Which US senator has the capability to inherit most of Bernie Sanders primary su

[mijan]

Please vote and discuss it.

[136or142]

Even if Bernie Sanders doesn't run, I don't think most of those will (I know you only wrote 'capability.')  I wouldn't discount the possibility of Tulsi Gabbard becoming the standard bearer for the Bernie Sanders wing.

[Blair]

Even if Bernie Sanders doesn't run, I don't think most of those will (I know you only wrote 'capability.')  I wouldn't discount the possibility of Tulsi Gabbard becoming the standard bearer for the Bernie Sanders wing.

I would. People confuse Bernie activists on twitter and reddit; with the 9 million or so who supported him in the primary. Gabbard's support for Assad, and support from Bannon would make her absolutely toxic in a democratic primary, along with a whole host of other positions

[136or142]

Even if Bernie Sanders doesn't run, I don't think most of those will (I know you only wrote 'capability.')  I wouldn't discount the possibility of Tulsi Gabbard becoming the standard bearer for the Bernie Sanders wing.

I would. People confuse Bernie activists on twitter and reddit; with the 9 million or so who supported him in the primary. Gabbard's support for Assad, and support from Bannon would make her absolutely toxic in a democratic primary, along with a whole host of other positions

Sanders received about 13 million primary votes.  Anyway, the only Senators on that list likely to run I think are Senators Kamala Harris and Jeff Merkley.  I'm not convinced that either would be regarded as sufficient enough supporters of Sander's agenda, and, in the case of Merkley anyway, he's totally boring.

[SoLongAtlas]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

[136or142]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

[Lord Admirale]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

[136or142]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.  When a man is arrogant...
(he's referred to as 'strong' or 'decisive')

This nonsense of her being a 'Native American' which she allegedly claimed to be to further her career:  many of the same people who believe this idiocy is a big issue also believe that President Trump is a 'self made' businessman.

I don't think you meant to, but thanks for making my point for me.

[Lord Admirale]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.  When a man is arrogant...
(he's referred to as 'strong' or 'decisive')

This nonsense of her being a 'Native American' which she allegedly claimed to be to further her career:  many of the same people who believe this idiocy is a big issue also believe that President Trump is a 'self made' businessman.

I don't think you meant to, but thanks for making my point for me.

This post right here is what we need to purge from the Democratic Party: smugness. Also the belief that Warren or Clinton would lose/lost because of their genitals.

[136or142]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.  When a man is arrogant...
(he's referred to as 'strong' or 'decisive')

This nonsense of her being a 'Native American' which she allegedly claimed to be to further her career:  many of the same people who believe this idiocy is a big issue also believe that President Trump is a 'self made' businessman.

I don't think you meant to, but thanks for making my point for me.

This post right here is what we need to purge from the Democratic Party: smugness. Also the belief that Warren or Clinton would lose/lost because of their genitals.

And I think the sexism expressed by you is what is needed to be purged, but not just from the Democratic Party.

[Lord Admirale]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.  When a man is arrogant...
(he's referred to as 'strong' or 'decisive')

This nonsense of her being a 'Native American' which she allegedly claimed to be to further her career:  many of the same people who believe this idiocy is a big issue also believe that President Trump is a 'self made' businessman.

I don't think you meant to, but thanks for making my point for me.

This post right here is what we need to purge from the Democratic Party: smugness. Also the belief that Warren or Clinton would lose/lost because of their genitals.

And I think the sexism expressed by you is what is needed to be purged, but not just from the Democratic Party.

I'd like to see when and where I was sexist, please.

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

Warren, but I don't really think she's gonna run.

[136or142]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.  When a man is arrogant...
(he's referred to as 'strong' or 'decisive')

This nonsense of her being a 'Native American' which she allegedly claimed to be to further her career:  many of the same people who believe this idiocy is a big issue also believe that President Trump is a 'self made' businessman.

I don't think you meant to, but thanks for making my point for me.

This post right here is what we need to purge from the Democratic Party: smugness. Also the belief that Warren or Clinton would lose/lost because of their genitals.

And I think the sexism expressed by you is what is needed to be purged, but not just from the Democratic Party.

I'd like to see when and where I was sexist, please.

Your implicit sexism in saying that Senator Warren's 'arrogance' is a problem and in bringing up this silly controversy.  If you're not sexist, then please show me where a male politician faces similar widespread criticism.

For instance, do you dispute that Donald Trump or his supporters were rarely called out for referring to his business success as 'self made'?  Or do you dispute that Donald Trump is an arrogant person or that to his supporters, that isn't regarded as a good thing?

It's generally true that nearly all politicians in high office are arrogant, and yet, it seems to be only Hillary Clinton and now Elizabeth Warren for whom that is considered a problem.  I wonder if I could grab the one thing they have in common.

So, you might point out that Republicans called Obama arrogant in 2008 and Democrats referred to George W Bush as arrogant in 2004 if not 2000, but since when is the opposing party referring to a standard bearer as 'arrogant' a problem? 

While we're on the subject also, please show me where I was smug because making a comment that challenges your implicit sexism is not being smug.

[Lord Admirale]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.  When a man is arrogant...
(he's referred to as 'strong' or 'decisive')

This nonsense of her being a 'Native American' which she allegedly claimed to be to further her career:  many of the same people who believe this idiocy is a big issue also believe that President Trump is a 'self made' businessman.

I don't think you meant to, but thanks for making my point for me.

This post right here is what we need to purge from the Democratic Party: smugness. Also the belief that Warren or Clinton would lose/lost because of their genitals.

And I think the sexism expressed by you is what is needed to be purged, but not just from the Democratic Party.

I'd like to see when and where I was sexist, please.

Your implicit sexism in saying that Senator Warren's 'arrogance' is a problem and in bringing up this silly controversy.  If you're not sexist, then please show me where a male politician faces similar widespread criticism.

While we're on the subject also, please show me where I was smug.

Easy, our president. Trump has been called a narcissist quite frequently. I think that's definitely worse than being called arrogant.

Your smugness is showing as you blatantly call me sexist on no grounds whatsoever, along with a holier-than-thou attitude.

[136or142]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.  When a man is arrogant...
(he's referred to as 'strong' or 'decisive')

This nonsense of her being a 'Native American' which she allegedly claimed to be to further her career:  many of the same people who believe this idiocy is a big issue also believe that President Trump is a 'self made' businessman.

I don't think you meant to, but thanks for making my point for me.

This post right here is what we need to purge from the Democratic Party: smugness. Also the belief that Warren or Clinton would lose/lost because of their genitals.

And I think the sexism expressed by you is what is needed to be purged, but not just from the Democratic Party.

I'd like to see when and where I was sexist, please.

Your implicit sexism in saying that Senator Warren's 'arrogance' is a problem and in bringing up this silly controversy.  If you're not sexist, then please show me where a male politician faces similar widespread criticism.

While we're on the subject also, please show me where I was smug.

Easy, our president. Trump has been called a narcissist quite frequently. I think that's definitely worse than being called arrogant.

Your smugness is showing as you blatantly call me sexist on no grounds whatsoever, along with a holier-than-thou attitude.

Yes, but note that you referred to Trump as both 'called a narcissist' and President.  I.E, it didn't hurt him in the campaign, did it?  (You seem to be both sexist and not too bright. That may not be entirely fair, but once again, I think my case was made for me.)

I think I've laid out the grounds of your clear sexism, and if I'm holier than thou then what does calling for the purging of 'smug people like me' from the Democratic Party make you, Mr Kettle.

So, to sum up, if Trump's arrogance and phony credentials didn't hinder him from becoming President, why should Democrats worry if Republicans make the same arguments against Elizabeth Warren?

It couldn't be because you and others are afraid that you know these charges stick much more against a woman than they do against a man, could it?

Since that's the only rational reason it could be, I suggest you help and fight this implicit sexism rather than cave in to it.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Al Franken and Kamala Harris are pretty establishment.

A good chunk of Bernie's vote was just an anti-Clinton vote in a primary where people weren't given any real choices. Webb, Chaffe, and OMalley were stiff losers. I'm sure there is a fair number of Bernie 2016 primary voters willing to vote for someone "establishment".

[Lord Admirale]

Warren but would inherent his support with all of her negatives. Warren or Harris are the dream candidates of the RNC to run against Trump.

The only real negatives of Senator Warren politically are that she is a woman.  All of the criticisms of her are absolute nonsense.

She also comes across as arrogant and isn't very charismatic, not to mention there is still controversy swirling over if she is Native American or not.

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.  When a man is arrogant...
(he's referred to as 'strong' or 'decisive')

This nonsense of her being a 'Native American' which she allegedly claimed to be to further her career:  many of the same people who believe this idiocy is a big issue also believe that President Trump is a 'self made' businessman.

I don't think you meant to, but thanks for making my point for me.

This post right here is what we need to purge from the Democratic Party: smugness. Also the belief that Warren or Clinton would lose/lost because of their genitals.

And I think the sexism expressed by you is what is needed to be purged, but not just from the Democratic Party.

I'd like to see when and where I was sexist, please.

Your implicit sexism in saying that Senator Warren's 'arrogance' is a problem and in bringing up this silly controversy.  If you're not sexist, then please show me where a male politician faces similar widespread criticism.

While we're on the subject also, please show me where I was smug.

Easy, our president. Trump has been called a narcissist quite frequently. I think that's definitely worse than being called arrogant.

Your smugness is showing as you blatantly call me sexist on no grounds whatsoever, along with a holier-than-thou attitude.

Yes, but note that you referred to Trump as both 'called a narcissist' and President.  I.E, it didn't hurt him in the campaign, did it?  (You seem to be both sexist and not too bright. That may not be entirely fair, but once again, I think my case was made for me.)

I think I've laid out the grounds of your clear sexism, and if I'm holier than thou then what does calling for the purging of 'smug people like me' from the Democratic Party make you, Mr Kettle.

So, to sum up, if Trump's arrogance and phony credentials didn't hinder him from becoming President, why should Democrats worry if Republicans make the same arguments against Elizabeth Warren?

It couldn't be because you and others are afraid that you know these charges stick much more against a woman than they do against a man, could it?

Since that's the only rational reason it could be, I suggest you help and fight this implicit sexism rather than cave in to it.

[sarcasm]Yep, you exposed me, I'm a hardcore sexist. Get back in the kitchen, Liz![/sarcasm]

This is a blatant attempt at bait, and yes, I might've taken a bite, but literally everyone except you (and maybe Beet) knows that I'm definitely not a sexist. I've taken stands against unequal pay, calling out men on abusing their girlfriends/wives/etc., fighting against rape culture, and stood up for abortion rights. I don't need to prove it to you, because I know you'll continue to believe what you want to believe. I can't force a horse to drink water.

[Skunk]

Aren't a lot of Bernie supporters angry at Warren for "selling out"? They might still harbor a grudge over that, so I don't think she'd get the most supporters. Voted Merkley, but I could see it going to Brown as well.

[Possiblymaybe]

Aren't a lot of Bernie supporters angry at Warren for "selling out"? They might still harbor a grudge over that, so I don't think she'd get the most supporters. Voted Merkley, but I could see it going to Brown as well.

Brown also backed Hillary I am not sure why warren should bear the brunt of the anger.

[publicunofficial]

1) Franken by a mile
2) Warren
3) TIE:  Merkley/Baldwin/Harris


In a Sanders-less world, I could see Franken (In the off chance he runs for President, because he seems genuinely uninterested) dominating the primary. I think he has a lot of the same authentic, earnest charm that made Bernie really likable to a lot of people, while also being decently popular among establishment liberals. Plus Democrats kinda worship comedians.


Brown would be up there but he refuses to embrace his progressive core and seems like he wouldn't try to fit his campaign in the Sanders mold at all.

[Blair]

If you don't think that women face significant and ridiculous hurdles when they run for public office (or indeed for any senior position) then you really need to get your head out the sand.

[RINO Tom]

If you don't think that women face significant and ridiculous hurdles when they run for public office (or indeed for any senior position) then you really need to get your head out the sand.

I'm JUST crazy enough to believe you can TOTALLY believe women face "significant and ridiculous hurdles" in the political world and also think that some (including, yes, both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren) might also come across as a bit arrogant.

[Blackacre]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with this part. I am a known Sherrod Brown stan but indulge me for a second while I go over the parallels between the two Senators who ascended from the House in 2006.

• Both are considered to have among the most liberal/left/progressive voting records in the Senate
• Both are VERY socially liberal, though neither prioritizes this over economic populism
• Both support a $15 minimum wage
• Both want to reform higher education; Sanders has his free tuition proposal, Brown wants to crack down on predatory for-profit colleges
• Sanders got a lot of his primary support from WCW types; Brown's political brand is heavily union-based
• Both Sanders and Brown have a very progressive-populist ethos
• Sanders is very popular in his home state; one of Brown's big talents is retail politics
• Both voted against the Iraq War
• Trade

That last one needs some more explanation. One of Sanders' big issues was opposition to TPP and free trade deals in general. Indeed, for a lot of WCW types in Obama-Trump states, a big sticking point with HRC was that people didn't trust her to gut TPP. This is the single biggest policy gap between the two candidates and it contributed to Trump's win. I feel like a lot of Democrats we talk about would also be squeamish on issues of trade. Sherrod Brown is one of the most well-versed politicians in the country on the issue of trade. He voted against NAFTA, he opposes TPP, and he would probably oppose future free trade deals. All of those Obamax2 voters who didn't vote for HRC because of TPP would have no trouble pulling a lever for Brown, and Democrats who are more ambivalent about trade (like me) can at least rest assured that Brown knows what he's talking about on the issue. More than anything else, trade is what binds these two politicians together.

Now let's look at the differences between the two.

• Brown did not back Sanders' single-payer bill. However, he does have his own medicare buy-in proposal, which is clearly meant to be a stepping stone on the way to single-payer. (and is not linked at all to the ACA) Reasonable people can disagree on which approach is best, and I don't think this disqualifies him from being seen as a progressive.
• Brown endorsed HRC in 2016, but I don't recall him being that vocal about it during the primaries,
   unlike a Franken or a McCaskill.
• Brown is a lifelong Democrat and is comfortable working within the party structure, while Sanders is not. I can see this as a sticking point with Jfern types and other socialists, but it's worth noting that the party has not watered him down at all.
• Sanders lost the primary in part because he had trouble with black voters because he's from Vermont. Brown is from Ohio, and has been able to get the necessary black support to win his two elections.

Overall, I'd say Brown mostly fits in the Sanders mould, certainly more so than a Franken or a Warren or a Harris. They share the same ethos, the same mix of very economically progressive and secretly very socially progressive, and on the one issue where Bernie and HRC really did have a world of difference between then, trade, Brown at worst is the exact same as Sanders and may even be a better option because of how well-versed he is. The least-charitable description I'd use for Brown is "Diet Bernie," because he's like Sanders but younger, a bit less extreme on healthcare, is better at getting black support, and is a lifelong Democrat. But even that description sells Brown short because neither Brown nor Sanders leapfrogged off each other; the two entered the Senate at the same time and have been doing their thing in tandem since then.

[Mr. Morden]

• Brown endorsed HRC in 2016, but I don't recall him being that vocal about it during the primaries,
   unlike a Franken or a McCaskill or even a Warren.

Huh?  Warren didn't endorse Clinton until after every state had already held their primary, at which point Clinton had already mathematically clinched the nomination, and she was the de facto nominee.

[Blackacre]

• Brown endorsed HRC in 2016, but I don't recall him being that vocal about it during the primaries,
   unlike a Franken or a McCaskill or even a Warren.

Huh?  Warren didn't endorse Clinton until after every state had already held their primary, at which point Clinton had already mathematically clinched the nomination, and she was the de facto nominee.

She was a lot more vocal about it though, which rubbed a lot of Bernie bros the wrong way