68

During the January 2020 Democratic debate at 43:27 the moderator asked Bernie why he said that a woman cannot win an election https://youtu.be/Ppm_mqo9Tyc?t=2607 . Bernie responds by denying that he ever said that. However, Warren confirms that he said it. Are there any earlier sources that confirm or deny whether Bernie actually said that?

Evan Carroll
  • 28,401
  • 42
  • 129
  • 239
finks
  • 773
  • 1
  • 5
  • 5
  • 9
    Here's the referenced [CNN article](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-wahttps://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.htmlrren-meeting/index.html). Note that it sources the claim to a private meeting between Sanders and Warren, so I'm not sure if we can ever answer the question. – tim Jan 15 '20 at 08:30
  • 113
    And while CNN also [confuses](https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-democratic-debate-live/h_5fd8c033dc38d8e76c9c6031ad64e295) things, it is important to keep clear what Sanders is actually accused of saying: Not that a woman cannot *be* president (a claim about all womens abilities), but that a woman cannot be *elected* president (a claim about the sexist nature of the USA). – tim Jan 15 '20 at 08:31
  • 2
    @tim Regarding your first comment, that's exactly what I was thinking. This is very must a "he said, she said" scenario: Warren says Sanders said that, Sanders says he didn't. As much as I'd like to know the truth behind this incident, I'm not sure we ever can. – F1Krazy Jan 15 '20 at 09:49
  • 4
    I was going to close this question (and perhaps rework it) because the headline is not a notable claim - it is an inaccurate paraphrase of the actual claim, but @tim's answer not only corrects the error, but includes a notability link to show that some people believe that is what the claim is. – Oddthinking Jan 15 '20 at 12:49
  • 6
    The question title and body are not asking the same question. The title says "cannot be president" and the body says "cannot win an election," which are completely different claims. – shoover Jan 16 '20 at 03:46
  • 2
    This question should be closed. The purported statement by Sanders was in a private conversation with Warren. There is no way to determine what was actually said, one way or the other. Thus it doesn't meet the criteria for a question here. – Daniel R Hicks Jan 17 '20 at 02:53
  • @tim and what he supposedly actually said (or meant) was that Warren specifically cannot be elected, iow that she's not presidential material. Which would be one of the few things Sanders has ever said I can agree with. – jwenting Jan 22 '20 at 11:31

2 Answers2

193

Did Sanders say that a woman cannot be president or that that women in general lack the abilities?

No.

While some headlines – including this question's title – claim that, this is not what Warren accused Sanders of:

Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.

This is not a claim regarding women's inherent abilities, but a claim about sexism in the US which would prevent women from getting elected as president.

CNN gives as sources Warren who was present at the private meeting between her and Sanders, as well as four people who Warren spoke to after the meeting.

Sanders denies 1) that he said that women cannot be president (see video from OP) and 2) that he said that women cannot be elected president:

What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.

Conclusion: Warren doesn't claim Sanders said that women can't be president. Warren claims that Sanders said in a private meeting with her that a woman cannot win an election in the US in 2020. Sanders claims he only said that it would be more difficult for a woman to win an election in 2020. As this was said in a private meeting, we cannot know for sure which version is correct.

rogerdpack
  • 103
  • 3
tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • 3
    *An* election or specifically the 2020 election? – Martin Schröder Jan 15 '20 at 15:28
  • 15
    The private meeting was in 2018 and the topic of discussion was the upcoming election. As we don't have a transcript, it's difficult to say for certain if they were generalized statements applied to this specific election, or specific statements specifically about this election. – tim Jan 15 '20 at 15:46
  • This is Nixon's I am not a Crook Defense. Your conclusion is correct, but the lede is counterfactual, or unknown, as you state later –  Feb 04 '20 at 17:11
108

@tim's answer is excellent, but I'd like to address the question from a different angle.

This question's request for "earlier sources" is problematic. There were only two people present in the conversation, and they disagree. Any other claim of either verification or refutation is at best secondhand.

Since more direct evidence isn't available, it might be helpful to look for patterns of behavior or belief in earlier statements from Bernie Sanders. What has he said in the past about a woman as president?

Bernie Sanders is well known for the multi-decade consistency of his beliefs. (Refs: CNN, LATimes, NPR, NYTimes, DailyShow.) Sanders is also known for candor and authenticity, maintaining the same persona in public and private. (Refs: BostonGlobe, RollingStone, TheGuardian, OnTheCommons.)

None of this is direct evidence that he didn't say it, but it is strong evidence that the claimed statement would be highly out-of-character for him to say.

Foo Bar
  • 2,162
  • 2
  • 19
  • 23
  • 11
    Indeed. When somebody's previous views on the record and not subsequently retracted or contradicted clash with a personal recollection of what was said in a private meeting, it's fair to assume that the person mis-spoke, or that the other party mis-heard or mis-interpreted. – nigel222 Jan 16 '20 at 10:14
  • 14
    A lot of this answer is predicated on the presumption that what professional politician says in front of cameras and reporters in explicit political contexts can be taken as indicative of the kinds of things he would personally tell a fellow politician in private (particularly one he has incentive to discourage from running). I'm not buying that at all. (I also am not buying any assumption that the latter is closer to his private beliefs than the former, but that issue was not raised) – T.E.D. Jan 16 '20 at 14:25
  • 12
    The last bullet is particularly worthless, as "*X* will make an outstanding president" is a standard sentence in a primary concession speech, which is what that was taken from. Those are exactly the kind of words he was expected to say in that situation, and means nothing more about his personal feelings about women than Hillary's concession speech in 2008 meant about her personal feelings about African Americans. – T.E.D. Jan 16 '20 at 14:31
  • 4
    I think you’re misrepresenting the allegation—though, to be fair, so is the question. Sanders’s—no doubt sincere—belief that a woman could be elected president and could be a good president *in general* has no bearing on his belief that a woman could be elected president *in 2020 specifically*. Even if true, it sounds to me much more like an indictment of the electorate than the hypothetical woman candidate. In any event, there is no contradiction between wanting and supporting a woman president, and judging the contours of the country as incompatible with that (no less desirable) election. – KRyan Jan 16 '20 at 17:56
  • 8
    @T.E.D. - Right. As a more extreme example, I think it's pretty well-established that Donald Trump is hostile to immigrants of color generally, but you can find plenty of speeches where he says the usual lines about welcoming all legal immigrants. So if the question had instead asked whether Trump really said that he didn't want immigrants from "[expletive] countries," I could write an answer consisting of those anodyne quotes, that would nonetheless be completely wrong. And he's one of the politicians with the least private/public separation. – Obie 2.0 Jan 16 '20 at 19:38
  • 2
    You'd think the DNC would've learned their lesson after throwing Bernie under the bus last time. So I assumed this was just Warren's antic alone to gain the edge by conjuring up a sexism card, conveniently playing it now all of a sudden (of all people, Bernie? Really? Not Biden? Oh, Bernie's trending frontrunner, right). However, the debate revealed this transcends Warren alone when the moderator asked Bernie "Did you say this?" (No), and then asked Warren "How did it make you feel when Bernie said that?" Somewhat loaded question there, I think. – Coldblackice Jan 16 '20 at 23:43
  • @T.E.D. I have updated the answer to address the presumption that you noted. – Foo Bar Jan 17 '20 at 00:23
  • 9
    @Obie2.0 so far I have been unable to find reports of Sanders making private statements contrary to his public views (on any policy topic, not just women presidents). If you know of one, post the URL and I will revise my answer with it. – Foo Bar Jan 17 '20 at 00:31
  • @Oddthinking How is this answer not an ad hominem defense of Bernie Sanders? Sanders may have made contrary statements in the past or have a history of consistency but that does not mean his statements here are true. Why was my answer deleted as political opinion, but this answer is relevant? I cited sources that added context to someone trying to form an opinion on who is telling the truth. The only reason to censor my answer is the negative light but fallacies may be positive as well. – PandaBearSoup Jan 18 '20 at 02:25
  • @PandaBearSoup If you feel your answer was deleted in error, flag it for moderator intervention and cite your reasons for wanting the answer to be un-deleted. – yuritsuki Jan 18 '20 at 13:44
  • 1
    @PandaBearSoup Ad Hominem (or its inverse, Appeal to Authority) occurs when you judge the validity of a statement (i.e. "can women be elected president?") based on its claimant. If the question is "did person X make statement Y?" then information about the subject's prior statements is likely to be relevant, whereas information about the claimant might still be invalid. – Foo Bar Jan 18 '20 at 13:47
  • 1
    To put it more succinctly, the issue is "a claim made BY person X" vs "a claim made ABOUT person X". – Foo Bar Jan 18 '20 at 13:57
  • 1
    @Foo-Bar thanks, I agree with your rationale. I would point out that you do discuss Sander's character, "information about claimant", e.g. his candor, consistency, and authenticity. I think this is relevant if we are to evaluate i.e. be skeptical or not about his supposed statement on female presidents. In the same way, we should look at context concerning Warren to evaluate i.e. be skeptical or not concerning her statement. – PandaBearSoup Jan 18 '20 at 15:48
  • @PandaBearSoup - How does one assess the likelihood of a claim about an individual that is absolutely unprovable one way or the other, without taking into account their track record, if one exists? I believe the crux of an ad hominem attack or defense is that the personal direction is intended to substitute for more substantial considerations. I'm not sure that applies here. – PoloHoleSet Jan 22 '20 at 17:31
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet I completely agree, my argument was illustrative of the fact that my answer was only deleted because it portrayed negative elements from Warren's track record. I'll go further and claim my answer was deleted as the mere citation of negative elements (pertaining to truth) of a female's political life was deemed by one user as "misogynistic". The moderator claimed my answer was firmly "political opinion", but it was in essence no different than this answer, and citing news stories about a political candidate is hardly "opinion". I was censored. – PandaBearSoup Jan 22 '20 at 21:32
  • @PandaBearSoup - was it a comment that was deleted, or an answer? Usually I can see deleted answers. Sorry, I didn't catch that backstory/context when I was, admittedly, skimming through the comments. Thanks for filling in the blanks for me. – PoloHoleSet Jan 22 '20 at 23:31
  • @PoloHoleSet It was an answer that cited 10 news articles which discussed specific instances Warren has bent the truth or outright lied. It was deleted for being an "ad hominem attack" and "political opinion. – PandaBearSoup Jan 22 '20 at 23:51