His Divine Shadow wrote: ↑
It ain't Biden she gotta compete with, it's Bernie. And she doesn't got "it", she doesn't have the thing you need to win, the spark that makes people believe. She's gonna be Hillary of 2020 if she gets the nomination. Both her and Bidens main appeal are "ain't Trump" and that's not enough.
Personally, though I supported Sanders in the 2016 primary, I believe that reform in America is bigger than one man.
Here are the facts: Warren is different from Hillary in personality, image/reputation, and policy, and the circumstances are different from 2016 too, without the sharp, bitter divide between Bernie and a Centrist "Chosen One". Part of the reason for Warren's success is that she has actually outflanked Bernie to the Left on multiple major issues, including immigration and impeachment. And every Democratic candidate has distinct policy differences between them and Trump. Saying that they're just running on "ain't Trump", like saying that everyone who isn't Bernie is just as bad, is a trite, lazy oversimplification meant to disguise your lack of actual arguments.
The notion that Warren will inevitably be "another Hillary", with no specific reason given other than that she's not Bernie, gives the impression that either you divide the entire world into "Bernie Sanders and Everybody Else" (which isn't actually a criticism of Warren- literally nothing she could do would satisfy you, because she's not Bernie), or else that you are a misogynist making that equivalency based on Warren's gender, or both. You are trying to force Warren's campaign into your 2016 Mk II narrative even though it really doesn't fit. Which begs the question of why you would want to push a rehash of that cluster fuck. I mean, I guess if you want Trump to win so that you can whine about how its all because the Establishment rigged it against Bernie, but that's a pretty fucking petty motivation.
You're also echoing the Bernie or Bust crowd's habit of ignoring Sanders' actual positions, instead hijacking him as a symbol for your Burn It All agenda. Sanders has no animosity toward Warren, and has gone out of his way to avoid a personal clash between them or their campaigns, because he also recognizes that progressive reform is bigger than one man, and that no one but Trump and the Republicans (and Putin) will benefit from infighting between progressives.
I mean, yeah, Marxist-leaning outlets like Jacobinmag are going to hate Warren, because they tend to see anyone who's even slightly more moderate as indistinguishable from a fascist.
She doesn't have what it takes to win and I suspect after she loses to Trump I'll be hearing how she does infact have it but because of dastardly X she didn't win, but she woulda if only Y hadn't Z. That's how it's gonna go.
That's impossible to predict because, again, 2020 isn't a carbon-copy of 2016, however desperately you try to force it into that narrative so you can reuse the anti-Hillary arguments on Warren.
Oh, and nice gratuitous nod to Collusion Denial, too. Nice reminder that the Bernie-or-Busters are willing to ally with Trump on that subject as well, so that they can maintain their narrative that the sole reason Hillary lost was because she wasn't Bernie.
Hillary lost (while winning the popular vote) for a lot of reasons, and if any one of those factors had been different, so might the end result have been. That's fact. But like most extremists and cultists, you evidently prefer ideologically-compatible over-simplifications to facts.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"Trump admirers like @TuckerCarlson describe themselves as "nationalist." But their nationalism attaches not to the multiracial American nation... but to a multinational white race with a capital in Moscow"-David Frum