Let the Betting Begin - Bernie's VP

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Vonnegut, Feb 27, 2020.

  1. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    All right.. while I have no doubt in the ability of the DNC to pull strings again and sabotage Bernie's campaign... I think it's fairly clear at this point that he is highly likely to run away with the popular primary vote. Clearing the DNC and super delegates may be another story.

    So... what are everyone's thoughts on the VP choice?
  2. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Bloomberg! Just kidding.

    I think I'll stay in denial for a few days and hope for a Biden bounce.
  3. newsongs

    newsongs Active Member

    Maybe a moderate to balance the ticket and get a few more votes where Trump will tend to win. Otherwise, likely four more years.
  4. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    You would think that. I have trouble seeing Sanders in a ticket with someone not 100% agreeing with him, though. Part of his "appeal". Even Warren would balance him just a nudge, and they share almost all goals - but I have a feeling they're not crazy about each other. Someone relatively obscure and very Progressive.

    Pragmatic choice would be Stracey Abrams. But she did get a donation from Bloomberg...
    I would not be so sure on four more years, though. Trump and Sanders have something in common, as far as their appeal go - so I can imagine people switching from Trump to Sanders. Too risky for my taste, though/
  5. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Hopefully it would be someone that would help the Democrats win electoral votes in the purple states.
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Without arguing politics, just the facts, this is a false premise.

    First, Sanders is not even a Democrat. Why he would expect the party to change its rules for him--he sought a brokered convention in 2016 and now wants to avoid one in 2020--is a mystery. He should have not expected any support from the party beyond tallying his votes.

    Speaking of which, Hillary Clinton stomped him. She won many more state primaries, millions more votes, and a lot more pledged delegates.
    Oh, it's probably a little early to come to that conclusion. I wouldn't rule it out, but it is hardly a given.
    Ah, this is the rub. Because of the 2020 rules (that the Sanders camp agreed to), far more states are awarding delegates proportionately instead of winner-take-all. This means that, as long as several candidates stay in the race, it is likely no candidate will go to the convention with a majority.

    But why won't other candidates performing less well drop out? Because (a) they don't have to (big money keeps them afloat) and (b) they're also looking to a brokered convention where all bets are off.

    In 2016, Sanders wanted delegates to be free to make their own choices, instead of voting for whom they were pledged. Now that he's likely to get the most delegates--but not a majority--he's reversed himself and now wants the nomination to go to the person with a plurality.

    If no one has a majority after the first round--which we'll know going in--subsequent round turn loose the delegates to vote for whom they choose. It also turns the super delegates loose, a bunch that isn't like to support an insurgent outsider, no matter how popular with some voters. Sanders will then be cut out of any deals made--he isn't exactly well-liked among his peers.

    If we get to that point, one of two things happen, both very old-school. First, a bloc is formed by two (or more) candidates, ensuring the nomination for one and the VP slot on the ticket for the other. Still others could join that bloc, bringing their delegates (who may or may not remain loyal at that point) in return for considerations in the next administration. The second possibility is that party leaders draft a yet-considered candidate for the party to rally around. Silly names like Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey have been bandied about, but others more serious like Sherrod Brown and Stacey Abrams might also be considered at that point.

    Lots of fun still to be had.
    Two typical approaches here: balance the ticket (like Klobuchar) or someone who can deliver a key state (like Klobuchar). I just can't come up with a name (like Klobuchar).
  7. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    ;)Bernie will choose Medvedev - Dmitry Anatolyevich as his running mate VP on the ticket.o_O
  8. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    No worries Rich. I am confused though. How do you consider it a false premise, that I have a personal opinion that the DNC may work to sabotage his campaign? Are you simply having an issue with the semantics of "sabotage"? No matter how well HRC did during the previous primary, Brazile has been fairly open about what was done. Regardless of how he classifies or historically positioned himself, he is running once again on the Democratic primary /ticket. I am not a Bernie'Bro by any stretch of the imagination, in fact I tend to keep my personal thoughts on politics and whom I support, to myself. I do highly respect the authenticity that I believe Bernie brings, but that has no correlation with supporting his positions.

    Not issuing a conclusion, just again a personal opinion that it's highly likely he enters the convention with the popular vote.

    I was very specific with my word choice when I mentioned that he may enter the convention with the popular vote, because of the very reasons you mentioned.

    While I'm inclined to believe that the Republican party, within a generation, will be facing a nearly insurmountable demographic time bomb... if the DNC goes in those directions above, they may be jumping the shark and racing to implode as a political party first. This is politics, we're not feral pirates, no one should be jumping the shark.

    Absolutely agree!

    Wait, are you chasing Amy? Have to admit, that was a classic of my youth.

  9. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Funny how that works. I agree with most of his public positions (worry on foreign policy, though), but am not buying the whole "authenticity" schtick. People think that Trump is "authentic". Is it a coincidence both attract toxic online subcultures ("alt-right" and Berine Bros). I'm not saying Sanders is literally Trump, and he's clearly preferable to Trump, but this "authenticity" I can do without.
  10. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    But can Sanders tolerate someone on the ticket who's not 100% with him ideologically? Seeing the feud with Warren (Warren, Carl!) and literally everything about him on the trail, I have my doubts. He could dig up Cenk Uygur or someone like that.

    Dream tickets would be Warren/Klobuchar or Klobuchar/Warren. One can dream.
  11. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    But isn't that the whole idea? Pick someone who is complimentary so that they pull in their voters. I'd think you'd want to pick someone like Warren or Klobuchar specifically because they are NOT clones of Sanders
  12. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

  13. newsongs

    newsongs Active Member

    Just can't see Amy Klobuchar bending her midwest values to become VP. With Trump throwing lots of folks off the bus, Pence has been loyal. Not much talk of replacing him...
  14. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    That would be true - if Sanders was someone who sticks with established ideas. Even if they are sensible - like this one.
  15. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    I think the old expression is "pride goeth before the fall."
  16. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    From the cited article:

    Luckily for [Bernie] Sanders, young voters supporting him for his college tuition forgiveness promises don’t seem to be too interested in his own family history. His wife Jane Sanders was president of the now defunct Burlington College and she and other administrators were reportedly the subjects of a long-running FBI probe that they misled bank loan officers about the real number of donations pledged to the college.

    The FBI probe of the matter ended in 2018, and Jane Sanders was not charged. But the policies she oversaw, which included pushing for major campus expansions, were indicative of some of the root causes of increased college costs in America.​

    Point of trivia: Jane earned her Ph.D. from the then-Union Institute* in 1996 (six years before the shit hit the fan at Union in 2002). She had done a solid job as interim president of Goddard a few years earlier, then botched it all up with her administration of Burlington College, which went down the tubes.

    * Disclosure: I graduated from Union in 1991, five years before Jane and 11 years before the shit hit the fan there.
  17. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Yes, something along these lines.

    OTOH, Trump proved that you can be a disagreeable jerk and still get elected, so there's plenty of hope for Sanders.
  18. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

  19. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    What gets to me is dishonest way Berniesphere just handwaves these things away. And lash out at perceived threats. Look at comment sections of any video on YouTube that discusses Warren... yuck. And these two used to be friends and closest allies in Senate.

    Bernie Is A Jerk, even though I agree with most of his positions. What he and his cult seem to ignore is none of the policies is any good if you fail to get elected or get your stuff through Congress. And they brand everyone asking these questions "establishment". Yuck.
  20. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    Stanislav, what you mention is the one reason that the prospect of a Bernie presidency doesn't have me overly concerned. There is simply no way that he would currently be able to bring congress on board with many of his positions.

Share This Page