Warren refuses to throw Sanders under the bus

[whocares 2,122]

3 minutes ago, Gagz4Gaga said:

Question: Is a Sanders/Warren tandem possible? And who should be the Pres/VP in the two?

I’m not sure tbh. I know Sanders made it very clear that he wants a woman as his pick for VP.  

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

Sanders/Warren  ticket sounds quite promising!  

I like that they both are really respectful hopefully that won't change in the upcoming months! 

[gagzus 24,757]

I feel bad for America knowing y’all are really gonna get trump again for another term RIP 

[bxr 2,847]

23 minutes ago, Gagz4Gaga said:

Question: Is a Sanders/Warren tandem possible? And who should be the Pres/VP in the two?

presidential bid in an elizabern hypothetical … warren has the pants for that.

[Clumsy Monster 1,518]

The first thing that comes to my mind

[ladylinners 485]

45 minutes ago, gagzus said:

I feel bad for America knowing y’all are really gonna get trump again for another term RIP 

Sad, but most likely true 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

I prefer Warren. I don't enjoy Bernie's temperament. 

[ChromeAngel 3,230]

1 hour ago, Matangi said:

"Liberal" does not mean leftist btw. For instance, "neoliberalism," describes those who attempt to act like leftists, while being entirely corporate, white and elite. Liberalism politically doesn't mean the same as saying you're soically "liberal"

Neoliberals don’t have to be white  

[gagzus 24,757]

13 minutes ago, ladylinners said:

Sad, but most likely true 

i think it basically a fact at this point, as an outsider most of the US media on the left that can influence people seem to be too concerned with complaining about Trump and that’s just making his support better and there’s a big focus on extreme leftism with new age terms for gender and sexualities (which I’m all for btw) which is swaying the public. Plus after two terms of a Democrat and a black one at that, I can see the US senate making sure it’s “fair” and keeping trump for another 4 years. 

Since most republicans are legit whiny babies and democrats have too much inter-party debacles to succeed. 

[socotra 3,357]

they really need to make a distinction tho because right now they're splitting the progressive vote. it's very likely that if one of them wasn't in the race, the other would be the frontrunner right now and not Joe Biden. And I'm extremely afraid of another Hillary Clinton mishap this election wherein we put up a long-established, accomplished politician with plenty of skeletons in their closet promising the continuation of the status quo who just doesn't excite voters.

i think sexism absolutely played a role in the 2016 election, which Biden wouldn't face with many Rust Belt/Southern voters, but he would face a turnout problem – I can see many Americans simply sitting out the election out of a "Other people got it, the media says he's soooo electabable, why do I have to vote?" mentality. And then we get 4 years of Trump because we offered a ragdoll of a nominee instead of somebody (like Warren or Sanders) who actually excites voters.

We beat Trump by beating him at his own game – promising to fight for the forgotten worker and "drain the swamp" – than by nominating another establishment nominee.

[ladylinners 485]

1 minute ago, gagzus said:

i think it basically a fact at this point, as an outsider most of the US media on the left that can influence people seem to be too concerned with complaining about Trump and that’s just making his support better and there’s a big focus on extreme leftism with new age terms for gender and sexualities (which I’m all for btw) which is swaying the public. Plus after two terms of a Democrat and a black one at that, I can see the US senate making sure it’s “fair” and keeping trump for another 4 years. 

Since most republicans are legit whiny babies and democrats have too much inter-party debacles to succeed. 

The highlighted portion is they're biggest downfall. Democrats are too split to stand behind one candidate. 

Plus, conservatives are having a field day mashing religion and state together. They want to create something that the pilgrims ran from. The church running the state. 

Also if the electoral college didn't exist in the first place Trump wouldn't have won (neither would Bush Jr). 

[whocares 2,122]

16 minutes ago, Indyl said:

they really need to make a distinction tho because right now they're splitting the progressive vote. it's very likely that if one of them wasn't in the race, the other would be the frontrunner right now and not Joe Biden. And I'm extremely afraid of another Hillary Clinton mishap this election wherein we put up a long-established, accomplished politician with plenty of skeletons in their closet promising the continuation of the status quo who just doesn't excite voters.

i think sexism absolutely played a role in the 2016 election, which Biden wouldn't face with many Rust Belt/Southern voters, but he would face a turnout problem – I can see many Americans simply sitting out the election out of a "Other people got it, the media says he's soooo electabable, why do I have to vote?" mentality. And then we get 4 years of Trump because we offered a ragdoll of a nominee instead of somebody (like Warren or Sanders) who actually excites voters.

We beat Trump by beating him at his own game – promising to fight for the forgotten worker and "drain the swamp" – than by nominating another establishment nominee.

Biden is the front runner right now and as you mentioned, he would have a turnout problem for sure. Especially among us, millennials. Bernie is second right now and his base is the most diverse. And he does better where Clinton lost to Trump in 2016. On the other hand, Warren is not connecting with my people. Meaning Latinos. Or Black Americans. Her base is too white and Idk exactly why.

I agree with you, we don’t need an establishment nominee. We will be repeating history again. And this time will be worse because at least Clinton was able to communicate with no issue. No offense to Biden. But the man does seem to be dealing with dementia. Imagine a debate between him and Trump. Especially with Trump’s attitude.. In my own little head, Bernie and Warren are talking to each other right now about what would be best for them to do

[whocares 2,122]

I’m feeling very pessimistic about 2020. It’s going to be a battle. And Trump could easily win. Bush Jr. was re-elected after all.

[Othon 34,299]

I keep saying it: Sanders/Warren 2020. They’re the ticket.

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

The polls do not suggest that Warren’s base would turn their support to Sanders if Warren were to drop out.... Nor do the polls suggest that Sanders’ base would turn their support to Warren if Sanders were to drop out. 

The second choice for Warren supporters is Harris, despite Harris being much more moderate. People on this site are forgetting about demographics and identity politics and are just focusing on political ideology. 

Personally I don’t think identity politics or voting based on other demographics is an intelligent thing to do. Vote based on whether someone’s policies reflect your ideology, is my philosophy. But we can’t ignore the reality: identity politics make it unwise for either Warren or Sanders to drop out at this point, because their base is not the same.