January Democratic Debate: Seeking Someone of Unimpeachable Credentials

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,154
Your link isn’t working for me @Vagabond . Bottom line is, we have two different accounts of a year-old conversation whose difference amounts to a molehill. Both wanted to run, and both felt they had the better chance of winning. So both ran. Fact is, none of us know what was actually said, so all people are doing is projecting their predispositions onto this.

When Buttigieg snarked at Warren, I called it out because I heard it in real time and could evaluate it. Others disagreed with my take, and that’s fine. But arguing over a conversation that nobody here was privy to seems pointless.

As I said, I thought Warren performed best in the debate, and particularly in that exchange. My point about her actions after the debate was how that was at odds to her larger electability argument. Turning on Sanders so publicly doesn’t support her claim of being able to expand the base. And that was the central critique Team Sanders made against her in their IA canvassing. It alienates progressive fans of Sanders unnecessarily when she will need those votes in both the primaries and the general. Last I checked, the goal is winning here...
 

mrinalini

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,415
The L.A. Times' take on the Warren-Sanders spat:

Latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-01-15/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-women-presidents-iowa-democratic-debate

You go, Ms. Warren! And we have no way of knowing for sure whether the details of that 2018 meeting were leaked with Warren's authorization, so perhaps we shouldn't state that she did so as if it were fact.

Based on sly tweets from staffers, I'm still waiting for what is supposed to be a game-changing endorsement coming in for Warren (and no, it's not the most recent ones from Sally Field and John Legend although I do love Sally Field!).
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,154

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,386
Your link isn’t working for me @Vagabond .
I am sure you are quite capable of finding CNN's report on the subject all by yourself.

Bottom line is, we have two different accounts of a year-old conversation
We may have two different accounts, but Warren knows which one is the truth. And if hers is the truth, she has no obligation to shake hands with someone who tried to pressure her not to run because of her sex and then, in essence, called her a liar. That's the bottom line.
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,154
It’s not a matter of obligation—it’s a matter of projecting presidential demeanor and gravitas. If someone gets thrown by this, what are they going to do in a general with no holds barred? If Hillary could shake Trump’s hand after every debate, then Warren can shake Bernie’s hand. Suck it up, buttercup.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,658
That didn't do Hillary any good though, did it? People want people to be real nowadays (whatever is 'real' depends on the mood and whatever is convenient to their biases going in), and this is pretty real. In fact, the GOP has succeeded in their PR among their base and loyalists by being untactful and downright disrespectful. It's not like Warren screamed out "you lie!" when Sanders was giving a speech or anything or called him a "nasty man" during the debate when he was talking or stood between two opponents, pointed at them, and then called one a "choker/choke artist" and the other a "basket case and a liar."

It was a semi-private moment between them. Sure it could have been handled better and maybe they should have taken it away from the camera, but on the list of things to pick apart, it really fails to register to me. Of course, the Bernie Bros took apart to drag Warren, but honestly, they would have found something else to do that with as well. And I'm thinking about voting for Bernie in the Primary, but this is reminding me of my apprehension about him during and after 2016...so maybe you were right that this was Warren's plan to get the Hillary supporters and remind me how Bernie made them feel.
 
Last edited:

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,657
In the CNN post-debate analysis, one pundit said Warren’s team brought up the private convo with Sanders last year to enflame past resentments by certain female Hillary supporters who felt Sanders cost Hillary the election by not campaigning hard enough and downplaying sexism in the primaries and general. It’s a cynical take, but one where you have to ask why team Warren brought it up now when it happened over a year ago. She clearly wanted it addressed in the final debate, and she has slipped in the polls and needs to bolster her numbers going into IA. The person she should have attacked was Biden, but for whatever reason she refuses to take him on and left that to Sanders. Perhaps she’s trying to consolidate progressive support for her by taking out Sanders first, then would go after Biden—idk. But refusing to shake Bernie’s hand afterward wasn’t a good look for progressives.
Well, Warren does have former Clinton staffers on her team. I think the leak to CNN came from them or some other operative in the Sanders campaign.

This idea that Sanders did not campaign hard enough for Clinton needs to be laid to rest. Sanders campaigned for weeks for Clinton. Campaigned at over 40 different rallies; 3 with her and the remaining were individual rallies across the swing states. Most of the rallies were in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan. This was after the John Podesta emails came out and he lost support from some of his supporters.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,967
We have a huge problem right in front of our faces with how women are treated as candidates but sadly that fact gets us right back to the question a lot of people, not just Bernie Sanders, bring up about Warren: can a woman really win? Cue @Vagabond to remind us that Hillary Clinton did win the vote in 2016 but unfortunately that doesn't calm concerns that take a toll on Warren's support.
I'm still convinced that Clinton would have won had it been a normal election without interference by either Russia or Comey, so, I'd say, yes, a woman can win. (Of course, there's the question if Comey would have happened had she not been a woman...)

Generally, I wish gender wouldn't be an issue at all. Policies are policies and it shouldn't matter if they come from a woman or a man. If they're good they're good, if they're bad they're bad.
 

mrinalini

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,415
Well, Warren does have former Clinton staffers on her team. I think the leak to CNN came from them or some other operative in the Sanders campaign.

This idea that Sanders did not campaign hard enough for Clinton needs to be laid to rest. Sanders campaigned for weeks for Clinton. Campaigned at over 40 different rallies; 3 with her and the remaining were individual rallies across the swing states. Most of the rallies were in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan. This was after the John Podesta emails came out and he lost support from some of his supporters.
All that campaigning for her must've been a terrible slog for him then because I can still remember how he looked like at the convention when Hillary accepted the nomination - sour, pissy and like he'd rather be anywhere else. I recall thinking of Bernie's childishness at the time: Suck it up, buttercup!
 

snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,063
so this. :lol: anybody who has ever defended trump and trump supporters will get a talk to the hand in perpetuity whenever they complain about a Democrat’s decorum, class, or language.


In fact, the GOP has succeeded in their PR among their base and loyalists by being untactful and downright disrespectful. It's not like Warren screamed out "you lie!" when Sanders was giving a speech or anything or called him a "nasty man" during the debate when he was talking or stood between two opponents, pointed at them, and then called one a "choker/choke artist" and the other a "basket case and a liar.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
55,955
I think the one thing of significance in this whole media-generated spectacle is the meeting between Warren and Sanders in 2018. He sat down and talked with his friend who he states he shares so much political ground with when she called him to tell her she was going to run for president.

Then after she had established her campaign he decided to run against her and split the left. That tells you a great deal about Sanders' leadership style. He had an opportunity to support Warren and strengthen the progressive wing of the party in the presidential nomination process. His choice was to create the circumstances where they would be competing against each other for support and where tensions like we are now seeing were inevitable.

Is that a successful model for a president? I guess his supporters think it is.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,406
I can only assume that Bernie chose to run because he really genuinely believed that he could bring something to this race that Warren could not. Maybe that "something" was just maleness and perceived electability, LOL. Or the proven supporter base from his first run. I'm sure, in his mind, he has his reasons.

But, whatever those are, I agree with you, @BlueRidge, about the basic result of his decision. Which has been to split the left progressive wing and hobble it in the quest for the nomination.

Maybe he thought Warren wouldn't attract as much support as she has. Maybe he thought she would quietly fade from the race, like Booker and Harris and Inslee and Hickenlooper.

He implied during the debate that Warren "had her chance" in 2016 and that he would've stood aside for her then. But since when are politicians only allowed one chance?? By that logic, he had his "chance" in 2016 as well (and failed to convert)! Does that mean he's over politically?
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
55,955
Well I think there were a lot of people urging him to run. A lot of them the hard left that think Warren is a neo-liberal and others just true believers who caught the excitement of his 2016 campaign and thought that was repeatable and wanted to "Feel the Bern." He didn't make the decision in a vacuum. Its hard to resist people telling you you're the only one who can do this and the chance to stand in front of large idolizing crowds is intoxicating.

But it was still a bad choice for progressive politics and so here we are.
 

PRlady

Nerdy flack
Messages
34,815
I was really hoping that after Super Tuesday it would be clear which progressive was really leading and the other would graciously cede support. Now I’m not at all sure that will happen: all it’s going to do is give us a Biden-Klobochar ticket. Feh.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
55,955
I was really hoping that after Super Tuesday it would be clear which progressive was really leading and the other would graciously cede support. Now I’m not at all sure that will happen: all it’s going to do is give us a Biden-Klobochar ticket. Feh.
I'm for skipping right to the Biden-Klobuchar ticket and going to the fight against Trump. The left can go brawl in a corner somewhere until they are ready to get on with it.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
62,168
For voters such as @BlueRidge and myself, all of this posturing and debating is moot. The candidate who will run in the general election will be decided by the time we get to vote in a primary. Our votes then are actually more important at state (sorry BR) or local elections than the presidential primary vote. I will vote for whoever the Democrats put forth regardless of whether or not they were my personal pick (which is Warren). Regardless of who the Democratic candidate is, they will be stymied if the Senate remains with a significant majority. Even if they maintain a majority, 51/49 is workable and forces them to work together. So, all the Democrats need to keep the bigger picture in mind just as Republican voters who despised Trump did because they wanted him to do something specific such as stack the courts or alter the tax code to favor his millionaire and billionaire buddies, or abolish Roe v Wade.
 

PRlady

Nerdy flack
Messages
34,815
I agree with you @rfisher but what happens in the primaries is not just going to impact policy if the Dem is elected but the future alignment of the parties. Warren is right that the party is breaking into two wings; that is the only way Republicans can continue to dominate given their shrinking demographic. Unity is going to be essential and I don’t think Biden or Bernie can or even care to provide that.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
55,955
For voters such as @BlueRidge and myself, all of this posturing and debating is moot. The candidate who will run in the general election will be decided by the time we get to vote in a primary. Our votes then are actually more important at state (sorry BR) or local elections than the presidential primary vote. I will vote for whoever the Democrats put forth regardless of whether or not they were my personal pick (which is Warren). Regardless of who the Democratic candidate is, they will be stymied if the Senate remains with a significant majority. Even if they maintain a majority, 51/49 is workable and forces them to work together. So, all the Democrats need to keep the bigger picture in mind just as Republican voters who despised Trump did because they wanted him to do something specific such as stack the courts or alter the tax code to favor his millionaire and billionaire buddies, or abolish Roe v Wade.
This.

I'm 100% in for Warren because she would be a strong president but if she's not going to prevail in the nominating process that's a moot point and I can move right on to whoever is the nominee. And dragging out the nomination process just to see if a more progressive candidate can maybe prevail after a bitter and divisive fight? No way do I want to take that risk this year with Trump in the White House.

I'm not in a state but I do have a couple of local races that matter to me, my own ward we have a kick-ass woman challenging the incumbent on the council. I was out on Saturday and young folks from Democracy for D.C. (local chapter of Democracy for America) were collecting signatures for her which I thought was really cool. We've got plenty we can do we don't need to burn our energy fighting each other!
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
55,955
Unity is going to be essential and I don’t think Biden or Bernie can or even care to provide that.
Well I think that's crap. Biden may not understand how to do it but it certainly is what he wants to do.

I'm more concerned about the left refusing to unite under Biden and making defeating Trump harder. Biden is a corporate Democrat but if we're going to say no, this year is the realignment so we're going to fight to the death with the moderates, we're going to kill us all off.

Whenever the left fixates on the presidency it harms itself. There have been some strong organizations built in just the last few years, putting up challengers at all levels up to the House and winning and organizing to press the party. The fact that Biden has taken a strong stand on climate change shows what the left can do. Tearing the party apart at the presidential level is not the way to move the country in a progressive direction. Organizing and electing people at all levels state, local, and the House is.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,386
I agree with you @rfisher but what happens in the primaries is not just going to impact policy if the Dem is elected but the future alignment of the parties. Warren is right that the party is breaking into two wings; that is the only way Republicans can continue to dominate given their shrinking demographic. Unity is going to be essential and I don’t think Biden or Bernie can or even care to provide that.
All of which gives good reason why Biden might select someone other than Amy Klobuchar to be his running mate if he is nominated. (@BlueRidge beat me to writing on this issue.)

That said, I think Klobuchar would be a good running mate and a good Vice-President. (I have reservations about her, but they guide my preference in the primary, not thereafter.)
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
55,955
Is there someone more progressive than Klobuchar who is not a white man in a swing or purple state that Biden could choose?
 

PRlady

Nerdy flack
Messages
34,815
Is there someone more progressive than Klobuchar who is not a white man in a swing or purple state that Biden could choose?
If you think Georgia is swing, Stacy Abrams. Debbie Stabenow from Michigan. Sherrod Brown is white but popular on the left. Kirsten S from Arizona. There are more.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
55,955
If you think Georgia is swing, Stacy Abrams. Debbie Stabenow from Michigan. Sherrod Brown is white but popular on the left. Kirsten S from Arizona. There are more.
Stacy Abrams is certainly a possibility though I feel like if its Biden he needs someone with a "ready to step in and be president" kind of image and I don't know if she fits that.

Kyrsten Sinema is one of the most centrist Senators, I asked about getting someone more progressive! Please give me Amy over Sinema. (also no one will ever get her name right :shuffle: )

Sherrod Brown is white, I don't think that's the problem: he's another white male. Nonetheless he might be a good choice.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
62,168
I agree with you @rfisher but what happens in the primaries is not just going to impact policy if the Dem is elected but the future alignment of the parties. Warren is right that the party is breaking into two wings; that is the only way Republicans can continue to dominate given their shrinking demographic. Unity is going to be essential and I don’t think Biden or Bernie can or even care to provide that.
Probably true, but since my primary vote is for myself (l voted for HRC both times just so I could say I did), it's up to individual voters to decide how that plays out. If people say "my candidate didn't win so I'm not voting for X" or "I don't like either candidate so I'm not voting at all", then everybody loses because Trump will win. Parties don't unite or split because of the candidate per se, but because their supporters opt not to vote. See Al Gore. Nadar voters took enough from Gore that Bush won. By the same token Peroit split the GOP and Clinton won. A lot of people who voted for Nadar regret that decision. Teddy Kennedy supporters refused to vote for Carter and Reagan won. So, again people should vote in the primary as they see fit, but should swallow that disappointment if the results don't go their way and come November, vote for the Democratic candidate whose name is on the ballot.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,386
@BlueRidge I was trying to address your stated criteria in the first inatance, but I agree that Duckworth would be a very good choice for Biden (or Sanders, if it came to that). And we've already had a President who was confined to a wheelchair, so having a Vice President who was too should be no big deal.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information