Progressives Only: Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Who do Atlas Progresssives support between these two, and why?

Personally, I’m a Bernie 2016 voter now leanings towards Warren. I will always have a great deal of respect for Bernie as the man who brought things like Medicare for All and the $15 an hour minimum wage into the mainstream, but I believe his time has passed and Warren is more electable, able to better communicate her ideas and will unite the party better than Bernie could.

Please only vote 1 / 2 if you’re a Progressive, or Left-Winger planning on voting in the Democratic primary!

[Eraserhead]

Bernie Sanders. Not even close.

Warren is my second choice though.

[YE]

Elizabeth Warren.

[TML]

Only one of these two has been fighting for progressive policies for longer, in some cases long before they became popular among the general public.

Only one of these two has indicated a refusal to take any donations over $200 under any circumstances (the other has indicated a willingness to do so in the GE).

Only one of these two has indicated a willingness to fight aggressively for his policy agenda by holding rallies in the states and/or districts of Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill who obstruct such legislation.

That is the one I'm supporting.

[Donerail]

Bernie, it's not close, and Warren is not my second choice.

[Mr. Smith]

I ally with progressives insofar as to oppose Republicans, Third Way/New Democrats, and Libertarians, but I dunno if I consider myself progressive inherently.

But the answer's Warren anyway.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Only one of these two has indicated a refusal to take any donations over $200 under any circumstances (the other has indicated a willingness to do so in the GE).

So if I donate $201 I have control over Elizabeth Warren?

[TML]

Only one of these two has indicated a refusal to take any donations over $200 under any circumstances (the other has indicated a willingness to do so in the GE).

So if I donate $201 I have control over Elizabeth Warren?

Not necessarily, but I would invite you to look at Beto O'Rourke. Although he didn't accept any corporate PAC money, he did take hundreds of thousands of dollars in large contributions from oil/gas executives, and he actually ranked 2nd in contributions from that industry in the 2018 election cycle (trailing only his opponent, Ted Cruz). How did this affect him legislatively? Well, he consistently voted for policies favorable to the oil/gas industry during his time in Congress. No wonder he was outed as a pseudo-progressive when his name came up as a 2020 presidential contender.

Warren indicated that she would be open to holding fundraisers for large contributions in the general election. This makes her susceptible to something similar to O'Rourke as described above.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Only one of these two has indicated a refusal to take any donations over $200 under any circumstances (the other has indicated a willingness to do so in the GE).

So if I donate $201 I have control over Elizabeth Warren?

Not necessarily, but I would invite you to look at Beto O'Rourke. Although he didn't accept any corporate PAC money, he did take hundreds of thousands of dollars in large contributions from oil/gas executives, and he actually ranked 2nd in contributions from that industry in the 2018 election cycle (trailing only his opponent, Ted Cruz). How did this affect him legislatively? Well, he consistently voted for policies favorable to the oil/gas industry during his time in Congress. No wonder he was outed as a pseudo-progressive when his name came up as a 2020 presidential contender.

Warren indicated that she would be open to holding fundraisers for large contributions in the general election. This makes her susceptible to something similar to O'Rourke as described above.

She also had a big donor give $100k to the DNC to buy her access to their data. The Bernie campaign said they'd pay for it with campaign money if they bought access, which they have not.

[JGibson]

Warren.

[eric82oslo]

Sanders used to support universal basic income just a couple of years ago. Now he has changed, because he views a job guarantee and 15 dollar minimum wage as better options, like if they were mutually exclusive ideas (they are not of course). Thus Warren for me. She's also younger and much more presidential in my opinion, plus perhaps more importantly: She's much more likely to pick Yang as her running mate than Sanders is.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Is there actually any difference between them regarding their political agenda?
I know that Warren is favored by women and by upscale voters as opposed to Bernie.
But their world views are pretty much the same, aren't they?

[jacobmeteorite]

Warren.

She said it best when she said we need big structural change, and she can energize a massive wave of enthusiasm. She knows that if she’s blessed enough to have Democrats win the White House & both Houses of Congress, she would have a chance to fundamentally change the United States in a way that hasn’t been done since FDR.

[izixs]

Is there actually any difference between them regarding their political agenda?
I know that Warren is favored by women and by upscale voters as opposed to Bernie.
But their world views are pretty much the same, aren't they?

There is a lot of cross over between the two as far as substance and positions. I suspect the main division is in the campaign attitude department (Sander's push for his campaign to be as much about his supporters as it is him vs Warren's focus being all about what she can do if you empower her by getting her into office) and history (Sanders holding out so firmly until the last possible moment in 2016 made many people very skeptical about his intentions as far as the campaign really being about the us or is it just about him, while using the reasoning that he was seeking specific reforms in the party structure vs Warren, despite her ideological similarities to Sanders, is seen as a team player as far as the total party coalition which some leftists see as essential for spreading the message).

Folks from the Sanders camp call Warren a sellout for endorsing Clinton (the how could she betray the ideals! argument), while Warren supporters see her as grounded in the realities of that moment (Clinton had enough elected delegates to win the nomination and it was indeed magical thinking to believe otherwise) and thus to do anything otherwise would be adding fuel to party division fire for basically no gain. Unless feeling smug while the country burns is your standard for what counts as gain.

Folks from the Warren camp can charge Sanders with cultivating identity in his supporters, of pushing his supporters so deep down the well of one's whole self being defined by the success or failure of Sanders so as to be setting them up for harm (and by extension discouraging them from being Democratic supporters in the general if he loses the primary), while the Sanders camp response is that such claims are nonsense and building a leftist coalition is the only goal of his campaign, independent of his success or failure, and that those who turn let their identity be subsumed by the adventure of the campaign are an aberration that should be reached out to in some fashion after the primaries to get them back on board or they're just internet trolls so should be ignored.

I suspect my own views of which is more correct come out here in my run down, but I did try to restrain myself a fair bit in me words.

[GoldenMainer]

Bernie for a few reasons. Even though Elizabeth pitches herself as a fighter, she didn't get behind Bernie in 2016 to fight for a progressive to win the primary which would have advanced her and Bernie's ideas against a more moderate option in Clinton. That gives me pause. Will she fight only when it's convenient? Will she abandon progressives down-ballot when it isn't convenient for her? In 2016, Bernie took on everyone and brought progressive policies to the mainstream virtually singlehandedly. I have great respect for that and consider him to be more of the reliable "fighter".

Second reason. I like Bernie better on foreign policy. With Liz, I'm looking at that 2017 vote where she said yes to increasing the military budget by $80 billion. And Bernie was ahead of the curve on Iraq and was a leader on Yemen.

Third reason. I think Bernie is more electable in a general election. He's been beating Trump pretty heavily in general election matchups since 2016. He usually outpolled Hillary against Trump and this cycle, he's right up there with Biden in largest margins of beating Trump. Bernie won Wisconsin & Michigan and dominated rural areas in the 2016 primaries. Additionally, I think the whole Native American debacle was a misstep for Liz and makes her more vulnerable in a general.

With that said, Liz is my #2 choice and I would greatly prefer her to Biden.

[BidenDuckworth2020]

As a candidate, Bernie.
As President, Warren.

[RaphaelDLG]

I like Elizabeth Warren a lot more on an emotional level, but logically I have to go with Sanders, who has a much better foreign policy, is better on Medicare for all, and crucially has by far the best theory of change of anyone in the race

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The one who didn't put pronouns in their Twitter profile and wasn't dumb enough to release DNA tests in response to Trump trolling them over an insanely f[inks]ing stupid non-issue.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Queen Liz

[Zaybay]

Whichever one has a better chance at winning the nomination when my state comes up for the primary.

[Xing]

I like both pretty much equally, and rather than try to pick a favorite, I'll just say that I'd be very satisfied with either one as the nominee.

[GP270watch]

 Warren. I would have probably supported her in 2016 as well.

[Dr. Arch]

As a candidate, Bernie.
As President, Warren.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Warren. I would have probably supported her in 2016 as well.

[beesley]

Bernie, it's not close, and Warren is not my second choice.

Out of interest who is? De Vladimir? Yang? Gabbard?