Bill Scher, RCP: Not Enough Room in 2020 Primary for Sanders and Warren

[highplainsdem]

Curious to know what other DUers here think of Scher's analysis. I've been saying for a while that I don't expect either Warren or Sanders to step aside in favor of the other in an attempt to unite progressive voters behind a single candidate.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/12/not_enough_room_in_2020_primary_for_sanders_and_warren_140987.html

Biden’s current lead is hardly insurmountable. He generally polls in the low 30s nationally. In post-debate state polls, he notched 28% support in Iowa, and just 21% in New Hampshire. If you took the two candidates with the greatest appeal on the left – Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – and melded them together, that candidate would tie Biden in Iowa and beat him in New Hampshire.

However, neither Sanders nor Warren has any incentive to step aside for the other. Each polls well enough to justify staying in the race, as almost every national and state poll has them in second or third place. And each has built a huge small-donor base — approximately 746,000 donors for Sanders and 421,000 for Warren, according to the New York Times — which will keep them well-financed throughout the primaries.

But there’s no getting the around the fact that Sanders and Warren are in each other’s way. If Biden’s level of support has a hard floor of around 30% nationally and in Iowa, then neither Sanders nor Warren can afford to splinter the leftist vote, especially because there’s so little either can poach from the second- and third-tier candidates.

Warren, as of this moment, appears to have more opportunity to broaden her base than Sanders, but that’s only of marginal potential benefit. In last week’s national Morning Consult poll, Warren is the top second choice of both Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg supporters, who have been in fourth and fifth place, respectively, in most surveys. Harris and Buttigieg are moderates compared to Warren and Sanders. (Harris recently told the New York Times that, unlike Warren and Sanders, “I’m not trying to restructure society.” Buttigieg opposes single-payer health insurance and universal free college.) But in that poll, Harris and Buttigieg combine for only 15% of the vote, and only about one-quarter of those voters would jump to Warren — roughly amounting to about a 3-to-4-percentage-point gain. Plus, Biden is the second choice of about one-fifth of the Harris-Buttigieg voters, meaning if those candidates faded, Warren wouldn’t easily make up much ground.

Moreover, neither Sanders nor Warren could immediately claim the entirety of the other’s support if one did drop out. According to the Morning Consult poll, the second-choice of most Sanders supporters is not Warren, but Biden. About a quarter of Sanders supporters would shift to Warren, presumably because of their ideological proximity. But almost one-third would go to Biden, evidence that ideology is not the only factor driving voter decisions. (For Warren supporters, Sanders is the top second choice, with 25%. But 22% would go to Harris and another 17% would go to Biden.) Demographic appeal and electability concerns are also likely factors.

-snip-

However, it’s not much of a strategy to wait for Biden to implode, as it puts Biden in control of his own destiny. If progressive populists want to seize control of the primary, and the party, they would be best served by taking action. Since neither Warren nor Sanders can be expected to sacrifice their candidacy to boost the other before Iowa and New Hampshire, the only way for left-wing voters to maximize their influence is by taking the initiative to consolidate around a single candidate.

-snip-

I have to admit I have no idea how progressive voters could begin to do that, since they don't have their own convention. Scher mentions the Democratic Socialists of America endorsing Sanders, but they're a small group.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

[comradebillyboy]

1. As a left-center type I'm perfectly happy to see

Sanders and Warren cancel each other. All other things aside it appears as though Warren is improving her position and Bernie is slowly sinking. Warren is just a much better candidate than Sanders.

[highplainsdem]

3. As a Biden supporter, I'm not going to mind if they cancel each other out, either. But since I've

seen supporters of both Warren and Sanders fantasizing openly online about their candidate's rival stepping aside, I was wondering how their supporters would respond to Scher's analysis.

I know Warren and Sanders have a non-aggression pact. They agreed on that late last year. But a couple of months ago Sanders aide David Sirota said he was sure Sanders would win a brokered convention, which would pretty much mean progressives keeping Biden from getting enough delegates to win on the first ballot, and then Warren stepping aside in favor of Sanders. I can't see Warren or her supporters going along with that.

And while Scher's suggestion that progressives could voluntarily unite around either Warren or Sanders, back only one, would solve the problem caused for them by their splitting the progressive vote, I just don't know how progressives could begin to reach that sort of agreement.

[crazytown]

6. Bernie will step aside in a pine overcoat

expect him to contest the convention

[highplainsdem]

7. That wouldn't surprise me. Neither would his campaign going after Warren before

the first primaries if he thinks that's the only way to keep her from appearing to be the standard bearer for progressives at a brokered convention.

[crazytown]

12. The latest A+ Monmouth poll for IA has Bernie 4th

Aug 8 - JB 28, EW 19, KH 11, BS 9, PB 8.

The assumption that Sanders voters will go to Warren is wrong.
Addendum - the last person to go after Warren ended up as road kill (Delaney)

[paulkienitz]

61. Present polls aren't the indicator of what's going to happen.

In my view, the fundamentals are simple: Warren has almost all of Sanders' strengths and few of his weaknesses. Unless someone is sexist, she's going to win any one-on-one choice between them.

[Cosmocat]

62. IMO - Bernie might get some of EWs support, but is more topped off than she is

Bernie's box is tighter, and I would hazzard a guess he does not have a lot of second choice votes.

EW has more appeal, while probably would pick up more from Bernie dropping than vice versa.

[Thekaspervote]

8. Except polls show sanders supporters 2nd choice candidate is Biden, not warren

[JudyM]

43. That does not sound right, regardless.

[highplainsdem]

47. Whether or not that sounds right to us, my recollection is that more than one pollster has been

finding the same result -- that if Sanders steps aside, Biden will get as many of his supporters as Warren will.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. I am so tempted to go all Monty Python and claim I am center-left...

and categorically deny any affiliation with or support of the left-center.

More to the point, though, is that it's early yet, but you're right about Sanders appearing to be sinking. He spent years building a place for disaffected leftists to call home after Clinton brought us a little right of center. Some of them will always remain in the cult, but many are realizing that we can't have a revolution. We can only affect change.

[lapucelle]

27. "Clinton brought us a little right of center"

Facts are stubborn things.



Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal

https://bit.ly/2Z1KfPC

[TreasonousBastard]

29. I was thinking of Bill. Hillary never became President.

[lapucelle]

31. Bill's infograph and that of a Justice Democrat endorsee (for context)

Bill Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal

https://bit.ly/2YZpZy8

********************************************************************************************



Ilhan Omar is a Populist-Leaning Liberal

https://bit.ly/2H5KNdg

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Aren't those charts based on questionnaires asking candidates about positions? Clinton may...

have had leftish attitudes, but he governed from the center most of the time.

[lapucelle]

38. No. The charts are based the legislative record and verified public statements

across the entirety of a politician's/candidate's career.

How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate's stance on each VoteMatch question:

We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate's VoteMatch table.

We assign an individual score for each item on the list. The scores can be: Strongly Favor, Favor, Neutral/Mixed, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. The scoring terms refer to the text of the question, not whether the candidate strongly opposed a bill, for example.

We then average the individual scores, using the numeric scale: Strongly Favor = 2, Favor = 1, Neutral/Mixed = 0, Oppose = -1, Strongly Oppose = -2.

If the average is above 1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Favor.
If the average is above 0, the overall answer to the question is Favor.
If the average is exactly 0, the overall answer to the question is Neutral.
If the average is below 0, the overall answer to the question is Oppose.
If the average is below -1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Oppose.

When you do a VoteMatch quiz, your answers are compared to each candidates' overall answer to come up with a matching percentage.

To get the political philosophy of the candidate, we sum up the answers on two scales, the Personal/Social scale and the Economic Scale. Some questions aren't used in the political philosophy calculations.

The VoteMatch table indicates the number of scale points from each answer (any one question can provide from 0 to 10 scale points on one scale or the other).

The combination of social/moral scales and economic scales produces a political philosophy description. A more detailed explanation appears below.

******************************************************************************************

The candidates/politicians do not fill out questionnaires.

*******************************************************************************************

OnTheIssues.org

Our mission is to provide non-partisan information for voters in the Presidential election, so that votes can be based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity.

We get our information daily from newspapers, speeches, press releases, and the Internet.

******************************************************************************************

OnTheIssues.org Staff

Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg, President & CEO (MA Columbia University, PhD Indiana University)

Jesse Gordon, editor-in-chief & content manager (MPP Harvard University)

Will Rico, marketing and advertising
Pete Hoerr, Supreme Court editing
Jamie & Adam Leighton, political books
Sanjaya Ghimire, technical

Staff
Mary Ellen Quinn, editor
Daniel Kimmel, editor
Josh & Marissa Hoerr & Will Hayes, excerpting
Jay and Kate Camara, excerpting
Ram Lau, editor emeritus
Alan K. Jansen, Libertarian Party & 3rd-party candidates (BA Brandeis University)
Bill Cooke, political books (BA Boston University, currently at U. Wisconsin-Madison)
Michele & Janice Gordon, political books
Dan & Irma Teittinnen, political books

https://www.ontheissues.org/about.htm

[TreasonousBastard]

39. Kinda leans toward my point-- quite a bit of weight on things they say, and...

therefore interpretations of things they say.

Not so much on what they did, although that is admittedly a lot more difficult to qualify with our system of constant dealmaking.

[lapucelle]

41. On The Issues.org examines both legislative records and statements.

So,

No the chart isn't based on a politician's "self-assessment" via a questionnaire

And

No, the chart is based on BOTH the politician's actual record AND the politician's public statements.

So actually it doesn't lean anywhere near your point. It is actually nothing like the system you assuned.

How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate's stance on each VoteMatch question:

We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate's VoteMatch table.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. A bit too heavly on speeches and press releases, I would think. But no matter how...

they arrive at their conclusions, the fact is that they place Clinton on exactly the same place on the chart as a Justice Democrat.

Isn't that just a little odd?

But, this is getting too far from my original point. I may not have made it clear in my first post on this, but it makes little difference just what Clinton was-- it was his effect on the country and much of the Democratic Party.

New Democrats, Third Way, and all that...

[lapucelle]

50. I trust the experts who collect, organize and analyze data based on consistent, criteria referenced

professional standards.

It would not be surprising if what a layman perceives based on agenda driven story lines and narratives from self-selected (and often bias-confirming) sources doesn't line up with what a data analyst determines based on a careful, thorough, and objective examination of a politician's actual record statements.

[betsuni]

36. "Clinton brought us a little right of center." No, that was the Republicans: Contract with America.

Republicans had the House, damage control.

"In the end, as their representatives in Washington should have known all along, even those voters who revered Ronald Reagan, and cheered on the contract-signing candidates in principle, were not ready, when they learned that freed markets would leave them with sole responsibility for their own fates, to give up their Social Security and Medicare, their public schools and their government-backed air, water, and earth protections. As important, Bill Clinton's legendary ability to 'triangulate' -- taking on as his own some of the goals they proposed while drawing the line against such extreme measures as a balanced budget amendment -- took the steam out of the House GOP's sails. To be repeatedly outwitted by Clinton, a president the radical right had spent much effort and untold treasure trying to undermine, made the sting of defeat all the more sharp."

Nancy MacLean, "Democracy in Chains."

[TreasonousBastard]

37. Yeah, a lot of it was from the war game with Gingrich, but he was president, so...

he gets the hit.

Besides, I don't remember him championing that many great liberal ideas. But, we could go on forever nitpicking those years and accomplish little. My point is simply that I think those charts are flawed.

[betsuni]

40. Universal health care was one.

1993. Hillary was in charge of it.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Yup. But Nixon tried that, too. And he didn't get too far either. I'm not saying Clinton didn't...

give it his best shot, but the cards just weren't right that day.

Criminal justice and welfare reforms weren't so much reforms as gifts to the right wing-- little things like expanding the federal death penalty and restricting federal benefits. He did get us SCHIP, which was a very good thing, but deregulated Wall St.

And NAFTA which I thought was a reasonably good thing, but liberals are all over themselves complaining about trade deals.

Yet another thing that can be picked apart and argued about forever, to no good purpose.

Oh, we did go 8 years without a major war. That's certainly a good thing. No doubt a large part of the reason he ended two terms with a budget surplus.

[betsuni]

46. The "both sides" thing burns my bacon.

The idea that either of the Clintons, or Al Gore, or President Obama wouldn't have passed all the progressive policies: universal health care, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, green energy, regulations on finance and industries, higher minimum wages, etc., if they had filibuster proof majorities in the legislature. Because they're secretly just like Republicans. Absurd.

I want people to stop repeating lies like that Obama never wanted a public option in the ACA. That the Democratic Party has shifted to the Right. That universal health care, higher minimum wages, etc., were radical ideas until 2016. That Democrats are corrupt because of campaign donations. It's stupid and they should stop.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. I said that?

[betsuni]

49. No, not about you. Was just saying.

I see this all over the internet.

[paulkienitz]

2. I think Warren will consolidate the progressive vote smoothly as Sanders fades.

I don't see any need to prematurely hustle one candidate or the other off the stage. One progressive in the debate gets dismissed as an outlier; two constitutes a movement.

I predicted months ago that Biden and Warren would probably be the last two left standing, assuming he doesn't blow it, and I still think that's looking likely.

[NewJeffCT]

9. That may be how it goes

but, would Joe select her as a running mate, or maybe go with Harris or Abrams?

[paulkienitz]

10. Somehow I don't see Joe selecting a strong challenger as a running mate.

[hedda_foil]

13. I agree. I'd expect him to choose Booker.

Nice, moderate, black guy who's appealing but won't steal whatever thunder Joe has left. On the other hand, I don't expect Biden to be the nominee, so I'll take my own opinion with a grain of salt.

[highplainsdem]

16. I'd guess Stacey Abrams is more likely. Or Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms.

[Thekaspervote]

18. Stacey Abrams has said several times that VP is a NO!

[highplainsdem]

23. Um, no she didn't. She shot down rumors that she was already considering being Biden's running mate

last spring. She was leaving open the option that she might enter the race for the presidency herself.

But she also said this:

https://thinkprogress.org/abrams-biden-vp-rumors-view-0d38a224a3e5/

In addition to potentially entering the presidential primary, Abrams said she is considering running for Senate or running for governor again. Abrams also said she would consider joining Biden on the ticket if he were to become the nominee.

“Running in a primary to be vice president is very different than someone who has been selected by the party as the nominee asking you to serve as a partner, and I am open to all options,” she said.

Emphasis added.

Imagine her debating Mike Pence...if Trump agrees to any debates.

[paulkienitz]

60. That would be a pretty good fit, I guess

[highplainsdem]

15. Sanders isn't going to fade, for reasons Scher explains. I expect Sanders to go after Warren

very strongly between now and the end of the year. When they agreed on that non-aggression pact, late last year, Warren was no threat to Sanders in the polling. It made sense for Sanders to want to be able to ignore her campaign, just as it made sense for her not to want to confront Sanders while trying to build up her base of support with the left wing of the Democratic Party.

At the moment, the Sanders campaign is arguining with a reporter for The Atlantic over who had the larger crowd at the Iowa State Fair, Sanders or Warren:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://www.iowapublicradio.org/post/warren-draws-largest-crowd-so-far-state-fair

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/bernie-sanders-iowa-state-fair/


They're not likely to ever get a definitive answer about which one drew the larger crowd.

But the replies to Sanders advisor David Sirota's tweet include arguments that the media is trying to builld Warren up to hurt Sanders, or to hurt both Warren and Sanders by dividing their vote. One person replying posted a tweet from another reporter about Warren's crowd including people stuck in line for a concert, not there to hear her speak. A couple of the replies attack Warren for supposedly not being a genuine progressive.

This is why I think it's illusory for Warren supporters to hope that Sanders will quietly fade away and his supporters will back her.

[Cha]

25. Who does nina turner think she

is claiming larger crowd size?

Don't answer that!

[emmaverybo]

57. Resent the idea that Biden might "blow it." He didn't blow it all those years in the senate, as a

high ranking member and chairman, and he didn’t “blow it” as highly respected and actively engaged VP over two terms.

In fact, he hasn’t “blown it” once in his long and impressive career.

Biden is not constantly on the verge of committing political suicide. No slip of the tongue or so-called “gaffe” has ever destroyed him.

The destruction of his candidacy will come from strong and hostile opposition as found in the media, among a few political rivals, and from the promotion and spread of false narratives that depend on ageism, willful misinterpretation, and outright lies.

One of those persistent and false narratives is that he is always teetering on the edge. No. He is the most successful and seasoned politician running in the primaries. His candidacy has legs, solid ones.

Don’t let him fool you. He’s powerful. He knows what he’s doing.

[FBaggins]

5. There's plenty of room for now

I think it's true that if either one dropped out (especially if (s)he then endorsed the other... and perhaps started talking about a joint ticket) it would immediately change the character of the race and Biden would lose whatever presumption he currently enjoys.

But I see little reason for that to happen prior to the start of primary season. Even were they to decide on that today, it would still make sense to stay in the race to double their debate presence.

[Thekaspervote]

19. sanders supporters choose Biden as their #2 not warren. So no, Biden would not

“Loose whatever presumption he currently enjoys.”

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/430261-sanders-biden-seen-as-most-popular-second-choices-for-dem

[KPN]

11. Warren's trajectory has been up. Over the same time, Biden's has been slightly down. This will

likely continue, though I don't see Bernie fading much further myself. I don't see progressive voters consolidating behind one or the other -- they are no more uniform than the Democratic Party is. It could come down to a brokered convention?

[crazytown]

14. Note last IA poll

Aug 8, Monmouth A+ Rated
JB 28, EW 19, KH 11, BS 9, PB 8.

[Hortensis]

17. Paid a rare visit to that hostile little rabbit-hole satellite forum,

wondering what was being said over there. This is the first and only thread I opened and may not be entirely representative. (Understanding that this is also Sanders' anti-Democratic Party wing and not representative of all his DU supporters.) All this outrage against Democrats was in response to Bloomberg's evading whether he'd support either Warren or Sanders if one got the nomination.

* Quite looking forward to the UNITY!!!! bullshit that will/may be deposited here if Bernie is not the candidate. Always good for a snicker. Not to mention the Serious and Tendentious and Quite Tedious screeds intoned in response to some cherry-picked word or phrase concerning the DNC Inc. corruption.

I do think there is an “equate Warren with Bernie at all times and then we can slide Warren and her MARKETS right into place to get Bernie’s supporters on board” effort going on. Prez or VP to favored Vichy Dem, sprinkled with lots of women-card bullshit. Like hilbot Bee interviewing younger female voters. Sorry, but approval of Bernie-hating Wall Street and Barney Frank? That is a big NOPE for me. Bwahahaha! Don’t know if it is just me, but trying to click on the Rec button is like playing Whack-A-Mole right now. Yes, I am signed in!

* And yet they still think Vote Blue No Matter Who is the name of the game. That ship has sailed.

* Actually that ship sank. They have done nothing that indicates they plan to support a fair election.

* I will not vote for a Vichy Dem. Period. As always, I decide who is a Vichy Dem. Bernie's ISSUES or Bust!

* It is Bernie and in a real pinch, Tulsi/Warren or bust.

Sounds as if some or all consider Warren a "Vichy Dem" (traitor) along with the other candidates, but what is very clear is that the people on this thread emphatically do not consider her an either-or for Bernie Sanders. (And that they will not be voting Democrat. )

I actually agree with them that Warren is not in any way a Bernie Sanders alternative and have pointed that out a bunch of times. Eventually Warren will get that across to Democratic voters (or die on Sanders pyre), which all mean Bill Scher is drawing false comparisons.

[highplainsdem]

20. I've been seeing a lot of posts like that on Twitter all year.

And there are also, at least on Twitter, a lot of Warren supporters who consider Sanders unelectable and want him to step aside.

[Hortensis]

22. Exactly. In personality, backgrounds, and ideology verrry different.

Anyone who spent 30 minutes total reading about each of them knows that, 6 max if they lucked into the right two-sentence article, allowing time to read it twice to make sure they got it all.

[highplainsdem]

21. Btw, I believe Scher is completely correct that Warren and Sanders are dividing the left wing

of the Democratic Party.

And my guess is that if either of them HAD to leave the race for non-political reasons, for instance for health reasons, their supporters would coalesce to some extent.

I just don't see that sort of unity on the left happening as long as they're both in the race.

[Hortensis]

24. Those of Sanders' followers who are fairly solid Democrats

would seriously consider her. For the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. Polls show that, understanding that I'm referring to those who have every intention of backing and voting for a Democrat. They're as different from the highly combustible sorts illustrated in their posts as Warren is from Sanders.

Fwiw, it's fine with me if they currently divide the left wing for four reasons that pop to mind:

1. This is the primary -- voters are supposed to support different candidates, it's not a pathology, it's democracy.
2. It's early in the primary and plenty of time for people to get to know them beter.
3. Because what he's calling the "left wing" is not at all homogenous and never will be united. Those prone to extremism are very different from more typical liberals, which Sanders and Warren illustrate very clearly. Plus, radical types have a real problem with "uniting," that they don't unite is a major part of their political behavior.
4. Those in the left wing who intend to vote Democrat will support the eventual nominee, even if disappointed that it's not their favorite. Those who don't will leave, as they've already promised to. They're not ours to keep, and they were the first to say so, which, as you can see, they do a lot. Zealots who never win also never seem to understand or accept why, and this is their wildfire season.

[KPN]

26. Good assessment. I agree. Bernie supporters

who are solid Dems will support Warren or anyone else we as a party nominate.

Re: that other site, I have to wonder how much trolling and interference is already going on. Most Bernie supporters I have met or know personally are solid Democrats.

[Hortensis]

58. That last is nice to hear. Many posts at that little site include

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2019, 06:49 AM - Edit history (1)

eye opening "alternative facts," though, that have clearly been reinforced into gospel. The view of those posters is severely distorted through an angry and paranoid lens which casts the Democratic Party as an enemy of democracy, not its only protector these days.

To put it mildly, those aren't among the 30% of Sanders voters whose second choice is Joe Biden.

[kcr]

28. No. This is a "divide" that's been around forever.

Bernie's attacks on Clinton in 2016, the Greens sabotaging Gore, Ted Kennedy primarying Carter.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. Tulsi? sigh

[Hortensis]

59. :) Democracy. nt

[OKNancy]

30. I hope Liz wins the battle for the left because

Sanders keeps hiring dumbass surrogates. I just read about Dr. Dooley who is joining the team.
She said horrible things about Hillary.

I''l go get some screen caps and do an edit in a minute.

Edit: oh well, go to twitter and do a search for Dr. Dooley

She tweeted about Hillary's health and also put the #HillaryforPrison in one of her tweets

[thesquanderer]

32. We have tons of moderate candidates. We can afford to have more than one on the left. And we should!

Sanders and Warren's presences currently benefit each other. To many, one voice out on the left could seem out of the mainstream; multiple candidates (especially "serious" ones) with those positions help make people more comfortable with those positions.

[Lordquinton]

33. It's being played as a horse race between them

More candidates should be adopting their ideas and optimism.

[JudyM]

45. This. We can draw a brighter distinction with a staunchly anti-corruption-prioritizing candidate

[Claritie Pixie]

34. Sanders and Warren seem to have an understanding.

They refuse to go after each other.

I would hope that if one of them has a chance and the other does not, one will drop out and endorse.

That said, there are differences between the two. Warren is able to connect with people who are not in the progressive camp in a way Sanders does not.

[BeyondGeography]

53. Maybe, but Warren never throws the first punch

Not her style. She will counterpunch though, as John Delaney can attest.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. I only support Democrats. Until we are no longer a two party system, that is.

[pangaia]

54. jeeze that's complicated

as bad as the NFL playoffs

[Blue_true]

55. I have posted about that problem. My terminology was Warren and Sanders supporters

soon need to make a choice. If they continue to blindly support their first choice, Biden wins the nomination.

How do they decide? It is an individual choice, they simply have to decide. My guess if Warren continues to perform well in debate while Sanders run hot and cold, there will be migration to her.

The debate where Warren finally faces Biden is going to be critical for Biden, Sanders and Warren. If Warren excels, Sanders is likely done, and Biden is in trouble. If Biden holds his ground, Sanders and Warren will continue to spilt highly progressive support.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. I'm a Warren supporter and I would never get behind Sanders unless he actually won the nomination.

Neither they nor their supporters are interchangeable.