Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LOL Lib

(1,462 posts)
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 04:55 PM Feb 2017

I have a really dumb question

I have always wondered why the winner of our primary doesn't choose the runner up as VP. Example: Clinton with Bernie as VP? It would be the best way to rally the most Dems for the actual election. Sorry if this topic has been covered, I am new to this forum stuff and politics in general.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I have a really dumb question (Original Post) LOL Lib Feb 2017 OP
I would think that they would have to work together. It may not be a good fit. AgadorSparticus Feb 2017 #1
Thanks! LOL Lib Feb 2017 #3
Something similar happened before the primary system. no_hypocrisy Feb 2017 #2
So... LOL Lib Feb 2017 #5
Many considerations go into that decision. Ilsa Feb 2017 #4
Good point! LOL Lib Feb 2017 #6
Only happened once recently, Reagan picked Bush.... 4139 Feb 2017 #7
Thanks for the reply. LOL Lib Feb 2017 #8

LOL Lib

(1,462 posts)
3. Thanks!
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 05:03 PM
Feb 2017

Yeah I understand that could be a problem. Maybe I understate the whole situation in my own mind. It just seems that 2 adults who want to help the country could manage to set aside small differences to help us fight the repug enemy. Thanks again!

no_hypocrisy

(45,774 posts)
2. Something similar happened before the primary system.
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 04:59 PM
Feb 2017

Party bosses in smoked-filled rooms would choose the candidates to run. That's how a haberdasher like Harry S. Truman ended up as the last VP of FDR: the bosses wanted him.

The primary system adopted democracy to choose the President, but not the vice president, taking the choice away from the voters.

LOL Lib

(1,462 posts)
5. So...
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 05:09 PM
Feb 2017

There is really nothing to "prohibit" the candidate from choosing the runner-up other than ego and or some back office politics that none of us would be privy to. I realize that my question was even dumber than I originally thought lol. Politics is just not as simple as what "makes the most sense."

Thanks for the response!

Ilsa

(61,675 posts)
4. Many considerations go into that decision.
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 05:07 PM
Feb 2017

They may choose a politician from a state to shore up support for that state's electoral college votes.

The presidential candidate might want someone with extensive experience in an area where they have a weakness.

The runner-up may be too philosophically different, or may be hard to work with.

LOL Lib

(1,462 posts)
6. Good point!
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 05:10 PM
Feb 2017

I did think about how Tim Kaine was a good choice because he helped us in Virginia. Thanks!

4139

(1,893 posts)
7. Only happened once recently, Reagan picked Bush....
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 05:30 PM
Feb 2017

And it did help Reagan.... it stopped most intra-Party fighting.

Unlike most primary fights republicans in 1980 was a close fight like our in 2008 and 2016.

LOL Lib

(1,462 posts)
8. Thanks for the reply.
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 10:52 PM
Feb 2017

It seems like exactly what our party needed, especially given the history of how difficult it is for a party to grab a 3rd term in the WH. I get so frustrated looking back at what could have been done to keep the evil DrumpfenNazi from forever being a stain on our Nation. As they say hindsight is 20/20. I just hope that some good comes from this, like maybe the Dems improve their strategy, teamwork, and try to appeal to an even bigger majority.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I have a really dumb ques...