# Just how much of a threat are Sanders to Warren and Vice Versa? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 8, 2019, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216 "2019-06-08T16:11:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/21 "2019-06-09T22:13:26Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > He has a head start on her. The millennials aren’t going to flip over from Sanders to Warren. And everyone else will figure that Sanders already did an unexpectedly impressive job campaigning before, so why bother going with the unknown quantity? I’m sure that the question will tug at the heart-strings of a few, but they’ll end up backing the horse that they think can win. > > Pocahontas can’t win. Trump already defeated her. All he has to do is say that one word and she’s toast. She played that wrong. > > Sanders… Well, he probably can’t win either, but the people who would vote for either of them aren’t the sort to see that. They’ll see him as electable. Maybe. I suspect it’s all downhill from here for Sanders. Maybe that’s just hopeful thinking on my part. I don’t have any particular love (or hate) for Warren. But I think she’ll one of the top 2 or 3 contenders in 6 months. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/22 "2019-06-10T00:02:49Z")
It’s a difficult question to answer at best, and might be impossible. The obvious answer is “a big threat” and “also a big threat” because, as the pundits like to put it, the two of them occupy similar ideological space. Both are strongly anti-Wall Street, anti-big corporations; both are clearly among the more radical candidates running for the nomination, and their ideas overlap quite a bit. In this formulation, there’s a large group of voters in a bucket marked “Fiercely Anti-Big Business,” and it’s left to Warren and Sanders to divide the voters in that bucket any way they can. A Sanders supporter who sours on Sanders will therefore go to Warren; a Warren supporter’s second choice will almost invariably be Sanders. Trouble is, there’s not a lot of evidence that voters are all that ideological in their thinking. I always think of the statistic about the folks who voted for Gene McCarthy in one of the early primaries in 1968 (this anecdote came from my mom, a grad student in political science at the time, and she could never remember whether it was the NH or the MA primary). Since McCarthy was not on the fall ballot, what did they do? Well, some stayed home, and some voted for Humphrey, and some wrote in McCarthy or somebody else, and some voted for Nixon–but the greatest number, not a majority but a plurality, voted for George Wallace. Suggesting that ideology was not the main reason for their pro-McCarthy votes. In this particular case the two candidates are different in style, background, and much more. I suspect there are a lot of Warren supporters who really want a woman as the nominee and will tend to support Harris or Klobuchar if Warren drops out rather than going to Sanders. Some voters are drawn to Warren’s academic background, knowledge base, and detailed policy proposals; others find it a turnoff. Warren is more of a let’s-work-together-within-the-system old-school politician, while Sanders is more of a blow-it-up kind of a guy. If age is a big concern you might not be voting for either, but you might also note that Warren is eight years younger than Sanders and would end her second term at the same age (79) at which Sanders would begin his first. And so on. It’s quite realistic for a voter to have one of them listed at #1 and the other at #5, say. So I don’t think it’s anywhere near as simple as “Two candidates with similar ideologies, matched in a zero-sum game.” Guess we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/23 "2019-06-10T00:45:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, so there’s one singular poll where Warren is only a little behind Sanders, instead of a lot behind him. This is an Ann Selzer poll, who is one of the best in the business. Anything with her name on it, I take seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/24 "2019-06-10T01:14:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You can see how the candidates are doing as second choices, and being actively considered, on p.4 of [the poll](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6144333-a2190-Meth-07-9-2019.html#document/p2). The way I parse those responses makes me think I should learn a lot more about Kamala Harris. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/25 "2019-06-10T01:25:31Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > The way I parse those responses makes me think I should learn a lot more about Kamala Harris. The way the primary schedule works this year may work to Harris’ advantage. I don’t think Harris will win Iowa or New Hampshire - but maybe she doesn’t have to. If she can finish respectably in Iowa and/or NH and then compete well and possibly win in Nevada, she might be in a position to have an impact on Super Tuesday, and unlike past years, California’s a part of that equation. We won’t really know much about anything until after the debates. By the end of summer, we’ll have a much better sense of how this race is going. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/26 "2019-06-10T02:28:24Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > The way the primary schedule works this year may work to Harris’ advantage. I don’t think Harris will win Iowa or New Hampshire - but maybe she doesn’t have to. If she can finish respectably in Iowa and/or NH and then compete well and possibly win in Nevada, she might be in a position to have an impact on Super Tuesday, and unlike past years, California’s a part of that equation. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Iowa a caucus state, where candidates who don’t get 15% of the vote in a precinct are eliminated, and the process continues until the only candidates who “win” (receive delegates) have at least 15% of that precinct’s votes? If that’s the case, being everyone’s second choice in a field of 20 could be a very good thing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/27 "2019-06-10T12:42:14Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > The way the primary schedule works this year may work to Harris’ advantage. I don’t think Harris will win Iowa or New Hampshire - but maybe she doesn’t have to. If so, it’ll be a first. > [@](#): > > We won’t really know much about anything until after the debates. By the end of summer, we’ll have a much better sense of how this race is going. I’m going to have to take a middle course between **DSeid** ’s ‘things aren’t going to change much from where they are now’ ([from](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21689078&postcount=336) the ‘Biden’s In’ thread) and your “We won’t really know much about anything until after the debates.” We know a great deal already, but much can still change. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/28 "2019-06-10T14:19:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **dalej42** : > > This is an Ann Selzer poll, who is one of the best in the business. Anything with her name on it, I take seriously. I never said that it was a bad or unreliable poll. But every poll has error in it. And that includes the good polls: In fact, any reputable poll will tell you their best estimate of just how much error they have. Nor is there anything magical about “within the margin of error”: The errors will follow some sort of bell-shaped distribution, so you’ll sometimes have some polls which, through no fault whatsoever on the part of the pollster, will have results somewhat outside of the margin of error. And so you’ll get a better picture of the race by averaging many pollsters together than you will from any single poll. Even a mix of good and bad polls is better than a single good poll, provided that you weight the averages appropriately. And so a single poll that looks good for a particular candidate, even a single poll of very high quality, doesn’t mean much when the average of all polls paints a very different picture. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/29 "2019-06-10T14:29:56Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I don’t know what Booty-judge is running for, but I think it’s going to be him versus Biden at the end of it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden steps down to let him go on through. It’s an early prediction, obviously, but he’s the only standout competitor at the moment. > > But anyways, as to the OP: > > I went through the 2016 Republican Primary results once to try and get a sense for whether Trump won outright or if it was more a matter that Cruz and Rubio split the serious vote. > > It’s a bit tricky to go through and, quite possibly, I read the numbers wrong but if you look at who sat out of any particular convention and who seemed to get a home-town boost, it looked to me like there were basically three camps among the voters: Pro-Business, Pro-Latino, and Pro-Traditional. > > Trump, Kasich, Paul, and Fiorina split the Business vote. Rubio and Cruz split the Latino vote. Jeb and Christie had the traditional vote, but it never had many backers. > > Of the two main camps, the Business group was larger and Trump was always the largest vote-puller within that camp. But he was never in the majority, simply because there were more competitors in his camp. The Latino group was smaller than Business, but they always did better than Trump. > > Ultimately, though, the candidate who was most popular in the most popular camp was the one who won. While that isn’t necessarily the Condorcet winner, that is a fairly “good” outcome, so far as trying to ensure that the election doesn’t spit out some random person that no one can understand how he got it. > > But so… If we assume that things would more-or-less play out the same way in the Democratic primary, then we would expect Warran and Sanders to win based, essentially, on the size of their camp. If it’s the biggest camp in the party, then probably - even if they split the vote within the camp about even - one of them will be the Presidential candidate. Still, keep in mind that all Democratic primaries allocate delegates proportionally. Trump was able to start amassing delegates with winner take all and winner take most states where he’d win a small plurality and the rest of the Republican vote was split. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/30 "2019-06-10T19:10:58Z")
From the “Biden’s In” thread: > [@Joe Biden's in](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-bidens-in/833042/343): > > It’s not just Iowa; [Biden’s national numbers are also dropping](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/): > > 538’s latest national polls: > > Ipsos, 5/29-6/5: Biden 31% > YouGov, 6/2-4: Biden 27% > CNN, 5/28-31: Biden 32% > > Looking less invincible by the day. 🙂 > [@Chronos](#): > > OK, so there’s one singular poll where Warren is only a little behind Sanders, instead of a lot behind him. In those same polls I listed above, Sanders’ advantage over Warren is 5, 3, and 11%, in that order. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2019, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/31 "2019-06-11T01:39:49Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If so, it’ll be a first. I’m going to have to take a middle course between **DSeid** ’s ‘things aren’t going to change much from where they are now’ ([from](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21689078&postcount=336) the ‘Biden’s In’ thread) and your “We won’t really know much about anything until after the debates.” We know a great deal already, but much can still change. Bill Clinton didn’t get any delegates in Iowa and though he finished with a New Hampshire delegate split, he finished 9 percentage points behind the leader, Tsongas. He didn’t win his first race until March. Having said that, there’s no question that candidates desperately want the campaign to get off to a good start so that they can build momentum going into the March primaries. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2019, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/32 "2019-06-11T10:20:41Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Bill Clinton didn’t get any delegates in Iowa There effectively was no Iowa on the Dem side in 1992. Everyone skipped Iowa, and let Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin have all the delegates. In every year, in either major party, where Iowa and New Hampshire have both been in play, no candidate has won his/her party’s nomination without winning one of the two. ETA: Just in case you’re wondering if this is some entirely retrospective cherry-picking of a pattern, I’ve been writing about this here at the Dope since 2007. It’s had five chances to be wrong since then (six, if you include Obama’s uncontested renomination in 2012, which I don’t), and it keeps on being the case. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2019, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/33 "2019-06-11T11:42:34Z")
Yup. Iowa is pretty key (and NH too) and the Selzer poll showing Sanders dropping from 25 to 16% while Warren went up from 9 to 15% is pretty damning for Sanders. In terms of threat to each other … well if one or the other dropped out probably the other would pick up a good portion of the other’s support, but not all of it. Some who love Sanders dislike Warren and visa versa. Some would fall back to the default (Biden). In any case they are essentially tied in Iowa now with Sanders dropping there significantly. Neither will be dropping out so to the degree they are splitting the same voting pool it is not going to change. Sanders has a floor (that 538 estimates is 8%), so max Warren could pick up is 8 from him to maybe 23ish. That theoretically could give her a shot at it. If she got all of his defectors and none went elsewhere, especially to Biden. Which some would. How often has someone who has not been first or second in Iowa won NH, when both were in play? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2019, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/34 "2019-06-12T02:47:08Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > … How often has someone who has not been first or second in Iowa won NH, when both were in play? 1988 anyway. Gephardt and Simon were one and two in Iowa with Dukakis third, but NH had it Dukakis, Gephardt, and Simon 1, 2, and 3. So not being second in Iowa maybe is not quite the death knell I though it was. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2019, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/35 "2019-06-13T18:06:01Z")
Interesting yougov poll results. [https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus\_uploads/document/b0wzlf9avh/econTabReport.pdf](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/b0wzlf9avh/econTabReport.pdf) Biden pretty flat but Warren and Sanders have flipped. Now Warren the higher 16 to 12. Was reversed Sanders above Warren 16 to 11 previous week. Just one polling house and one result but still. It looks more like Warren is the more likely to emerge as the Biden challenger of that younger whiter progressive demographic. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/36 "2019-06-13T18:39:58Z")
Make it two polls: [https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/448180-biden-warren-lead-in-nevada-sanders-behind-in-third-poll](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/448180-biden-warren-lead-in-nevada-sanders-behind-in-third-poll) In Nevada, Warren with 19%, Sanders at 13%. (Biden’s at 36%.) Feeling like a trend. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/37 "2019-06-13T18:58:25Z")
Sanders may be in some serious trouble. He doesn’t seem like the kind of candidate that can really use the debates to overcome a big deficit either. His whole campaign is about authenticity, and being _the_ true progressive. The danger all along is that someone like Warren would come along and take some of that energy away from him, and that may be what’s happening. And this time, I think being an independent and caucusing as a Democrat isn’t going to work for him. Warren is both a loyal Democrat and a bona fide progressive. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2019, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/38 "2019-06-13T20:11:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > [Moderating] > Moved to Elections. > > [Not moderating] > Sanders is consistently blowing Warren away, by double digits, in every poll, including in Massachusetts, and including when you look at second and third choices. He’s an existential threat to her candidacy, and she’s no threat at all to his. Yeah, I’m not sure about that, Chronos. There are polls in Iowa where they’re essentially neck and neck and where Warren has gained ground while Bernie has lost ground. I do believe it’s true that they’re cannibalizing each other to some extent and both need Biden to implode pretty badly if they want to move into the top spot. In the latest Seltzer of Iowa it’s Biden 24 Bernie 16 Warren 15 Buttigieg 14 Ditto New Hampshire. The last Tel survey was: Biden 33 Sanders 12 Warren 11 Buttigieg 7 Harris 7 But that was almost a month ago. Here where I am - South Carolina - Sanders is having a rougher time of it: Biden 37 Sanders 10 Warren 8 Harris 7 I’d be VERY surprised if either Sanders or Warren did well down here. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2019, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/39 "2019-06-13T22:38:50Z")
half of the democratic party are now [self identified liberals](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-democrats-now-identify-as-liberal/), and because liberals are more politically engaged than other groups in general, the % of voters who are liberal in primaries is possibly higher. Its possible that self identified liberals could be 60%+ of democratic primary voters, especially in early states. Having said that, Warren is taking votes from Sanders, which is fine. I supported Sanders in 2016 but now am leaning towards Warren. However I have serious caveats about her, and a lot of liberals I’ve met do too. She is not a good politician. Is she a good policy wonk? She sure is. But voters don’t care about that for the most part. Most voters can barely be bothered to get up and vote once every four years. They don’t understand what the parties stand for, let alone the difference between candidates. Only the heavily engaged 20% of voters care about that stuff. 40% of adults don’t bother to vote, and in a normal midterm its closer to 70% of eligible voters who don’t vote. Warren would be eaten alive by Trump and the GOP when it comes to politics, and that worries me. She will try to turn the conversation back to issues, not understanding that 80% of voters don’t care about or understand issues beyond a superficial level. I think she has been ‘spoiled’ by being in Massachussetts which is an extremely democratic state, but also a highly educated state. The stuff that works there isn’t going to work with barely engaged voters who can barely be bothered to vote. I think people want someone tough, competent and who they can connect with on an emotional level. I don’t think Warren brings that. Biden has his perks. As a white man and a political moderate, he doesn’t scare away rural whites. He won’t win them, but he would lose them by a smaller margin than Warren. But Biden’s statement that the GOP would agree to become bipartisan after 2020 was so scarily naive that I don’t know how comfortable I am. That is the same level of naivety as when George W Bush said he could see into Putins soul and see Putin is trustworthy and is a good person. The modern GOP has a base that is made up of angry, reactionary white nationalists who hate democracy because democracy undermines their efforts to live in a white christian ethnostate. Claiming that the GOP will come around to cooperate on health care or infrastructure is beyond idiotic and really makes me question Biden’s competence to lead. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2019, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216/40 "2019-06-14T02:05:55Z")
More of interest in that yougov’s cross tabs. Most skewed to white is Buttigieg and Warren support, even more than Sanders. Most skewed to Black and older support is Biden. I don’t know of specific polling on this but I’d WAG that more Democratic primary voters want to see attempts at bipartisanship and optimism about it than want to vote for someone who messages that more than a third of this country are white nationalists who hate democracy. You might not think that by reading your social media feeds though. Optimism may be naive but many of us like someone with hope. And among those who had both voted for Romney then Clinton, and those who voted Obama then Trump, I would bet that preference is overwhelmingly for having a preference for optimism about bipartisanship and a distaste for thinking of those who have voted for the GOP as evil. Dems need those voters. Meanwhile a GOP building after a sizable Trump loss, especially if they also lose the Senate but even if not, is going to want to rebrand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-how-much-of-a-threat-are-sanders-to-warren-and-vice-versa/835216.md?page=3)