He will be defeated in 2024 by a Republican who will likely serve two terms. It will be 2032 before Democrats get another shot at it.

A second Trump term won't be as successful as the first, or as pretty. It'll be easy to elect a progressive on Trump's heels in 2024, then Democrats will hold the White House until 2032 and beyond.


Thank you for explaining that to me.

I will say, that is pretty much what I as a conservative was hoping for for WRT a second Obama term. I think you may find yourself disappointed with the results of that strategy.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/20/20 01:08 AM

If there's anything I've learned about politics it's that I will pretty much always be disappointed.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/20/20 03:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger


A second Trump term won't be as successful as the first, or as pretty. It'll be easy to elect a progressive on Trump's heels in 2024, then Democrats will hold the White House until 2032 and beyond.


Historically-speaking, the left will hold office until things are looking good again.

Then the electorate goes out and finds themselves another preacher.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/20/20 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger

A second Trump term won't be as successful as the first, or as pretty. It'll be easy to elect a progressive on Trump's heels in 2024, then Democrats will hold the White House until 2032 and beyond.


There won't BE any elections after 2020 if Trump wins reelection with GOP controlling both chambers of Congress, or even if they control the Senate.

Dismantling the administrative state is more than just a cute phrase by Steve Bannon.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/21/20 12:50 AM

Quote:
There won't BE any elections after 2020 if Trump wins reelection with GOP controlling both chambers of Congress, or even if they control the Senate.

Don't be silly. Of course there will.

And even if he wins it's pretty unlikely he'd regain the House, there's a chance he might win and lose the Senate too. That would probably be the most entertaining scenario. Without his enablers in congress he'll retreat to his residence and slowly go totally bonkers.

That's the outcome I'm hoping for because they will be extremely painful and devastating to the Republican Party.

But however it turns out it aint gonna be the end of elections as we know them.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/21/20 12:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
There won't BE any elections after 2020 if Trump wins reelection with GOP controlling both chambers of Congress, or even if they control the Senate.

Don't be silly. Of course there will.

And even if he wins it's pretty unlikely he'd regain the House, there's a chance he might win and lose the Senate too. That would probably be the most entertaining scenario. Without his enablers in congress he'll retreat to his residence and slowly go totally bonkers.


.....Point of Contention: You cannot Go to a place that you already Inhabit.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Warren v. Sanders - 01/21/20 01:10 AM

Oh there are far deeper and more deadly stages of insanity that President Trump hasn't even begun to plumb. With a bit of nudging I believe we can send him there.