BIDEN floating idea of Republican VP?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
  • Author
  • #43620

    A significant portion of Bernie supporters refused to honor his wishes and did not vote for Hillary. If he’d gotten the nomination, that wouldn’t be an issue but it’s hard to tell if it would have been enough to swing the election with Trump.


    Just know “loonies” grew by a considerable amount, and today represent more than enough to lose elections for people unwilling to represent them.

    They also are joined by a ton of people who will vote for the first time, and or return to vote after having abstained.

    Work with is and win big, or tell us to fuck off and likely lose.

    Clinton chose the fuck off path. Lost.

    Polls then had Bernie beating Trump easily then, and they have that same outcome now.

    “Consistent as consistent gets” -DNC leadership

    5 million individual donations now. They average low dollars, and come from what may be 1.5 to 2 million donors.

    The Primaries do not measure all voters, just Dems. Bernie support among indies was, and remains massive.

    Up to 20 percent of Trump voters would have voted Bernie.

    “Loonies” is not going to help defeat Trump.

    Please Proceed 😀


    I think Civil War. Why?

    Three basic things:

    1) Jobs. With all the money in politics, the current party establishment is fairly heavy. Lots of people being paid. Same goes for media. Politics will pay really big.

    That really sucks, because progressives are employing a very different model. Because there is a current need to compete with existing politics, the amounts of money are large. But, how they are spent, and to whom those dollars go is not the same people receiving it right now.

    Here, Sanders movement is very different from say the difference between Warren and Biden, for example. In general, working for Warren in a Biden nom scenario means continuing to work, calls being returned, etc… In a Sanders scenario, those things are nowhere near as likely to be true. Many career people are not going to be nice about any of this.

    2) Donors. Progressives are either not taking money from the usual donor whales, or are taking very small amounts of it. This clash is basic and speaks right to party direction and who it works for most directly.

    Progressives are clear and committed to representing people and the environment, leaving the other interests to either the GOP, or to take their cases more directly to voters.

    The existing party establishment represents big money donors as a priority with others being on a best fit, or sell job basis. (Americans paying super high drug prices actually fund global research that benefit poor people worldwide, as an example that is not actually selling all that well at present.)

    3) War. Progressives are more generally anti war / nation building. Party establishment is generally either willing to go along, or flat out pro.

    It is not just a matter of wanting the same general things with differences in tactics.

    The basic goals are different.

    I do not see a nice way to resolve any of it.

    The drams related to these two have been seen elsewhere and you can expect more and bigger players to jump in next year.

    Near end of this year, both the MSM and party insiders finally recognized Sanders has a very solid, significant and rapidly growing base that leaves him with a solid chance of getting the nomination.

    Now that discussion will play out for a while, then it will be GAME ON!

    The Sanders campaign and supporters, and here I mean “surrogates” (a term I have always disliked viscerally), will see a shotgun “see what sticks and run with it” negative “put a stop to it” campaign fire up straight away!

    Here, myself and Vitalogy appear to be a small glance at the general dynamics.

    Get your popcorn ready! 2020 has begun!

    (And throughout this, I just want better, with health care being issue number one)


    One other thing:

    The current party leadership says defeating Trump is all that matters. Then work on a compelling vision. Obama style, basically.

    In this model, votes are expected because Trump really sucks.

    Progressives say defeating Trump happens by presenting a compelling vision. Bernie style basically.

    In this model, votes are garnered because people will see a strong potential for better lives.

    That is another way to put the party conflict into context.


    Missing: “The current party leadership says defeating Trump is all that matters. Then work on a compelling vision. Obama style, basically.

    In this model, votes are expected because Trump really sucks.”

    Yep. That’s human nature. When an incumbent is running for re-election, the election is mostly about the incumbent – fear and anger, if things aren’t going well. That’s just how it is. That’s how/why Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush were defeated – not because their opponents had a “compelling vision” but because they were upset with the state of the country and/or upset with the president.

    That’s why Democrats won the House in 2018 – not because of a “compelling vision” but because of anger with Trump. In 2010, it was anger with Obama. In 2006 it was anger with Bush.

    “Progressives say defeating Trump happens by presenting a compelling vision. Bernie style basically.”

    That would be nice, but to deny human nature is just setting yourself up for another defeat.

    “In this model, votes are garnered because people will see a strong potential for better lives.”

    This type of campaign has a better chance of working in a non-incumbent election year. Not in 2020.


    Yep. That’s human nature.

    Until it isn’t. Clinton found that out, and the opposition has grown very considerably since then.

    Beating Trump takes us nowhere. For way too many Americans to ignore that means no and protest votes.

    That means we lose, unless we actually do the work to win, bot just phone it in with a Trump is bad campaign.

    Fear, blame and shame all you want. That just makes more fuck you votes.

    And they say fuck you, because trying to get people to sign up for more of the same politics that screwed them is telling them they do not matter.

    When people do not matter, they don’t vote. Why bother?

    Also, maybe you hurt more. No joke on that.

    Have had that said to me more times this year than I want to admit.

    Face it. You really do not give two shits about struggling people, or really do not understand why and how they struggle.

    Biden doesn’t either, so you are in great company.


    There are a lot of humans who are done. Bot going to ever sign on for more of the last decades.

    They will sign on for a compelling vision.

    All they hear from people who hold your view is, “how you gonna pay for that?”

    And they point to wars and embarrassing corporate largesse, wondering why they even bothered.

    Let’s hope the Sanders team knocks on those doors.


    Missing: “Until it isn’t. Clinton found that out, and the opposition has grown very considerably since then.”

    She didn’t run against an incumbent president.

    “Beating Trump takes us nowhere. For way too many Americans to ignore that means no and protest votes.”

    It’s not that the Democrats should offer nothing besides “Trump sucks.” Biden certainly is – you just don’t like what he’s offering. (E.g. big tax increases on the rich; expanded Obamacare.) But…the campaign first and foremost will be focused on how bad Trump is. Again, just human nature. Not liking that isn’t going to change it.



    Biden is offering a return to the politics that got us Trump. Of course I don’t like it.

    Enough people to be a real problem for him won’t vote for a return to what got us Trump too.

    Focusing first and foremost on how bad Trump is means not being focused on the issues people struggle with.

    It is not like there is no history prior to 2016.

    Biden himself contributed to that suffering.

    And it isn’t like we need a review with non stop “Trump is a bad guy” aired for years straight, while during that same time, relative silence again on the things people struggle with.

    As for change?

    Has already happened. Millions on board now, better politicking spreading quickly.

    Biden is old news.

    Joe “mind if I smell your daughter” 2020: Make America straight and moral again…

    Ahem, Malarkey.

    A good third of the voters will respond with, “Meh” or “ewww”


    Missing: “It is not like there is no history prior to 2016.”

    But some of you act like it. You’re using the same failed strategy so many other “revolutionary” movements have used in the past: just explain to people that you are going to do X, Y, and Z for them and suddenly they’ll not only start voting but vote for you! People will come out of the woodwork and embrace you! If only you keep organizing and spreading the word!

    Every other failed movement like yours thought exactly like you did: that THEY had the ideological answer and no one else did – as soon as everyone saw things your way and agreed with you, suddenly your candidates would start winning elections in drove.

    But American politics doesn’t work that way especially at the presidential level. The Democratic Party especially is a diverse patchwork of viewpoints and ideologies. A presidential candidate has to be able to appease enough of a diverse group of people to win the nomination without alienating everyone else. Ideologues just don’t have a good track record of winning – they always offend too many non-believers.

    It could be that the Democratic Party needs another 1984 to get its sh*t together – lose 49 states with a Walter Mondale again, to remember that America is not a lefty-left nation like some people pretend it is. Maybe we need a Sanders or Warren to lose to Trump in 2020 to get that out of our system and start getting realistic about winning a national election again in 2024, without all the purity tests.


    There has not been a campaign of this type in a long time.

    When one goes to evaluate failure, context is needed.

    It is hard to come up with a time in American history where governance is so misaligned with the people. The impact of Citizens United is profound.

    Can anyone here deny that?

    Big changes have followed impacted generations in our past.

    We have that in place right now. People under 35 have felt that impact in ways we have not too. Talking with them is a real eye opener.

    This campaign is not playing a short game. Getting Sanders elected actually kicks off the real politicking, likely to last a decade. The youth trend aligns very favorably with the strong activism focus.

    Say what you want, the numbers and growth is there. Organizers are not having trouble filling seats. The other campaigns have a much harder time saying that.

    When I compare the nascent movement that got 45 percent of Delegates vs Clinton to the one in motion today, the difference is stark!

    It is basically an order larger far more early in the cycle. Had it been at this scale in 2016, things would look very different.

    And the ugly squeeze play is there. Don’t like it, but there are enough people to lose elections committed to only voting for someone willing to continue to challenge the status quo politics that got us here.

    Looks an awful lot like a 2016 repeat:

    Biden vs Bernie, winner facing Trump.

    So far, Biden is running the Clinton playbook, with more gaffes and less getting loaded into a van.

    This time, progressives start as peers, not 60 points down giving backyard speeches in rural Vermont.

    And unlike pretty much all the other campaigns, Sanders is bot making virtue arguments. Many of his supporters are, let us be clear. But he is not.

    He is making it damn clear the whole thing is predicated on a campaign size sufficient to knock on all the doors to win, and that size being necessary and to stay active post election to be used as political leverage.

    This is not “we will do X for you”, rather get involved so we can get X done for US. Big diff right there.

    This is an open, raw appeal for Americans to take some ownership of policy and improve their lot.

    I am all in on a campaign that open, frank and honest. And it has serious legs. Nobody but Trump can post events that come anywhere near close and or as consistently.

    My gut says 20 percent of the electorate is a very solid lock, not going anywhere, and a good third or more only voting Sanders.

    I think Biden has a similar body of support. 20, 25… something in that range.

    Biden trends old to very old. Sanders trends young to middle age.

    Both groups will see this election as important. The Sanders core sees it in once in a lifetime, or decades terms.

    This will not be pretty.

    Soon, we are gonna get some hard voter numbers. That will improve on some of the discussion.

    Also, Biden has a basic trust problem that will make it very difficult to turn out the inconsistent and regular no voters. Sanders does not have this problem, and he does not have it because he has decades into the platform, and is not making virtue arguments.

    By that, I mean he is not saying he will get things done. Knows he won’t and is frank about that. WE will get those things done. Straight up people vs big money.

    Forced due to Citizens United too.

    Biden is saying he will do X, does make virtue arguments, and the primary one is to work with others in government to do X.

    All about seeing Citizens United through to its conclusion, a big part of why Trump is POTUS today.

    And there it is. If people want better, they are going to have to get after it. Nobody else is going to.

    You also are not wrong in the basic sense of it either growing to a point of being effective, or it won’t.

    Too early to tell, other than the growth is there.

    The left has had this kind of power to grow before. Has been many decades since that time.

    Millions are going to ride it for all it is worth. I am totally down with that. Good to see.

    Your point about diverse coalitions is right on.

    Medicare for All is an primary organizational point of focus too.

    Even the bigots need a better health care solution.

    Right now, economically, ideologues have been running the show poorly. The basics in the Sanders platform have broad, majority appeal.

    There is nothing at all wrong with taking a basic idea through the political process to conclusion.

    That is, after all, precisely what Third Way and New Democrats did.

    Economic lefties are doing it again. Great!


    5 million contributions from over 1 million donors. Average = 18 bucks.

    More than any other in history.

    34.5 million Q4.

    Largest staff in Iowa. Most volunteers, most events, etc… taking the platform and case right to the voters.

    Nothing fringe about any of it. What we are seeing, at a minimum, is a permanent change to how campaign fundraising happens.

    40k new donors, not donations but donors, on last day, 300k new donors this quarter, which puts total donors at about 1.5 million. (ish, I do not believe totals are released yet)

    The rest of this is your standard campaign info, positioning Sanders in front of Biden, etc…

    BTW, the only other candidate to raise more money is Donald Trump.

    Bernie is making a case for people power, people money vs media, big money.

    The others on the Dem stage have nowhere near the people power Sanders has, and are definitely weaker on money.


    Remind me again which side you are on? Russia? Trump?

    Bernie is a side show. Not a legitimate NATIONAL candidate.

    I used to like him back in the early 2000’s when he appeared on Bill Maher’s show.

    I don’t like him anymore.

    Him and his supporters are responsible for Trump being president. Just read the diatribe from KSKD, a former liberal turned extremist, today or 2 years ago.


    And one more thing: I will NOT vote for a candidate in the primary OR the general election that runs on a platform to take away my private health insurance.

    I’ll pay for your bumper sticker that says “Bernie Bots For Trump 2020”.


    Just to be clear:

    Bernie is a side show. Not a legitimate NATIONAL candidate.

    By what measure?

    Number of donors? Bernie is at the top.
    Amount of money? Bernie is at the top.
    Polling performance? Consistently top, or placing at a minimum.
    Alignment of platform to popular opinion? Bernie is in the best overall alignment?
    Size and scope of political organization, readiness? Bernie has it there too. Solid ops going on in all the important states, done early, well funded, performing well. Lead the entire pack on all of that, still does. Some are just getting going.

    Even the Dem leadership and various “insiders and analysts” are finally saying he’s got a solid shot. Took a while. They just can’t continue to ignore hard data, consistently hard data.

    The only ones who are working double over time to make an illegitimate argument?

    Domestic, major media. Owned by the same big money donors throwing down for Trump and Biden, with a nice slice going to Mayor Pete too. Is there any wonder there?

    The others making that argument are the many party people, not elected, just on the payroll. To them, Bernie represents job loss. A great many of them won’t be welcome in a Sanders led party, or if they are, won’t have the authority they once did. Gloomy times for them.

    Didn’t have to be that way, but they chose to make it all a big issue back in 2016. Because of that, the only way to advance things was to build out an alternative political machine. So that got done.

    Voter lists, code, phone bank system, organizational infrastructure, you name it. That’s the job loss right there for the established types wondering who they will be working for come 2021.

    Warren seems to have fallen out of favor too. She fucked way up recently. Her loss. Too bad. Failed virtue arguments, waffling on policy, and probably the worst possible M4A alternative rollout. She should have just stuck with the basics and would have done far better, for what it’s worth. Maybe she will perform better. She does have a fairly large number of small donors. If she steps up her policy game, those people can fund her for a while yet. Maybe even get her back in the running.

    Anyway, I digress.

    Totally legit candidate by any measure. If Mayor Pete is to be considered legit, Bernie gets it by a mile.

    So, which is it?

    Same for Biden. He’s having trouble remembering to wake up in the morning and what town he’s in. Legit? Doesn’t seem to have much of an organization yet, though he’s getting it going.

    Klobuchar? Is she legit? Media loves the crap out of her, and she’s never even broke single digits that I can recall.

    Again, which is it?

    For a side show, I’m hard pressed to come up with a measure that qualifies that statement. And there are many that qualify Sanders as an exemplary candidate.


    Mania, look it up. It’s you.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.