I’ve been anticipating the day when Clinton and Trump would emerge as the nominees since last fall, but when the day finally came it still surprised me to experience how it felt. I don’t think I can compare it to anything since the day in college when I sat in my dorm room watching CNN as the Soviet Union collapsed before my eyes.
I had to actually feel what it was like as an actuality before I could begin to wrap my head around it. This has been a dizzying day.
For the first time, the idea of a Clinton-Sanders ticket made some sense to me.
It really didn’t before, because…well…because of a lot of reasons.
I have a strong preference against choosing a running mate who will be too hold to serve as a potential successor, first of all. I don’t think it worked out for the Republicans to have Dick Cheney serve as their vice-president, and not only because he’s a terrible person who did a criminal job in office. When Bush and Cheney left office, they left their party rudderless. And I think it’s unfortunate that Joe Biden isn’t able to run for a third term for this administration because I surely believe they deserve one.
I also don’t want to have a bunch of distractions about the meaning of Democratic Socialism or why Sanders traveled to the Soviet Union, or anything along that line that is really unnecessary.
I’m not even sure that Sanders is temperamentally well-suited to be president. And I have my doubts that he’d get along with the Clintons or that they’d made a good team either on the campaign trail or as partners in the White House.
I also doubted that Sanders would want the job or that the Clintons would have any inclination to offer it to him.
But the spectacle of the Republican Party being divided this way has made me reconsider whether it might not be best for the nation if the Democrats can meet this national emergency with the unity and resolve it deserves.
It’s certainly possible to offer Sanders something less. He might have someone else beside himself in mind to be the vice-president. It’s also easy enough to offer him a prominent cabinet position but that can get tricky for a couple of reasons. First, a candidate doesn’t usually announce their cabinet before getting elected, and cabinet positions are subject to confirmation in the Senate. Sanders could probably get confirmed to some cabinet positions, but not necessarily the ones with the prestige he probably requires. Trying to put him in charge of the Treasury Department would cause a pretty big battle royale, and it might not be successful. What would be the back up plan? Health & Human Services?
If he’d agree to serve as vice-president, it would immediately unite the Democratic Party and put its activist base into organizing mode. It would inoculate Clinton somewhat against the attacks Trump will bring on free trade and the Iraq War vote.
I can see how Sanders would bring some unnecessary difficulties in the campaign, but I don’t see how a Democratic Party that is strongly united could fail to rampage on the Republicans up and down the ballot.
There are still arguments against this move, including that it will give a lot of Republicans a little more justification for sticking with Trump. It will freak the business community out at the exact moment that they’re realizing that they need to come to Clinton with hat in hand or get shellacked early in her administration.
I can probably find more reasons it’s not a great idea, perhaps related on a granular level to how it would impact a few select suburban House races. And, personally, I’d rather see Sanders back in the Senate.
But, after really feeling the demise of the Conservative Movement, I’m kind of convinced that the biggest possible hammer blow is Democratic unity on the biggest possible scale.
If Hillary goes with a Clinton-Sanders ticket, I think it will knock the fucking House down.
See?
I’ve almost convinced myself.
I don’t see how choosing Sanders as VP (if he’d even accept) would buy Clinton much in terms of unity. I think that’s a misreading of the great majority of his supporters, who will vote for Clinton despite what some say in the heat of the primary season. But (and I know this is terribly naive, BMX, so you needn’t recycle a comment about the wisdom of the proletariat) the great bulk of their objections to Clinton are principled objections. Sanders as VP does nothing to answer them. So why should Sanders’ supporters care if he’s VP? Contra some Clintonville voices, it’s not his boyish face and thrilling charisma that is winning him votes.
Clinton/Gillibrand is the ticket. (She’s got enough houses that her official residence doesn’t need to be NY.) I find Clinton’s close personal friendship with a war criminal who is responsible for millions of murders absolutely chilling. I’m not thrilled that her campaign has established that mainstream Democrats dismiss the notion that millions of dollars in political contributions might appear unseemly, and that single payer healthcare is a goal even worth striving for. But two women on the ticket and I am fucking there.
Clinton’s problems are with the young – I do think Sanders would help with them.
Clinton’s fundamental problem is authenticity. The exit polling is pretty clear that a good chunk of independents don’t trust her. If Bernie could get agreement on breaking up the banks as part of an agreement to get on the ticket, it would help address that perception to some extent.
None of the other picks that are floated do anything for Clinton. Nobody knows who the hell Gillibrand is – she brings very little to the ticket that Clinton does not already have.
Agreement to break up the banks? NEVER going to happen! Haven’t you noticed the ton of money that the banks have been showering her with? Both campaign contributions and
bribes“speaking fees” and donations to the Clinton Foundation which exists to serve as a tax dodge for the Clinton crime family.If you want to dislike and disagree with Hillary Clinton, be my guest, I’m with you, but “Clinton crime family” is absurd.
Is it? Wait until you see what Trump is going to throw at her.
“Crime family.” I suppose it depends on what you consider to be “crime,” JDW. There is crime as defined by laws, and then there is crime as defined by morality. If the laws themselves have been written with criminal intent, you are left with only the latter definition as useful.
I’ll take it one step further.
The Permanent Government Crime Family.
Since the JFK assassination.
“Clinton crime family?”
Like the Five Families of the Cosa Nostra, the Clintons and the Bushes are two factions of what the .01% might call “Our Thing.” Extend this idea outwards and you get the other various “crime families” that rule other areas of the world for their own profit. Is the Saudi
shakedown…errrr, ahhh, sheikdom…not plainly a crime family? The whole Russian government is simply a giant kleptocracy. Historically, how have true monarchies functioned if not as crime families? Is the international financial industry not plainly a crime family that specializes in only one crime? Please!!!Revolutions happen to overthrow these systems when the systems themselves become too greedy and/or too stupid…greed Is stupidity, really…to maintain their power over their victims, but the criminals inevitably re-establish their control within a generation or two.
Bernie Sanders was using the word “revolution” quite accurately and I believe quite consciously as well. So far his ‘revolution” has failed. We’ll see when the fat lady sings.
Trump?
Not a “revolutionary,” just another gang boss looking to join the big time.
Like dat.
What’s going to happen?
I think…if he is not stopped by either some massive, publicity-driven scandal or “sudden ill health,”…he will win.
Plain as that.
His is an attempted revolution inside of the Permanent Government, not a change from criminality to justice.
So it goes.
And the hits keep coming…
AG
“So far his ‘revolution” has failed.”
Or you could also say, “So far his revolution has succeeded.”
Not yet, priscianus jr.
Not yet.
Success is predicated on winning.
This?
This is not a ‘win” on any level.
Just more hustlers rising to the top.
“Shit rises.”
True street talk.
Bet on it.
AG
What do you mean “not yet”?
You said “so far”. “So far” and “not yet” mean the same thing, just viewed from different ends of the telescope.
Finally, someone who understands the dilectic.
Define “dilectic,” please.
Or…learn to spell. Or spell check, at least.
Not sure which.
Thank you and good night.
AG
P.S. See my response to priscianus jr. below for more on the subject…which should have been quite easy to understand in its original form.
I mean that so far the Sanders “revolution” has not succeeded. “Not yet” is a modifier. It could succeed under certain circumstances, but it has not yet done so. Just in case you need even more explanation…it also could fail. But it has not done that yet either.
It is in limbo.
In transition.
In process.
It is a Schroedinger’s cat revolution.
Indeterminacy rules as long as the electoral box has not been opened…and in this case, closed again. If either of the two presumptive candidates wins and then has a really successful run as president…successful in the eye of the public, closed wide shut as is that eye generally…then Sanders and his “revolution” will fade into memory like the many other “more liberal” Dem candidates of the past 50+ years. If, on the other hand, either of them has a catastrophic presidency then all bets are off.
Clear enough?
AG
If it hadn’t succeeded so far, it would hereby be over.
In other words, so far, it’s still going.
No more so than “Bush crime family”
I just don’t see any young person thinking, “Well, I would’ve grudgingly voted for Clinton against Trump, but now, with Clinton/Sanders, I’ll volunteer like crazy!” I think that presupposes that young people are into Sanders for his ‘celebrity,’ sort of: they just want him visible, and as VP will do. But I don’t see it that way, I think they’re pretty desperate for change, and Clinton/Sanders doesn’t offer any. However, I’m not young, so what do I know?
I agree nobody knows who Gillibrand is. And it’s not like I’m a superfan of hers or anything, but she’s a superfan of Clinton’s (also a bit of a chameleon, I think), and I’d be pretty thrilled to vote for a ticket with two smart, accomplished, capable women.
this mindset of yours, and it’s not just you in this thread, is amazing to me.
you want change without power.
you would rather have Sanders’ campaign result in no power for him or anyone he designates than soil the movement with a coalition with mainstream Democrats.
He lost, he doesn’t get to be president. He might get to be vice-president. That puts him in the room when things like Libya are debated. That gives him the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. That gives him a bunch of jobs to mentor people for high positions in a future progressive presidency. That gives him a tangible accomplishment and a visible win.
But you’d rather have him get nothing. And you think his supporters are more interested in nursing their butthurt than in getting an access to power.
Nuts.
You think HRC is going to listen to him?
How often do ties in the senate happen in the 60-vote era?
I’ll grant you he may mentor some people but the VP slot is still a retirement post if the president is not Bush levels of lazy. I don’t see how it provides any actual access to power.
Sanders will have as much power as head of the Budget committee in the Senate as he would with any cabinet post. More, really, because almost everything he’s pushing for that Hillary already isn’t requires legislative changes.
Veep is a powerless post. Yes, Hillary can choose to listen to him, but she can make the same choice if he’s a Senator, and he’s retain some real power as well.
If Sanders really wants to maximize the power of the Democratic Socialist movement, he should endorse Hillary after the primaries are over and enthusiastically encourage his supporters to join the Democratic party and get active in primaries, precinct committees, etc. Democratic Socialists could easily get control of the party in a few years and run the country on a “majority of the majority” bases.
I suggest that this campaign proves the opposite – that the corporations and their toadies are in control of the Democratic Party permanently.
This was the last gasp of the New Deal and it failed.
You’re wrong. I very, very much want this campaign to result in power. However, my opinion is that a) putting Sanders on the ticket won’t unify the party and somehow energize his supporters, a concern that you haven’t address and b) in answer to this comment in particular, the position of VP amounts to a warm bucket of piss, or whatever the quote is.
Why would Sanders’s supporters want him neutered? I want more than VP, not less. For someone who writes a lot about power …
To echo what other have said, how does giving Sanders the VP slot give him power? Look back at 2008; there were similar issues between the Clinton and Obama camps yet did you see Clinton take a VP post? Hell no, she got SOS, which is a powerful position. Despite all the “perks” you list as VP, who has had more of an impact of both domestic and internal policy? Biden or Clinton (at least as it applies to the first term)?
No, Sanders supporters would rather he didn’t sell out his beliefs, which is what he would be doing if he took the VP job. They aren’t interested “in nursing their butthurt” but avoiding flushing their values into the sewer for a weak political position.
The more you protest about how Sanders supporters don’t want power, and point to the dismal of your strategic idea as proof of this, the more I think you are really a Clinton supporter. For what better way to neutralize Sanders, and his movement, than to stick him in the VP position.
People want real power, not the illusion of it. Which is all your suggestion would be. Readers here aren’t stupid.
I actually do sort of like Gillibrand and I was right that when she represented a centrist dustruct she was more centrist but representing a liberal state she was more liberal. That said I think I honestly care more about a candidate’s positions than their sex or gender.
It would be a sign that Sanders is taken seriously by Clinton ON POLICY.
It really would be a great pick in a number of ways. I like the idea, but the age thing worries me.
How do you reach that conclusion? It baffles me.
Not only does “Clinton/Sanders” not offer any prospect for change, to many people it might suggest just the opposite: that the most dynamic voice for change has “sold out.”
In theory this could be counteracted if Sanders could get something pretty substantial from her, like, as fladem suggested, an agreement to break up the banks. That would immediately bring into play Sanders allies like Bill Black, Robert Reich, and Elizabeth Warren as well. BUT, one has merely to raise the suggestion to discover (as Voice immediately pointed out) what a fantasy it is.
I think the idea of Sanders for Veep is a red herring, myself. There’s no advantage in it to him or his supporters, and it’s not necessary for defeating Trump.
I think the best thing would be for Sanders, in effect, to proceed as if he is running his own campaign against Trump, for his own party, which happens to be in alliance with the official Democratic Party in the effort to defeat Trump. He can stump for whatever down-ticket candidates he wants to support. I’m not sure of the legal niceties of fundraising if he’s not a nominee, but he is a U.S. senator, at least nominally a Democrat, who will wholeheartedly do everything he can to defeat Trump, if not to support Clinton. (Which will of course have the incidental effect of supporting Clinton, but also of building the movement of what might be called the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.)
anti-Trump but neutral on Clinton. Yes, that would not be a sell out. Fellow traveler but not the “ringing endorsement”, i.e. total capitulation, that Booman wants.
BTW, did Ted Kennedy give a “ringing endorsement” of Jimmy Carter? (D) party historians, out there? Marie3?
I watched the convention with my family, including my father who happened to march for Al Smith (1928), but don’t recall any endorsement, ringing or sullen.
Sanders WOULD make her impeachment proof, though. lol
Sanders was not born yesterday. I don’t see any way he would agree.
IMHO, Bernie Sanders would not be offered the VP slot, nor would he take it if he were offered it. (Clinton has made it clear she is not interested in Bernie’s supporters because she is busy courting Republicans. There is a clip from a MSNBC Town hall that shows this.) Senator Sanders entered this race because he wanted to stop the neoliberal and and neocon policies prevalent in the Democratic party. He thought and still thinks he can make conditions better for people. There are actually politicians that really do care about the little guy. This has been Bernie’s mission in life. Is Bernie a saint? Heck no, but he sure is a decent and honest human being who is full of life.
I attended a Sanders rally recently and it truly was one of the best experiences I have had in years. The people there were looking for hope and change in their lives. Many had little in their pockets, but they were still willing to share what they had. It was a wonderful communal experience and I wouldn’t trade that for the biggest Fat Cat dinner at the most posh place in the world with some big celebrity. That stuff is all show and no go for me. I made some wonderful Facebook friends and had the time of my life.
I disagree with one thing you say. Clinton is VERY interested in Sanders’s supporters, but she won’t offer more than the usual flim-flam to get them. She figures she will get most of them anyway, without doing anything beyond running against Trump.
That’s all the more reason for Sanders to keep the movement going. This way his supporters will come out and vote for the movement, in effect, vs Trump, rather than Hillary vs Trump.
Technically this would not “foster party unity” in the way Hillary and Debbie conceive of it, but it would cement a firm alliance for the fight against Trump. After that, we’re still here, Hillary, and if you want something, you have to give something.
I agree with the general logic, but the best, most politically astute VP pick would be Elizabeth Warren. It’d be analogous to Bill Clinton’s extremely smart pick (Al Gore) in 1992.
Sanders strikes me as a thoroughly genuine, honest guy, and I have to assume he’d be absolutely thrilled (and say so, loudly and often) with Warren as VP. That also means he can still serve in Clinton’s Cabinet. I’m also assuming Hillary Clinton gives Warren a genuine portfolio of responsibility, also similar to what Al Gore enjoyed.
The one stipulation: Martha Coakley must not be allowed anywhere near a Democratic nomination ever again. Appointed office, OK, but she is not Warren’s replacement in the Senate.
Warren is an insanely bad choice. She has more power being in the senate. If Clinton wanted to de-fang her, this is the way to go. But I doubt Warren would accept; I don’t think she would be that stupid.
I get the sense that you simply don’t want any actual power.
And I get the sense that you don’t know what actual power is.
No, you don’t.
You don’t get that sense at all.
Well, now that we have both proved we can argue at the level of a five year old, what next? Shooting spitwads at each other?
Fight! Fight!
Truly, everything we learned we learned in Kindergarten.
Yes, but it’s on the Internet, so it’s even…sadder.
This would allow the GOP to pick up a Senate seat, I believe. Only Dem from MA that makes practical sense is Deval Patrick. Not my first choice though.
I think a Hillary-Bernie would be great but I doubt that she would offer and that he would accept. Tim Kaine is solid. I like Al Franken too.
McAuliffe
I’ll tell you what. I know you’re being sarcastic, and I definitely don’t want him to be VP, but he’s actually been a pretty decent governor (and I live here). I mean, going with executive order to restore 200k felon rights with the stroke of his pen against an aggressive legislature? That is the kind of stuff I want from my leaders when we have power to do it. It was also very anti-Clintonian. I suppose you could argue it was done to help Clinton in VA, and that’s true, but it was still the morally just thing to do, and politically harmful to himself. And he did it anyway.
Voting rights* of felons.
I want people in prison to be allowed to vote as well, but I realize that’s a minority position within my own party (likely).
LOL Not toxic enough to keep the Republicans off her neck?
There actually is merit to a Republican VP. Not Cruz, no coattails.
Honestly think about these anti-Trump unity tickets
Er, how would that make her toxic to impeach?
Replied to the wrong post. Meant to reply to your post immediately above.
Ugh! I mieant seabe’s post thusly:
“I’ll tell you what. I know you’re being sarcastic, and I definitely don’t want him to be VP, but he’s actually been a pretty decent governor (and I live here). I mean, going with executive order to restore 200k felon rights with the stroke of his pen against an aggressive legislature? That is the kind of stuff I want from my leaders when we have power to do it. It was also very anti-Clintonian. I suppose you could argue it was done to help Clinton in VA, and that’s true, but it was still the morally just thing to do, and politically harmful to himself. And he did it anyway. “
Hillary Clinton is the Martha Coakley of national politics.
As to Elizabeth Warren, I think pretty much the same arguments apply as with Bernie Sanders. It’s true that Elizabeth Warren has maintained a cordial relationship with Hillary Clinton. But that does not mean she would want be her VP. She would be able to do much more just where she is.
I’d be okay with this decision if I trusted the Massachusetts Democrats not to fuck up again.
This is a nice thought experiment, but I don’t see it happening. Sanders has benefited greatly from soft coverage in the media and the fact that he was the only other option in the primary. The only time reporters ever really dug into him was in New York and Florida. What happened to him in Florida, where Univision got ahold of an old tape of him saying nice things about the Sandanistas and Castro, was instructive. I suspect the Clinton campaign does not want to deal with stuff like that–and they would–given the strength of their base in Florida.
What I think is more important, and better for all, is if he chairs the committee on which he’s ranking member, budgets. If the Dems retake the Senate, and that’s what he does, he’ll have more influence over policy from that position than as VP. I see possibilities for good things and a lot to be excited about. If he does what Clinton did in 2008, and works to elect the Democratic ticket, I suspect the party will be plenty unified.
Your idea makes more sense than my Senate Leader idea, and is doable.
I believe Clinton is going to have a lot to worry about concerning herself. Some silly tape concerning Bernie Sanders is peanuts. I saw the Rev. Wright tape 24/7 for a month and Obama survived. Same tape, different subject.
The idea that old tapes of comments about Castro would be devastating to Sanders…I mean…
First, I do not think it will be offered. Second, if offered it would surely be rejected for numerous reasons.
So it won’t happen, but if it did, it would simply hurt Bernie’s credibility with his own supporters more than draw them to HRC, for reasons stated by Steggles.
Platform changes, cabinet positions, VP all mean nothing when it comes to real power. There are two things Bernie can fight for.
That is a concession that Bernie could take to his people and with conviction say we have had an enormous victory.
Like I said, not likely.
Problem with 1 is that the states control the primaries. That’s good and bad. Good in the sense that if you know what you are doing, you can take advantage of the different rules and pull out an upset (Obama). Bad in the sense you aren’t going to like state rules that don’t advantage your case (Bernie).
On 2, I think a chairmanship is far more realistic. No way is a sitting Senator going to give up his/her seat for a recently defeated Senator to sit in it, let alone run the majority.
Note, all this depends on how others feel about Bernie too and how he chooses to act. It’s possible that his colleagues may not like him very much right now. Some of them have advocated and worked hard for their states and likely don’t appreciate getting pissed on for their efforts. Not everyone is corrupt, and all of them have won elections too.
Problem with 1 is that the states control the primaries.
Ok, so are you talking about the state parties, or state law? Connecticut law, for example, was unconstitutional when it barred independents (by law) from participating, forcing them to register. Now the law is that if the parties change their rules to allow independents, they can…but both parties have not. Thus, Connecticut is a closed primary.
Sanders already has a chairmanship, the Budget Committee. It wouldn’t be a concession at all, unless you’re suggesting they might take it away.
I hadn’t thought of that, but it seems likely. HRC is legendary for carrying a grudge against anyone who opposes the Queen.
Like the way she carried a grudge against Obama after he won the nomination?
But we don’t know exactly what price Obama paid for her not to carry a grudge in public.
Nice thought. Don’t know if it’s realistic but I have not forgotten that when the rubber met the road, Schumer chose to be a senator for Israel instead of America.
“make Schumer step down as Senate leader and be replaced by Bernie fucking Sanders (or somebody he approves of like Warren, Merkeley, or Brown. And give Feingold back all his seniority and let him be leader.”
Hey, that ain’t gonna happen. But I love the idea.
Despite the unlikelihood of that particular confluence of events, I do think you have a point in that, somehow or other, all these people and more are going to find they have gotten a shot in the arm from the Sanders movement, and will proceed accordingly.
This makes no sense. I won’t cover the same ground others have; but this type of move, if offered and accepted could hurt both of them.
For Sanders it will most likely piss off his more passionate supporters, causing serious damage to the movement. For Clinton, rather than bringing her more Sanders supporters, it might actually drive more away.
For all of your insight and observations during this primary season, I am amazed you would even suggest this could be made work.
If I didn’t know better, I would say you posted this just to stir things up.
Perhaps having touted the inevitability of a Clinton nomination for so long, Booman is now trying to secure his own left flank by stating he voted for Sanders and now by touting his credentials as a VP.
But the logic of his earlier positions still applies. Yes, a Clinton Sanders ticket would provide an initial feel-good factor to the campaign and help make a Clinton Presidency feel more inevitable early on.
Coming up to November, however, it has all the disadvantages previously noted, and possibly few of the benefits. If the Trump campaign cannot succeed in uniting Democrats (and many Independents and some Republicans) behind Clinton, then nothing will.
A faux political marriage between Clinton and Sanders will simply lead to many campaign distractions highlighting the differences between them, and give the appearance of disunity, even if little were actually to exist.
There are many more ways to unite the Dem Party, and a shared platform and agreement on legislative priorities will go a long way.
Clinton should wait until much closer to the convention, when the battle has been long over, and passions have subsided, to announce her VP pick, and in the meantime make many soothing noises towards the Sanders support base.
Many of Sanders supporters are from states that are largely blue in any case, and not critical to building an electoral college majority. They will be channelled into building a congressional majority.
Her VP nominee will probably be relatively young, male, articulate, progressive, telegenic, perhaps with some minority roots and from a swing state. Someone who is seen as a potential future leader of the Dem party.
Ted Cruz! Now there’s a unity ticket for you!
Julian Castro comes more readily to mind. Not particularly good, but quite a plausible choice I would say.
Uh, what makes you believe that Booman has to secure his left flank, right flank, or anything else? He’s got a day job. This is a blog, fer chrissakes, where Booman expresses his thoughts about American politics mostly, and allows people to comment. I stress the word allows.
That is very…ingenuous…of you, JDW. Yes, he has a day job. He works for a Democratic-leaning (Read: left/centrist) publication. How long do you think he would be working there if he were to suddenly become a wild-eyed anarchist, a huge Trump supporter or started viciously attacking the Democratic National Committee members as a pack of thieves and fools?
Booman has historically been very honest about what he believes, but even he needs to parse his public political stances very carefully. Booman Trib is one of the reasons he is working in the media, and more power to him.
AG
I’ve suspected that some recent positions are job related. he is much further right than when I first came here.
BUT, I do recognize that one’s employment (a not just those employed in the media) can be in jeopardy from the wrong political stance.
My guess is we will see polling on it soon.
There are two theories on picks:
Since the Gore pick in ’92, I think the trend has been to thematic picks. The problem with Sanders is age.
I think you can pick Elizabeth Warren and get much of the benefit without the age downside.
She won’t do it – she is going to think conventionally – so get ready for Tim Kaine.
Kaine is likely. But Ted Cruz makes more sense than Sanders or Warren for reasons that others have repeatedly stated here.
The reason that Clinton-Sanders or Clinton-warren seems a good idea to some is because they believe everyone in politics is as corrupt as the Clintons. Maybe they are right. We’ll find out at the convention.
Ted Cruz is a reactionary Christian Dominionist. Get a grip and try not to let your hatred of Hillary Clinton control you.
All he said is that Cruz as VP would “make MORE sense” than Sanders or Warren. I would say that was his “sense” of humor, and from that standpoint, the comment does make sense, especially if you read it to the end.
But it did get me thinking about a Clinton-republican fusion ticket to attack the outsider. See another post of mine elsewhere.
Ask yourself this, if the country should suffer a Yitzhak Rabin moment, who would you want as the veep nominee?
Probably Benjamin Netanyahu.
But seriously, folks, as an ally of said Netanyahu, Hillary ain’t about to have no Yitzhak Rabin moment.
Jeff Merkley
Why would Hillary waste her time on a loser such as Sanders?? From day one, Bernie has been in this race only for himself, taking and wasting as much money as he can in a futile attempt to rewrite the history of the Democratic party. I would be happy with Tim Kaine, Sherrod Brown and maybe even Warren, but Sanders is a definite no Let Bernie go back home to Vermont, go back to being a non-entity.
I’m a lukewarm Sanders supporter, an old geezer, and I think he could have done a helluva lot more to try to work with the Democratic Party rather than against it. But your characterization of Sanders as “in this race only for himself” is insulting. He’s engaged a lot of previously apolitical young people. One of them is a member of my household, for instance. Acknowledge what he has accomplished.
ECM is being deliberately provocative. Best to ignore him.
a politer way of saying s/he is a troll, correct? If so, I agree.
Insulting, yes — AND downright ignorant.
And BTW, thanks for adding that you are a lukewarm Sanders supporter. Not only does it properly frame your observation (“even the lukewarm Sanders supporter JoelDanWalls found the comment insulting”)– but, this is the frst time I even knew you WERE a Sanders supporter. Nice to have you here, lukewarm as you may be.
I like playing devil’s advocate. It’s an addiction. I haven’t figured out yet that it doesn’t usually work.
I’m down with it. If for no other reason that it will neutralize the naderites that have attached themselves to him.
The naderites that have attached themselves to him, if they are naderites in the full sense, are of no consequence whatsoever.
Just remember, Sanders is not a third-party candidate, he’s not going to be a third-party candidate, and, despite being a man of principle, he is also an experienced, practical politician.
Booman’s post, and responses to it, constitute a nice illustration of the different mindsets of actual political activists and news junkies (and I include myself among the latter). Booman is thinking strategically. Did you read what he wrote?
I’m kind of convinced that the biggest possible hammer blow is Democratic unity on the biggest possible scale.
The responses from avid Sanders supporters indicate that they could care less about party unity. They can’t get beyond their dislike of Hillary Clinton.
Thinking strategically leads to actions such as Hillary Clinton endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, asking the convention to nominate him by acclamation, and then campaigning for him.
The two sets of voters want VERY different things this time. Sanders’s better strategy is electing downballot legislators to the House, where they could create a significant bloc for their issues.
Hillary’s more natural allies are conservative refugees.
He’s thinking strategically, but in a way where abstract process has gotten the better of human social and psychological reality. The expression, “it might look good on paper” comes to mind.
While it may not be intended, this response is somewhat insulting to some of the posters/readers here.
People can be passionate and emotional, and still make judgements on a position based on rational thinking.
I think people here did read what he said, and also saw it as strategic. But that doesn’t make it a good, or even well thought out, strategy.
Some responses do go down the path that eschew party unity. So what? If BooMan is allowed to post structurally flawed position pieces why can’t others embrace the opposite position? I’m not claiming they are right, but to give the appearance of praising the former and dismissing the latter makes you look like a hypocrite.
And to your final point: Clinton supported Obama. What did she get out of it? Not a weak VP position but the SOS. So if we want to use similar logic, Sanders should get something similar, not the VP spot.
Stategic thinking indeed.
I apologize if you were insulted.
I more or less reflexively adopt a position of devil’s advocate. It turns out that I voted for Sanders. I’ve been as unimpressed by Hillary Clinton in 2016 as I was in 2008.
In my opinion, and now I am not playing devil’s advocate, young progressives have been shooting themselves in the foot regularly–2010 and 2014 being the most obvious examples–by (it would appear) saying “we’re disappointed, so we’re not going to bother voting.” That’s how we get guys like Scott Walker as governor of Wisconsin, along with a GOP run legislature, doing things that have an awful effect on…young progressives. That’s the frame in which I think about the whole party unity discussion.
Back to Booman’s post: I guess I read it somewhat differently than you. Think about where he wound up: he was arguing that strong Democratic Party unity, especially at this juncture of serious disarray in GOP ranks, offers the best chance of really hurting the Republicans electorally. And Booman thinks a way to do that would be a unity ticket: Clinton & Sanders. It’s a pragmatic argument, not a kumbaya statement.
Now, I suppose if one has Arthur Gilroy’s perspective, that it’s all smoke and mirrors, it makes no damn difference who we elect, then fine. I don’t share that perspective, but I know the temptation. But if one doesn’t think that way, then maybe this is relevant:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”–Ben Franklin at signing of Declaration of Independence
Thank you; I appreciate you saying that. While I was not bothered myself, it was more the way it sounded.
I can understand you position about taking the devil’s advocate stance. It is important to have that present.
As to your point about the turnout and results of 2010 and 2014, I think it is a little more complicated than that; but it is a fair topic to explore and discuss. A key issue that complicates the matter is that what appears to be shooting oneself in the foot is actually a reaction to continually getting punched in the face. The DNC in particular, and the Democrats in general, have been very dismissive to young progressives, and in some ways, the young in general. It think Sanders high support among all young groups points to this.
With reference to BooMan’s post, I guess I still see it as a wishful kumbaya statement and not pragmatic because it completely fails to take into account the amout of damage such a unity ticket would cause. A great number of Sanders supporters would see him joining Clinton in this way as a sell out, and they would be right. While the differences between Obama and Clinton were greatly exaggerated during the 2008 primary, they were really not that far apart. As proof, look to his choosing her as SOS. With Sanders, there are some real, and critical differences that can’t just be glossed over. So while I can understand BooMan’s hope for such a unity ticket, it is not feasible for the very reason he wants it: instead of bringing the party together, it would further splinter it. Or at the very least, drive more young voters to become nonaligned politically.
For the most part I share your view with regard to Arthur Gilroy’s stance (at least as I perceive it); I do think that you can elect someone who can make a difference. My concern is that the amount of change has become limited, and the deck is stacked against such a person in the Democratic party.
As for the Ben Franklin quote, I don’t disagree with it but I think this one is more relevant and shows how far we have fallen, especially since the Democrats have been complicit in this trend:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
It’s not dislike, Joel. it’s positive hatred and revulsion.
It’s kind of you to speak politely of us, though.
Um no.
no VP Sanders.
Uh huh
Perhaps a Clinton/Sanders ticket would unify Democrats. My wife – a bumper-stickered Bernie Babe – liked the idea when I asked her this morning. But for me, there is no running mate Hillary can pick, no progressive policy proposal she can pay lip service to, that can redeem her crimes against peace.
Cue the inevitable “But the Awful Republican is 80 billion times worse!” Well, I’m not voting for them either.
There is basically nothing HRC can do to concilliate me until after the election. The only thing that would convince me is if she pushed for the progressive policy as president and didnt throw us into wars but she’d have to win to do that.
I think you pretty much stated the reasons this is not a great idea or may not be workable. Then, in the end, you seemed to reject all that and thought unity would be a swell idea with Sanders. I think there are too many negatives. A President needs to be able to freely act and not be looking over their shoulder for disapproval from within. I also think Bernie can do as much good in the senate as opposed to the VP or cabinet. So let Hillary pick her own running mate. It is her campaign that must live with it. I do very much agree we need unity. I very much doubt Sanders will not support and even campaign for her if asked. We need to beat this clown and all the trouble he can bring. The SCOTUS appointments under Trump could even be the lesser of the evils.
The problem for party unity is not Sanders but Clinton. She and her campaign have made it pretty clear that they want to shut down the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that goes toward economic reform and traditional New Deal positions.
It is adoption of Sanders point of view on economic policy that would most bring in the Sanders supporters, but the Clinton campaign has already burned that bridge.
Sanders’s best move is to work to get a Democratic Senate, pulling across Democrats from some Sanders-supporting red states and progressive candidates with whom he can ally in the Senate. That composition might be able to get a progressive majority leader. But getting the majority is the main thing. That puts him in power in the Budget Committee by inertia. And puts Ron Wyden as chair of the Finance committee (unless Wyden wants the Select Committee on Intelligence).
Sanders is in the uncomfortable position of not being able to give full-throated support to Clinton without losing credibility with a sizeable fraction of his base. Personal awards of status, like selection as the vice presidential nominee, will make that worse not better. Sanders’s supporters want to see real policy concessions and guarantees that they will not be swept aside before committing their support. Like Trump voters, they are tired of being ignored while the country goes to hell. Unlike Trump supporters, they’re tired of being co-opted by politicians who talk the talk and go in the opposite direction. Cynicism is deep among Sanders’s supporters. Party unity only matters if it brings solutions to the nation’s serious problems. Clinton’s conventional approach has not convinced them. Symbolic gestures will not suffice.
For many, the decision if Sanders is not the candidate is whether to vote at all. That is what party unity must overcome.
The selection of the vice-president must signal something to Sanders’s supporters. Doubling down on Clintonism with a selection like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (to use an extreme example) will not bring about party unity. Trying to court white men by selecting a white man will not bring about party unity either. Raiding the Congress or candidates for state office will undermine the rebuilding of the Democratic Party. That limits the list pretty dramatically. Former governors, former members of Congress, former cabinet members, current cabinet members.
The notes that the selection of vice-president must hit are those that are counter-Trump to offset the photos of Hillary and Trump. A heavy labor note, Latino note, a note of caution in foreign policy and military affairs, a note of concern for the overreach of the intelligence community, and a sense that Clinton will use the vice-president to counter-balance her unhelpful tendencies could persuade some Sanders’s supporters to support the ticket. If there were other concessions to party unity.
By far, the most significant thing the Democratic Party could do to heal politics in this country is to end the efforts to amputate the American left wing. You can bet that delegitimizing even Clintonism as being left wing is the first shot out of the Trump barrel. There will be an attempt to use “socialist”, “communist”, “Marxist”, “liberal”, “progressive” as smear words and then conflate them into “treason”. It is time that after 70 years the Democratic Party stood up to that tactic and not buy the Red Scare, the Putin Scare, or any other furriner scare.
The United States still retains the most expensive, most wide-ranging, most heavily armed military in the world, and counts as its allies almost all of the nations who have slightly less expensive, slightly less heavily armed, and slightly less wide ranging nations. In fact the US’s alliance is looking hard for the next enemies to fight once DAESH/ISIL/ISIS is taken care of. We are throwing our weight around willy-nilly and the election of Hillary Clinton will not change that tendency. Nor will the election of Donald Trump. We must have the internal critics to keep us from smoking our own supply.
Party unity against those helpful critics does not arrest the drift to collapse. We must become the democratic free speech society we claim to be. We must have the political discourse we claim to have.
I just want to say how much I appreciate your comments. When they reflect my own positions, they give me a way to be more articulate. And whatever your opinion, I almost always learn something new.
How convenient. The circus begins.
Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post: Deadlines loom for answers in Clinton email probe as U.S. judge sets discovery
I would say all the Republican operatives have swung behind their primary objective: defeating Democrats through hook or crook.
This can’t be good. I wonder if it will gain any real traction and become an issue?
It’s just not practical and I’m sure there are other ways to unite those who are persuadeable, keeping in mind that you can’t please everyone (the Hillary is Satan folks). It would make more sense to nab someone who could realistically be president in 8 years.
What about Clinton/Franken?
Isn’t there a nice, progressive governor out there under the age of 60? How is Jay Inslee?
If I had to pick someone (since Gillibrand is out, via the Constitution), I’d pick my Senator Chris Murphy.
A left field pick (ideological and otherwise) might be Ernest Moniz.
I don’t think we want someone who’s been in DC more than a few years. As for Sanders, why in the world would he “take the veil” of being Veep?
Not that I have any proclivity for Gillibrand, but I’m curious, what does the constitution say that prevents nominating her for VP?
It does raise an interesting question. Have to use 2000 as an example because it’s the only time a presidential ticket came close to having both the president and VP nominees from the same state. They dodged a potential bullet by having Cheney quickly “move” to WY. But say that ploy hadn’t worked and it was an all TX ticket.
And the votes (including the rigged counting in FL) were the exactly the same as the actual 2000 results. Would Lieberman have become VP or would 32 electors in “blue” states have cast their VP vote for Cheney instead of Lieberman?
Gillibrand unconstitutional?
Common misunderstanding that electors (electoral college) can only cast one their two votes (President and VP) for a resident of the elector’s state. Would only present a problem for an all X state ticket when the electoral vote winning margin is smaller than the total electoral votes from the candidates’ home state. Nobody knows what would happen in such a situation because it’s never been tested.
IMO, Sanders would serve better in the Senate than as VP. I think Clinton would relegate Sanders – as her putative VP – to a back office somewhere doing nothing at all. Sanders would be effectively powerless and very little room to have a voice or say.
As someone said, above, it’s only Cheney, as VP, who has ever had much power or say. Obama has used Biden effectively and sent him out on various “missions,” so he’s had a bit more say than some. Bill Clinton basically stuck Al Gore in an office somewhere, and he never had much of a say or did much. Hillary will most likely do the same thing, especially with someone like Sanders. It would be a total waste.
That’s how I see it. I think keeping him in the Senate would be a better use of his considerable talents and drive.
Let Clinton find someone younger (at the risk of sounding ageist), who maybe would have some true left-leaning ideas/opinions/ etc (does someone like that exist).
I don’t really care who she chooses, since the VP slot doesn’t matter.
It could makes some sense, strategically, but i’s hard for me to imagine Bernie would take it. Not because of some kind of purity issue or thinking it’d piss off his supporters. Contrary to belief among his nuttier supporters in the thread here, I don’t think the vast majority of Bernie supporters think that way. Putting Bernie on would probably just compress the timeline of unifying the party.
The reason it’s hard for me to envision it: Bernie gets the budget committee chairmanship if the Dems take the Senate, if memory serves. So why would he take the VP slot in that case?
Perez, Kaine or McAuliffe, maybe Franken(?), etc.
“The vice-presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit”. Both Sanders and Clinton could do better.
Clinton could get the same level of support from Sanders supporters if instead of making Sanders VP, she induced Sanders to work hard to help her gain the presidency by campaigning with her around the country. The quid pro quo would presumably be: more attention to Sanders agenda, more power in the Senate than as VP, and possibly some say in Clintons picks for cabinet positions.
Clinton should choose a VP from a useful swing state, not Vermont. Someone who is young enough to take over as president in 8 years.
After reading all these replies, I’ll add my opinion. I think Clinton has to figure that 70/80 percent of the Sanders followers will follow her too. The differences in policy are small. Sanders cannot fully embrace her, I don’t think, without looking like a hypocrite. So he can rebuild some good will by helping turn the Senate blue again. That would help out a President Clinton. My choice for VP is Julian Castro.
As for concessions to make to Sanders: $15 minimum wage, platform planks on tightening controls on banks, more emphasis on building infrastructure, etc. (Not breaking up the banks, because that’s already available if necessary). But more blue-collar stuff. Perhaps agreeing to abandon TPP (which would get replaced anyhow by something stronger).
I was struck by the comment above by someone who went to a Sanders rally. It must feel like seeing the Rolling Stones. But it isn’t policy just to identify problems and highlight inequities. That’s a start. I would like to see/hear some proposals for remediation of those inequities in the platform. That might bring around some folks.
The fact that breaking up the banks is already available doesn’t in any way imply that it will actually be done.
Actually, even putting something on the platform doesn’t imply that it will actually get done.
Agreeing to abandon TPP, only to be replaced by something stronger, doesn’t exactly sound like a winning move to me. As somebody said up thread, Sanders wasn’t born yesterday.
Agreed. Maybe they shouldn’t actually get done.
The strongest position for Sanders is to get Democratic senators indebted to him so that he can call in those chits when the time comes for policies he promotes. That’s power, for those of you who don’t know what power is. The platform is some window-dressing, but it at least gives him a hook on which to place his hat.
One point I find interesting: how do you come to the position of the differences in policy between them being small? On some issues they are as far apart as they can be and still be considered in the same party.
I personally think that it’s far too late for Hillary to attract anyone on the left or right. It’ll be difficult for her just to hold on to the 15 million people who voted for her in the primaries (which after all is a whopping 3 million less than in 2008). She can stay in and with her followers get Trump elected, or not. Demo unity? This election isn’t going to be a referendum on Trump, it’s going to be a referendum on Obama, Obamacare, the bailout, the refusal to prosecute corrupt bankers, the endless wars, the war on drugs and so much more.
She needs to hold onto the Obama coalition, increase Latino and Asian/American participation, and move some Republicans to either stay home (or not vote at all in the Presidential) or vote for her. So expect, I think, a combination of centrist moves and don’t be disappointed. Winning is what matters. It’s a delicate balance to woo those who want sanity over crazy without losing the left. But the way-out very far left may not be recoverable. By reading the comments here you can see that everything is a disappointment and never enough.
Popped into my head while reading Tarheel Dem’s list of desirable “qualifications”:
When I got to “Latino note”, I thought “or why not black?” And then there he was.
Yeah, yeah, I know, the objections/complications* write themselves (so I won’t), and the list gets very long in a big hurry.
But while it seems unlikely in the extreme, I actually wouldn’t necessarily assume Obama would automatically dismiss and refuse such an offer. (Probably unlikely to an even greater extreme that it would ever be made, though.)
*(chief among them being — obviously! — what would you call him, given the “rule” that the title of the highest position held stays permanent? E.g., Hillary’s “Secretary Clinton” or “Madame Secretary”, not “Senator Clinton”; living ex-Presidents are still addressed as “Mr. President”; etc. It’d be tricky!)
Sanders should be official saint to Clinton’s effective schemer, like Gandhi to Nehru or MLK to LBJ.
It seems like Martin is painting in broader strokes and many of the commenters here are losing sight of this. No pundit is going to take into account all of the variables.
I think predictions of Sanders’ demise fail to take into account intangibles – not everything human beings do can be predicted mathematically.
At the same time, it is likely Sanders does lose so Martin’s right to consider if a VP slot would help. Yes, we Sanders supporters would need something more than that to get enthused, but there is a symbolism there that has value. People do get excited about that and it does change the dynamic of Clinton’s potential administration. So as it’s possible a VP slot could make a difference. I’m open to that and hope if it were to be offered, other progressive reassurances would come with it. There is an opportunity here for Clinton and the party.
At the same time, the observations given here:
https:/medium.com@ricardo.ochoa/why-bernieorbust-is-a-dead-end-1f9a303ef43f#.kh6lsjx7x
are fundamentally based on the same thing that Martin talks about all the time, pragmatic power. Yes, the author is making a point about not being Bernie or Bust, but I’m more interested in the values that allow the author to come to that conclusion.
.
I think it would be helpful to discuss and consider with more nuance – allowing for the possibilities, un-predicted, to happen – instead of rigidly adhering to one’s perspective.
We should be really thinking about how to take this movement of Sanders’ and systematically and efficiently take over all the levels of the Democratic Party nationwide. I could get very excited about that kind of work, vote for Clinton if I have to, and then work hard to either pressure her administration or identify/build up a candidate to defeat her in 2020.
I’ve been saying here, for years, that progressives should be working their assess off to get progressives elected to all sorts of down-ticket races.
Typically I got a response of, ‘what makes you think HRC is going to have coattails that will get progressives elected’?
Now, all of a sudden, progressives are talking about using Sanders’ enthusiasm to get House members elected in 2020…whereas, why the hell not start working back in 2014. I mean, imagine if progressives had been working to get school board, mayoral, and other local offices filled by progressives for 2016…Sanders’ support would have been much more organized and much easier to get out the primary vote for this election cycle, and perhaps Sanders would be walking away with the nomination.
One thing I’ve noticed, is that whenever anyone says that non-voters are hurting themselves, they/we get lambasted as victim-blaming. Then the people who pay attention, namely me, and others, are then lambasted because after it becomes clear that Sanders isn’t going to get the nomination, we say out loud that we’re tired of the BernieOrBustTM people shitting all over the only candidate that we can vote for…you know, since Trump is not a voteworthy candidate for anyone who plans on being alive for more than the next 20 years.
There are exactly two options for revolution:
1. Work within the system, and shed the whole PurityCaucusTM badge.
or
2. Violent revolution where you better hope the people with the best ideas win.
Listening to people bitch about having to use option 1 when option 2 is clearly a worse option is exactly akin to listening to people bitch about HRC, when the only other option is Trump.
I/we get it: HRC isn’t a progressive. Well, neither was Obama. And he was much better than McCain/Fucking. Sarah. Palin.
HRC will be much better than Trump. Unless you’re a lunatic, or extremely rich.
So, drop the PurityCaucus badge, and join the rest of us here in reality where politics is almost never an “elect X to fix the entire system while you sit at home smiling”. Politics sucks, but it’s a lot better than aristocracy or monarchy.
Much easier to recruit progressive candidates under a platform for reform. That did not exist in 2014 and DNC was busy recruiting conservadems that were unelectable.
Newt showed how that could be done and the TPers have certainly extracted their pound of flesh successfully.
It would be huge.
The Dem unity and enthusiasm would utterly steamroll the GOP.
And that is EXACTLY why Clinton won’t do it.