Bernie Sanders running for preznit?

[brekin]

Ha, this has been on the table for awhile.

Just keeping his options opens, he is.



Sanders leaves door open to being Clinton's VP
By Tom LoBianco, CNN
Updated 6:55 PM ET, Fri May 6, 2016

Washington (CNN)Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday he plans to keep fighting for the Democratic nomination all the way to the convention in Philadelphia, but did not slam the door shut on possibly joining Hillary Clinton's ticket.Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if he would accept a hypothetical offer to be Clinton's running mate, Sanders said he would talk about it with her after the convention.

"Right now, we are focused on the next five weeks of winning the Democratic nomination. If that does not happen, we are going to fight as hard as we can on the floor of the Democratic convention to make sure that we have a progressive platform that the American people will support," Sanders said on "The Situation Room." "Then, after that, certainly Secretary Clinton and I can talk and see where we go from there."

It is impossible for Sanders to win enough pledged delegates in the remaining contests to secure the Democratic nomination, but it remains possible, if unlikely, that Clinton might not win the 2,383 delegates needed for the nomination either, which would set up a potential convention battle in Philadelphia.
"We're going to be in this until the last ballot is cast," Sanders said Friday. Clinton's delegate lead relies in part on the help of more than 500 super delegates -- state party officials and other elected Democrats who can vote for whoever they want -- who support her.

The Clinton campaign and her supporters have struggled to find a successful strategy for pushing Sanders out of the race. Clinton appeared to be gaining momentum after a series of routs in the northeast, including a blowout victory in New York.
But Sanders won an upset victory over her in Indiana last Tuesday.
Most recently, Clinton told CNN's Anderson Cooper she respects Sanders' decision to finish out the contests.
"I know there are some contests ahead and I respect Sen. Sanders and whatever choices he's making. And I have a lot of empathy about this, Anderson. You know, I ran to the very end in 2008," she said this week.

Asked if he would focus his fire on Donald Trump, with the hopes of helping whoever the Democratic nominee is, Sanders said he would focus on both of them."I will continue to run an issue-oriented campaign," Sanders said. "Will I be taking on Donald Trump? Absolutely. Will I be discussing the differences of opinion Secretary Clinton and I have? Yes I will."
Trump tweeted Friday that "Crooked Hillary has ZERO leadership ability. As Bernie Sanders says, she has bad judgement. Constantly playing the women's card - it is sad!"
But Sanders said that was something he never said. "You read that tweet, that is nothing that I have ever said about Hillary Clinton," he told Blitzer.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/politics/ ... president/

[Belligerent Savant]

.

If Sanders wants real influence nothing is stopping him from continuing the fundraising and rallying and building an organization after the presumed nomination of Clinton.

Missed this nugget during my prior 'drive-by' of this thread.

Indeed, in my view such a move (or lack thereof) is one big telltale sign of Bernie's actual intent (or perhaps more precisely, his purpose, regardless of his own intent): he has gathered plenty of momentum by now to branch off on his own, taking his legion of fans/donors with him, and likely accumulating a marked uptick in 'fanbase' by breaking free from the tentacles of the D Party, inspiring many of the cynics/'independents' among us to jump onboard. IF HE DOESN'T, it adds credence to the theory that he's little more than a tool to the Establishment.

Perhaps Trump/Sanders were provided their relatively extensive platforms as little more than a social experiment by the overlords, to gauge the degree of plebe/voter discontent, which in turn will allow for a more refined/intelligent re-calibration and/or fine-tuning of suggestive conditioning platforms to be implemented in due course.

[km artlu]

Perhaps Trump/Sanders were provided their relatively extensive platforms as little more than a social experiment by the overlords, to gauge the degree of plebe/voter discontent, which in turn will allow for a more refined/intelligent re-calibration and/or fine-tuning of suggestive conditioning platforms to be implemented in due course.

Excellent. I believe that's what it is. Very well stated.

[Nordic]

I've figured since the beginning that Sanders was the Gore to Clinton's Clinton.

Why wouldn't they do a repeat of what worked for them before? I remember in 92 liking Gore far more than Bill C, but being somewhat ok with Gore being the VP. It helped me accept Clinton.

Back then I was one of the dimly aware. Easily led by the nose.

[mentalgongfu2]

In the year 2000 I voted in the first presidential election for which I was eligible. I voted for Nader, and then the whole Hanging Chad/Florida/Supreme Court manipulation ensued and I watched as G. W. Bush became president.

In the year 2004 I caucused in Iowa for Kucinich in the primaries, moved to the John Edwards group because Kucinich wasn't numerically viable in that precinct, and wound up being elected as a delegate for Edwards to the county convention.

My already growing disillusionment was fueled by the county convention experience. It was held on a Saturday in a room at the Holiday Inn if I recall correctly. Dem speakers went on and on to a captive audience that was already obviously supportive of the Party, making speeches urging votes for numerous local offices. Not a problem in theory, but this was a group that didn't need to be persuaded about who to vote for in the county auditor race; they were there to do their part in choosing a presidential nominee. It started at 9 am, and when 3 pm rolled around and they hadn't gotten to any votes. Participants had got past groaning and were openly complaining. Delegates I knew had to leave because they were parents and only had the babysitter scheduled for six hours, never expecting it would go this long before even addressing the main purpose of apportioning delegates for the Dem nominee. Many people had to leave before any vote was taken, and that skewed the votes to the extreme party faithful and professionals who could afford and knew to dedicate the entire day to the chosen one, who in this year turned out to be John Kerry. Even after the delegate apportionment finally happened with its built-in bias, there was the matter of the party platform left to address. The meeting went long into the night, and it was obvious the strategy was the most manipulative and most stubborn and those with the most time to spare would win, and they did.

Kerry was a failure as a candidate. There was the swiftboat attack and the video of Vietnam medals thrown over the fence that made him vulnerable, but mostly he was just too vanilla, and it was probably intended. He was only left standing after the Dean Scream stopped all the momentum of Howard Dean's campaign and the Nader legacy stilled most third party momentum by preying on the antagonism to the idea of a second G.W. Bush term. You know, the same shit we're seeing now - if you don't vote for Hillary you're supporting Trump bs...

Obama's presidency is a legacy of minimal advances in liberal/progressive policies while pushing a right wing dream in terms of MIC domination. If he wasn't a black Democrat, republicans would worship him like Reagan. History being what it is, it wouldn't surprise me if a few years from now he is presented by the right as an example of a good liberal who is socially cool but still believes in bombing the shit out of whoever we name as an enemy

I have been too skeptical to actively support Bernie, but I have rooted for him quietly in the small hope he meant to really challenge the system, but if he ends up as Hillary's VP he will disqualify himself in my mind as a legitimate alternative and will show he is just part of a system designed to deal with inevitable discontents such as ourselves.

[Harvey]

Thanks for that mentalgongfu, a process which was been hopelessly opaque to me suddenly ascends into stunning clarity. Actually this whole thread has been a very thoughtful.

[82_28]

Great synopsis, mentalgongfu. I did EXACTLY what you did in the WA state caucuses. Exactly and to the T (or is that tee?). Ours seemed to move a little quicker than yours sounded like they went.

Will someone high up in the coveted towers of mainstream media point out the inconsistency of having Trump on nonstop doing a compare/contrast with the "Dean Scream"? How that sank Dean I will never understand.

Yet Dean I think has already come out in favor for Clinton.

[brekin]

Article about why he shouldn't be VP, but subtext is he probably will be. I like Corey Booker. But the way things are going I think America wants Clinton as President and Trump as Vice President.

Why Bernie Sanders shouldn't be Hillary Clinton's VP pick

(CNN)If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president, she should find a substantive and valuable role for Bernie Sanders. It should not be as her vice president.

Before Sanders supporters take my head off, let me explain:
I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter and believe wholeheartedly in his economic populist vision for the Democratic Party and for America, but he doesn't do what a VP candidate needs to do: help the presidential ticket win votes.Sanders has given small signals that he'd be willing to step into that job (on "Meet the Press" last weekend, he wouldn't rule it out), and there's little doubt that such a move would help Clinton secure Sanders' voters. Beyond that, at least one recent poll (from not-always-reliable Rasmussen) shows Democrats preferring Sanders as a VP pick. But this should not be the main factor influencing Clinton's VP decision. Bear in mind: Back in 2008, when Hillary Clinton was in a primary race with Barack Obama, mid-May exit polls showed fully half of her supporters in Indiana saying they would not vote for Barack Obama if he was the Democratic nominee. And one-third of Clinton supporters said they would actually back John McCain over Obama. North Carolina polling numbers back then told the same story.

Guess what happened? In the general election, Obama beat McCain in both states. Those voters came around.
And that was only in a match-up against relative Republican moderate John McCain. It's hard to imagine that Democrats, however bitter they may feel about the primary battle, won't unite against Donald Trump. What's more, Sanders' potential benefits as a VP pick may be offset by his downside -- namely that he makes the Clinton ticket look even more elderly.
So if not Bernie, who?

If Clinton is genuinely worried about exciting Sanders' base and looking to address this with her VP pick, Elizabeth Warren is a much stronger choice. Warren would bring the same base-rallying energy as Sanders, plus younger energy and something else very useful in a running mate: a demonstrated ability to effectively attack Trump -- particularly on his Twitter turf -- something Clinton has been either unwilling or unable to do so far.

Plus, Warren would directly tap into the overall anti-establishment moment coursing through the electorate.
There are some other baldly pragmatic reasons that Clinton must look beyond Sanders for her running mate -- whether to Warren or someone else -- in what could be a painfully close general election.All signs point to a tough battle in Rust Belt states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, crucial to this election's outcome. A Democratic nominee needs a VP candidate who, yes, aligns with her (or his) values and vision for the nation -- but also helps pick up these key states and the demographics within them.

Consider Ohio and Pennsylvania -- the first- and second-most competitive battleground states in 2008, respectively. The conventional media narrative is that these states reflect the concerns of their white voting populations, that winning over this demographic is key to winning the general election. And for Donald Trump that would surely be true, as his path to victory runs straight through white male voters, as a group.

But in 2012, Barack Obama won Ohio because African-American voters turned out at an even greater percentage than in 2008, giving him a sizable margin. There's a reason the limited demographic appeal of Sanders stings his supporters: The reality is that Democrats depend not on white swing voters but on mobilizing and activating voters of color (who have been slow to warm to Sanders) to win a national election.
In this sense, HUD Secretary Julian Castro, a Latino, or former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, an African-American, would be a good choice for Clinton's VP. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey certainly would add youthful energy to the ticket, though his record of accomplishment is sparser. Tom Perez, secretary of labor under Obama, is also a strong choice because he would help motivate Latino voter turnout and appeal to the Sanders wing of the party.
It is possible, of course, that the centrism Clinton is known for would rear its head in her vice presidential choice.

Consider this: Faced with a general election against Donald Trump, an opponent that many decent Republicans find repugnant, Clinton and her team may use the VP pick to appeal to moderate swing voters and even some Republicans -- thereby expanding her base beyond those left-of-center white, Latino and black voters she can already count on.
In this scenario, might she try to woo Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania and the director of Homeland Security under George W. Bush? He's a pro-choice Republican and -- by his party's standards today -- a moderate.
Or Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who could help with the Rust Belt while helping with the Sanders vote, since Brown is considered more progressive than Clinton.
Or -- a very safe choice -- Tim Kaine, a Democratic U.S. senator and former governor of Virginia with impeccable centrist Democratic establishment credentials, well-tested and well-liked, and a solid pick for a heartbeat-away job.

Ultimately, if (and remember, it's still if) Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee, Sanders and Warren have already demonstrated a clear willingness to support her nomination and help defeat Trump. As the stakes are raised, one can expect their commitment to be raised as well. And certainly Clinton could look to Obama's model and promise a senior cabinet post to Sanders as a significant olive branch.
No question, it's going to be tricky picking a person capable of threading all these needles -- a person who engages and even excites the Sanders base and reflects the anti-establishment populist zeitgeist of the moment on left and right, draws in swing voters and resentful Republican votes and has the personality to challenge Trump head-on while also clearly possessing the temperament and qualifications of the presidency.
Easy, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/opinions/ ... bottomlist

[NeonLX]

If Sanders caves in and becomes $hillary's bitch, I'll write in Jill Stein.

[brekin]

Back In the Saddle
Aerosmith

I'm back
I'm back in the saddle again
I'm back
I'm back in the saddle again

Ridin' into town alone
By the light of the moon
I'm looking for ole' Sukie Jones
She crazy horse saloon
Barkeep gimme a drink
That's when she caught my eye
She turned to give me a wink
That'd make a grown man cry
...

[NeonLX]

Does it really matter who becomes preznit? The same machinery of government will continue to operate, mainly by the rich and for the rich. Shit will continue to flow downhill and our taxes will keep increasing for fewer services.

Keep pressing that lever to receive your food pellets.

[Wombaticus Rex]

It does matter this time, in the sense that Trump would be the most entertaining option, the most likely man to drop state secrets over a hot mic on camera who has ever held that office, and the least likely to complete his term (or even his first year) which makes his choice of VP unusually (Paul Ryan) important.

[American Dream]

Perhaps Bernie Sanders, who oversaw a reasonably functioning city government in delightful Burlington, Vermont actually believes his local success some decades ago can be translated to the national level. The illusory character of that vision would be revealed as soon as he made it into office. The unlikelihood of that outcome to America’s election shenanigans, however, is in itself a sign that meaningful change will not come from politicians. The very absence of “great men”—and women—in the political field testifies to the exhaustion of this mechanism for the management of the ongoing disaster that is modern civilization. One can only hope that the accelerating decay of politics will open a way to understanding that the disaster, ultimately unmanageable, must be dealt with in some other, more direct way.

--The Withering of the State, by Paul Mattick

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^That quote was brilliant and that whole essay was a great damn read.

Recommend everyone check that one out.

[Elihu]

"Great man" - "failure" - "more direct"


Yeah. B patient yall.