There is a reason Elizabeth Warren and President Obama have not formally endorsed a candidate. The media has an insane amount of influence. Religion has always been fair game, nothing wrong with the question. Similar questions were asked in the past.
And I could be wrong, but wouldn't those who value Warren's endorsement already be supporting Bernie?
You think so? Warren is somewhere between Bernie and Hillary, I would imagine her supporters could break both ways.
I would vote for warren over Hillary but i vote Hillary over sanders. Sanders just seems like he is missing some screws with how unrealistic his goals are.
I could be wrong; I don't know a whole lot about Warren. I though she was very similar to Sanders. If not, then you should ignore my comment. And yeah, it appears I was wrong.
Endorsements don't move the needle enough for smart politicians to risk getting burned by them unless they have a lot to gain. Once a candidate becomes inevitable the endorsements start piling up. Normally the early endorsements are from people who owe a favor.
What goals do you think are unrealistic? He's laid out a very detailed report of how using American tax dollars can pay for 90% of his platform instead of using those dollars for Wall Street bailouts, tax breaks for multi-million Wall Street bankers, CEO's, corporate investors, funding for weapons that will never be used and programs most deem failures. The rest of his platform can be paid for with an 0.2% payroll tax increase, which shouldn't hurt with free Medicare coverage and 4 years of free college for each American. This should be a basic human right not a wealthy privilege.
Bernie's base is educated and informed. He didn't just talk his way to where he is now. There are a lot of smart people that support him based on his plan. He's not Trump.
I don't think that demystifying the labels "liberals" or "socialist" will do much to convince Republicans or conservative leaning Dems to go along with Sanders' platform.
To answer both of you and to be blunt yes. Both of your positions show a lack of intellectual depth. That is because you are only latching onto one aspect of similarity between Sanders' and Trump that they are both anti-establishment while ignoring the vast differences between them. Your posts reflect that your primary motivation for this campaign is anger and not a deep thought out position of what the policies and issue that each candidate is advocating. Frankly it's a failure to take the election seriously other than that you're pissed off. Unfortunately this you're not alone in this and you share this view with probably a majority of the electorate. As it has been said elections have consequences and those are more than just taking it to the establishment. There are vast differences in their approaches to the economy, immigration, national defense, the environment and etc.. If you don't care about those differences and just want to stick it to the establishment yes your view is very intellectually shallow.
Detailed doesn't mean realistic. I can lay out a detailed plan to do away with private gun ownership. That doesn't mean it is realistic.
I will campaign and donate money to Sanders if he's facing Cruz or Trump. As I said above I think too many people are just caught up in anger at sticking it to the establishment to actually consider the implications of a Trump presidency. While policy wise it might not be the Right Wing ideological Presidency of Cruz, which will be disastrous, but it will be a cult of personality that will resemble Putin's presidency.
It's pretty much an open secret that Obama is supporting Clinton. With Warren I've speculated on this but I think there might be some sort of deal between her and Clinton. When there was a big draft Warren movement the two of them met and Warren not too long later announced she wasn't going to run.
