So Mods closed my thread. What companies do you guys think Bernie would split up if he became president?
Bernie will go for Warren or Klobs, and which one will depend on if he decides to strengthen the base, or reach out to the moderates. I really think he needs a woman on the ticket, and I think he knows that.
A swing VP pick would sort of ruin his image as someone who doesn't waver on his ideals. That paired with his age means someone like Tulsi Gabbard would erode a lot of his support with progressives, myself included, I think. No one wants Gabbard to be one 80 year old man's heartbeat away from the presidency.
Also, Tulsi is popular with people who are probably never going to vote for Sanders no matter what (or in some cases people who would have voted for him anyway). Picking somebody popular with moderates like Klob makes more sense. I'd say Kamala would be an even better pick, but she really isn't super popular with anybody.A swing VP pick would sort of ruin his image as someone who doesn't waver on his ideals. That paired with his age means someone like Tulsi Gabbard would erode a lot of his support with progressives, myself included, I think. No one wants Gabbard to be one 80 year old man's heartbeat away from the presidency.
Better yet, dissolve the CIA.
Should've been Edelgard or Claude!Bernie's long awaited VP announcement will be Byleth from Fire Emblem: Three Houses.
He has now lost my supportBernie's long awaited VP announcement will be Byleth from Fire Emblem: Three Houses.
I wonder if she would drop out before the convention. If she keeps surging and Pete keeps floundering it may be difficult to get her. The timing is pretty tricky
I read somewhere the theory in Iowa was that people don't really care who the nominee is, they just plan to vote blue. And in fact, the large number of choices is likely suppressing the turnout a bit as it's overwhelming to try and pick (this does follow a lot of other research about decision paralysis)
Yep.I know some were worried about CA ballots being messed up (due to one tweet earlier today), but my ballot arrived just fine and on schedule
I read somewhere the theory in Iowa was that people don't really care who the nominee is, they just plan to vote blue. And in fact, the large number of choices is likely suppressing the turnout a bit as it's overwhelming to try and pick (this does follow a lot of other research about decision paralysis)
He didn't get it in 2016, I don't see why people expected it now.Bad news for Bernie. He wanted a definitive 'you see my revolution isnt a puff of smoke!' turnout.
Bad news for Bernie. He wanted a definitive 'you see my revolution isnt a puff of smoke!' turnout.
She's already serving tea and it's scalding hot.
My dad is all in on "I don't care who the Democrat nomination is as long as we beat Trump" although I've gotten him to come around on Bernie. I tried to explain why Bloomberg would be horrible though and it didn't quite register.
I should clarify.Hmm, its certainly an interesting decision of whether Bernie picks a VP to cater even more to his own base or picks someone who attracts swing voters but also risks alienating some of his own base.
A swing VP might actually be very strong politically. One of the biggest criticisms of Bernie even on the left is that he won't be able to get anything done without bipartisan support. Picking a VP with swing favorability could be a way to address that concern.
Given that almost everyone on the left is united in "anyone but Trump" mentality, it seems like picking a swing VP actually has a lot of benefits and not much risk.
Of course a dream pick of a Liz Warren or Tammy Baldwin is very attractive but probably only to us on the left.
Again, it's not policy do much as demographics and personality and personal history. VP's policy positions are rarely relevant, but you do need the right kind of appeal to cover the gaps in your own. That's why Kaine was a bad pick for,Clinton, he pretty much checked all the same boxes she did. Somebody like a Booker, an Abrams, hell, a Baldwin or Duckworth, they have a different presentation and appeal than Bernie does, even if Baldwin in particular has pretty similar policies. That's what's important. Having 2 Bernies on the ticket doesn't make it twice as strong.I mean do those voters actually think they aren't part of the Dem establishment? Because when I think of the dem establishment, those are the bases I think make up the dem establishment.
And I don't see why picking another progressive would be an issue with unifying the party unless that was something they were opposed to. Especially when the alternative is, Trump.
Bad news for Bernie. He wanted a definitive 'you see my revolution isnt a puff of smoke!' turnout.
this isn't necessarily true - this same argument was made on Iowa, but in the aftermath it was clear the Sanders campaign did turn out younger voters and pushed the electorate younger in Iowa.
Sanders can't be the only one turning out the vote given how crowded the field is
But I don't see why appealing to other dems is important in a general when the alternative is Trump unless were saying they wouldn't vote for bernie. Enough so that he would lose the election. And if thats the case, thats a serious problem.I should clarify.
Tulsi is a garbage excuse for a human being. My saying she polled well amongst Republicans was an attempt at droll humor highlighting how bad she is. Her actual polling is very bad amongst people who might conceivably vote against Trump, and EXTRMELY bad amongst people dedicated to fighting against him already. It'd be a bald faced slap to the face of a pick, not just to "the establishment" but to every loyal member of the party who's been paying attention to her.
Again, it's not policy do much as demographics and personality and personal history. VP's policy positions are rarely relevant, but you do need the right kind of appeal to cover the gaps in your own. That's why Kaine was a bad pick for,Clinton, he pretty much checked all the same boxes she did. Somebody like a Booker, an Abrams, hell, a Baldwin or Duckworth, they have a different presentation and appeal than Bernie does, even if Baldwin in particular has pretty similar policies. That's what's important. Having 2 Bernies on the ticket doesn't make it twice as strong.
But I don't see why appealing to other dems is important in a general when the alternative is Trump unless were saying they wouldn't vote for bernie. Enough so that he would lose the election. And if thats the case, thats a serious problem.
That's bad! Don't voters know they need to drag their feet around a dull candidate that'll promise nothing and accomplish nothing? This is politics, folks!I will say this: Sanders is the only nominee with any amount of electricity behind him right now. Everyone else is running around trying to decide who to "settle" on.
If Blue Dog Dems refuse to vote for Sanders in the GE, then they deserve to have Trump steal their Social Security and Medicare.