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

[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.

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

But the race was already over.  You said, in reference to Brown "I don't recall him being that vocal about it during the primaries".  Well, Warren also wasn't vocal about it during the primaries, because she didn't endorse Clinton at all until the primaries were over.  I guess, to be technical, the DC primary hadn't been held yet, so are people annoyed that she made her endorsement before DC voted?  Because otherwise, it doesn't matter.  The primary race was over, and she was endorsing for the general election.  What did people want her to do?  Wait until the convention itself before she makes her endorsement?  Why would that have made any difference?

[Lord Admirale]

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.

Did I ever say that?

[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

But the race was already over.  You said, in reference to Brown "I don't recall him being that vocal about it during the primaries".  Well, Warren also wasn't vocal about it during the primaries, because she didn't endorse Clinton at all until the primaries were over.  I guess, to be technical, the DC primary hadn't been held yet, so are people annoyed that she made her endorsement before DC voted?  Because otherwise, it doesn't matter.  The primary race was over, and she was endorsing for the general election.  What did people want her to do?  Wait until the convention itself before she makes her endorsement?  Why would that have made any difference?

You know what, I probably had a point in mind when I wrote that, but you're right. Sorry about that, I'll correct the post in question

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Warren really isn't very appealing to a lot of working class Americans because of 1) how far to the left she is 2) how arrogant and shrill she is. She excites the progressive base, but that's about all she has over Hillary. You shouldn't be running the 2020 election on hard mode by picking a candidate that is not good -- you should be running a good candidate. You can't get sh**t done if you can't help other Dems win election, and that's partly done by having a popular candidate at the top, and you especially can't get sh**t done if you lose. Democrats need to build a broader coalition so they can finally get things done.

Sherrod Brown seems pretty good. I'd like to see more of him.

[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.

[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.

I don't dispute that their are times when I've made comments in order to see what the response would be from another person, but as I've told many people, even when I'm angry, I've very deliberate and I mean everything I say.

While I realize there are a couple other women on the original list, you only expressed a concern about Elizabeth Warren, and you did so with a couple criticisms of her then when they are leveled against men, they are either regarded as a positive ('arrogant') or are brushed off (using advantages available to you is part of life, or something like that.)

You should note that I didn't accuse you of blatant or overt sexism, but implicit (or unconscious sexism.)  You support women's rights overtly, but based on your comments about Elizabeth Warren here, I think it's very fair to question whether you unconsciously believe negative stereotypes about women that play out with the idea that it's great when a man is ambitious and confident, but terrible when a woman is ambitious and confident.

There is no question in my mind that even many liberals unconsciously act on these stereotypes. So, before you call me holier-than-thou again, I'm far from perfect myself.  It's just in this case, in my life I've had almost only women as bosses, so this sort of silliness I never got into.

[136or142]

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.

Yes, and one of the significant and ridiculous hurdles is that being arrogant is a negative for women in politics but is a positive for men in politics.

[136or142]

Women do indeed face significant hurdles due to sexism.

This is precisely why we must run a man in 2020. Only a man can beat Trump. And that man's name is Bernie Sanders.

I don't know if you actually agree with that or are just using it as a way to put in a plug for Bernie Sanders, however the political world might seem to agree with you, as despite, some of the names being thrown out, the only women likely to run for the Democratic nomination are Senators Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris and Representative Tulsi Gabbard if Sanders doesn't run again (which I doubt he will.)

So, based on the numbers, the Democratic nominee in 2020 (if the world hasn't been destroyed by global thermal nuclear war by then) will likely be a male, and most likely a white male, although I'd place both Cory Booker and Deval Patrick as serious frontrunners.

[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.

Yes, and one of the significant and ridiculous hurdles is that being arrogant is a negative for women in politics but is a positive for men in politics.

Fair, but calling an individual poster a "sexist" because he is turned off by a female politician's arrogance only makes any sense if that poster isn't bothered by arrogant male politicians.  I am, and I think this poster would be, too.

[136or142]

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.

Yes, and one of the significant and ridiculous hurdles is that being arrogant is a negative for women in politics but is a positive for men in politics.

Fair, but calling an individual poster a "sexist" because he is turned off by a female politician's arrogance only makes any sense if that poster isn't bothered by arrogant male politicians.  I am, and I think this poster would be, too.

I disagree.  Try and make a credible case that doesn't ultimately rely on sexism that Hillary Clinton or Senator Elizabeth Warren are any more arrogant than the average male politician who holds high office. 

[TheSaint250]

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.

Yes, and one of the significant and ridiculous hurdles is that being arrogant is a negative for women in politics but is a positive for men in politics.

Fair, but calling an individual poster a "sexist" because he is turned off by a female politician's arrogance only makes any sense if that poster isn't bothered by arrogant male politicians.  I am, and I think this poster would be, too.

I disagree.  Try and make a credible case that doesn't ultimately rely on sexism that Hillary Clinton or Senator Elizabeth Warren are any more arrogant than the average male politician who holds high office. 

Hillary is a whole different category. I agree with Warren not being that arrogant (from what I've seen), but Hillary always made it seem like she was owed the presidency ("Why aren't I 50 points ahead in the polls, you might ask?"), and I always felt that her level of speaking was condescending.  I don't say this because she's a woman.  I say this because of her character.

[136or142]

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.

Yes, and one of the significant and ridiculous hurdles is that being arrogant is a negative for women in politics but is a positive for men in politics.

Fair, but calling an individual poster a "sexist" because he is turned off by a female politician's arrogance only makes any sense if that poster isn't bothered by arrogant male politicians.  I am, and I think this poster would be, too.

I disagree.  Try and make a credible case that doesn't ultimately rely on sexism that Hillary Clinton or Senator Elizabeth Warren are any more arrogant than the average male politician who holds high office.  

Hillary is a whole different category. I agree with Warren not being that arrogant (from what I've seen), but Hillary always made it seem like she was owed the presidency ("Why aren't I 50 points ahead in the polls, you might ask?"), and I always felt that her level of speaking was condescending.  I don't say this because she's a woman.  I say this because of her character.

I disagree that that quote from Hillary Clinton indicates that she felt she was owned the Presidency.   First, I'd like to see the full quote, but I think she was clearly trying to subtly make the point, as she  made many times, that she was the most qualified Presidential candidate, male or female, based on her resume and her expertise of public policy issues to run in many years.  I think a strong case could be made that she was the most qualified candidate to run for the Presidency in U.S history.

Were she a man running on this background and being proud of it, he likely would have won in as close to a landslide as can happen in U.S politics these days.

I also disagree that she is 'condescending.'  It may be the case that on occasion she doesn't 'suffer fools gladly' which I acknowledge a lot of people don't like whether it be a man or a woman who behaves like that, but I think it's very rare that she ever behaves that way.

[136or142]

Were she a man running on this background and being proud of it, he likely would have won in as close to a landslide as can happen in U.S politics these days.

False.

If a man tried running for President after being the second hand person to his wife for 8 years as she was President then the American public would view him as a beta male and he would've lost even worse to Trump. The "cuck" memes would destroy him.

I never mentioned her being first lady.  However, the similar position didn't prevent the thoroughly unqualified George W Bush of being in a position where the Supreme Court could elect him President.  So, I'd say your argument is false.

[136or142]

Were she a man running on this background and being proud of it, he likely would have won in as close to a landslide as can happen in U.S politics these days.

False.

If a man tried running for President after being the second hand person to his wife for 8 years as she was President then the American public would view him as a beta male and he would've lost even worse to Trump. The "cuck" memes would destroy him.

I never mentioned her being first lady.  However, the similar position didn't prevent the thoroughly unqualified George W Bush of being in a position where the Supreme Court could elect him President.  So, I'd say your argument is false.

False, again.

You said: "Were she a man running on this background" well guess what? That would have to INCLUDE being the spouse of a former President so he'd likely have a wife (or perhaps you meant a husband? Hmmm). This REQUIRES that to be assumed in your claim that he would have the same background as her to run on.

George W. Bush STOLE that election so your argument there is a classic example of false equivalency. Please reevaluate your argument.

Fine on the first part.  Are you referring to something other than George W Bush being handed the Presidency by the Supreme Court?  My point was that it was close enough in the first place that he could do that.

Of course, it also seems increasingly possible that Russia stole the election for Trump, but that would at least partly negate every argument made here, including my own.

[cwt]

I voted Merkley.

Warren is good on paper, but she's a bad public speaker. Franken is charismatic enough, but Sanders supporters will remember that he was an early Clinton supporter. Merkley was the only Senator to endorse Sanders.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=273562.0

[Blackacre]

Also remember that Sanders' voters were of two different stripes: WWC types, and young people. The latter is probably why Franken keeps getting brought up, same with Warren

[NewYorkExpress]

None of the above, because every one of Sanders's actions tell me he is running again in 2020.

[Friend]

None of them. Most people didn't vote for Bernie ( or Trump) based on policy, they voted for their precieved attitude and willingness to fight the system.