Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumWhat would you think if Hillary picks Bernie as VP?
Would it get you more excited about the ticket? It probably won't happen, but I would see it as a genuine move if it happens - and would be more interested. So far Hillary does not seem to be really wanting to be more progressive. All lip service. Warren may also get me more interested since she may dull Clinton's tendency to be close to Wall Street.
Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)Bernie's gonna be the new senate majority leader....
on edit...if Hillary doesn't get indicated
mvd
(65,148 posts)Glad Bernie is gong to the convention, because we need to be noticed! I feel if we are ignored, the Democratic Party would not be successful in the future. I feel Bernie's movement is the future - not the Third Way.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)because he would question things that happen constantly. Especially with the war actions that Hillary is preparing for.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Whatever Bernie thinks is best, I'm with him.
There being certain benefits to the revolution, and to Bernie himself, accepting the VP if he doesn't get the whole nomination, it is not something any of us should be rejecting.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)He'll be much more powerful, with Warren in the Senate.
condoleeza
(814 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)when he could accomplish so much more in the Senate? The VP is someone who goes to funerals.
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)It goes against his principles. My principles too. She might as well pick Chump or DWS since they are already tied at the hip. I'm sure rMoney may be interested since corporations are people.
mvd
(65,148 posts)Yes he is important in the Senate, but we need more like Bernie there.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)has fired up in exchange for serving her highness?
he would not.
however, what do you think of him running as biden's vp when she is indicted?
biden would be much less demanding of his time than hillary.
mvd
(65,148 posts)Bernie would not compromise himself. You are right that Hillary might hog the time.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)very keenly - not for his own self interests - but for the good of many. hillary would only offer bernie the vp if she believed 1) it would help her win the presidency
2) there were many more other perks
3) she would not hesitate to dump him if he displeased her in any way. bernie just is not the kind of man who would consider a situation whereby someone would think they could just dump him. he doesn't just hand over his power.
mvd
(65,148 posts)If he doesn't want VP, I am sure his reasons are good. And I don't think Hillary would pick him. But he is older now and I would like him to see some position with power - if he agrees with the move.
840high
(17,196 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Response to mvd (Original post)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
NJCher
(35,422 posts)because Hillary will definitely do what is in her own best self interest.
Cher
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)They are too far apart on fundamental issues, to begin with.
For another thing, I sincerely doubt he'd compromise himself that way.
But more to the point, even asking that question shows that you simply do not understand how party politics works, especially at the highest levels.
You might ask, Why wasn't Hillary picked as Obama's nominee? And as you contemplate that, you'll start to understand the party politics.
This isn't high school. These are people who take their affiliations very strongly. A VP nominee is going to have to go out there and support the head of the ticket totally, whole-heartedly, enthusiastically. A VP pick is always going to need to be someone who didn't run for President at the beginning, or who dropped out very early on.
Sanders has stayed in the race until the very end, and every single day he has very openly proclaimed what he believes and how he thinks problems should be solved. His beliefs and his solutions are incredibly different from Hillary's. Why would he alter those beliefs now? More to the point, if he did, he's show himself as a man of zero integrity, and I, as a strong Bernie supporter, would absolutely not vote for that ticket.
Hillary fans may have a different take, may perhaps see Clinton/Sanders as a conciliatory ticket, but they'd also be wrong for the reasons I've stated above.
Similarly, it's probably just a matter of time before Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, who was shabbily and rudely treated by Donald Trump recently, actually endorses the Donald. Because in the end, it's all about the party. You go along with whoever is nominated if it's your party.
So while Bernie may eventually come around and support and even campaign for Hillary, he will only do that out of party loyalty, and considering he's only recently registered as a Democrat, he's not going to feel the same way as a life long party member.
Keep in mind that Hillary is simply not a Progressive. At various times in this campaign she's tried to present herself as such, and there's an urban legend out there that Bernie pushed her to the left, but that's simply not true. She may use language or surrogates to try to represent herself as Progressive, but please do not for one minute delude yourself about this.
mvd
(65,148 posts)Bernie would have to feel she really has changed of course. VP is not always a powerless position. Bernie would not take it unless given a lot of assurances.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)It's also come up as "Should Bernie select Hillary as VP?"
Not sure how you've managed to miss all those OPs.
Even when VPs have had a higher profile, it is a powerless position in terms of determining policy. Hillary and Bernie are extremely far apart on lots of things. Not to mention, she might give lots of assurances, but whether she'd keep them, who knows?
Paka
(2,760 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)I wouldn't be swayed
Lunabell
(5,919 posts)If Bernie has his say at the convention and endorses Hillary Clinton, that will be good enough for me. I was for Hillary before Bernie threw his hat into the ring and she is not the horrible person everyone says she is. Sure she has her faults and baggage, but she is a damned far better candidate than having Donald Trump as POTUS! Or any rethuglican for that matter.
If she were to chose Bernie as her running mate, I would be over the hill with joy and campaign for her with my whole heart!
mvd
(65,148 posts)It makes me feel awkward. But we are a big tent and if you are a big fan of Bernie, that is what matters. I feel Trump with his reckless attitude would get us into more wars than Hillary would with her hawkishness. He'd also promote hate, help the Repuke Congress if it is still Repuke, and is insincere about Social Security IMO. But boy, Hlllary is not a good choice. Especially with the corruption.
NJCher
(35,422 posts)Trump will never get the cohesiveness necessary to do another war. If Trump is elected, it will be nonstop political reality show. That's all it will be. There will not be any constructive legislation whatsoever.
Cher
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Business interests. I believe the protests could be massive and SUSTAINED.
HRC taking us to war would still generate large protests, but I do not think they would be as large or as big of a threat to the status quo business interests.
I am not saying Trump would be better for our nation with these statements. I believe both would be quite bad for a number of different reasons.
mvd
(65,148 posts)Coupled with his insanity, I think we could have a big problem. He might flame out early leaving the VP in charge though.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)is not "There will not be any constructive legislation whatsoever." It's the inevitable destructive legislation. It would be possible with a Trump victory because the down-ticket races (House/Senate) could follow the party line.
NJCher
(35,422 posts)Not sure, though, how much party cohesiveness there will be for him to be able to pull this off. At present it doesn't look like much, but things certainly could change.
Cher
newfie11
(8,159 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)E. Warren, same.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Anyway, the Clintons do not share the spotlight.
Bernie or Warren would be out of the senate where they are useful (but inconvenient for Clinton's purposes) and relegated to dinners and funerals. Putting Bernie on the ticket would just be pandering for votes and neutralizing Bernie. Same for Warren.
Hillary should just name Pete Peterson or Kissinger and be honest about the direction she will take.
NJCher
(35,422 posts)Hence she will never choose him.
Nor, I think, would he agree to do so.
I know one thing: whatever it is that Bernie does after the election, either as president, holding a cabinet position, or Senate leader, he will be highly visible and will wield considerable power.
Cher
djean111
(14,255 posts)The VP can do no more, really, than the president allows. Cheney pretty much ran the government.
peace13
(11,076 posts)No thank you
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)I'm with you. End of story.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)but it is the only thing that would get my vote.
But she not only wishes to punish Sanders for his "disloyalty" of challenging her rightful claim to the Bush-Clinton Throne, she wishes to punish all who supported him
pengu
(462 posts)RussBLib
(8,983 posts)It would be the best way to satisfy all Dem sides. I think it would be very smart of Hillary to do that.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)By a lot of accounts that I am hearing, he is not happy that he isn't even being seriously considered. I think he would take it to be honest.
And I think if she wanted to win, she would take him. Would be a slam dunk win.
Keeping my heart out of it and using my head.
Can you say where the accounts are coming from? When I started the thread, I thought this would be a real long shot. But still thought it would be interesting to see opinions.
Let me find the links if I can
QC
(26,371 posts)That's why I don't want to see Elizabeth Warren take the job either. In either case, one of our most effective voices of opposition would be silenced.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Or Bill Clinton chose Al Gore for that purpose?
The very closest to that scenario might have been when JFK chose LBJ in 1960, but no other VP choices seem remotely like that.
Jubilant18
(62 posts)A progressive group in the Senate led by Bernie and including Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Russ Feingold (probably), and Alan Grayson (possibly) and others I can't think of now would have great power to set the agenda.
I hope that Bernie does not do this and I hope that Elizabeth Warren stays true to herself and does not accept VP but runs in 4 years if Trump is elected and in 8 years if Clinton is elected.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)perhaps it might be a good idea after all?
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)indicating to the movement that he sold out.
The VP will have very little power, especially under
a Clinton, who wants to have absolute loyalty.
I think, that he may stay for the rest of his term
in the Senate, but on the side start a really effective
organization for the important issues nationally.
I don't think that he will run again for his seat, but then
put all is efforts into either a new party or help the
Greens to gain power.
JMO
MinnesotaRob
(53 posts)I'd rather he remain in the senate, or retire, than end up being used as a pandering tool.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)doc03
(35,148 posts)after a second term we need a VP young enough to run for election following her.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)Lance Bass esquire
(671 posts)Is a no brainer....it's would totally destroy what is left of the Republican party as we know it after Trump is done with it. It would bring both parties back to being left and right of center like President Obama said on Fallon .I'm a old dog ..I remember compromise for the better of the country as the norm..rather than the exception to the rule. JMHO
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Her VP nominee is going to be a minority and since she is a woman, my guess it will be a male minority probably Hispanic. It will be someone who agrees with her on most issues and is to the right.
She could pick God and I still wouldn't vote for her.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)shut Bernie down and sideline him than to make him VP. Bernie is up for head of the Senate Finance Committee where he will have a lot of power and influence that's where he needs to stay. In the Senate.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)"not worth a bucket of warm spit" as a person who held the job called it.
Sure the path that Neo-liberals want to travel is -reducing- the number of senators that are pro-labor and/or pro-consumer.
But all the hyper hype about safe preferred SCOTUS justices can NOT happen without a senate that gets behind a nomination. Indeed a whole lotta appointments can't happen without senate approval.
It's pointless to be giving away senate seats, really.
TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)You understand officially and legally the Vice President breaks rare and randomly occurring ties (I don't even remember the last time this even happened), checks on the health of the President, and hangs out in DC in case the President is incapacitated or expires, right?
Can a President at their pleasure give their VP more to do and/or make them an influential adviser? Sure. Can the President also completely cut their VP out of the loop and send them to the Naval Observatory when they aren't attending state funerals they don't feel they need to go to and then drop them like a hot potato? Absolutely.
Is a VP going to be able to a President in line or lead or even participate in push back against them? No, not really.
Other than Cheney being the puppet master what VP has had any practical power?
Gore was probably 3rd he was more the Secretary of Special Projects than Co-President which was more Hillary Clinton though I don't think that is accurate either just closer than Gore.
Bush had significant power but that is because he came with that power and he'd have juice if he was sitting at home or on a beach somewhere instead of the Whitehouse but while Reagan was a puppet, I'm not sure he was exactly Bush's puppet but rather Bush had enough weight to throw around that he could cause the ones pulling Reagan's strings to broker something of a compromise.
Mondale hung out.
Rockefeller was maybe the ultimate hood ornament.
Agnew was a henchman.
Humphrey totally neutered.
LBJ a total move to have him in the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in and geography.
Nixon was powerful, he was actively back up President, influential adviser, and perhaps the first Secretary of Special Projects.
Before that, they generally were truly relegated strictly to constitutional duties.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)If Bernie was VP he would not be a hood ornament by any means. Bernie would be driving the limo and Hillary would be in the back seat. If you know Bernie she would be kept on ehr toes.