working with Republicans is a joke. They start so far to the right that working with them and meeting them is still far to the right

"work like mad to get majorities in both houses and get the presidency and then to pass our agenda as fast as possible."

That's not really a "take no prisoners" approach.

If any on the opposite side show ANY true willingness to participate in and contribute to that agenda, I am certainly with candidates who are open to that.

I also believe that Warren would be more open to that approach than Sanders would.

Another difference and that is a BIG one: Warren has already pledged her loyalty to the Democratic party and is also working to support ALL down-ticket Dems.

From what I have seen from the 2016 cycle on is that Sanders is first interested in himself. As for down-ticket Dems, he is only supportive of those who specifically support his agenda and indeed has some of those challenging Dems whose seats should not be challenged.

I am and will remain throughout this primary cycle - at the very least - a supporter of Elizabeth Warren for President.

Her "Dream Big, Fight Hard" line is a quality slogan and her laser focus on corruption is an excellent political axis. I, too, am a 1 but only because Moscow Mitch decided in 2009 that collaboration was the worst way to remain in power. He patented obstructionism and dysfunction and rode it to years as the majority leader.

If I saw that core tenet of the GOP changing at any time in the future, I would be open to prioritizing collaboration. Since I don't see it happening, I will leave my focus on corruption in every form. Senator Warren has done a great job in calling out multiple forms of it. The fact that she stated the case for impeachment loudly and fiercely when many of her fellow Democrats in the Congress weren't yet with her speaks volumes.

Yes, we have a lot of work to do to retain the House and win the White House and Senate. However, it is certainly within the realm of possibility. Option 2 - working together with Republicans - is never going to happen because Republicans will never vote for the major changes any Democratic President will need to implement.

I like both of them, hence undecided. But their mildly liberal stances and push for mildly liberal policies are NOT take no prisoners liberal or far left.

Boy this country really has no idea of what a truly far left liberal looks like.

Let's tax at 100% everyone's wealth in excess of $5 million. There that is a bit far left.

Let's just right-out take all the filthy rich's stolen loot that exceeds $5 million including taking away all their corporations and property and outlaw stocks. Now that maybe getting a bit radical...maybe.

Do you really think watching the planet become uninhabitable while the handful of filthy rich jerk off and make money off the destruction is a conservative, normal, calls-for-mildly-liberal situation?

using Republican talking points on healthcare its easy to mistake Bernie & Warrens stance a far left

But yes I agree with you. Their ideas are actually mainstream and the media keeps making them sound fringe.

that to a pretty considerable extent politics is the art of compromise; if your approach is my-way-or-the-highway you won't get very far. That's the way the GOP operated under Obama and what they are continuing to do now. But while they have been successful in blocking a lot of legislation proposed by Democrats, they've also failed to do much of what they wanted to do. All they've done is created a massive stalemate. So that approach seems to work only insofar as it thwarts your opponents; you still don't get much of what you want. On the other hand, you can't cave in to the opposition's demands just to be able to say you've accomplished something. I would say that when dealing with obstructive GOPers a Democratic president could say, "I'll be happy to discuss any issue to see if we can find points of agreement but I'm not gonna be rolled. I will be open to compromise but only if you are, too. I can work with you or I can work around you - your choice."

Obviously, taking control of Congress as well as the presidency will be the only way to ensure the passage of liberal legislation. If that does not happen (and at this point it looks like the GOP will continue to hold the senate after 2020) it will be necessary to take the above approach. I believe a take-no-prisoners attitude while the GOP holds the senate will not be productive and will only encourage even more division.

The toxic Grump Oligarchic Party needs to suffer a permanent death.

The first, telling blow in Nov 2020.

Then we bury their other Senators, Nov 2022 and Nov 2024.

but there is no one. All that's left is the betshit crazy who cannot be trusted

Politics has changed for the worse. I suppose every generation thinks this, but it's warfare now. I think it can be traced back to Gingrich - his take no prisoners approach and the polarizing of the country. It's gotten only worse since.

The Ds have always been the ones to hold out an olive branch only to have it burnt. They should take the attitude of governing w/out the Rs and be willing to work the the Rs when they hold out the olive branch. The problem is the Ds leadership is still the old school 80s/90s wing of the party wanting to work together. The Rs have moved on to new leadership where destruction of the Ds is the only way to govern.

No need to foreclose either option. It depends on the issue.

There isn't a single Republican in the House or Senate who is not a craven cynic, or a frothing idealogue, and given the soil in which the GOP has grown its roots as of late, that won't be changing anytime soon. We have to win the legislature and the executive if we want to get anything done.

Bipartisanship is dead because democracy is dead.

Dictators don't need to compromise.

Oligarchs want to rule not comprimise.

None of this would have been possible without throngs of deluded mouthbreathers willing to exchange good governance for ostensible confirmation of their backward moronic notions.

Also, none of it would have been possible without millions of VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE parroting the both-sides-do-it narrative of milquetoast upper-crust conservative newspaper columnists.

clearly stands on her own, within the Democratic party. Not tied to outsider Sanders. And you did it in your OP. I think Warren is not the same as Sanders. I think Warren does not look so much left, but more along with the progressive of Harris when she is not constantly tied to Sanders.

I've long been an enthusiastic proponent of the idea that democracy is based on compromise. I much admired the old style politicians like Ted Kennedy who excelled at putting things together across the aisle.

But I also believe in sea changes. Roosevelt led one, Reagan/Gingrich another (the one for economic policy, the other for political temperament). I got excited about Warren in hopes that she signaled the arrival of a sea change.... not that she could "create" one. No individual can do that, I think. But they can catch the crest and lead us forward.

I still don't know if this is the time. It's the wealth gap that seems most critical... all over the world. And climate change.

But if this is not the time, then I wish people like Biden and Klobuchar and Buttigieg much success. I think we have to keep our eyes open for cracks in the Republican wall. I think we have to grab on to any movement back to a place where we had loyal oppositions who sought compromise. So I'd put myself either squarely at 5.5. Or swinging wildly from 1 to 10.

The other side is welcome to make compromises to advance our country in a positive direction at any time, but they've clearly tossed that idea out the window. McConnel officially signaled a near total end to bipartisanship with his "stealing" of President Obama's Supreme Court pick.

The only compromises worth making would probably fall somewhere between Biden and Sanders on the left-right scale. And it's hard enough making real progress with the most conservative members of our party derailing things.

The Republican Party has entirely aligned itself with an agenda of turning the nation into a Fascist state, and deliberate destruction of our planet for personal gain.

Now bipartisanship only exists on a few of the most extremely obvious and easiest decisions to be made.