Sanders Hints At Reckoning With Warren Over 2020 Ambitions

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
The two progressive icons are on a collision course.

BLOOMINGTON, Ind
. — Bernie Sanders says he speaks with Elizabeth Warren nearly every day — just not about 2020.

But with the two progressive behemoths on a collision course in the presidential primary — and with some progressive activists alarmed that they might split the vote, allowing a more moderate Democrat to win the nomination — Sanders suggested Friday that a pre-2020 discussion among like-minded candidates could be forthcoming.

Asked whether he and other progressive contenders should hold talks in an effort to ensure one of them prevails, Sanders told POLITICO, “I suspect that in the coming weeks and months, there will be discussions.”

Asked whether he has spoken already with Warren or Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) about the 2020 campaign, Sanders said, "No, not really."

An aide to Warren did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sanders’ remarks come as progressive Democrats begin to grapple with the burgeoning field of prospective 2020 candidates. At least three senators — Sanders (I-Vt.), Warren (D-Mass.) and Merkley — are likely to compete for many of the same hard-left supporters Sanders drew in 2016.

Sanders touched off a nine-state midterm election tour on Friday, while Warren has been aggressively preparing for a 2020 launch. Other Democrats, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), have taken steps to advance tax and other policy proposals appealing to progressive Democrats.

The jockeying among progressive candidates has sparked worry among some hard-left activists, who fear they could split the vote in the 2020 primary, ceding ground to a more moderate Democrat.

“I hope there will be serious conversations between Sens. Sanders and Warren, and perhaps Sen. Merkley,” Jeff Cohen, co-founder of the online activist group RootsAction.org. “I think I speak for many progressives who dominate the Democratic Party base when I say we'd like to see one genuine progressive in the race and not two or three splitting the vote.”

It's unclear what any pre-election meeting would accomplish. Politicians more typically agree to sit out elections at lower rungs of government, where ingratiating oneself to the party establishment can result in support seeking an alternative office. It is far rarer for a presidential aspirant to check his or her ambitions.

But a pre-2020 agreement would not necessarily require any candidate to immediately step aside. Instead, candidates could discuss benchmarks — fundraising, polling, or early primary performance — and at what point progressive candidates would throw their support to a fellow progressive in the race.

Larry Cohen, a former head of the Communications Workers of America who now chairs the board of Our Revolution, a political offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 campaign, said the large crowds Sanders drew on Friday in Indiana and Michigan were evidence that Sanders’ “message continues to be unique, and resonates with younger voters and their concerns with economic justice.”

“It is important that if there are other similar candidates in the 2020 presidential nominating campaign, that they support each other at least in minimal ways, or that they support each other as much as possible so that one of them is the nominee,” Cohen added.

Sanders demurred when asked to expand on any potential pre-2020 conversation with other progressives.

“We'll see what will happen," Sanders said. "I don't know what will happen. Of course, I speak to Elizabeth [Warren] almost every day ... We will see what happens.”

He said, “The major issue right now is, I think, for progressives to expose Trump for the fraud that he is, and to come up with an agenda that makes sense to working families."

In 2016, Merkley was the Sanders’ only fellow senator to endorse his presidential campaign. But the party has shifted left since the last presidential election, drawing closer to Sanders' positions on health care and college affordability. Earlier this week, Harris proposed a new tax break for average Americans, calling for a $6,000 tax credit for families earning up to $100,000.

The clamoring on the left has encouraged longtime progressives, including Sanders, who said that in his failed run for president in 2016, “I think we opened up the door for people to understand that the American people want real change.”

Now, Sanders said, “You’re seeing candidates coming up with ideas to try to address those issues.”

“In a sense, Trump has helped us, because he has said that deficits don’t matter, that you can give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent," Sanders said. "And that opens the door, I think, for progressives to start saying we’re going to use the federal government to protect the interests of working families, not just the people on top.”

Any effort by progressive candidates to coordinate ahead of the 2020 campaign could backfire, with many Sanders supporters still seething over his treatment by establishment Democrats in 2016.

In 2020, “It’s to the advantage of progressives in the party not to have the appearance of smoke-filled rooms," said Norman Solomon, who in 2016 coordinated the group "Bernie Delegates Network," which operated independently of his campaign.

Daily Kos national community organizer Chris Reeves, a Democratic National Committee member from Kansas, said the field of progressive candidates in 2020 will likely be winnowed naturally, anyway, by donors and in primary debates. And with Trump in office, he suggested intra-party friction over ideology will be less prominent in 2020.

“I would take a ham sandwich on rye over Trump,” he said.

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/20/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-2020-919825
 

SueEllenRules!

Banned
LV
0
 
Moderate Democrats could, of course, choose to take the so-called progressive route and vote third party. Or sit it out altogether. Either way would let Trump win again, which was apparently perfectly acceptable the first time around.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
Moderate Democrats could, of course, choose to take the so-called progressive route and vote third party. Or sit it out altogether. Either way would let Trump win again, which was apparently perfectly acceptable the first time around.
As a third party voter, I can only speak for myself. When I cast my vote for Jill Stein, it was not because I found Trump to be "perfectly acceptable." Rather, it was because I believed both Trump and Clinton held positions that were in stark contrast to what I believe in. I understand why pragmatists chose Hillary, and I've even made the case in several threads here that I believe Hillary was the lesser of two evils. For example, I don't believe she would have pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement or the Iran Deal. On the other hand, I'm an admitted idealist rather than a pragmatist. I've said before that I voted for progressive Obama twice, and was severely disappointed when he governed as a moderate Democrat instead.

Also, the moderate Democratic platform is quite foreign to me. If anything, it seems like the sort of platform that corporations and military contractors would like, rather than everyday Americans. That's why I call it Republican lite. It's basically Dems who are (generally speaking) socially liberal, while still catering to corporate and military interests. And while my views certainly don't align with those of moderate Dems, I still respect their right to vote for whoever they want. Twenty-five percent of Hillary voters chose McCain over Obama in 2008. And while I'm no McCain fan by any means, I respect the democratic process of voting. If moderate Dems want to vote Republican or third party over a progressive, so be it.

I also found this post of your's to be perfectly acceptable. I'm just confused because I didn't think you wanted to have political discussions with me anymore. Either way, I want to apologize for my part in this feud. I don't like fighting with people, and I'm hoping we can actually bury the hatchet this time. If you want to engage me politically, I'm happy to do so. And I've made an effort to show that, while I disagree with you, I'm willing to at least be respectful and civil about it. I hope you feel the same way and that things won't get ugly this time.
 
Last edited:

SueEllenRules!

Banned
LV
0
 
If only yet another post about that rotten b!tch Hillary weren’t inevitably just around the corner. If only it weren’t bad enough that she lost unfairly and unsquarely to a horse’s @$$ like Trump without having to hear someone relentlessly crow about it at every turn. And if only a mod on here hadn’t added insult to injury by attempting to use McGarrett as an example of yet another member I couldn’t get along with. The guy who posted porn, among other offenses. The guy who got ‘permanently banned’ repeatedly and kept coming back under numerous aliases. The guy who sent me private messages asking if I was “sucking Darius’ AIDS ravaged c**k with your herpes ravaged tongue?”
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
If only yet another post about that rotten b!tch Hillary weren’t inevitably just around the corner. If only it weren’t bad enough that she lost unfairly and unsquarely to a horse’s @$$ like Trump without having to hear someone relentlessly crow about it at every turn. And if only a mod on here hadn’t added insult to injury by attempting to use McGarrett as an example of yet another member I couldn’t get along with. The guy who posted porn, among other offenses. The guy who got ‘permanently banned’ repeatedly and kept coming back under numerous aliases. The guy who sent me private messages asking if I was “sucking Darius’ AIDS ravaged c**k with your herpes ravaged tongue?”
Every time I attempt to smooth things over, this is what I get in return. The post I made in response to you was clearly more nuanced than simply being a "rotten bitch Hillary" rant.

You don't think I've had to hear you "crow" about how horrible third party voters are? Or how Dems meddling in primaries and purging voters from the rolls is no big deal? Yet you're going to insist that memes and the DNC emails tanked a billion dollar campaign as opposed to not campaigning in the swing states and supporting the job killing NAFTA and TPP.

If you're allowed to share your point of view, why am I not allowed to share mine? And if you don't like conversing with me, why do you continue to do so? I can't speak for the mod who brought up McGarrett. However, I've never said any of those things to you, yet you've compared me to him in the past. I was sincere in what I said earlier, but you won't let this go.
 
Last edited:

Ome

Admin Emeritus
LV
14
 
Awards
32
If only yet another post






I've tried every possible way to generate good and interesting debates on this forum and still, you continue to turn it into another sour thread.

You've proven that you can't abide by the forum guidelines, you've proven many times that all you want to do is argue and bring up things that happened years ago.

You've proven that all you really want is to be banned, well, I'm not going to give you that satisfaction, but I will prevent you from turning threads into silly little battles just for the sake of it. This may result in the Politics forum becoming inactive, but I'll take that over having to repeatedly deal with behaviour that's not welcome here.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
I've tried every possible way to generate good and interesting debates on this forum and still, you continue to turn it into another sour thread.

You've proven to me that you can't abide by the forum guidelines, you've proven many times that all you want to do is argue and bring up things that happened years ago.

You've proven that all you really want is to be banned, well, I'm not going to give you that satisfaction, but I will prevent you from turning threads into silly little battles just for the sake of it. This may result in the Politics forum becoming inactive, but I'll take that over having to repeatedly deal with behaviour that's not welcome here.
Whether this forum becomes inactive or not, I don't see much point in posting here anymore. Anybody who reads these threads can see I've tried to smooth things over, and even apologized for my part, only to have the poster in question continue insulting me. I'm ashamed to say that I've often resorted to that same behavior in return out of frustration.

Considering this poster is the only other person who posts here on a regular basis, there's no room for an actual discussion. Everything becomes about how awful I am. The main reason I've continued posting here is because I didn't want to give that person the satisfaction of running me off. But it's become so futile and tedious that it's just not worth it anymore.
 
Last edited:

Angela Channing

Telly Talk Veteran
LV
19
 
Awards
52
Politics in America seems to be getting older. The two candidates you mention are 77 (Bernie Sanders) and 69 (Elizabeth Warren) along with Trump who is 72. Are there any younger candidates being considered? I'm not fully up to speed on US politics, but I like some of things I've heard Kamala Harris say, although I'm not aware of her views on a wide range of issues. I think she is the kind of candidate that could resonate with a wide cross section of the US electorate and be more exciting to the electorate than the same old names that are always touted to be the Democratic nominee.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
Politics in America seems to be getting older. The two candidates you mention are 77 (Bernie Sanders) and 69 (Elizabeth Warren) along with Trump who is 72. Are there any younger candidates being considered? I'm not fully up to speed on US politics, but I like some of things I've heard Kamala Harris say, although I'm not aware of her views on a wide range of issues. I think she is the kind of candidate that could resonate with a wide cross section of the US electorate and be more exciting to the electorate than the same old names that are always touted to be the Democratic nominee.
Of the younger potential candidates, I'm most impressed with Tulsi Gabbard. The only problem area I could find is that she was against gay rights and even civil unions as a state representative in Hawaii. And while being against gay marriage prior to 2013 is something I criticized Hillary Clinton for, I also take into consideration the totality of where each candidate stands. Gabbard is now a member of Congress. She is now in favor of gay rights, she's pro-choice, she supports Medicare for all, she wants to restore Glass-Steagall, she opposes the TPP, and she opposes the US's interventionist foreign policy. She also supports sensible immigration reform that would keep families together and would protect people seeking asylum.

She also resigned as vice-chair of the DNC in 2016 in order to support Bernie Sanders, so I believe her commitment to progressive values is real. As of now, I think she's a great choice.

As for Kamala Harris, I found an article that discussed the issues some leftists have with younger potential candidates such as Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick:

Why Leftists Don't Trust Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, And Deval Patrick

The contest for control of the Democratic Party between left and center is continuing apace. The latest battleground is over a handful of minority Democrats being groomed by the centrist establishment to run for office: Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

If the center wants to win over a suspicious left, they can start by clearly explaining their policy orientation, particularly in areas where they might have fallen short by the supposed standards of the modern Democratic Party — which all three of the above candidates have done in various ways. If they want to deepen divisions, they can use cynical accusations of bigotry to try to beat back any leftist challenger.

Let's take each in turn. The former attorney general of California, Harris is mistrusted by the left mostly because of her roots as a prosecutor. The Black Lives Matter movement has put anyone with law enforcement history under close scrutiny, and California's criminal justice system is notoriously brutal (though it has improved recently). While she is obviously no Jeff Sessions, Harris has sometimes displayed a rather Hillary Clinton-esque tendency to say the right thing but not follow through in a vigorous way. Most notoriously, she refused to prosecute Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's old company OneWest for numerous instances of almost certain illegal foreclosure, against the advice of her own Consumer Law Section, and has so far refused to say why. (She was also the only Senate Democratic candidate to get a donation from Mnuchin himself in 2016.)

Booker is mistrusted because of his ties to Wall Street. Most notoriously, when President Obama attacked Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign for his long career as a bloodsucking financial parasite, buying up companies only to strip their assets and drive them into bankruptcy, Booker defended Bain Capital on Meet the Press. Why? Because New Jersey is just across the river from Manhattan and both parties are drowning in Wall Street cash.

Patrick is least trusted of all because he actually works for Bain Capital as a managing director. If he were to run for president, as Obama's inner circle is apparently urging him to, President Trump would just have to copy-paste Obama's 2012 ads.

In other words, there are quite substantive reasons why a leftist might not trust any of those candidates. The probably accurate perception that all three candidates are being groomed by the same big-money donors that clustered around Hillary Clinton will only deepen the divide, because it suggests that — like pro-union rules, or the public option in ObamaCare — any adoption of Sanders-style proposals are mostly bait to be cast aside when it comes time to actually pass something.

If they want to win over the left — and Harris, who has expressed at least mild support for tuition-free public college (for families with income less than $140,000), a $15 minimum wage, expanded Social Security, and Medicare for all, would probably be the most credible person to attempt this — they need to first explain their recent history.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, they need to make a symbolic rhetorical break with the despised donor class. The left generally likes Elizabeth Warren because she ferociously criticizes Wall Street and corporate abuse. Adopting a harsh anti-economic elite line will reassure young Sanders Democrats that anti-establishment policies aren't just window dressing. Meanwhile, steps like refusing to take PAC money and running mostly on small donors will signal independence from the donor class (and as Sanders discovered, might actually lead to a gusher of campaign cash).

But if they just want to have a retread of the 2015-16 primary, the center could just try to win dirty. The left, they might say (working hand-in-glove with sympathetic columnists), just doesn't like minority or female candidates because they are racist and sexist.

I would bet quite a lot of money the centrist Democratic establishment will opt for the latter strategy. Indeed, some are already doing so — like Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, elite Democrats' in-house think tank.

That would be pretty rich coming from the crowd that shamelessly leveraged Islamophobia to keep Keith Ellison — probably the left's second-most trusted politician, after Bernie Sanders — out of the chair of the Democratic National Committee.(Update: Neera Tanden contacted us after this story was published and asked that we clarify that she personally defended Keith Ellison from these attacks.) Indeed, in other forums the left is simultaneously being criticized for being too sympathetic to radical Muslim and black activists. On Tuesday the neoconservative Bari Weiss lambasted leftists for, among other things, associating with the Muslim activist Linda Sarsour (for being anti-Zionist) and cast their praise of the exiled black radical Assata Shakur as love of a cop-killer — conveniently neglecting to mention that the reason people support her is their belief that she was framed for the murder.

That extraordinarily cheap attack at least has the actual history of social justice activism straight, in which the left has long been leading the charge and centrists following (often very far) behind.

At any rate, if I had to guess, I'd say we're in for a rather bitter fight for supremacy over the Democratic Party between big money elites on one side and Sanders Democrats on the other. But for actual individuals like Harris, it's worth considering the extremely weakened state of the party elite compared to 2013. Clinton's defeat completely shattered the elite's reputation for competence, and they will have a much harder time beating back a left-wing challenger in 2020. Even on purely tactical grounds, it probably makes more sense to permanently throw one's lot in with the left.

Source: http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick
 
Last edited:
Top