https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/13/21063656/bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren-tension-explained

It honestly seems like a non-issue to me.

golden sloth said:

---

It honestly seems like a non-issue to me.

---

I would tend to agree, but I assume women voters wouldn't particularly appreciate a male candidate saying a woman couldn't win the election. I definitely think a woman candidate could win. Only thing stopping them is the number of female Republican voters who would never vote for a non-Republican and they definitely won't be nominating any female candidates for president anytime soon.

Except that's not what happened .. Warren lied through her teeth about the alleged statement, which was clearly evident by her body language question was asked.

Abby Phillips should ask for a refund on her Harvard degree if that's the level of education she received. Clearly she never learned ethics or what tye duties of moderator entailed .

Grigsby said:

---

Except that's not what happened .. Warren lied through her teeth about the alleged statement, which was clearly evident by her body language question was asked.

Abby Phillips should ask for a refund on her Harvard degree if that's the level of education she received. Clearly she never learned ethics or what tye duties of moderator entailed .

---

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/cnn-debate-moderator-abby-phillip-doesnt-accept-bernies-denial-that-he-said-women-cant-win-in-2020/

I didn't watch the debate, so I wasn't sure whom you referring to. People can watch the video if they didn't watch the debate (I didn't) and judge for themselves.

As to what the truth is, the voters will have to decide for themselves. I think it's reasonable for him to have his staffers pointing out what the demographics are for most of Warren's supporters. It's not disparaging her or her stances in any way.

The video he was referring to about what he had said previously is in this tweet.

Vote blue no matter who

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Only thing stopping them is the number of female Republican voters who would never vote for a non-Republican and they definitely won't be nominating any female candidates for president anytime soon.

---

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times
And he'll have good times
Doin' things that you don't understand
But if you love him you'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand

Grigsby said:

---

Except that's not what happened .. Warren lied through her teeth about the alleged statement, which was clearly evident by her body language question was asked.

Abby Phillips should ask for a refund on her Harvard degree if that's the level of education she received. Clearly she never learned ethics or what tye duties of moderator entailed .

---

I don't think this should be an issue for Bernie but based on everything I've read, it doesn't appear that Warren is lying.

Either way, I don't see anything standing in Biden's way as his lead hasn't diminished in months.

dajo9 said:

---

Vote blue no matter who

---

And if blue is not available, never vote red

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Either way, I don't see anything standing in Biden's way as his lead hasn't diminished in months.

---

If he loses the first two states (especially if it's to the same person, probably Bernie) you might see that happen. Voters don't want to back a loser, and Biden's whole case is being the safe choice.

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Either way, I don't see anything standing in Biden's way as his lead hasn't diminished in months.

---

If he loses the first two states (especially if it's to the same person, probably Bernie) you might see that happen. Voters don't want to back a loser, and Biden's whole case is being the safe choice.

---

Possible but Biden's firewall is really #3 South Carolina

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Either way, I don't see anything standing in Biden's way as his lead hasn't diminished in months.

---

If he loses the first two states (especially if it's to the same person, probably Bernie) you might see that happen. Voters don't want to back a loser, and Biden's whole case is being the safe choice.

---

Possible but Biden's firewall is really #3 South Carolina

---

I doubt he loses there. But SC is actually 4th, after Nevada. Biden could conceivably lose the first three and then even a win in SC means he's lost 3 of 4 and he looks bad going into Super Tuesday.

I'm not saying that's most likely, just that I do see a way Biden could lose.

CNN released the audio from the Warren Sanders exchange. It it is entirely consistent with the conclusion that Warren is telling the truth and that Sanders isn't.

This isn't a campaign killer, but it's a dumb lie and you would like to think Sanders and his team could find a better way to handle the situation.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-audio/index.html

Unit2Sucks said:

---

CNN released the audio from the Warren Sanders exchange. It it is entirely consistent with the conclusion that Warren is telling the truth and that Sanders isn't.

This isn't a campaign killer, but it's a dumb lie and you would like to think Sanders and his team could find a better way to handle the situation.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-audio/index.html

---

I think it's entirely possible that two people can remember a conversation differently without either of them lying about it.

bearister said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Only thing stopping them is the number of female Republican voters who would never vote for a non-Republican and they definitely won't be nominating any female candidates for president anytime soon

---

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Grigsby said:

---

Except that's not what happened .. Warren lied through her teeth about the alleged statement, which was clearly evident by her body language question was asked.

Abby Phillips should ask for a refund on her Harvard degree if that's the level of education she received. Clearly she never learned ethics or what tye duties of moderator entailed .

---

I don't think this should be an issue for Bernie but based on everything I've read, it doesn't appear that Warren is lying.

---

Based on?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

CNN released the audio from the Warren Sanders exchange. It it is entirely consistent with the conclusion that Warren is telling the truth and that Sanders isn't.

This isn't a campaign killer, but it's a dumb lie and you would like to think Sanders and his team could find a better way to handle the situation.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-audio/index.html

---

How so? It's not like CNN had the audio from the 2018 private conversation. I'm fairly cynical about Sanders, but him saying that women can't win the presidential election is completely out of his character and personal beliefs.

As well, Warren is a habitual liar, she has no credibility here, she's taking a page out of the identity politics/sexism Hillary playbook. It didn't work for Kamala and it won't work for her.

Finally, her boasting about being a winner at elections really is very hollow, I mean how difficult is it to beat a Republican in Massachusetts?

Biden is the main winner here.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

CNN released the audio from the Warren Sanders exchange. It it is entirely consistent with the conclusion that Warren is telling the truth and that Sanders isn't.

---

I don't see that. I see it as Warren's campaign releasing a rumor, her pretending that she didn't want to make it into a fight, and then restarting that fight immediately after the debate.

I'm no Shaun King fan, nor a Morning Joe fan, but this pretty well sums up what's going on.

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

The dumb thing about it is that Sanders is one of the last people in this election that you would want to try and make a successful case that he's a misogynist. Because if that's not the argument you're trying to make and that he just thought it would be difficult for a woman to deal with Trump, then why did your campaign ever bring it up in the first place?

Saying you don't think a woman can win is not misogynistic. Hillary would have won had she been a man because there are enough misogynists who won't vote for a women.

I don't think Warren would have remained on good terms with Bernie if she thought he was misogynistic. That doesn't mean that Bernie didn't say a women wouldn't win in 2020.

I'm still not entirely sure why this issue was ever raised as it's not a huge winner for Warren. Maybe it came out of one of the other candidate's camps to attack both Warren and Bernie.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm still not entirely sure why this issue was ever raised as it's not a huge winner for Warren. Maybe it came out of one of the other candidate's camps to attack both Warren and Bernie.

---

I could see that

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

---

You clearly dislike Warren, and that's fine. None of the things you call out as lies are lies, and that's fine. But what I wanted to talk about was this Native American business.

I haven't followed the story in depth so their may be nuances I don't know because I've always considered the issue to be a distraction and a smear, which I generally try to ignore (a lot like the whole issue of this thread). But it surprises me that somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing when we all know that is how the game is played. I personally know a rich, white, oil family who is now 2nd generation Ivy League assisted by "Native American". heritage. Dartmouth began as a school for Native Americans and to this day has a rule that Native Americans (1/32nd at least) get priority. Per a Dartmouth friend of mine, the school is overrepresented with white kids from places like North Dakota and Oklahoma. I mean, if you have a little Native American blood you put it in your college application - that's how the world is playing the game. I get that Warren takes criticism for that from the public in general, but I'm surprised to see it from Cal grads who are generally savvy about how these things are done.

That level of internalization of moral and political corruption is really pathetic.

It is also the source of most economic and political problems in our society and what needs to be changed.

Cal88 said:

---

That level of internalization of moral and political corruption is really pathetic.

It is also the source of most economic and political problems in our society and what needs to be changed.

---

The Trump and Bush families routinely buying their way into prestigious universities is far more emblematic of our economic and political problems.

A middle / lower class person playing the game as it is and winning is not the problem.

Warren is not a "middle/lower class person playing the game", she's an opportunist who is achieve=ing great wealth and power by being a cog in this game. That's what Obama also did, posing as a Chicago street social activist while whoring for Wall Street, and getting rewarded with a nine figure fortune for this.

Trump won precisely because he took down the two dynasties that dominated both parties, the Bushes and the Clintons. I'm not endorsing him here, not after the latest foreign policy disaster, but just stating a fact here.

Cal88 said:

---

Warren is not a "middle/lower class person playing the game", she's an opportunist who is achieve=ing great wealth and power by being a cog in this game. That's what Obama also did, posing as a Chicago street social activist while whoring for Wall Street, and getting rewarded with a nine figure fortune for this.

Trump won precisely because he took down the two dynasties that dominated both parties, the Bushes and the Clintons. I'm not endorsing him here, not after the latest foreign policy disaster, but just stating a fact here.

---

You seem to give a pass to people who are obvious about grand scale corruption (i.e. Trump) while being very hard on people whose corruption is much more arguable, small scale, and in reality reflects an ambitious entrepreneurial spirit that we generally praise in America (unless it's done by a Democrat, apparently). I think your "facts" reflect some serious biases.

dajo9 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Warren is not a "middle/lower class person playing the game", she's an opportunist who is achieve=ing great wealth and power by being a cog in this game. That's what Obama also did, posing as a Chicago street social activist while whoring for Wall Street, and getting rewarded with a nine figure fortune for this.

Trump won precisely because he took down the two dynasties that dominated both parties, the Bushes and the Clintons. I'm not endorsing him here, not after the latest foreign policy disaster, but just stating a fact here.

---

You seem to give a pass to people who are obvious about grand scale corruption (i.e. Trump) while being very hard on people whose corruption is much more arguable, small scale, and in reality reflects an ambitious entrepreneurial spirit that we generally praise in America (unless it's done by a Democrat, apparently). I think your "facts" reflect some serious biases.

---

He is attacking liberal hypocrisy while you are defending it.

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one candidate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm known for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Warren is not a "middle/lower class person playing the game", she's an opportunist who is achieve=ing great wealth and power by being a cog in this game. That's what Obama also did, posing as a Chicago street social activist while whoring for Wall Street, and getting rewarded with a nine figure fortune for this.

Trump won precisely because he took down the two dynasties that dominated both parties, the Bushes and the Clintons. I'm not endorsing him here, not after the latest foreign policy disaster, but just stating a fact here.

---

You seem to give a pass to people who are obvious about grand scale corruption (i.e. Trump) while being very hard on people whose corruption is much more arguable, small scale, and in reality reflects an ambitious entrepreneurial spirit that we generally praise in America (unless it's done by a Democrat, apparently). I think your "facts" reflect some serious biases.

---

He is attacking liberal hypocrisy while you are defending it.

---

You are implying that conservative, obvious, grand scale corruption is not hypocrisy - it is the modus operandi

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one caudate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm know for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

It was never going to last forever. This is just politics. At some point you have to try knocking down your competition.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one caudate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm know for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

Warren is tacking to the establishment center- she basically threw aside her health care program and suddenly has ptsd recognition of a 2018 conversation with Sanders days before Iowa . This is due to her down numbers but wouldn't be too surprised if her long game also is to be a VP candidate. For Biden, it gives him a woman and seemingly consolidates the "left" and center wings. ( I doubt this will be true but so what). For her part if Biden wins she has a good shot at being President- possibly sooner than later- given his onset dementia

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one caudate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm know for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

Warren is tacking to the establishment center- she basically threw aside her health care program and suddenly has ptsd recognition of a 2018 conversation with Sanders days before Iowa . This is due to her down numbers but wouldn't be too surprised if her long game also is to be a VP candidate. For Biden, it gives him a woman and seemingly consolidates the "left" and center wings. ( I doubt this will be true but so what). For her part if Biden wins she has a good shot at being President- possibly sooner than later- given his onset dementia

---

I think Biden goes with a woman of color, who is not scary to Wall Street or more independent voters. Maybe Harris or Abrams (also works the south angle).

A Warren "unity ticket" with both of them makes some sense, so long as the primaries don't get too down and dirty. You'd have gender and ideological balance, I suppose. But you'd also have two really old people, and if the ticket won, Democrats would lose a Senate seat from Massachusetts (the state's governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican, albeit barely). There is the additional problem fo Warren being outspoken and difficult: 1) stealing President Joe's thunder, and (2) driving voters away. If I'm going with white women, such as Whitmer (right age, wins elections, photogenic) or Whaley (right age, his profile, wins elections) from the Midwest make more sense.

The other side is what if Biden picks an Obama, perhaps Michelle?