With the 2020 Democratic presidential primary heating up, there’s a new report today about Bernie Sanders allegedly telling Elizabeth Warren in a private meeting a woman couldn’t win the election that is currently lighting up social media.

I’ll keep posting these numbers until people stop saying that women and POC can’t win. 1. Barack Obama (2008)

69,498,516 votes 2. Barack Obama (2012)

65,915,795 votes 3. Hillary Clinton (2016)

65,853,514 votes 4. Donald Trump (2016)

62,984,828 voteshttps://t.co/fnTfdZI4Bh — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) January 13, 2020

I don’t think Sanders is necessarily sexist or racist, I do think his conception of ‘identity politics’ makes him resistant to or outright hostile towards the significance of women, black and brown folks running for office if they don’t share his politics https://t.co/bbkiPh2Ebo — Jason Johnson (@DrJasonJohnson) January 13, 2020

if one of the people familiar with the meeting was @ewarren , then GOOD for her. Enough of this. cc: @Mimirocah1 — Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) January 13, 2020

The CNN report, however, has been met with a fair amount of skepticism thus far:

So Sanders denies and Warren’s team won’t comment. Fuck it, let’s run it anyway. https://t.co/s9r1o6uK6F pic.twitter.com/WF191nLX0y — jordan (@JordanUhl) January 13, 2020

This last-ditch attempt from Warren’s camp to use the cheapest, stalest narratives to smear Bernie as a sexist is fucking pathetic https://t.co/LDxJRPpsxY — Meagan Day (@meaganmday) January 13, 2020

…according to anonymous sources who weren’t even there! after a few disingenuous news cycles (disproportionate backlash over dancing ribbing, feigned shock over Sanders’ canvassing rap sheet,) this smacks of a coordinated victimhood narrative from the Warren camp https://t.co/3WIdHV2awc — Natalie Shure (@nataliesurely) January 13, 2020

None of the sources were in the meeting. How can CNN publish this? https://t.co/mS2cDQcFgB — Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) January 13, 2020

Lightly sourced and denied by Sanders. The liberal media desperately wants these candidates and their campaigns to fight over bullshit. Before you dig in your heels, ask yourself why that might be. https://t.co/UmDnEObaCP — Sam Adler-Bell (@SamAdlerBell) January 13, 2020

This is a case in which journalists should demand people go on record or otherwise not run the story. Four sources, none in the room, all anonymous (and I’m willing to wager, all with a certain political motivation). https://t.co/OSFTrl1AG1 — Geoffrey Ingersoll (@GPIngersoll) January 13, 2020

This “reporting” + self promotion @cnn is reprehensible. @BernieSanders has categorically denied saying this. So, you @mj_lee should name your sources publicly, retract the story, or change the lede. You do not know what was said. You weren’t there + have no recording. #bias https://t.co/d80uFzOTE7 — David Shuster (@DavidShuster) January 13, 2020

Unnamed sources with unidentified current affiliations providing a second-hand story that neatly makes Sanders look like a jerk while also repeating an underhanded electability attack against Warren is, ahem, just a little bit suspicious. https://t.co/5UKVmQFX6H — Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) January 13, 2020

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]