Why is the left so focused on Warren when Bernie Sanders is actively considering running?

[Tom Rinaldo]

OK, granted, I love both of them, and IMO of the two Warren does have a better overall chance of winning in a general election over a Republican candidate. But Warren is extremely reluctant (at best) to run. That translates into she almost certainly will not oppose Hillary for the nomination, as long as Hillary wants it and continues to be viewed as a highly viable candidate.

What would make Hillary no longer seem so viable? Well something out of her control like a serous illness could stop her, just like it could stop any potential candidate, Aside from that the only thing I can think of remotely capable of derailing the self fulfilling prophecy of her as the inevitable Democratic nominee would require her getting very seriously dinged up by a challenger from the left. But there always is a risk in seriously dinging a leading presidential candidate; they may well win the nomination anyway and then go on to run as damaged goods in the general election. That's a potential conundrum for those of us who want a more progressive candidate because Hillary is so far ahead of the Democratic "pack" (or whatever one calls her possible Democratic opponents) that the pull to unify around her is being strongly felt by many, including Elizabeth Warren.

A very good thing about both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is that both of them are classy, neither of them is the type to initiate a mud bath campaign. I would not be overly concerned about either one of them trying to personally tear down Hillary Clinton rather than engaging in a principled debate on the issues. I think it would be great for the Democratic Party and the Nation if at least one of them challenged Hillary Clinton in the primaries. But as it stands now it's not likely to be Warren who will do so. Yet while Elizabeth Warren keeps repeating that she is not running for President, Bernie Sanders openly states that he is seriously considering running in the Democratic primaries.

Bernie Sanders is superb at progressively framing the issues is blunt no nonsense terms that most Americans can easily understand and relate to. If you ask most Americans if they want a socialist for President they will predictably say no, but if you ask them if they agree with statements Bernie Sanders actually makes the results can be radically different. The problem is very few voters outside of Vermont actually get to hear Bernie Sanders speak (unless they regularly watch MSNBC). Running in the Democratic presidential primaries would significantly address that deficit in exposure that Bernie Sanders now suffers from. As a sitting U.S. Senator with a national following on the left, he could not be omitted from upcoming presidential debates any more so than Dennis Kucinich could be in 2004. And unlike 2004, the Democratic debate stage in 2016 is unlikely to be cluttered up with 8 candidates vying for precious few TV minutes to make their key points in.

But Bernie Sanders, despite his very real interest in doing so, has not yet decided to enter the race. He is weighing such a run right now, in real time. It reminds me a little of 2008 when Wes Clark had a sincere and genuine interest in running again, but only if support for him doing so reached a certain minimum threshold which ultimately he decided it hadn't. During that period when Clark was weighing his options many of those who were dissatisfied with Hillary Clinton (and some who admittedly underestimated Barack Obama's chances) kept holding out hope that Al Gore would enter the race instead. Al Gore always said he wasn't going to run in 2004, and as it turns out he didn't. I am also reminded of 1968, when Bobby Kennedy seemed disinclined to run for President against LBJ, but Gene McCarthy decided to take on the prohibitive favorite for the 1968 Democratic nomination in New Hampshire. Lyndon Johnson found himself heavily dinged by a challenger from the Left in that primary and ultimately pulled out of running for the Presidency. With LBJ sidelined, RFK entered the field an was poised to win the nomination, and ultimately the presidency, before he got assassinated.

Can anyone deny Clinton the nomination if she wants it this time? Uncertain, most likely not, but yes still possible. But only if someone steps forward soon with a strong leftist populist message to challenge her. Bernie Sanders can be that someone, and he actually seems interested in being that someone. But the national progressive media, such as it is, and organizations like Move On, still remain fixated on coaxing Elizabeth Warren into the race rather than encouraging Bernie Sanders to indeed step forward. Tactically, I fear we are making a big mistake not rallying more to Sanders now, when it really matters.

[ChosenUnWisely]

1. I know in my case I actually want to be able to vote and support liberal and progressive democratic

candidate before I die or leave the party because of it's push to the right and its last 2 party leaders I had to hold my nose and vote for the lessor of 2 evils, which ever comes first.

Some of us are just sick and tired of democratic candidate's beholden to wall street, pimping failed GOP policies and in some cases actually implementing them.

Hillary or any Wall Street Dem, will not get my vote under any circumstances, period.

If Democrats don't want a republican president, then they have stop nominating wall street friendly dems that are beholden to them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Citizens United was decided by a closely split supreme Court

That decision alone put an almost insurmountable barrier to a progressive agenda winning on a national level. Before that a split Supreme Court delivered the presidency to George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Yes this is speculation, but I don't think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq but Bush sure as Hell did and hundreds of thousands died and we are still fighting wars because of it. We differ on the impact of choosing a lesser evil when all else fails.

[Maedhros]

40. I'd say it's almost a lock that Hillary would, relatively early in her Presidency,

put boots on the ground in at least one Middle East country. It's absolutely a certainty that she will continue and expand upon Bush and Obama's drone bombing operations.

[MohRokTah]

5. You need to educate yourself about nationwide elections.

You'll never see another McGovern, Mondale, or Dukakis because going that far to the left is a recipe for electoral disaster.

[ChosenUnWisely]

6. Then we will have nothing but corporate presidents so you might as well embrace the fascism now!

[MohRokTah]

9. The winning candidate in 2016 will spend over $1 billion.

That's how national politics works now.

It's how national politics have worked for decades.

Ignoring that reality doesn't make it go away, but it could get the GOP candidate elected if you do resulting in a more conservative SCOTUS for the next two generations.

Right now, the only potential way to turn things around is to elect Democrats at all levels of government and hope Scalia or Kennedy finally have to leave the court under a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate.

[ChosenUnWisely]

13. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.....Voting for the lessor of 2 evils is still evil no matter how you spin it

I will no longer be a party to electing her or any corporate dem.

[MohRokTah]

15. You are incredibly short sighted and your way resulted in Bush.

We would be a decade ahead if people had not been foolish about voting in 2000 like you suggest they should be in 2016.

It's people like you that got us in this mess.

[ChosenUnWisely]

16. MMMMM people like me huh let you in on a little secret, I have been voting straight Democratic

ticket for over 30 years, never even missed an election, even when I was overseas.

I have just had enough of the rightward shift in the democratic party.

Want to blame me of a Hillary loss, fine by me IDK, but it is not me pimping a, IMHO, poor candidate.

If a democrat wants my vote, then reflect my values.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. You can have a democratic bad dream or a Republican nightmare

they both should wake you up to the same reality.

If you are paying attention.

[ChosenUnWisely]

28. Actually the nightmare is the number of Democrats that support republican policies and canidates

like Hillary.

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. welcome to neo liberal underground

and they want to fix things with the same shit that doesn't work.

What did Enstein say about insanity?

[ChosenUnWisely]

36. What is funny if sooooo many democrats are going to vote for her, over 80%

now, then the few of us who won't vote for her will not matter.

Yet her supporters sure do spend a bunch of time posting gloom and doom if we, the apparent minority here, don't vote for her.

We should be irrelevant if she is inevitable.

[FrodosPet]

54. Welcome to irrelevancy!

You refusal to vote for Sec. Clinton is duly noted and stamped with "N.B.D." (no big deal). Personally, I am going to work for her candidacy and I hope election in 2016.

As long as you don't vote for Shrub #3 or any other Go Pee candidates, I am cool with that.

[ChosenUnWisely]

68. To some here my vote is irrelevant but to the Democratic Party I am relevant because I can and have

donated cash to the party.

Money trumps votes these days.

I take it you also donate the max cash you can per cycle to the Democratic Party seeing that you are so relevant to them right.

[Marr]

44. Actually, it was *you're way* that resulted in Bush.

Sorry, but you don't get to blame voters for electoral losses. If you lose, you employed a losing strategy-- period. I don't blame the voters for failing to elect Mondale (and neither do you, apparently)-- and I don't blame the voters for failing to elect Al Gore.

Why this double standard? Why do you condemn one as having employed a losing strategy, but the other gets to blame his loss on the public?

[MohRokTah]

45. Nope, left wingers for Nader led directly to Bush.

All Gore (of all people) wasn't left enough for them, so they swung the election to Bush.

[Marr]

48. You know, there's a word for people who repeat things that have been proven false.

But even if we accept your false claim, it changes nothing. If you lose an election, you employed a losing strategy. It's childish to blame the world for your own failures.

[MohRokTah]

49. IT has NEVER been proven false because it is absolutely the reason Bush won. eom

[morningfog]

61. Kathrine Harris and the Supreme Court stole it for Bush.

Gore wont the popular and electoral vote. Why are you trying to legitimize bush by bashing liberals?

[MohRokTah]

62. Assuming you are correct, and I have never been convinced that is absolutely the case.

The left wingers against Gore got it close enough for that to happen. Without the IDIOTS on the left who voted against Gore in Florida, it would have never gotten to that point.

[morningfog]

63. What part are you unconvinced of?

That Katrine Harris halted the recount?

Or, do you think Bush v. Gore was properly decided?

Or, do you not accept the final count, in which Gore received more votes in FL, and the nation, and should have in the electoral college?

It is beyond me how anyone would absolve Bush, Harris and the Supreme Court's illegal actions in order to blame a handful of voters.

[MohRokTah]

64. I am not convinced that Al Gore got more votes in Florida than George Bush.

And I never can be, either.

The entire thing became FUBAR.

[LondonReign2]

84. Fucking lie that you know is false

Sick of conservadems repeating the same lies, Fox style, long after they've been proven false.

[MohRokTah]

85. The only lie is saying Nader was not the reason we got Bush. eom

[LondonReign2]

86. The lie, that your ilk like to repeat, is that all it always the left's fault.

You hate the left and Democrats. Why are you here? Continuously repeating a lie that you know to be false is pretty much a Republican thing.

[MohRokTah]

87. It WAS the left's fault.

Saying otherwise is to remain in denial and to refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of those who so STUPIDLY supported Nader over Gore.

Every last Nader voter insured we got Bush.

[LondonReign2]

88. You'd be perfect for Fox, where repeating the same lie over and over is praise worthy

[MohRokTah]

89. The only lie that's being repeated is that Nader voters were not responsible for Bush. eom

[TheBlackAdder]

83. I like Warren, her time is not right. Besides the GOP is trying to push people to get her to run. nt

[libodem]

2. I think Bernie rocks

He is truly a constitutional scholar and a man of the people.

Maybe he isn't Fascist enough for the modern age?

Maybe he isn't good enough buds with the DLC remnants?

[PoliticAverse]

3. Because few believe Sanders has any reasonable chance of winning. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I understand that...

I tried to address that in the OP. I think pushing for Warren under the current circumstances is like chasing a" will ' the wisp". Not only is Sanders much closer to being a "bird in the hand", but I think the only realistic path toward Warren getting the Democratic nomination is through having someone else who is both willing and able expose Clinton's weaknesses via primary challenge to her. At the very least we have to consider the advantage of giving someone a national stage to sell the progressive agenda on, which Sanders could do if he enters the debates, which he WILL do if he gets enough support from us NOW. I weigh that against what I think is a very long "long shot" chance that Warren will choose to be that person first.

[HappyMe]

14. Bernie has my support 100%.

I will work to help elect him and drum up any support I can.

[benz380]

20. We will too. n/t

[jwirr]

7. Good guestion. I am always upset when we see the polls that show how Hillary is doing against

all the Rs but Bernie is never shown that way. The least they can do is include him in the polls. Elizabeth would make a great president if she wants it but at this point she has been telling us plainly that she wants to stay were she is at. And that is fine as we need leaders in Congress also.

When they leave Bernie out of the polls and media coverage it is once again the media trying to control the voter. Enough.

[malthaussen]

12. But it is a chicken-and-egg question

Bernie is not yet a candidate, so the pollsters can argue he shouldn't be included in the polls. Should he decide to run, they'll have to create a different excuse.

-- Mal

[Jackpine Radical]

19. Hillary's not a declared candidate either.

Doesn't seem to bother the pollsters.

[malthaussen]

21. Sure, but the difference is that the pollsters WANT Hillary

I think Bernie is being ignored because the power brokers don't want him and their running dogs in the media support that. By diverting to Warren, who obviously doesn't want to run, they can detract from the issues that Bernie raises. I'd even go farther, and suggest that Warren is given air time because her campaign against Wall Street so obviously hasn't got a hope in hell of being successful that it is okay to indulge it.

-- Mal

[Jackpine Radical]

30. I think that giving air time to any anti-Wall St. campaign is adangerous game for them,

regardless of Warren. It gets the topic off our austerity budget & need to chop up the safety net for its scrap value, & places public attention onto the Piketty Divide (my term). If there is any remainder of democracy left in this country, that could be a very unwise move for them. It may not be Warren who takes them down; it may be the Pitchfork Brigade.

[malthaussen]

35. I've pretty much resigned myself to the Pitchfork Brigade

I think the system is too broken (read: working too well) to be fixed. I've been reflecting on the short-sightedness of the Ruling Class recently, and I'm starting to come to the conclusion that they really have lost all reason. It's like a feeding frenzy out there, and there don't seem to be any voices of caution reminding the Rulers that the people always have the power to make their appeal to Heaven. It seems like the Rulers are determined to test us all to destruction, and the result, sooner or later, is going to be destruction. Yeah, you could say I'm a pessimist.


-- Mal

[Jackpine Radical]

37. I pretty much share your view of the Overlords.

And if something very different doesn't happen soon, I think you're right about a universal Jacquerie.

Nevertheless, there have been times of very rapid changes in our society, when we rose to drastically alter things. The New Deal comes to mind.

[malthaussen]

39. Problem is, in the 1930's there were still voices of reason on the Right,

... and the capitalists were so terrified of Communism, they were willing to throw the odd bone to the working class to stave off the uprising they feared. I don't see that same fear now, and that's going to make a difference, I think.

-- Mal

[Jackpine Radical]

47. On the other hand, the Internet has granted common people greater communication resources

than we have ever had in history. People organize now in ways they couldn't in the past. EVERYTHING that happens is likely to get recorded & YouTubed around the world. Any massive movement has to be international in scope, and we now have the power to do that. I keep thinking of Ian's Pizza and the Wisconsin Uprising. People in Egypt were ordering pizzas for demonstrators in Madison.

[malthaussen]

52. That was a great moment in solidarity, agreed...

... but last time I looked, the rascals still were in charge. Still, the communications opportunities offered by the Internet may help this Jacquerie have a somewhat less costly result than previous peasant uprisings. OTOH, I can imagine a scenario where the POTUS turns nuclear weapons on the people, which would tend to offset any communications benefit derived. (That I can imagine such a possibilty perhaps identifies me as either too pessimistic, or too unreasonable, to be taken seriously)

Suffice it that I think Interesting Times are ahead, and I personally doubt I'll survive the experience, provided I live to see it.

-- Mal

[Nay]

58. I agree with you and Jackpine -- this edifice is going to lumber on until it

can't. Voting, while I will do it, is pretty pointless, just as it was in the Soviet Union when you had the choice between this Commie or that Commie.

I think that some severe dislocations in the economy/infrastructure/climate will be likely to cause some sort of unfixable situation that cannot be ignored and MUST be addressed rationally. A rational democratic voice or group, if it exists, will be able to sweep away all the bullshit and get the people behind them. If all we have is jackboot thugs, then we get fascism.

[jwirr]

67. I wonder if the French aristocrats were this blind to the future before they became the victims of

their own greed. That is most likely why Marie Antoinette told the poor they should eat cake. They need to wake up and they need to shut their mouths about how bad all of us are. All it will take in someone like Marie Antoinette saying the wrong thing and all hell will break loose.

[winter is coming]

72. And this is why the flying monkeys are launched every time someone mentions Warren or Sanders.

Whether or not they run, whether or not they're "viable" candidates, they're calling bullshit on the memes the 1% wants us to buy.

[Maedhros]

42. We should treat all Presidential Campaign polls as "push polls" right now. [n/t]

[MohRokTah]

10. Bernie Sanders is incapable of raising the $1 billion that will be necessary to win the presidency.

He simply does not have the fund raising chops to be president.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I think I address concerns over his relative viability in post #8 above n/t

[PAProgressive28]

29. "He simply does not have the fund raising chops to be president."

Isn't it great that it's come to that? Hell of a country.

[MohRokTah]

31. Until we can get rid of Citizens United, it's the political reality.

Sad to say. In a perfect world Bernie Sanders would be running away with the election already.

Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need Bernie out there pointing out the real issues.

[PAProgressive28]

32. Agree

Bernie's out there leading the fight on that specific issue. I hope Hillary takes up the fight too.

[BlueCaliDem]

46. It's a reality we all need to face, whether we like it or not. That's why electing a

Democrat, even one you loathe like Hillary Clinton, is crucial to neutering the power of Chief Justice Roberts. Only then can we reverse the gutting of the VRA and Citizens United.

[elleng]

17. Relative 'dynamism,' imo, Tom.

I like them both. I don't see Warren taking Hillary on, tho Warren is my #1 choice for 2016.

[KamaAina]

18. Beats me.

[PAProgressive28]

23. Thank you. Finally someone else says it.

I've e-mailed the Ready for Warren people with similar thoughts. Bernie's clearly running and he's out there asking for a network like Ready for Warren. I believe she can beat Hillary. I do not believe Bernie can. But she is not going to run.

Get on the Bernie Bandwagon people!

[Yo_Mama]

24. Because they want a woman.

A big piece of this is number-crunching by demographic segment. Female voters are a majority, and enthusiasm over a female candidate is assumed to produce at least a few percentage points of gain in turnout, which makes it a lot easier to forecast a strong Dem win.

Sanders is better qualified due to his long history in public service. But he's not a woman.

[HappyMe]

34. To me, that's a big shame.

I don't vote based on reproductive systems. I vote based on what they stand for. I would vote for Bernie in a NY minute. I like Warren, but she's not running. My next choice is Bernie.

[apples and oranges]

25. Keep in mind, many trolls are weighing in to the discussion as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-could-be-a-dream-match-for-republicans.html

[BlueCaliDem]

50. Yep. And the always rebellious Left are like sheep to the Republican/GOP slaughter.

They just don't seem to see how useful their convictions and dislike for a strong Democrat like Hillary Clinton are to the Koch Bros, the GOP, and the RNC.

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. Bernie Sanders cannot possibly win.

Can he raise the money? WOULD he raise the money?

Perhaps, and no.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Eugene McCarthy couldn't win either

But him entering the NH primary was the key turning point away from what had widely been assumed would be an LBJ reelection campaign.

[ladjf]

27. America has a bad case of "ageism". nt

[Yo_Mama]

38. Sanders is 73, Hillary is 67 & Warren is 65

Sanders is too old almost certainly to win, but Hillary would be as old as Reagan and that's not stopping anyone from pushing her.

But really, it's the fact that Warren is a woman. It's clear the Dems have to have good turnout to win the next presidential election, and the belief is that the easiest way to get that is to nominate a woman.

I don't look at it like that - I have sent Sanders money before and will again. To me primaries also have the purpose of generating platforms for winning campaigns. So I want Sanders to run, because I know he'll talk about important issues and influence the politics of the presidential term in office. That is almost certainly why he intends to run.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. because Warren is a registered Dem and Bernie isn't ... yet ...

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. +1000

[Zorra]

51. Great post. It's almost like Senator Warren is being used as a "strawman" to deflect

attention away from Bernie, in order to decrease the possibility of him getting the Dem nomination.

I am actively word of mouth campaigning for Bernie, telling people who don't know anything about him what his message is, and am getting almost 100% positive response.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. The path to a Warren presidency opens through a Sanders candidacy

Like Bobby Kennedy in early 1968, Elizabeth Warren simply doesn't seem inclined to frontally take on the (all but official) titular head of the Democratic Party. We can discuss back and forth why that is, but that I believe is the current bottom line. before the 1968 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, virtually everyone thought LBJ would be the Democratic candidate for President that year. It took someone with a potentially winning message AND relatively little to lose to derail the momentum of an LBJ run for reelection.

I take Warren at her word that she is not running for President. Any wiggle room she has left herself has to do with never saying never rather than her being coy. I believe she might reconsider her stance, but only if there are hard facts supporting the contention that Hillary Clinton is dramatically bleeding support among Democrats - not just among leftist activists. And I don't 't mean having her lead over other possible candidates drop from 65 percentage points to 40 percentage point. That can be too easily dismissed by asserting that her earlier outrageous lead was unsustainable once potential voters actually focused on the actual candidates.

In my opinion Bernie Sanders, of all the successful national politicians, is among the least driven by ego as opposed to deep concern for issues of any that I know of. This could work to the benefit of progressives in 2016. Eugene McCarthy was disinclined to get out of the way of RFK after he had proven how vulnerable LBJ really was. During the primaries that followed Bobby entering the race, anti Viet Nam war voters split their vote between them. But I strongly suspect that should Bernie exceed expectations as an opponent to Hillary Clinton, that he would not stand in the way of Elizabeth Warren making a run herself if Bernie sincerely believed that Warren had a much better chance of winning and enacting the policies that led him to challenge Hillary in the first place.

Even for those who fervently want Warren to run, I believe backing Bernie now is the most effective way to increase the chances that she ultimately will.

[daredtowork]

56. I prefer Bernie on the issues

The hesitation for me is that U've waited all my life to vote the first female President into office. I had very mixed feelings about choosing Obama ovet Hillary the first time. It just happened that Health care was THE central issue for me. Since then Hillary has veered toward the interests of the 1% in ways that have become intolerable for me. I guess that leaves Elizabeth Warren, though she didn't step up for the food stamps and WIC cuts in Cromnibus. I wish Bernie were female.

I suspect this is why Warren is getting encouragement to run and Bernie doesn't have enough momentum yet. Women want the first female POTUS.

[stevenleser]

57. Everyone knows I'm for Hillary, but I think Bernie stumping would be good for Democrats.

He wouldn't beat Hillary and I don't think he would attack her. But having him go around and frame the issues as well as he does would be a great thing.

[Chemisse]

76. I agree. He would be excellent at putting out some important issues.

Issues that are considered to be too far to the left for winning, but ones that might give the American people something to pause about, and actually nudge the nation a bit to the left in the process.

When he talks it just makes so much sense!

[olddots]

59. I'm probably wrong as ussual but...

I think alot of people want a motherly figure as president because the father figure. hasn't worked out well and females are 50% of the population .The Republicans are fine with conserving the status quo but Dems are not .

Some of us consider Hillary as being to macho.....there I said it flame away .

[outside]

60. IMO. He can't win.

Bernie Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist. Americans will not vote for a socialist. The best he can do is try to move HRC more to the left.

[stevenleser]

65. I think the opposite would happen. Hillary would move toward the center.

She would cede the left most folks who still register as Democrats to Sanders and tailor her message to moderate and centrist Democrats.

[stillwaiting]

70. I agree. Hillary would most likely move to the center during the primary, and...

... move to the right once elected (on economic issues). And she'd then have a "reason" to ignore the left. Oh there's always a reason to ignore the left in America.

She'll keep the social liberal values she has demonstrated (pro-choice, equal pay for women, pro-LGBT).

She'll keep her hawkish foreign policies. The MIC will have things covered.

She'll keep her Wall Street approved economic policies (which will be on full display before her inauguration with her Cabinet selections if elected).

If Hillary gets elected in '16 we won't be able to begin to have a chance to change the direction this country has been heading over the past 3 to 4 decades (re: income and wealth inequality expanding) until '24:

If Hillary gets re-elected in '20, 'Nuff said.

If a Republican beats Hillary in '20, 'Nuff said.

The 1% will continue to collect more and more of the wealth and income (as they've done through the Obama Admin.) through '24 with not a prayer of a chance to do anything about it. It almost seems a fait accompli at this point.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Hey, Hillary was one of the last major Democrats to endorse marriage equality, for 17 years she

opposed equality and parsed her support for 'civil unions' through religious bullshit that I found offensive coming out of her particular household even more than others. So I get tired of hearing that Hillary has demonstrated being 'pro-LGBT' because she has not done that. She lost me long ago over her lack of commitment to equality and her hypocritical claims of devout faith instructing her to oppose my rights. I'm sick of that sort of person.
Warren, she was a Ronald Reagan Republican when their anti gay bigotry was costing thousands of lives to be lost.
Bernie is the only candidate I've ever been offered who has never spoken or acted with contempt toward my community.

I get very sick of the revisionism around both Clinton and Warren. If people can't be honest, I can't trust them or the candidates they promote, it is that simple.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. She wouldn't have to move to the center against Sanders

She could move to the left and still be well to the right of him, hence still staying a more attractive choice for centrists. I think Bernie would force Hillary to campaign more like an economic populist in order to keep him from drawing too much support away from her in the primaries. That is her one and only fear, that someone like Sanders or Warren would offer a stark alternative to Hillary on the left draining too much steam from her campaign.

[Android3.14]

66. Why? That's easy

Unlike Sanders, Warren is a Democrat. If he runs as a D, he has my vote and my enthusiastic support. Otherwise he is wasting my time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Well to run in the Democratic primaries he has to run as a Democrat

I agree that it only makes real sense to back him if he does, and from what I've seen I doubt he would run as an Independent/Third Party candidate.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Unlike Warren, Sanders has never been a Republican, much less a Reagan/Bush Supply Side Republican

Bernie has said repeatedly that he'd only run as a Democrat, he has caucused with the Democrats in Congress since 1991 when Warren was in fact still a Republican. So he was caucusing with Democrats, she was voting against Democrats. But she's the real Democrat?
Hard to follow that logic.

[mmonk]

71. Me too. And I like Warren.

[mythology]

73. I think you greatly overstate the ability of Bernie Sanders to win in a general election.

Sanders is from a tiny northeast state and hasn't been in a competitive election in many years. Does he have the campaign chops at this point? Not having modern campaign skills is one of the things that undermined Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Elizabeth Warren will be a much better fundraiser for not only the presidential race, but also down ticket races which is vital to regaining the Senate majority, regaining seats in the House and hopefully even at the state and local level so that the gerrymandering of districts for the House of Representatives can be be undone in 2020. Warren was in demand in 2014 to help campaign and fundraise for other candidates because she's seen by many as the best voice for where the base of the party wants to be.

Like it or not, the next presidential campaign is going to be highly influenced by money. Sanders raised 7 million for his last campaign. Warren raised 39 million more than any other Senate candidate in 2012.

You assume Sanders would be more effective than Dennis Kucinich was, but you don't have any supporting evidence. How is the official socialist not going to be pushed to the side? What is Sanders signature issue that he can take to the debates and the campaign trail? With Warren it's well defined that her signature issue is economic opportunity. Sanders checks off all the boxes that liberals would like, but what is his one signature issue? The closest thing I can point to is that he has been very active in securing veteran's benefits. Which while a good thing, isn't a particularly compelling issue for voters unless something is going wrong like with some of the VA hospitals. Warren has not only championed economic fairness, she also was instrumental in forming the CFPB giving her more tangible results.

None of this is to say that I don't regard Sanders highly. But I don't think he has a chance to beat Clinton or win the presidency, much less both.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. I never said I thought he could win the election.

I did say:

1) The progressive agenda would be served by Sanders entering the race AND
2) The most likely scenario under which Warren might herself enter the race is triggered by Sanders announcing soon and his
campaign against Clinton commencing in short order.

My reasoning behind those opinions is spelled out more in comments I made above in replies. As to Sanders being more effective than Kucinich, yes I think he is a much more effective spokesperson for a progressive agenda than Kucinich was, and I think we would be well served by having Bernie in the Democratic debates. The public will tune into them to see how Hillary performs, and they will thereby be exposed to Bernie also. I said above that I doubt the 2016 debate stage will be as crowded as it was in 2004, so Bernie would actually have enough time to make his populist left case to the American people. That is something quite rare in a mass media setting.

[madokie]

77. Without reading past the subject line

To me I want to see a Woman President in my lifetime. I'd tired of the way the country has been run and very much want to see this all change. A change I believe will come with a woman walking into the oval office as something other than as a secretary, not to take anything from a secretary, mind you. The women in my life are a lot less apt to put up with bullshit as a man will most times. A woman will only put up with so much shit and then the shit hits the old proverbial Fan.

I'll continue to hope that Bernie will be in the white house either as the President or Vice irregardless of what I just said. Of all the people in politics in my long life he and Elizabeth are the top two. They speak of the true nature of our problems as a country and as a people

I will be voting with as much gusto as I can muster for whoever the Democratic Party puts up, simple as that.
100% true blue Democratic voter here.

Now I'll go see if I f'd up too bad with what I just typed by reading what it is you had to say.
At any rate
Have a great day

[fredamae]

78. "Run Bernie Run"

http://teespring.com/berniesanders

I just got mine yesterday....I received an email from his people....the one I got was a reservation only-due to be printed only after a minimum was ordered. It must be Made in USA cuz it didn't reek of toxic fumes.

Understand, Sanders is NOT a conventional potential candidate...It will be pure Grassroots, without the usual MSM/Corporate Support. In other words...don't wait for any messaging, ads..
If you want him to run...then it's up to us, this time NOT corps-WE are "the Replacements for Corporations". New and different campaign....of the people, by the people certainly For the people...and what we've said we wanted...now, take charge of your chosen candidates campaign in the same spirit Corps/Wall Street etc Support theirs.

His decision is based Purely upon OUR Response, willingness to work/support him.
If "we" don't show up behind him, as they do in VT...We Lose him.
He Knows he can win without BIG Corp Money...IF he has Us (as ANY good candidate can)

[Thinkingabout]

79. Perhaps the question poised to those who are pushing for Warren and Bernie be ask why are they so

focused on Hillary? It seems every thread posted on Bernie and Warren trashes Hillary? Why not show the good side of Warren and Bernie and the good points of their records. Trashing Hillary is not going to build a campaign for either Warren and Bernie, in fact it is going to be the opposite. I am ready for a primary, bring it on.

[Autumn]

81. Love Liz , wish she would run. Bernie has my support and my vote.

I will do whatever I can on his campaign.

[Recursion]

90. That's a really good question (nt)

[KingCharlemagne]

91. Fear of being red-baited, perhaps? Sanders styles himself a 'Socialist' (even though the label

is not literally accurate) and there's a long and sullied history in American of smashing anything remotely considered 'Red.' Another reason may be that many leftists are torn, not wishing to encourage a Sanders 3rd-party candidacy lest Nader v 2.0 happen. (Sanders has said he is adamantly opposed to playing the role of 'spoiler,' more power to him.) Until Sanders changes his party registration to Dem and enters the lists with HRC, support for him needs to be highly contingent, imo.