Warren vs Sanders

[Starlight]

Let me ask this. When Obama chose Biden as his VP it was clear what Biden was bringing to the table. In a Warren / Sanders pairing what votes will that VP selection actually bring that a person of color (Harris / Abrams), or a young voice (Buttigieg / Beto) wouldn't capture more of (sucky sentence but I think you get it).

I don't think putting a person of color or a young person in a VP slot would actually attract many votes. I think there's almost no votes in rounding out the ticket demographically, and thus no importance to do so.

What does matter, is that the team works well together and can together produce more enthusiasm in their support base than either could also. Also if people think the President is old and quite likely to die in office, they want to see someone in the VP slot that they are okay with being President. So, that's Warren and Sanders. They were (are?) friends, who campaign for roughly the same policies, and if one were to die in office the other would carry on their legacy of roughly the same policies.

There's an adage about why Republicans win despite there being fewer of them and their policies sucking: "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."

I dunno how true that is.

More generally, I would just say Republicans win because they cheat.

That's unfair to Biden. Trump clearly has the signs of dementia and they are accelerating. Nothing on par with Biden.

They appear to me to be about the same. Biden's people have done a good job of keeping him out of the media, but when he's forced to speak in public it's usually pretty noticeable. He did get through the most recent debate okay, but that was unusual for him. Behind the scenes, his big donors who spend time with him in private appear to have panicked and run away as have Obama's people, I presume because what they saw worried them.

To be selfish for a moment it doesn't even really sell to me because I have very good insurance through my employer.

Which means you can't leave your current job if you wanted to, without losing that insurance. It also means that your employer can change your insurance from one year to the next, if they feel like it.

I live in a country where the government provides the healthcare (equivalent to VA for all, or NHS in Britain), and it works well. I was flabbergasted when I heard that in the US that a really common reason people stayed doing jobs they didn't like when they would prefer to change job was health insurance, and even more when I heard that medical treatment is the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US.

I was hoping for something more like this after having a bleeding heart attack.

That seems excessive and unreasonable. He's given 3 doctors reports describing the surgery and medication and evaluating future risks. It boils down to that he's got a chance of another heart attack just like anyone in the world does, but that he's been carefully checked out and a recurrence isn't all that likely. So he might die in office, as any president might, but the odds of that aren't over the top. No amount of medical records can meaningfully change that vague uncertainty to any sort of firm prediction. Turning 3 doctors reports into 300 pages of records doesn't resolve that uncertainty.

This article covers what a disaster his supporters turned the convention into.

I tend to view enthusiasm in politics as a plus not a minus. My takeaway from that would be that it's wonderful such passionate people are in the base of the Dem party, and that the Dems can channel their passion in future and will benefit from it.

I'm not into 'tone policing'. So what if their tone wasn't 'nice'? Bernie had been unfairly treated by the DNC, as pretty much everyone now agrees. It reminds me of when conservatives on this forum whine about the lack of decorum in the Occupy Wall St protests. They'll talk as if the global movement of hundreds of thousands of people protesting inequality was irrelevant and pretend that the one relevant thing that happened was that one guy defecated on a car in public. It's a pretty extreme way to miss the basic point.

He insisted on not conceding after Super Tuesday when it became (effectively) impossible for him to win.

Not at all. It was still perfectly possible for a Sanders victory after Super Tuesday at the beginning of March. It in fact went down to the wire and it wasn't until about mid-April at pretty much the end of the primary when it became clear who had won.

When Hillary ran against Obama in the 08 primaries, she stayed on to the end despite being in clearly a losing position. Personally I think that's an acceptable choice if that's what she wanted to do / thought was best. If the DNC is concerned about candidates hanging on too long in the primaries, they can change the rules to declare the end of a primary if they want, but it's not a serious problem, so they haven't.

He spent most of August working on his book instead of campaigning for Clinton

Sanders did more rallies for Clinton between the primary and the general, than Clinton did for Clinton.

Clinton's team asked him to stop because they decided he was costing them too much money for all his travel to do rallies for them. So he said ok, and went away and busied himself writing a book instead.

He turned on Clinton in the final week of the election. (opinion piece)

Asking her to support a policy isn't exactly turning on her.

Last, he either knew or should have known that he was getting online support from Russia and did nothing about it.

What was he supposed to do about it? Invade Russia? Shut down the internet?

[Starlight]

I saw an interesting poll today of Senators' approval ratings in their home states in Q4 2019.

Of the top 10 most disliked senators, 8 are Republicans, with Susan Collins of Maine and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky winning first and second place prize for the their-people-hate-them award.

But one of the two Dems in that top ten most disliked by people in their own state list, is Elizabeth Warren. That's... not great. When you're the 9th most disliked person of 100 in the Senate, maybe running for President isn't the right choice?

Bernie, as per usual, polls as the most liked Senator.

[seanD]

Warren gets heckled at a rally and she literally... just.... freezes, like a deer in the headlights. The clip they show is right in front, but WARNING: strong graphic language in the video.

Does anyone believe this frail woman could handle a debate with someone like Trump?

[Starlight]

Warren gets heckled at a rally and she literally... just.... freezes, like a deer in the headlights.

Meh. It's not really a problem. She'll learn over time. She's pretty new to politics and is still learning how to respond in new situations. She's aware enough of the situation to know that trying to shout down female black activists doesn't play well with the identity-politics-liberal-elite who write snobby opinion pieces in the NYT and appear as panelists on media shows, so she's strategically avoiding upsetting them. I do think that her newness to politics is a reason she shouldn't be the Dem nominee for President until 2024 though. She's still a bit unsure how to handle herself politically.

Does anyone believe this frail woman could handle a debate with someone like Trump?

I think she would run intellectual circles around Trump. Trump can barely get a coherent sentence out. She's a professor.

It might be depressingly true that a large proportion of the US electorate is only concerned with who acts like the most alpha male on stage and doesn't really hear the words spoken, and has a "me beta, me support alpha, he alpha" level of response. But it would be nice to think a lot of US voters actually listen to the words spoken and would realize she's competent and Trump's a blithering lunatic.

[seanD]

So we're going to pretend that much of the US general debates aren't about optics. Okay.

[demi-conservative]

So we're going to pretend that much of the US general debates aren't about optics. Okay.

Starlight is a credentialed intellectual. These like to believe that elections are about intellkshual policy they can write walls of text about, then cry inwardly as the average voter mostly follows optics, see below.

It might be depressingly true that a large proportion of the US electorate is only concerned with who acts like the most alpha male on stage and doesn't really hear the words spoken, and has a "me beta, me support alpha, he alpha" level of response. But it would be nice to think a lot of US voters actually listen to the words spoken and would realize she's competent and Trump's a blithering lunatic.

[Mountain Man]

I believe Bernie said it, I'm surprised, and he should have just fessed up, but not a big deal, that was his opinion concerning the electorate at the time. But so what, I think it's a mole hill.

Why would you believe he said it when there is zero evidence that he did, and he has flatly denied it?

[seer]

82937131_2538954953016036_7903279908187537408_n.jpg

[JimL]

Warren gets heckled at a rally and she literally... just.... freezes, like a deer in the headlights. The clip they show is right in front, but WARNING: strong graphic language in the video.

Does anyone believe this frail woman could handle a debate with someone like Trump?

Yeah, I think she'd make him look like the morally demented idiot that he is.

[JimL]

So we're going to pretend that much of the US general debates aren't about optics. Okay.

Is that all they are to you?

[DivineOb]

That's not turning on Clinton, Divo, Bernie was actually campaigning for her in Wisconsin at the time he was quoted. He was just stressing the point "not to take his supporters for granted." Bernie is to the left of Clinton, and has a lot of support behind him, but Clinton is far left of Trump and the conservative ideology. To think that he turned against Clinton, you'd have to think that he was supporting Trump.

No, I think he's just a populist who is also looking out for himself.

So, no opinion on the fact that his medical records release was woefully inadequate? Just like last time when he promised his tax returns again and again and then finally released just a couple of years?

If you agree that he and Warren are about the same then just support Warren. Women voters are who saved our bacon in 2018 and I've got my money on them in 2020 as well.

[JimL]

Why would you believe he said it when there is zero evidence that he did, and he has flatly denied it?

I believe it because of their post debate exchange when Warren went over and said "you called me a liar on live tv" or something to that effect, and Bernie basically walked away not wanting to discuss it. If she had lied about him saying that about a woman being elected, I would have expected him to say that to her in response, not run off stage, i.e that "you lied, I never said that about women." But he didn't. That's not proof, but it was convincing to me. But I not much concerned with it anyway. Why should anyone care what he thinks a woman chances of winning are?

[JimL]

No, I think he's just a populist who is also looking out for himself.

Bernie is not "just a populist" he's been fighting for the same things his whole career, long before he was even well known. Unless of course that's how you define a populist.

So, no opinion on the fact that his medical records release was woefully inadequate? Just like last time when he promised his tax returns again and again and then finally released just a couple of years?

That has nothing to do with "turning on Hillary" and I don't know enough about his taxes to comment.

If you agree that he and Warren are about the same then just support Warren. Women voters are who saved our bacon in 2018 and I've got my money on them in 2020 as well.

I'm all for a woman president, I think they are "in general" more trustworthy than men, less corrupt, or less corruptible, but I feel the same way about Sanders. I'm not sure which one to support at this point because I like them both equally, but i'll enthusiastically support either of them should they win the nomination.

[whag]

Warren gets heckled at a rally and she literally... just.... freezes, like a deer in the headlights. The clip they show is right in front, but WARNING: strong graphic language in the video.

Does anyone believe this frail woman could handle a debate with someone like Trump?

I don’t think she’s freezing so much as assessing what’s happening and maybe even, I don’t know, letting them be heard? Comedians are expected to respond to hecklers right away. Trump would have said something impulsive and stupid, like calling them fat or encouraging the crowd to beat them up.

Interesting that you as a Christian expected a quick and thoughtless response.

[Mountain Man]

I believe it because of their post debate exchange when Warren went over and said "you called me a liar on live tv" or something to that effect, and Bernie basically walked away not wanting to discuss it. If she had lied about him saying that about a woman being elected, I would have expected him to say that to her in response, not run off stage, i.e that "you lied, I never said that about women." But he didn't. That's not proof, but it was convincing to me. But I not much concerned with it anyway. Why should anyone care what he thinks a woman chances of winning are?

Just so you have your facts straight:

In audio of the post-debate exchange between 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released by CNN on Wednesday, both candidates accused each other of throwing around accusations of dishonesty on national TV.

Warren said, “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

Sanders responded, “You know, let’s not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.”

Warren then stated, “Anytime.”

Sanders then countered, “You called me a liar. You told me — all right, let’s not do it now.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...ed-him-a-liar/

This entire controversy was manufactured by CNN with an unconfirmed "sources say" hit piece. And remember, it's in Warren's character to lie.