Sanders urges Kerry to choose Progressive running mate

[whirlygigspin]

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/vpr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=641486

MONTPELIER, VT (2004-05-21)

(Host) Congressman Bernie Sanders says Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry could improve his chances of winning in November by selecting a running mate who's taken strong progressive positions on the key issues facing the country.

[Sean Reynolds]

1. It wont happen.

Hence why there isn't one progressive on his short list.

[emulatorloo]

2. I am confused by this "Strategy", esp since current Bush Attack Ad is

all about how LIBERAL John Kerry is! More Liberal than TED KENNEDY! the voiceover ominously intones.

So, anybody who has taken Politics 101: Presidential Campaigns, explain to me how Bernie Sanders's plan makes sense.

edit grammar

[CTLawGuy]

3. it makes sense

because it will create excitment among the base which = money, volunteerism, motivation to vote. These things go a long wayThe Republicans know that neglecting the base is a ticket to failure, which is why they treat their base very well.

That is not to say you don't need swing voters, you do. Swing voters like voting for politicians whom they believe advocates a clear, reasonable position, and not someone who is vague, takes both sides of an issue, and acts like he is trying to "sell" them something.

The reason swing voters are swing voters is because they are non-ideological. They will vote for whatever candidate looks good for them practically. they tend to swing to the right, because they hear neo-con propaganda 24/7 and really do not hear Democratic ideas. The best way to win them is to take clear positions and convince them why your positions are correct.

[leyton]

4. I think the base is excited enough.

We're going to have high turnout because people were excited by the primaries and are pissed at the President. Besides, if we lose some people on the very left, they're going to lower our tally but not raise Bush's, while if we lose people from the center, they probably go to Bush.

[CTLawGuy]

5. the base is not completely excited

much of kerry's support is pure dislike of Bush, which does not really lead to money or volunteerism.

If the center is turned off by Kerry, they'll probably stay home, if they didnt like Bush to begin with.

[MasonJar]

13. You are so wrong. Here in Louisville we are creating our own

Kerry campaign. We are at fairs, on street corners (today in a lightning rain storm), registering people, getting more volunteers, going to Meet-ups, etc. We have found a great response so far...lots of new faces and new voters. We are going to follow up with all the voters we register and get them to the polls. We all hate Bush so much; we like Kerry, but we'd be doing this for whomever the Dems chose. We need Edwards because he is so popular and so ebullient and so solid and so Southern.

[eface]

7. WE need help on the Ticket

No one is excited about the Ticket. The only thing now to excite the people is a good runningmate. Anger and Kerry alone will not get out the vote!

[He loved Big Brother]

8. Hi eface

Welcome to da DU! :bounce:

[venus]

16. I agree. n/t

[Chomsky_ite]

17. Totally agree

I agree with you completely. Some voters are so gullable. they change as often as the wind direction, especially Republicans.

[lastliberalintexas]

6. Because ANY Dem will be

attacked by the repubs as being too liberal!! Lieberman, Biden, Bayh, or even Miller could be on the ticket and the repubs would throw out the tired old accusation that he is a flaming liberal out to destroy the American way of life. Since that's the case, why not actually have a progressive on the ticket and fire up the base?

The sooner we learn this and decide that we really don't give a --it what they think and actually fight back in the language war, the sooner we can become a majority party again.

Kerry may have a *lifetime* voting record that is liberal, but his actions of late leave much to be desired. A liberal/progressive on the ticket would possibly excite those people who were against the IWR, are disenchanted with Kerry because of his remarks about pro-life judges, and are sickened by his reassuring the coporatists that he is not a "re-distributionist" Dem.

It's the same old song and dance. Who do you cater to in order to win elections? The repubs- for all their other faults- know that they have to keep their base happy above all else. Their voters are more motivated and have higher turnout rates than Dem voters (there are actually fewer registered repubs, but they vote in very high rates).

We Dems are still going after the mythical, pie in the sky, fair weather swing voters that the corporatists in our own party tell us are so important. And that strategy has worked so well for us this past decade, hasn't it?

[LimpingLib]

15. Whoever still doubts we need Nader THEN I present you with....

.... post #2.

So if the Republicans accuse us of being too different from them (regardless of all the evidence to the contrary)then we need to rush to their end?

Moving right on along.

[AmericanErrorist]

9. If Al Gore could nominate Joe Liberman for Veep in 2000...

there is certainly hops for us.

[AmericanErrorist]

10. Double Post

Ignore.

[PVnRT]

11. Bad idea

Better to get Edwards on that ticket. Like it or not, Kerry is going to be shown as a pointy-headed New England liberal out of touch with the values of mainstream America, and Edwards goes a long way towards squelching that argument. And his stance against free trade will help with Rust Belt states.

[lastliberalintexas]

12. This is the kind of thinking

of which I was speaking. EVEN Edwards will be painted by the repubs as a flaming, bleeding heart, pinko, commie, socialist liberal. None of our people are immune or insulated from this charge. It does not matter who we put on the ticket.

I'm not saying that it's actually true, mind you. But since when did the falsity of the charge prevent the repubs from bringing it?

The sooner that we stop trying to predict their next move and get off the defensive, the sooner we will start to win again.


Please note that I am not arguing against Edwards on the ticket. i am just pointing out that you should not be surprised when he is also attacked as a Breck-headed trial lawyer out of touch with the values of mainstream America. He's not, Kerry's not, none of our people are. But the accusation *will* be made.

[JDPriestly]

14. Lesson learned late in life

A simple truth that I learned far too late in life: the key to success is authenticity -- oneness or integrity in thought, word and deed, also called consistency. If Kerry tries to compensate (apologize) for being a liberal by picking a conservative running mate, people will view him as inconsistent and too willing to please and will believe Bush's definition of Kerry as a flip-flopping liar.

How has Bush, who is a first-class liar managed to look so honest and authentic? Well, for starts, he did not seek a moderate Republican vice president to balance his ticket. As a DUer said earlier, he strengthened his base by picking someone even more conservative than himself. That did not stop Bush from drawing moderate voters who viewed him as straight-talking, i.e., consistent, i.e., authentic, as reflected in his choice of vice president.

Gore's choice of Lieberman was totally inconsistent with Gore's liberal reputation -- not an authentic choice. All Bush had to do was point to a few insignificant mistakes Gore made in his speeches to "prove" that Gore was a liar, a weak man who was trying to hard to please. Gore speaks in an authentic voice now, but he did not do so during his presidential campaign. His choice of Lieberman as his running mate demonstrated his lack of consistency.

Kerry should choose either an articulate, caring liberal like Edwards or someone who is very competent on defense/security like Clark. Either of them would highlight a strong aspect of his persona.

[Chomsky_ite]

18. Strong opinions.......

:dem: Perhaps Larry Sanders....or...Tim Robbins?