Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

Wow, you swallowed that bullshit? That was the first attack from Warren. The screen cap posted was from a user with 1 prior post, and within hours, the post was taken down by moderators. In fact, there's a very explicit policy within the campaign that makes volunteers pledge not only not to attack other candidates, but to avoid making comparisons with other Denocratic candidates entirely. The substance of the post was so innocuous, stating the facts that her coalition isn't diverse enough.

In addition to my point above about how I agree the claim against Sanders about what his peeps were saying about Warren doesn't really matter, because it was fairly innocuous to me, I do find it funny that you do not think it is possible that his people are saying this stuff about Warren given it is almost verbatim the same stuff you have been saying about her, and GITH has said about her, and others--that her voters will fall in line with Sanders, but the reverse would not be true, because she is not expanding the base like he is. Hell, I'd be surprised if he people were not saying that. Doesn't mean he told them to, but clearly his supporters believe it. And again, if they believe it, why not say it? It is clearly an opinion, and probably a valid one. It isn't like they are lying about her. This whole thing played out bad for Warren to me.

[Teenwolf]

Fair take. I don't think it helps Warren to attempt to attack Sanders simultaneously for supposedly being sexist and dishonest about what was said. I think it shows what you say, Warren's desperation, and her poor sense of political calculation. I don't think this type of inconsequential story will affect the race much at all in either direction, but I guess it depends how much the media tries to hype it. It certainly shows that there's only 1 honest Democrat in the primary. I trust Sanders to sidestep it in the debate tomorrow, as he's focused on Biden voters. Sanders may still need Warren's delegates at some point, and will need her voters to move to him when she drops out, so its best to ignore this smear and move forward if possible. Attack Biden's recent Iraq lies instead.

[Teenwolf]

In addition to my point above about how I agree the claim against Sanders about what his peeps were saying about Warren doesn't really matter, because it was fairly innocuous to me, I do find it funny that you do not think it is possible that his people are saying this stuff about Warren given it is almost verbatim the same stuff you have been saying about her, and GITH has said about her, and others--that her voters will fall in line with Sanders, but the reverse would not be true, because she is not expanding the base like he is. Hell, I'd be surprised if he people were not saying that. Doesn't mean he told them to, but clearly his supporters believe it. And again, if they believe it, why not say it? It is clearly an opinion, and probably a valid one. It isn't like they are lying about her. This whole thing played out bad for Warren to me.

Oh, absolutely. But I don't think my style of attacking other candidates has proven to be very enticing to potential voters, just looking at reactions from members of this board. So I would defer to the campaign strategy before trusting my own instincts.

The worst part of it was Warren using the graphic to claim Bernie was the source behind it, when that was clearly a ludicrous notion. It could only make Warren stink of desperation, complaining about innocuous critiques that are all true. Had to switch to the sexism shtick.

[B-Fly]

Oh, absolutely. But I don't think my style of attacking other candidates has proven to be very enticing to potential voters, just looking at reactions from members of this board. So I would defer to the campaign strategy before trusting my own instincts.

LOL, nice.

As for Warren, I still think she's got a puncher's chance in Iowa and New Hampshire as she's probably got as good a shot as any at catching late-deciding former supporters of Harris, Castro, Booker … Yang if he drops out. We'll see how it plays out.

[Teenwolf]

LOL, nice.

As for Warren, I still think she's got a puncher's chance in Iowa and New Hampshire as she's probably got as good a shot as any at catching late-deciding former supporters of Harris, Castro, Booker … Yang if he drops out. We'll see how it plays out.

I could also see Warren performing well. She's said to have the best organization in Iowa. At the caucus, she could draw largely from Klobuchar voters when she falls below the threshold (although Bernie gets a bigger share from Tulsi and Yang)... but the big decider could be Buttigieg. He's fallen like a rock in Iowa polling, down 9 pts from 25 to 16. So if he continues to fall, as voters realize he has no shot, maybe he falls below 15%, and that would be a huge boost to Warren at the caucus. Or maybe my math is wrong and there's almost no way any of the top 4 finish below 15%. Just my speculation. Tons of variables in play.

It's so close, and the media onslaught against Bernie has just begun after the failure of the "Bernie blackout". Should be interesting.

[Sour Masher]

It's so close, and the media onslaught against Bernie has just begun after the failure of the "Bernie blackout". Should be interesting.

I don't always agree that the media all have a meeting to decide how to attack Bernie, but this Warren deal has me seeing it a little bit. There are, one could argue, some legitimate issues related to a segment of young male Bernie supporters, labeled "Bernie Bros" when it comes to attitudes toward women, but the connections of these issues to the man himself seem tenuous. This latest minor scuffle seems like not much of a deal, but it does bring up an issue the media went after in 16 for Bernie against HRC. I don't think these sort of tactics are necessarily a fatal flaw in a politician, as they often play dirty, but it does make me like Warren a little less as a person. It does shift my benefit of the doubt on her heritage issue a bit. I still think she would be a very effective leader with smart, thoughtful plans for the country--I still think she is the smartest, most informed candidate. But her likability score is sinking with me. That makes me less likely to support her for two reasons--my own feelings, and my fear that her likability issues coupled with the legit gender biases of the American people (that is the irony of these attacks on Bernie; there is truth in the things he is accused of saying) make her a risk to run against Trump.

Of course, Bernie faces his own biases--antisemitism is still very much a thing in this country, as all of the recent attacks highlight. And he has to contend with ageism, which I may be guilty of myself. I still worry he could have another heart attack in the general. Scares me.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Reading, watching and chewing over this issue (Sanders/Warren) It's pretty easy to see what's happened.

First I start with the Premise that Sanders has advocated for women his entire career so WHY would he say something contrary NOW?

Second, if this was actually what he said--it was a year ago, it should have come out then, to WAIT until he's leading Warren to release it/comment on it smacks of political gamesmanship and desperation.

Third, Warren said she didn't want to discuss what was a personal chat over a year ago, BUT she said that AFTER she validated the accusation. If she really didn't want to talk about it, then why did she?

Fourth, if you read the entire article, it slants in favor of Warren.

Fifth, like some of you are realizing, Media is against Bernie--Why? It's no longer free press, not that it ever was, but big business loathes Bernie, they'll do whatever they can to stop him. That Includes the Liberal Media who simply does it in a more covert manner.


This was not in Bernie's character to do or say or believe. It IS in warren's character to stretch the truth if it might be an asset to her.

Tonight should be interesting as it is sure to come up during the debate. I trust in Bernie to hammer it home.

[The Feral Slasher]

Reading, watching and chewing over this issue (Sanders/Warren) It's pretty easy to see what's happened.

First I start with the Premise that Sanders has advocated for women his entire career so WHY would he say something contrary NOW?

Second, if this was actually what he said--it was a year ago, it should have come out then, to WAIT until he's leading Warren to release it/comment on it smacks of political gamesmanship and desperation.

Third, Warren said she didn't want to discuss what was a personal chat over a year ago, BUT she said that AFTER she validated the accusation. If she really didn't want to talk about it, then why did she?

Fourth, if you read the entire article, it slants in favor of Warren.

Fifth, like some of you are realizing, Media is against Bernie--Why? It's no longer free press, not that it ever was, but big business loathes Bernie, they'll do whatever they can to stop him. That Includes the Liberal Media who simply does it in a more covert manner.


This was not in Bernie's character to do or say or believe. It IS in warren's character to stretch the truth if it might be an asset to her.

Tonight should be interesting as it is sure to come up during the debate. I trust in Bernie to hammer it home.

Honestly I expect and hope that he will point out this is a non-issue and focus on stuff that actually matters. But I also hope he has some stuff in his back pocket if he gets attacked for this.

[The Feral Slasher]

Reading, watching and chewing over this issue (Sanders/Warren) It's pretty easy to see what's happened.

First I start with the Premise that Sanders has advocated for women his entire career so WHY would he say something contrary NOW?

Second, if this was actually what he said--it was a year ago, it should have come out then, to WAIT until he's leading Warren to release it/comment on it smacks of political gamesmanship and desperation.

Third, Warren said she didn't want to discuss what was a personal chat over a year ago, BUT she said that AFTER she validated the accusation. If she really didn't want to talk about it, then why did she?

Fourth, if you read the entire article, it slants in favor of Warren.

Fifth, like some of you are realizing, Media is against Bernie--Why? It's no longer free press, not that it ever was, but big business loathes Bernie, they'll do whatever they can to stop him. That Includes the Liberal Media who simply does it in a more covert manner.


This was not in Bernie's character to do or say or believe. It IS in warren's character to stretch the truth if it might be an asset to her.

Tonight should be interesting as it is sure to come up during the debate. I trust in Bernie to hammer it home.

It was actually interesting that WAPO gave a more balanced article on the controversy. The CNN piece was total crap by any standard. A bunch of rumors from people who were apparently not even in the meeting.

[The Feral Slasher]

It was actually interesting that WAPO gave a more balanced article on the controversy. The CNN piece was total crap by any standard. A bunch of rumors from people who were apparently not even in the meeting.

although since then they have posted some BS....

[The Feral Slasher]

mayo Pete is the consummate bullshitter. Much smoother than Joe.

[Sour Masher]

mayo Pete is the consummate bullshitter. Much smoother than Joe.

At least you admit he is smooth!

[The Feral Slasher]

At least you admit he is smooth!

ha ha, don't deny that. Just don't buy a car from him

[The Feral Slasher]

other than that you like him ! lol

[The Feral Slasher]

Bernie fucking knocked it out of the park and Elizabeth is deflecting. What a surprise