I ( pro-Hillary) have been at war with my best friend, Terry McGinty (pro-Bernie), for the past year and today we made peace.
How ? By —- perish the thought — COMPROMISING!
After Clinton’s sweep of the Second Super Tuesday primary contests recently we agreed to stop attacking each other and focus our fire instead on the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump. We both agreed that Bernie should NOT drop out of the race even though he is trailing HRC in both the popular vote ( 2.6 million ) and the pledged delegate count ( 1223 to 920 ) adding super delegates ( 1678 to 1003 ) with 2,383 needed to win nomination.
Recently, we began to advocate for a Clinton/Sanders Unity Ticket in recognition of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. Bernie is strong with the more liberal wing of the party especially young voters. Hillary does better with women, AA and Hispanic voters. Trump is now polling at 82% negative with college educated women and minorities. We believe that we must begin to re-build our historic FDR/JFK/Obama winning coalition now.
To that end we call on BOTH candidates to announce NOW that they will bring us together after the Convention — with the nominee of the party as President and the runner-up as Vice-President — and lead us ALL to victory in November
United we stand. Divided we fall.
Fred Rich LaRiccia and Terry McGinty, Esq.
…but I’ll have to think about this one. I have said Clinton/Warren would be interesting.
In my view, ANYTHING that removes Elizabeth Warren from her current position in the Senate is a dreadful mistake.
I think SENATOR Elizabeth Warren is the keystone of the next administration, whomever we nominate. The next eight years MUST be focused on reversing wealth and income concentration, and there is nobody better suited for leading the legislative aspects of that issue than Elizabeth Warren.
Now you could make a case for a Bernie-Hillary ticket. That’s not a serious proposal at all, but she’d be great presiding over the Senate.
The differences between the two of them could fill a chasm.
They don’t belong on the same ticket, and should Bernie lose, I’d rather have his voice in the Senate, along with Senator Warren’s, as a watch dog on whoever wins.
Even the two candidates don’t believe their differences constitute a “chasm”, neither do any objective studies of their records and rhetoric. Calling it a chasm is an insult to the true chasm that exists between the two parties, in rhetoric, record, and style.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, then we desperately need Bernie Sanders alongside Elizabeth Warren in the Senate — this is especially true if Ms. Clinton is nominated and somehow loses (my nightmare scenario).
I think ryepower12 is right on the money with this.
I think the VP choice, for whomever is nominated, is an important decision in its own right. I think it’s important enough that it should be made by whomever is the nominee, rather than marginalized by being used as bargaining chip months before the convention.
about Bernie’s voice in the Senate. Maybe it would be different now that he’s run a national campaign. But I think we can agree that, in a few short years, Elizabeth Warren has become a considerably more effective and high-profile spokesperson for the issues they share than Bernie ever was during his time there. So, I’m less persuaded by the “no VP” argument in the case of Sanders than I am in the case of Warren.
I guess that my assumption is that Mr. Sanders has found his voice and a way of using it that he is comfortable with and that seems to energize people.
It seems to me that the Senate is a more stable and better equipped bully pulpit than the Vice Presidency. The only truly influential Vice President I can remember is Richard Cheney, and I view that as an argument against the wisdom of an active Vice Presidency.
It seems that Sanders is very good at getting useful little amendments passed and making occasional useful alliances with Republicans to get stuff done. These are important abilities in the era of polarization.
It’s not important to, say, have 2?
And, yes, I think we can all assume Bernie will have a much larger platform going forward whether he wins the nomination or not, in whatever he decides to do. It was easy for the media and establishment to ignore the junior senator of Vermont, who wasn’t even in one of the major parties. Even if Bernie loses the primary (and the fat lady hasn’t sung yet), it will be much harder for anyone to ignore Bernie Sanders, the person who set records for numbers of donations, modern records for crowds and who fought Hillary Clinton all the way to the convention in one of the closest fought primaries ever.
Terry and Fred — thanks for the opportunity to have this conversation here in the open. I started to have it weeks ago with other Sanders and Clinton supporters when it was almost a forbidden topic, but I suspect this now has changed for many a democrat and lots of us are talking about the possibility.
If Hillary wins I believe she would need Bernie as her running mate to be able to keep his enthusiastic supporters on board; not that most of them wouldn’t see that she is sooo much better an alternative than any of the republicans, but we need to keep the Bernie magic alive (see the Portland bird video) especially with our youth. Sanders inspires hope and generates infectious energy and that means folks will stay engaged and turnout the vote which we sorely need to win.
While Bernie is clearly in it all the way, his chief strategist, Tad Devine has intimated that Sanders might be open to considering the VP spot should Clinton prevail. However I am less sure about the reverse. If Bernie wins the nomination, whiIe I believe Hillary would be considered for VP, there are other good possibilities. One to consider is Representative Marcy Kaptur, the dean of the Ohio congressional delegation and the longest serving woman in the House. She is a member of the Progressive Caucus, has endorsed Bernie and is in alignment with him on most issues, very much like Senator Warren whom I agree with ryepower would likely want to stay in the senate — though Warren would make a great VP if she wanted it. Kaptur who introduced legislation to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act for example, is about the same age as Hillary, has real substance without the baggage and would help ensure we’d win Ohio and the Midwest. She is also Roman Catholic. Check her out at Wikipedia. Frankly I would love to see Hillary serve as a very pro-active UN Ambassador — she could do a lot of good there too. We will see how it all plays out, but let’s stay focused on winning in November.
Which, for Veeps isn’t a big deal to me, so’s Tim Kaine and Bob Casey who’s names have also been bandied about. And “bad” means relatively pro life on things like partial birth but not voting against ACA over it. But NARAL and Emily’s List won’t be pleased with the choice.
I agree that for all her many progressive stances and she was once named “most valuable member of the House,” by the very progressive Nation magazine, she has been only moderate on choice though somewhat more progressive during the later part of her tenure. This could reflect her Catholic faith or her district as Bernie was a bit more moderate on gun-control when serving in the House, but would change with a national campaign — I can’t imagine that Emily’s list would not support her enthusiastically once she was on the ticket.
The point is that this very bright woman, a doctoral student at MIT when tapped to run for congress, is mature and experienced (now in her 17th term in the House) would be ready to step into the presidency if necessary and would give the ticket a real chance to take Ohio.
I’ve admired her for a long time, fun fact-she was Perots first choice for Veep in 1992. But she’s as strong on trade and working families as Sherrod Brown without risking the Senate seat he would. An all women ticket is a good idea in the year of Trump.
This comes up at this stage in every primary battle, as the first clumsy attempt to deal with disappointed supporters. Gore-Bradley, Kerry-Edwards, Obama-Clinton. The middle one happened, for all the good it did. I like and support Bernie. I’m ready to vote for Hillary. But it seems like the two of them together are a waste.
The Democratic argument from the future shouldn’t come from two elderly white people from the Northeast. Bernie is great, but I don’t see him presenting a strong case against Trump — he’s got too much dignity to do that on the campaign.
With Clinton, we can find someone to appeal to Sanders supporters while also making a case that the Democratic Party extends to the future, and possibly the vice president could one day lead the nation. I voted for Sanders, but I think our VP spot is a better fit for others. There are progressives who represent the diversity of our party while leaving Sanders to be effective in the (perhaps) newly Democratic Senate.
…is Reagan/Bush in 1980.
As someone from the Northeast, I don’t consider Hillary Clinton to be from the Northeast. She was born in Chicgoland and lived there 1945-1965, went to the Northeast for college and law school, then lived in Arkansas 1973ish – 1992. DC 1992-2000, NYC metro 2000-2008, then DC again 2008-2014.
If you want to argue she was NYC metro 2008-2014, have at it — but then go ahead and add Arkansas 1992-2000.
Like many modern successful people, she’s lived in lots of places, and she sorta-kinda lives in the Northeast now. She’s a very welcome addition to our region, but she is in no way from the Northeast.
As you pretty much say, it’s not very clear where she’s from. Just going by where she’s registered, headquartered, and where she represented in her sole elected office.
Having moved throughout these United States, she shares an experience that many, many Americans also have — one where we live some of the wonderful cultural differences across our land.
I think the next VP should be someone younger and energetic. Clinton or Sanders are both great choices for the top of the ticket, but not the number two position.
I like the Castro brothers, a Seth Moulton type (coming from a Tierney supporter here), or even Martin O’Malley.
I hear so much support for the Castros. I’d love to know why you like them, especially Julian.
I haven’t seen much about a notable accomplishment or strong leadership on any issue for which he’d be an exciting choice.
There’s certainly a lot of hype – but what’s the there there?
Julian Castro – age 41
Latino from Texas…..with a newly developed skill of speaking spanish. Definitely more effective than if he hadn’t learned Spanish.
He gave a successful keynote speech at the DNC as the mayor of San Antonio. I think San Antonio even has a city manager too….so it took some sort of political skill to be chosen for this.
He brings a palpable level of energy and red meat when he speaks and the crowd eats it up. His personal bio and family background give him an opportunity to connect with people.
He would excel as the top surrogate to Hillary (or Bernie).
He doesn’t have a list of accomplishments……which isn’t really amazing…..but he also doesn’t have a list of failures, misteps, or scandal either.
Hope that’s somewhat coherent….I hate typing on my phone.
He graduated from Stanford and Harvard Law School.
He would also put Texas in play for the Dems as his twin brother, Joachim, is a Congressman.
He was my first pick for VEEP a year ago and would be my first choice if the Hill / Burn ticket fails to materialize.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Who the fuck cares where he went to school? Seriously. Apologies for the language but that is really dumb. George W. Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business School. Doesn’t mean shit.
Do you honestly think he puts Texas in play?
For blueinsaugus, so it seems the answer on list of accomplishments is nothing. The biggest one seems to be a DNC speech. That’s my problem. He seems great on paper, but what’s really there? Is he even a tested, strong progressive?
Yes, he was the mayor of San Antonio, but that is a very weak mayor city. It’s a part-time role that paid about $3,000 a year. Most stories of his time at HUD say that he hasn’t had a huge impact but has avoided missteps and scandals. Maybe that’s good enough for some, but I need a bit more to get excited about.
Thomas Perez is also latino, also in the cabinet (labor), but also has a longer record of progressive bona fides (though not perfect), actually speaks Spanish, and also went to HARVARD LAW SCHOOL!!!!!
I mean, look at Obama…,
Why are you (still) declining the chance I gave you to bash Dan Wolf?
I suggest that whoever wins the Democratic race selects Judith Susan Blum-Sheindlin as VP. She would be great on either ticket.
Bernie doesn’t bring anything to a Clinton presidency. It would just be seen as buying his supporters off.
If he nominates, she hurts his ticket, because she goes against his message. I suppose it would comfort some large donors, but I think regular voters would feel he was forced to do it, and resent her presence.
If he think purely electorally: He brings Vermont, which she’d already have. She brings him Arkansas? Maybe not.
I almost think she’d be better off picking another woman.
I don’t really know — I suppose it would take some serious study — but it has never seemed to me that the candidate for vice-president made even a measurable difference in the outcome of the election. People used to talk about “balancing the ticket” — they meant geographically. I haven’t heard of that recently either. And I’ve never met anyone whose vote was swayed by the vice-presidential nominee.
Lost some votes
VP is a great example of a decision where it’s hard to gain votes, but very, very possible to lose them.
Whatever chance McCain had to win the Oval Office was incinerated by his selection of Sarah Palin.
I think a very, very popular pol nominated as VP could help win their own state (a strong worry re: Kasich), but that’s about it.
Two examples are: JFK/LBJ and Clinton/Gore. JFK would not have won without Lyndon — he brought in the whole deep south and Gore brought
more credibility and respectability to Clinton.
The trouble is that it’s really hard to know whether statements like that are really true or not. They’re often asserted and eventually become unquestioned facts. Here’s another story I’ve heard innumerable times: the reason JFK won was because in the first debate, Nixon was visibly sweating, and this apparently made him look less presidential. Or something like that. I’ve never regarded that as very substantive or convincing, but it’s been told so many times, that it’s part of history, I guess.
that Lincoln successfully used to turn his opponents into allies by appointing William Seward, Secretary of State, just as Obama did with Clinton.
JFK did the same by successfully putting his rival for the nomination, LBJ, on the ticket thus winning Texas.
Rather that geographical balance the need here is for ideological balance to unite the two wings of the party.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Obama didn’t win any votes for nominating Hillary…. after the election. Nor did Lincoln.
Creating a Team of Rivals I think speaks well for someone once they’re nominated, but I’ve never seen the term as some sort of reference for trying to win votes.
I think if Hillary nominated Bernie for Secretary of Labor (which I could imagine her doing) or Treasury (which I can’t, but would be *much more excited about*) I think that would speak well of her capacity to listen, and become a good President. But nominating Bernie for VP? No, that’s not going to get any enthusiasm from me, as fervently as I’m a fan of Bernie, because it’s a do-nothing yes-man position for a guy who’d be too old to run for POTUS in 8 years.
If Bernie was a much younger man, it would be different, but I would much rather see him in an important cabinet position or remain in the Senate where he can have influence on legislation.
Likewise, I don’t really see Hillary taking the VP slot and doubt that she would want to go back to being Sec State
Bernie for Labor?
I can see Robert Reich calling him now….”DON’T DO IT! The Clintons stuck me in there, refused to back me, and I had to quit! It was so freakin’ horrible I wrote a book about it!”
where Sanders would develop economic policy to re-build the working middle class and Clinton would focus on foreign policy as commander-in-chief to keep us safe.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Yeesh. You really expect the nominee, before the election, to say, in effect “I do not have confidence in myself to do this job, so I want someone else to take over half”??
I cannot imagine HRC, or any other person who has actually secured a major party nomination to the presidency, ever saying that in a million years.
I am confident that a President Hillary Clinton is more than able to present economic policy proposals that will rebuild the middle class (not just the “working” middle class). Senator Bernie Sanders, together with Senator Elizabeth Warren, will have far impact from the Senate in making these proposals law.
It needs to be said that our modern economy cannot generate enough high-income semi-skilled or skilled jobs to return us to an economy of the 1960s. It simply cannot happen. We have a significantly larger population, our workforce is twice as large (because we long ago destroyed the ability for a middle-class family to sustain itself on just one income), and our manufacturing sector is orders of magnitude more efficient — one worker produces thousands of times as much product today as he or she did fifty years ago. We could not possibly consume the SEA of consumer products that our current manufacturers would produce with anything like “full employment” (in the sense that our Democratic candidates mean it). The impact on our environment, on our natural resources, and — for that matter — on our lifestyle would be awful and catastrophic.
Our national economy already generates MORE than enough wealth, that is not the issue. The issue is that virtually ALL of it is retained by the top 1% or top 0.1%. The issue is wealth ALLOCATION, not wealth creation.
We need a truly revolutionary change to how we allocate the wealth our society generates. We need to move beyond a labor-based model to something much more like a guaranteed minimum wage for EVERY resident. The promises we Democrats are making about “jobs” are delusional — we can’t fulfill them and the GOP can’t fulfill them.
.
I have absolutely no interest in a 74 year old, former conscientious objector, self-professed Socialist from a small, rural, non-swing state with a cranky disposition as our VP nominee.
Mullaley, can we do another round?