Sanders And Warren Largely Avoid Intra-Progressive Fight In Last Debate Before Iowa

Democratic presidential hopefuls Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (L), former Vice President Joe Biden (C) and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders participate of the seventh Democratic primary debate of the 2020 pre... Democratic presidential hopefuls Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (L), former Vice President Joe Biden (C) and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders participate of the seventh Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign season co-hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register at the Drake University campus in Des Moines, Iowa on January 14, 2020. (Photo by Robyn Beck / AFP) (Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Despite some murmurings to the contrary from their campaigns in recent days, the two Democratic presidential contenders on the left of the spectrum, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), largely avoided a public scrap during the last debate before the Iowa caucuses.

In the days leading up to Tuesday’s debate, all signs pointed to an impending clash. A volunteer script from Sanders’ campaign published by Politico criticized Warren, who in turn criticized Bernie for “trashing” her. Then, CNN reported that Sanders, in a 2018 conversation with Warren, said a female candidate couldn’t win the presidency. Sanders denied the report, Warren affirmed it. The stage was set.

And yet, the debate largely glided past the scuffle, and Sanders and Warren mostly spoke past each other when they had a chance to go on the attack.

Still, it’s not like CNN didn’t try to light the flame.

“Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?” Abby Phillip asked.

“That is correct,” he said.

Phillip turned to Warren: “What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” she asked, to laughter.

Warren said she “disagreed” with Sanders, then said, as she had before, that the pair were friends and they weren’t in the race to fight each other.

She moved on, making the broader, winning argument that the two women on stage, she said Sen. Klobuchar, hadn’t ever lost an election.

There was a bit of awkwardness a few minutes later in the debate — Sanders took issue with Warren’s claim that she was the only person on stage to beat a Republican incumbent in 30 years, pointing out that he beat such an incumbent… in 1990.

But, before long, the pair were back to what they’ve done in debates past: Making a case for a leftward shift within the party.

Their usual, informal truce was clear during the debate’s discussion of Medicare for All, as Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar argued that Democratic voters didn’t want the kinds of policies Sanders and Warren have pitched.

“Every other major country on Earth is guaranteeing healthcare for all,” Sanders said. “The time is long overdue for us to do the same.”

Warren made the case a few minutes later.

“We can let people experience what health care is like when it’s you and your doctor, your mental health professional, your nurse practitioner with no insurance company standing in the middle,” she said.

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for bdtex bdtex says:

    Didn’t watch the debate. From all I have heard, doesn’t sound like it was a needle-mover.

  2. Avatar for erik_t erik_t says:

    I don’t totally understand anybody’s strategy but Biden’s. You’re in it to win it, right? If he wins Iowa, that’s pretty much the whole enchilada. Are Klobuchar and Buttigieg angling for VP? Sanders and Warren probably need to pick up votes from one another to win Iowa. What are you doing?

    On the other hand, caucuses are weird and stupid, so who knows.

  3. A point I am not hearing in the healthcare debate: Why should my employer have anything to do with my healthcare?
    To me this is an obvious point of discussion that works well. I want to switch jobs why should it even be a consideration that I might have to deal with a gap in coverage or a new drug prescription plan or that surgery coming up may now be out of network or we should really wait until after the baby gets here. It’s nuts that these are even considerations, yet they are. I get annoyed with an employer wanting to push fitness and wellness programs on me (though having worked at a good company, occasionally these are actually motivated at least partially out of concern for employees rather than just savings) and the thought that my employer gets to have a say in what health choices are moral is outrageous (and it’s not so great on the other side either that anyone should have to include a benefit package they can’t agree with). Our marriage of healthcare and employment is an odd one with an odd history going back to tax situations from WWII. It’s really not good for anyone and it needs to end. If you start with that, a single payer or public option becomes obvious.

  4. Avatar for bdtex bdtex says:

    I think the Warren/Sanders thing was a tactical strike by Warren. She’s looking to pick up Klobuchar’s supporters when she doesn’t hit the 15% threshhold in Iowa and Nevada.

  5. Avatar for ne43 ne43 says:

    It seems a simple disagreement in strategy. BS wanted to dissuade EW who would cut into his support. She disagreed having her own agenda and being a very different candidate than HRC. What keeps getting lost is that he was addressing 2020 not forever.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

11 more replies

Participants

Avatar for discobot Avatar for bdtex Avatar for 26degreesrising Avatar for jinnj Avatar for burningquestions Avatar for erik_t Avatar for ne43 Avatar for gilgamesh

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: