People don't seem to think about things: if Warren endorses, it will be Clinton

[Recursion]

Last edited Mon Feb 29, 2016, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't believe this is still a question adults are talking about.

Warren won't endorse Sanders because there's no purpose to her doing so. She doesn't bring any voters to him.

The only situation in which Warren would endorse a candidate would be endorsing Clinton to deliver a mercy killing to a Sanders campaign that had gone on past viability, because that would effectively kill it (though we're not even close to that point yet).

There is not a single voter out there who would be swayed by Warren's endorsement who is not already a Sanders supporter. So her endorsement brings him absolutely nothing. It could bring Clinton some voters, though, so if she endorses (which she may well not) it would be Clinton.

EDIT: scroll down and count how many times the same video was posted in disagreement despite the fact that it perfectly makes my point. People who agree with Warren's criticism of Clinton already support Sanders, which is why Warren has something to offer Clinton and not Sanders, and which is why if she endorses (which I don't think she will) it would be Clinton.

EDIT 2: FFS I AM VOTING FOR SANDERS, people, but I can also count, and I can count that the number of voters Warren would add to Sanders' total is zero, and the number she would add to Clinton's total is greater than zero, so if she endorses, it would be Clinton.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. No freakin' way.

She is the opposite of HRC.

Good grief.

[Recursion]

6. Did you even read my post?

She is the opposite of HRC.

Yes, that is the point. She brings voters to the table for Clinton but not for Sanders, so it does absolutely no good for her to endorse Sanders. If she would ever endorse, it would only be Clinton.

[book_worm]

15. No, of course that person didn't read it. You were very clear.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Swell. I hope she stays on the sidelines, in that case.

Warren has a lot of what Clinton lacks.

And yes, I did read even your post.

[Recursion]

18. I imagine she will (nt)

[MaggieD]

2. Good point

It's a sure bet get she's not going to endorse Bernie. If she was going to she would've by now.

[72DejaVu]

3. "Silence is acceptance"

By not endorsing Bernie before the Mass primary, Warren is acquiescing in the victory of the front runner, Clinton. It's an unspoken endorsement.

[Wilms]

8. Well, if you say so...n/t

[PonyUp]

67. So all the Hillary supporters will be quiet now? n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Warren has a real agenda

She needs Democrats to help her, because Republicans will not.
She can also recognize the likelihood of of a Sanders loss.

[CentralMass]

5. IMO, that won't happen.

[Recursion]

12. I doubt she will endorse at all too (nt)

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Well ... At least until after the Primaries ...

I suspect she will give a full throated endorsement for the Democratic nominee, prior to the G/E.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Steaming mound of poorly reasoned supposition n/t

[Recursion]

9. Describe a voter Sanders would gain from a Warren endorsement

Seriously. Tell me how many votes you imagine that would gain him.

[Bleacher Creature]

10. I agree, but I really don't think it will come to that.

There have been a couple of good pieces suggesting that the Sanders campaign knows it's basically over, and is just trying to do right by his supporters (and nail down a good speaking time at the DNC).

All that said, I expect Warren to be a tremendous ally of HRC as soon as the primary is over.

[k8conant]

33. What kind of "good pieces" would those be?

That said, I expect Warren to continue to be an ally of the people (which may or may not include HRC).

[tularetom]

11. She has nothing to gain from an endorsement

Right now she has an exalted position inside the party. In the current environment, if she makes an endorsement, she will immediately alienate half the party members. Regardless of the outcome of the primary or the general election, by not endorsing, she will walk away unscathed.

Not exactly a profile in courage, but from her point of view I understand it.

[jillan]

13. ---------------------

Take 4 minutes and educate yourself on Warren's philosophy & what she thinks about Hillary's policies.

[book_worm]

17. Then why isn't she endorsing Bernie?

[jillan]

19. Most likely she doesn't want to endure the wrath of the Clintons if she does & Hillary wins.

[MgtPA]

31. Most likely, she remembers what happened to Patrick Murphy, an early Obama endorser in '08.

Clintons have a long memory for that sort of thing.

[Recursion]

21. Well, yeah, that's pretty much my point

Last edited Mon Feb 29, 2016, 11:33 PM - Edit history (2)

I wasn't saying she agrees with Clinton more than Sanders. The opposite: because she is critical of Clinton in the way that she is, it does no good for her to endorse Sanders.

[babylonsister]

14. Your crystal ball is ...

?? I don't think anyone knows what will happen. And PS, Warren is very well liked. It could make a diff.

[INdemo]

20. Dream On

If she endorses Hillary then her progressive movement and following will no longer support Warren.

Hillary Clinton is a Center Right Corporatist and Elizabeth Warren will in no way throw away her standing as a progressive by endorsing her..
It would be nearly the same as Warren endorsing one of the Republicans and we know with certainty that wont happen.
With the same certainty that she will not endorse Hillary..

[Recursion]

24. Personally I stopped reading at "corporatist" because it's a meaningless word

And, hell, I'm a Sanders supporter, albeit a reluctant one.

People like me wouldn't be swayed by a Warren endorsement very much.

People who would be swayed by a Warren endorsement kept reading, and agreed whole-heartedly that she's third-way or neoliberal or whatever else you wrote, and are already supporting Sanders too, so her endorsement brings him no new voters. What part of this is so hard for people to grasp?

[TM99]

43. Well I stopped reading at 'mercy killing'.

[Politicalboi]

22. Warren has morales

The Queen does not.

[Recursion]

26. Evo Morales? (nt)

[Bleacher Creature]

32. No, Kendrys Morales. DH for the Royals.

[Recursion]

49. The Mariners gave him up?

I really need to start paying attention to baseball again

[datguy_6]

23. Yeah...I'll disagree...

[Recursion]

36. Wow, the fourth person to post this video and prove they didn't read my post

Yes I know Warren is critical of Clinton and in fact that's the entire basis of my post.

People who agree with Warren's statements here are already supporting Sanders, so it does no good for her to endorse him in any case. The only candidate who would benefit from her endorsement is Clinton, and so if she does endorse (which she probably won't) that's who it will be.

[datguy_6]

41. She would be his best pick as a Vice President...

It shores up the women 45+ vote (Clinton's base) by making history, reinforces his outsider status in an anti-establishment election and gives a formidable VP that could take over if his health fails.

Clinton would technically benefit more in the primary, but Warren would lose all of my respect...

[Recursion]

42. I'm sorry, but that's just crazy

No, a liberal populist from New England's best pick for VP is clearly not another liberal populist from New England.

Please tell me you weren't serious.

He'll want someone more conservative and either from the South or West.

[Arazi]

25. What voters did Tulsi Gabbard bring along?

sometimes an endorsement is just about backing a person you agree with in order to make an exclamation point

[Recursion]

28. Gabbard is more hawkish than Sanders, so probably some defense voters

That's what I'm talking about: endorsements need to come from a different corner of the party to do any good.

backing a person you agree with in order to make an exclamation point

Yeah, and DU really, really needs to understand that Presidential primaries are not and never have been about self-expression.

[Arazi]

35. Why do you think she's more hawkish? She supports Sanders' position on Libya and Syria

From her interview with Bill Maher

criticized Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s advocacy for the wars in Iraq and Libya, and “the administration is essentially working hand in hand with the Islamic extremists” in Syria on Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time.”

Gabbard said, “Here’s what i’m concerned about, Bill, is that we end up in November of next year, and we end up with the frontrunner Hillary, and many of the Republican candidates that we’re seeing, who are essentially interventionists, and who are taking positions that will put us in yet another position, just as we’ve seen over the last decade of getting into a regime change, nation-building mission, which is essentially what they’re advocating for right now in Syria.”

After host Bill Maher stated that Hillary’s “kind of a hawk herself.” Gabbard responded, “Absolutely. She was a cheerleader for the Iraq War when she was in the Senate. As secretary of state, she was the — one of the strongest advocates for getting rid of Gaddafi, and we see exactly the results of that in Libya today where — in both of those instances, in Iraq as well as in Libya, the end result is our enemy is stronger, the Islamic extremists have taken over, and they’re creating more of a threat to the people there, as well as to the rest of the world.”

Regarding the president sending troops into Syria, Gabbard stated, “There’s something that bothers me more, which is a bigger issue. … If you’re sending troops into harm’s way, but you have not clearly identified and delineated what the mission is, or who the enemy is, then we’re talking about a very serious problem. No troops should be sent into harm’s way unless you have both of those things covered and that’s the issue that I have with Syria, with what’s going on there now, that the administration is essentially working hand in hand with the Islamic extremists on the ground there who are working to overthrow Assad, so that they can take over and establish their Islamic caliphate, and the president, his policy, is, you’ve got the CIA there essentially working towards the same goal.”

She added that overthrowing Assad would “strengthen our enemy.”

Edited to add link

https://m.

[Recursion]

54. Because veterans get a "hawk" bump from voters no matter what

Or maybe a better word would be a "defense" bump. She reassures a non-zero number of voters that Sanders is solid on defense, which is one of his weaker areas.

[Arazi]

55. You really think Gabbard strategized to that degree?

She decided lending her veteran status to his campaign was a wise strategic move whilst giving up her position at the DNC?

I'm sorry but I don't buy it.

Personally she lost, a lot. And I'm not at all sure her endorsement has changed the dial on Sanders' campaign one bit because she's a vet

[Recursion]

56. Sigh. No.

She decided lending her veteran status to his campaign was a wise strategic move whilst giving up her position at the DNC?

No. Read it again.

Her status as a veteran gave her something to offer Sanders. Warren doesn't have something to offer Sanders. If she had something to offer Sanders she would have endorsed him already, I imagine.

[Arazi]

57. Warren is more moderate than Sanders so she has that

FWIW, I'm playing devils advocate with you



Honestly, I believe Warren understands this election cycle isn't "normal". She understands the corruption in government better than anyone and I believe she's wisely decided to take the mandarin role.

I actually wonder if Carter (for example) might take that role too

It's the best course for them imo. I don't see either of them endorsing this year

Peace!

[Recursion]

59. Carter would be an interesting play

I'm not sure how he would factor in if he chose to make himself heard.

I see a lot of people saying Warren is more moderate but personally I don't really see any daylight between the two. Can you expand on that?

[Arazi]

60. Sure

the estate tax, legalizing marijuana and the tax on medical devices

I recognize 2/3 of these issues aren't a big deal and are a thin margin of difference but there you have it

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Excellent points all around, my friend! Simply brilliant!

[revbones]

29. I really really doubt it given what Warren has said about Clinton

[Recursion]

38. Sigh

Oh my God.

That is my point. She has something to offer Clinton (namely reassurance to people who agree with her statements in that video). That's exactly why she has nothing to offer Sanders.

[revbones]

40. I'm not sure you understand what you think you do.

She'd have to eat tremendous crow and violate a LOT of her core beliefs to endorse Hillary.

[Recursion]

44. No, she wouldn't

A lot of people are projecting a lot of things onto both candidates right now, and fortunately none of the candidates, nor Warren, live in that Jungian playground.

[revbones]

47. Yes, she would

I mean, that's the extent of your response and argument right?

[bkkyosemite]

30. So HRC might want Perez because he may bring in Bernie supporters now

you say Warren will bring in Bernie supporters to HRC...........

[Enrique]

37. that's one theory

but maybe there different reasons for people to endorse.

[Recursion]

39. No, there aren't.

This isn't self-expression or self-actualization or whatever else. Nobody's feelings are actually important here. This is electoral politics, and she knows that she has nothing to offer Sanders in this case.

[Arazi]

45. Your theory doesn’t hold up for someone like Gabbard

I don't think anything is "normal " this election cycle.

The old " rules" are getting changed daily

[Recursion]

46. My theory exactly holds up for Gabbard, who is a moderate establishment Democrat

Hell she's even been called a "conservative" on this site (I'd rate her more as a moderate).

She brings voters to the table for Sanders, particularly people worried about his defense creds.

[Arazi]

52. she has the exact same positions as Sanders

On Iraq, Syria, Libya - exactly what voters will she bring if her position mirrors his?

And hell, every politician and group endorsing Sanders is "establishment " lol!

Very few are to the left of him and frankly, off hand, I can't think of any (especially in the endorsements )

Even Warren is more moderate - so why wouldn't she also bring those voters to Bernie if we're going with that theory?

[Recursion]

53. There are very few actual positions on which Clinton and Sanders disagree

There's not actually that much policy diversity in the Democratic party to begin with, despite all the drama.

On Iraq, Syria, Libya - exactly what voters will she bring if her position mirrors his?

Well, Hawaiians for one (geography is yet another reason a Warren endorsement doesn't really help Sanders much). Her articulation of her Iraq position is very different from Sanders; she sees the main problem to be the fact that the US never established actual concrete strategic goals (this is basically my position too).

Also the fact that she was DNC vice chair is important, because she helps him with party activists who are worried he's running against the committee.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Oh, Snap! ...

Caution: Zone Ahead.

I tend to agree, though I hadn't considered the campaign end thought.

[msongs]

50. the sanders crowd dislikes women who used to be republicans. nt

[tammywammy]

58. Good analysis. Rec.

[AtomicKitten]

62. You are confusing an endorsement w/ picking a running mate.

An endorsement is recommending a candidate.

Vetting a VP/running mate involves considering what voting blocks they bring to the table.

Two very different functions.

[McCamy Taylor]

63. There is room under the bus for Warren, too.

[AtomicKitten]

64. that is after all where you Clinton fans left her when you thought she might run for president

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Funny ... I don't recall a moment when any Democrat thought she might run for President ...

especially, after she said, repeatedly, "I'm not running for President."

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. K&R