2020 Presidential Election

[budwom]

Your bet does not really work because we will never know if Bernie was offered and declined behind closed doors. You can bet it would never be leaked if that did happen as it would really spell doom for the nominee as it would make it even harder to get Bernie's supporters on board.

As for VPs being ideologically different to balance out a ticket, I think your memory is really off.

• Pence was chosen to give Trump help with the traditional GOP folks and the evangelicals. There was a real threat of an evangelical revolt until Pence was named.
• Biden may have been ideologically similar to Obama, but was certainly seen as an experienced balance to Obama's relative youth and inexperience.
• Palin was a major league nod to the conservative wing of the party when the moderate McCain got the nomination.
• Kemp and Quayle were both conservatives to balance out the relatively moderate Dole and Bush.
• Before that, Bush was a moderate to balance out the staunch conservative Reagan.

It seems to happen more with Republicans than Democrats, though that may be because the Dems have so consistently tries to jog to the middle versus appeasing the left wing. Now that we are at an inflection point where that seems important to a potential victory, I am fairly confident we will not see two moderate, old school establishment Dems headlining the ticket. Sanders is the standard bearer of the liberal wing and I suspect there will at least be a discussion about VP if he is not the nominee.

-Jason "of all the folks currently in the field, assuming Bernie does not want it, I think Warren may be the most likely VP choice... feisty in a debate with lots of liberal cred and a tireless campaigner" Evans

Can't argue with much of the above, Jason, but I don't think that was your initial assertion...it wasn't about "balancing the ticket," it was about garnering a LARGE number of avid Bernie supporters. I'd assert that the group you list above did precious little in the way of garnering major support. Balance, yes, inspiration, not so much.
p.s. last night I had trouble remembering Kaine's name, that's how important VPs are...

Were Joe or Pete or Bloomy to get the nod, I'd be expecting Klobuchar as a more likely pick than Warren (who, parenthetically, seems to be sinking like a stone, even in her home state). We'll see!

[budwom]

if his support is so critical to the election cause, what in Bernie's background makes one think that Bernie would not continue to insist on the top job then?

If Bernie has 40% (which surely would be the leading plurality), no way does he just walk away quietly. None of them would. And it's not like Bernie is known for compromising.

yup, I hadn't seen this before my last post, but thanks OPK...he's not jumping on board as the second act with that level of following...it's no in his DNA.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Your bet does not really work because we will never know if Bernie was offered and declined behind closed doors. You can bet it would never be leaked if that did happen as it would really spell doom for the nominee as it would make it even harder to get Bernie's supporters on board.

As for VPs being ideologically different to balance out a ticket, I think your memory is really off.

• Pence was chosen to give Trump help with the traditional GOP folks and the evangelicals. There was a real threat of an evangelical revolt until Pence was named.
• Biden may have been ideologically similar to Obama, but was certainly seen as an experienced balance to Obama's relative youth and inexperience.
• Palin was a major league nod to the conservative wing of the party when the moderate McCain got the nomination.
• Kemp and Quayle were both conservatives to balance out the relatively moderate Dole and Bush.
• Before that, Bush was a moderate to balance out the staunch conservative Reagan.

It seems to happen more with Republicans than Democrats, though that may be because the Dems have so consistently tries to jog to the middle versus appeasing the left wing. Now that we are at an inflection point where that seems important to a potential victory, I am fairly confident we will not see two moderate, old school establishment Dems headlining the ticket. Sanders is the standard bearer of the liberal wing and I suspect there will at least be a discussion about VP if he is not the nominee.

-Jason "of all the folks currently in the field, assuming Bernie does not want it, I think Warren may be the most likely VP choice... feisty in a debate with lots of liberal cred and a tireless campaigner" Evans

This is all 100% spot on. You almost never hear who turned down the Veep spot, unless that person wants to enhance their own brand. I imagine there's a bit of unwritten tradition that you don't broadcast it. I mean, let's suppose that McCain asked five other people to be his #2 - that makes McCain and Palin both look bad.

Everyone feels better at the convention if, say, Bernie can state without being contradicted "as soon as I saw my path to the nomination, I called up Pete and asked him to be my running mate and he said yes."

[sagegrouse]

This is all 100% spot on. You almost never hear who turned down the Veep spot, unless that person wants to enhance their own brand. I imagine there's a bit of unwritten tradition that you don't broadcast it. I mean, let's suppose that McCain asked five other people to be his #2 - that makes McCain and Palin both look bad.

Everyone feels better at the convention if, say, Bernie can state without being contradicted "as soon as I saw my path to the nomination, I called up Pete and asked him to be my running mate and he said yes."

Perhaps the one-word answer to the question of who turned down the VP nomination is "nobody."

While I agree that Bernie actually might turn down the VP slot, I doubt it would be offered to a self-styled maverick who would be unlikely to toe the party line. Warren would be a more likely choice.

Increasingly, the VP has been seen by the POTUS as a partner. It was true of Biden, Cheney and Gore. Maybe about GHW Bush, but not sure. Probably about Mondale, but there were other reasons. Doubt that is was Trump's motive in picking Pence, since DJT seems to like a one-man show.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Perhaps the one-word answer to the question of who turned down the VP nomination is "nobody."

While I agree that Bernie actually might turn down the VP slot, I doubt it would be offered to a self-styled maverick who would be unlikely to toe the party line. Warren would be a more likely choice.

Increasingly, the VP has been seen by the POTUS as a partner. It was true of Biden, Cheney and Gore. Maybe about GHW Bush, but not sure. Probably about Mondale, but there were other reasons. Doubt that is was Trump's motive in picking Pence, since DJT seems to like a one-man show.

I'd bet a potatoe salad that Bush did not view Quayle as a partner.

[sagegrouse]

I'd bet a potatoe salad that Bush did not view Quayle as a partner.

True. Dan Quayle, when selected, was clearly George Bush's "fair-haired boy" but not a partner. He knew Quayle well while serving as VP and President of the Senate. It didn't take long for that bubble to burst, starting with Quayle's inability to defend his service in the National Guard during Vietnam.

I was referring to Reagan's selection of GHW Bush. I don't know that the RR team thought of him as a partner, but more of a ticket balancer. But, as it turned out, the phenomenally competent James Baker, Bush's good buddy and advisor, became Reagan's chief of staff, later treasury secretary, and 1984 campaign manager.

[bundabergdevil]

True. Dan Quayle, when selected, was clearly George Bush's "fair-haired boy" but not a partner. He knew Quayle well while serving as VP and President of the Senate. It didn't take long for that bubble to burst, starting with Quayle's inability to defend his service in the National Guard during Vietnam.

I was referring to Reagan's selection of GHW Bush. I don't know that the RR team thought of him as a partner, but more of a ticket balancer. But, as it turned out, the phenomenally competent James Baker, Bush's good buddy and advisor, became Reagan's chief of staff, later treasury secretary, and 1984 campaign manager.

HW was an 11th hour pick for RR. They'd had a pretty brutal 1980 Republican primary contest, including the infamous debate during which HW just stood silently because he refused to debate all the primary candidates. Not a good look. Anyway, RR was all set to pick Ford as his VP but, IIRC, it fell apart last minute and HW was a convention pick...which is LATE.

Point is, yes, the argument for HW as a ticket-balancer is true. He was a moderate who Reagan had attacked as "not a true conservative" (RINO-ism been 'round forever). But, it wasn't as strategic as all that, RR kind of had to fall back onto HW.

[CameronBornAndBred]

HW was an 11th hour pick for RR. They'd had a pretty brutal 1980 Republican primary contest, including the infamous debate during which HW just stood silently because he refused to debate all the primary candidates. Not a good look. Anyway, RR was all set to pick Ford as his VP but, IIRC, it fell apart last minute and HW was a convention pick...which is LATE.

Point is, yes, the argument for HW as a ticket-balancer is true. He was a moderate who Reagan had attacked as "not a true conservative" (RINO-ism been 'round forever). But, it wasn't as strategic as all that, RR kind of had to fall back onto HW.

That would have been fascinating.

[budwom]

HW was an 11th hour pick for RR. They'd had a pretty brutal 1980 Republican primary contest, including the infamous debate during which HW just stood silently because he refused to debate all the primary candidates. Not a good look. Anyway, RR was all set to pick Ford as his VP but, IIRC, it fell apart last minute and HW was a convention pick...which is LATE.

Point is, yes, the argument for HW as a ticket-balancer is true. He was a moderate who Reagan had attacked as "not a true conservative" (RINO-ism been 'round forever). But, it wasn't as strategic as all that, RR kind of had to fall back onto HW.

I don't think I've ever seen any evidence that Ford, a former president, would have seen any point in being Reagan's VP (though it made sense to Reagan). Seems absolutely nuts, in fact. What would be the point from his point of view???

[bundabergdevil]

I don't think I've ever seen any evidence that Ford, a former president, would have seen any point in being Reagan's VP (though it made sense to Reagan). Seems absolutely nuts, in fact. What would be the point from his point of view???

IIRC, Ford was RR’s first pick for the “dream ticket” but rebuffed repeated inquiries until a late push by RR and former Ford confidantes to create an expansive VP role. This Ford considered until the idea of a co-Presidentcy surfaced. This was a no-go of course and RR had to move on.

I didn’t go back and check on this but this is what I recall from some biographies on HW, Baker and some other players at the time.

[bundabergdevil]

Ruh-Roh from Nevada. From FiveThirtyEight live blog ---- "There are at least six anecdotal reports of precincts where confusion about the rules and incorporating early vote has caused a delay in reporting, according to reporting from ABC News. This was something I anticipated, as the rules were opaque at best. Nathaniel and I both pored over these rules in the past few days and we’re still confused about some details today. Though to be fair, we didn’t get the training that caucus volunteers got, which might have been easier to understand."

At least some results are coming in so not pulling a full Iowa but might not be a good look depending on how the evening unfolds.

[Troublemaker]

Domination. Bernie's going to be very difficult to stop. (And no, Biden dropping out isn't the answer unless you want Bernie to dominate among minorities even more.)

What's been underplayed all this time is how popular Bernie is with Latinos.


Steve Kornacki
@SteveKornacki
3h
The reason I just said on MS that the diversity of NV is proving to be Sanders' strength:
White
Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 19%
Klobuchar 14%
Warren 14%
Biden 13%

Non-white
Sanders 44%
Biden 21%
Steyer 11%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 7%

[bundabergdevil]

Sanders projected as the winner in Nevada, Biden in distant second. If Sanders' margin holds, it will be a pretty big win.

[budwom]

I still think Bernie has a long way to go, but I recall people on this forum (and others) proclaiming he'd do lousy in states that weren't overwhelmingly white, because Vermont is overwhelmingly white. So much for that theory. Seemed pretty illogical to me...kind of like saying Trump can't do well in the Midwest or South because he's from liberal, diverse New York.

Obviously he's bringing something to the table which the other candidates aren't, and they'd best take notice if they want to stop him. Personally, I think it's boiling down to the centrist Democratic party status quo vs a guy who wants major change.
Some of his opponents would do well do adjust accordingly.

[bundabergdevil]

I still think Bernie has a long way to go, but I recall people on this forum (and others) proclaiming he'd do lousy in states that weren't overwhelmingly white, because Vermont is overwhelmingly white. So much for that theory. Seemed pretty illogical to me...kind of like saying Trump can't do well in the Midwest or South because he's from liberal, diverse New York.

Obviously he's bringing something to the table which the other candidates aren't, and they'd best take notice if they want to stop him. Personally, I think it's boiling down to the centrist Democratic party status quo vs a guy who wants major change.
Some of his opponents would do well do adjust accordingly.

If Bernie coasts to the candidacy, I think it's safe to say we're seeing the base of both parties move wholesale away from where we thought the parties were. Trump and Sanders are both combative, party outsiders that already have (Trump) or could (Sanders) significantly change their party's respective platforms.

It isn't surprising to see Trump tap into cultural and globalization angst. And, it's not surprising to see Sanders get the younger generations who came of age during the financial crisis and saw the folks responsible go unpunished. Long simmering tensions soaked in gasoline and Trump and Sanders are just the matches to ignite them. Suspect we're seeing the groundwork laid for the next 30 years of political fights.

[budwom]

If Bernie coasts to the candidacy, I think it's safe to say we're seeing the base of both parties move wholesale away from where we thought the parties were. Trump and Sanders are both combative, party outsiders that already have (Trump) or could (Sanders) significantly change their party's respective platforms.

It isn't surprising to see Trump tap into cultural and globalization angst. And, it's not surprising to see Sanders get the younger generations who came of age during the financial crisis and saw the folks responsible go unpunished. Long simmering tensions soaked in gasoline and Trump and Sanders are just the matches to ignite them. Suspect we're seeing the groundwork laid for the next 30 years of political fights.

Sounds about right. I DO, however, think the Dems have a chance to make some meaningful changes (which would help a lot of people, e.g. student loans, health care) which are short of Bernie's positions. But thus far, the centrists such as Pete and Joe seem to be primarily selling that they're not Trump, which I suspect is both necessary and insufficient. If I were them (or The Bloomster) I'd get something a bit more meaty on the table with regard to those, and other policies.

[sagegrouse]

NT Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat (pronunciation: DOO-tat) has three pieces of advice today for Dems, which are lessons learned by Republicans in opposing Trump in 2016. He believes these apply to moderate Democrats trying to head off the 79 year-old socialist Sanders:

1. Candidates not winning primaries need to drop out immediately in order not to divide the moderate vote. If done with alacrity this would end up with Biden, Buttigieg or Bloomberg opposing Sanders (and perhaps Warren, if she stays in). For example, if Biden loses in SC, he should be gone. Amy should drop out if she can't pass Buttigieg in Nev. (she didn't) or SC. For Buttigieg, a good showing in Iowa and NH is not enough -- he should depart if he can't match Biden and Bloomberg in other states.

2. Unconventional candidates require unconventional means. In 2016 Cruz made a stab at forming a ticket with Marco Rubio, but Rubio decided to continue in his own ineffective race. There is no obvious unity ticket for the Dems, but the dynamic among Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg may have promise, per Douthat. But certainly the other moderates should fund raise and campaign for the selected candidate.

3. Any candidate with a clear delegate lead in the end of March will win the nomination. Neither party has the stomach for a gut-wrenching effort to deny nomination to candidate leading in delegates. Ergo, time is of the essence.

IMHO (where the H was shanghaied at a HHH rally in the Astrodome in 1968), Sanders, who opposes rich people and big business and wants to totally remake the $3.65 trillion health care system, seems unlikely to win a horse race against Trump in November. We'll see if Democratic Party leaders make some noise to this effect, particularly those Democrats running in competitive races in November. But, as Douthat says and many on this Board, May is too late.

[bundabergdevil]

NT Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat (pronunciation: DOO-tat) has three pieces of advice today for Dems, which are lessons learned by Republicans in opposing Trump in 2016. He believes these apply to moderate Democrats trying to head off the 79 year-old socialist Sanders:

1. Candidates not winning primaries need to drop out immediately in order not to divide the moderate vote. If done with alacrity this would end up with Biden, Buttigieg or Bloomberg opposing Sanders (and perhaps Warren, if she stays in). For example, if Biden loses in SC, he should be gone. Amy should drop out if she can't pass Buttigieg in Nev. (she didn't) or SC. For Buttigieg, a good showing in Iowa and NH is not enough -- he should depart if he can't match Biden and Bloomberg in other states.

2. Unconventional candidates require unconventional means. In 2016 Cruz made a stab at forming a ticket with Marco Rubio, but Rubio decided to continue in his own ineffective race. There is no obvious unity ticket for the Dems, but the dynamic among Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg may have promise, per Douthat. But certainly the other moderates should fund raise and campaign for the selected candidate.

3. Any candidate with a clear delegate lead in the end of March will win the nomination. Neither party has the stomach for a gut-wrenching effort to deny nomination to candidate leading in delegates. Ergo, time is of the essence.

IMHO (where the H was shanghaied at a HHH rally in the Astrodome in 1968), Sanders, who opposes rich people and big business and wants to totally remake the $3.65 trillion health care system, seems unlikely to win a horse race against Trump in November. We'll see if Democratic Party leaders make some noise to this effect, particularly those Democrats running in competitive races in November. But, as Douthat says and many on this Board, May is too late.

But what if he enlists the help of a wizardess, what say you then?!?!

[Chicago 1995]

NT Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat (pronunciation: DOO-tat) has three pieces of advice today for Dems, which are lessons learned by Republicans in opposing Trump in 2016. He believes these apply to moderate Democrats trying to head off the 79 year-old socialist Sanders:

1. Candidates not winning primaries need to drop out immediately in order not to divide the moderate vote. If done with alacrity this would end up with Biden, Buttigieg or Bloomberg opposing Sanders (and perhaps Warren, if she stays in). For example, if Biden loses in SC, he should be gone. Amy should drop out if she can't pass Buttigieg in Nev. (she didn't) or SC. For Buttigieg, a good showing in Iowa and NH is not enough -- he should depart if he can't match Biden and Bloomberg in other states.

2. Unconventional candidates require unconventional means. In 2016 Cruz made a stab at forming a ticket with Marco Rubio, but Rubio decided to continue in his own ineffective race. There is no obvious unity ticket for the Dems, but the dynamic among Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg may have promise, per Douthat. But certainly the other moderates should fund raise and campaign for the selected candidate.

3. Any candidate with a clear delegate lead in the end of March will win the nomination. Neither party has the stomach for a gut-wrenching effort to deny nomination to candidate leading in delegates. Ergo, time is of the essence.

IMHO (where the H was shanghaied at a HHH rally in the Astrodome in 1968), Sanders, who opposes rich people and big business and wants to totally remake the $3.65 trillion health care system, seems unlikely to win a horse race against Trump in November. We'll see if Democratic Party leaders make some noise to this effect, particularly those Democrats running in competitive races in November. But, as Douthat says and many on this Board, May is too late.

Even if there's some superficial allure to Douthat's musings, I'm pretty sure the best course would be to do exactly the opposite what Ross suggests given his track record.

Can you imagine the GOP -- even the GOP talking heads like Douthat -- taking an article like this from a Clinton Democrat seriously?

[Wander]

Obviously he's bringing something to the table which the other candidates aren't, and they'd best take notice if they want to stop him. Personally, I think it's boiling down to the centrist Democratic party status quo vs a guy who wants major change.
Some of his opponents would do well do adjust accordingly.


But thus far, the centrists such as Pete and Joe seem to be primarily selling that they're not Trump, which I suspect is both necessary and insufficient.

I think you're underestimating the massive effect to which Bloomberg's money has wrecked the Democrat race. Pete was essentially tied with Bernie after the first two primaries, actually very slightly ahead with delegates. He was doing everything right strategically. The final two probably "deserve" to be Bernie and Pete, if you're going based on those early primaries and general high level of organization and competence in the campaign (not any personal political opinion). But Pete and the other non-Bernie candidates have been bled dry by Bloomberg's personal stash of money, and it's starting to show in the results. I think we may look back and conclude in hindsight that Bloomberg basically handed Trump a second term by effectively preventing the rise of a serious Democrat challenger to Bernie (I think both Bernie and Bloomberg would get crushed in November).

I often roll my eyes at the comments on this thread about how both major parties are at the same place right now, but susceptibility to influence from the extreme wealth of individuals is one area where it's true.