This is the candidate I have to go against Trump

Senator Bernie Saunders announced he would race for the 2020 presidential elections during yesterday's day, rekindled old divisions within the Democratic Party. His candidacy raised questions about the continuing sustainability of the left-wing revival that took place in part by his inspiration in mid-elections of 2018, and which prompted conflict, similar among those who fled Saunders in the past presidential election, where he proved unsuccessful in 2016, over whether the democratic foundation should commit itself to improving economic inequality, or in fighting racism and sexual harassment. The left - hand feminists and racial justicers can be forgiven for already feeling very tired. This all seems to have happened before.

In the preliminarys of 2016, Democrat voters were ahead of a presentation: Saunders, representing the policies of redealing wealth, and Hillary Clinton, representing the possibility of destruction, she said, of the highest and last glass ceiling. She denied that her idea could be unpracticing; Sanders's supporters sexually attacked them as false in their stated commitment to equality. For women on the left, expressing enthusiasm for Sanders's political proposals was like allowing sex attacks on Clinton. Protecting Clinton from sexualism meant that we would be accused of allowing the worst choice in her history. This choice, between Sanders and Clinton, re-disconnection and representation, has been the center of conflict in progressive American politics that year. You may have either reshape goods or representations, the thought says, but not both.

Sanders's announcement, and the revival of division in the party, is especially driving us crazy that we would more like to avoid repeating that fight in 2016, as long as there is a candidate with a long commitment to re-displacement policies and that has been proven for her ability to fight inequality: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Both Sanders and Warren have a long career in combating the injustices of the country where rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In contrast, it has also been tested outside the Senate, helping to establish the Financial Office for the Protection of Consumers during Obama's administration and in writing some books on how to help families keep finances and make debt laws more correct.

But unlike Senator Saunders, Elizabeth Warren has no luggage in the 2016 preliminaries, which will weigh on Saunders' side and will whisper large parts of the democrat base. She is a woman, an essential identifying feature in a party that is increasingly dominated by colored people and counting on the votes of half of white women, who rightly want to see themselves better in a party whose leaders were older, whiter, and more male than voters themselves. And it doesn't require voters to make the choice that was presented to them in the preliminarys of 2016, between economic equality policies and gender and racial equality policies. Her statements and proposals are more detailed than those of earlier racers, and show that she is committed to doing both.

Why would democratic voters choose one like Sanders when Warren's racing? These two are not ideologically identical, but differences in major political attitudes, and in financial services and in the need for lasting prosperity are relatively small, especially compared to the rest of the candidates. Warren calls herself capitalist, says Sanderson's partisans, while Saunders himself is not afraid of the label of “socialist”. That's one thing. This is cited by those who are reasonably politically acceptable to vote for a man rather than a woman who would vote for this man, and perhaps for no woman, it does matter what she stands for. The fact is that Warren is on the left of Sanders in some cases, most importantly that of gun control. Even if these two race to the left, it's not quite sure that Sanders would win.

But Warren's primary virtue to Sanders is that she seems to understand the strong link between racial and gender discrimination and economic injustice that both want to remove. It has stated the reality of racial discrimination, how it relates to economic injustice to keep people in color to enter or stay in the middle class.

Sanders, meanwhile, speaks of the difficulties that work classes are going through in a simplified and retroactive way; he seems to have an anachronic understanding of American worker as white and man, oppressed only by his bosses and not at once by the structures of racism and sexism. Saunders has made, and continues to make deaf ears especially for the race. It seems to have tolerated the income gap for both genders and some terrible sexual harassment during the 2016 campaign. But few scandals seem to hurt Sanders. Like Trump, he has a large base of fanatics who would forgive him for everything.

It is this base that has been blamed for the intense bitterness accumulated in the preliminarys of 2016, and this group can be a barrier to Sanders as well as to his assets: many of the coloured Democrats and women feel antipathy to his fanatic supporters. These democratic voters imagine Sanders's voters as young, white urban boys who are arrogant, antagonist and enthusiastic sexist. Many democratic voters rightly worry that in the race against Trump, with a candidate whose political power is heavily based on personality cult. For many Democrats, especially feminists, Sanders brings to mind an old joke about Jesus: he has some good ideas but his fans are the problem.

Warren has her own problems for the race, for example, the stupid slide she made about her family's claims with a nativist past seems to be going with her forever. But she realizes that poor American workers are disproportionately made up of colored women, and she is moving forward political proposals that reflect such a reality. In her announcement that she would race for president, she stressed the role racial discrimination plays in economic inequality. On the day Sanders announced the competition, Warren showed her plan for universal health care, more detailed and powerful than anything that had been done earlier in 2016.

For those left-wing Americans who are also committed to social equality but also to economic equality, rhetoric, or representation or division has been terrible: we know it's a false choice. In fact, increasing the understanding of capitalism's dependence on sexual and racial explosion made by the imposed choice between Sanders v Clinton, socialism or feminism seems not only reduced but also dangerous. Reseparation and representation cannot occur separately. They can achieve their goals together.

Elizabeth Warren's candidacy offers another way for progressives who are committed to the introduction against real injustices. /Periscopi