ChrisWeigant.com

Ridiculously Premature Veepstakes Speculation

[ Posted Thursday, March 5th, 2020 – 17:58 UTC ]

I know, I know -- it's way too early for this.

Still, it's fun to speculate about, so we're going to push right ahead anyway and engage in some ridiculously-early ponderings of who should be chosen to round out the Democratic ticket this time around. If you are horrified of even the prospect of such meanderings, I'd advise you to do something else with the next 10 or 15 minutes of your time. There's always plenty of cat videos out there to watch, after all.

Ahem. Sorry, it's been a rather punch-drunk sort of week, as the Democratic nomination race enters an entirely new phase. We are now down to two candidates (well, plus Tulsi Gabbard, to be strictly accurate), which is certainly a big change from having to keep track of 29 of them. But while perusing a list of the also-rans today (after hearing the news that Elizabeth Warren had dropped out), we began wondering which one of them would make a good pick for each of the two remaining candidates with a chance to win the nomination. So we decided to share our musings. We'll take them one at a time (assuming for the sake of argument that they become the eventual nominee), and consider who would be a good veep pick for both of them.

 

Joe Biden

Biden's strengths: appeals to older voters, blue-collar voters, moderate voters, suburban voters, women voters, and African-American voters.

Biden's weaknesses: limited appeal to younger voters, Latino voters, progressive voters. Also: his age, his gaffes, parts of his voting record.

Home state: Delaware.

Biden's entire campaign revolves around the idea that he's best positioned to win back the Midwestern states that Hillary Clinton lost to Trump. But he'll also need the progressive wing of the party to get behind him as well, and how hard that's going to be to do depends on how brutal the rest of the primary campaign is going to be.

The normal qualifications for a vice-presidential candidate are a mix of: bringing along a state or even a region of the country to shore up the presidential nominee, diversity on the ticket (balancing the presidential candidate's weaknesses with vice-presidential strengths), and the ability to be an attack dog in the campaign (veep candidates, in normal times, can get away with much more pointed attacks than the person at the top of the ticket -- although this may have gone out the window in the age of Trump).

So who would be a good fit for Biden? Ideally, someone significantly younger. This holds true for both Biden and Sanders, because their advanced age means a higher-than-normal chance that the vice president could have to step into the presidency at some point during the next four years. So the choice will have this extra level of scrutiny for both Biden and Sanders.

A woman would certainly bring back some diversity to what is now a contest between two old, white men. So would a Latino or an African-American. Again, this is true for both Sanders and Biden. Biden already has pretty rock-solid support among African-Americans, so his truly ideal pick would be a younger Latino woman who is seen as more progressive (but not frighteningly so) than he is. That would certainly round out the ticket, but it's hard to match that description with an actual person.

Let's take a look at all the candidates who have dropped out already. Well, some of them, at any rate. There is a long list of candidates who just don't have the political heft to even be considered for the job, but who also ran for president. The ones I'm going to ignore are: John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Mike Gravel, Wayne Messam, Seth Moulton, Richard Ojeda, Deval Patrick, Tim Ryan, Joe Sestak, Eric Swalwell, and Marianne Williamson. Both, that list brings back memories, doesn't it?

There is a second grouping who have some political heft, but who really aren't even in the running to round out a Biden ticket, for one reason or another. They are: Michael Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio, Tom Steyer, and Andrew Yang. None of them have really reached the threshold of "presidential material," in my opinion at least.

Even after cutting all of these, there are still 12 left to choose from. Biden could decide to go geographic with his pick and choose someone from, say, the West Coast or the Mountain states. Someone like Michael Bennet, Steve Bullock, John Hickenlooper, or Jay Inslee would fit the bill. But somehow I doubt Biden's all that worried about picking up voters in these regions -- and none of them really showed all that much strength either in the polls or on the debate stage.

This leaves eight realistic choices, just from the pool of presidential candidates. All of them would bring something to the table for the Biden team. Many are already predicting Amy Klobuchar would be a good match for Biden, in order to lock in the Midwestern vote. She's a woman and she's a lot younger than Joe, so she'd check those two boxes as well.

Also in serious contention is Pete Buttigieg, who is male but also gay (so he'd be a historic candidate on a major ticket). Buttigieg showed more strength than anyone else in terms of actual votes in Iowa, which makes the argument stronger for him than for Klobuchar if Biden is thinking geographically. Ideologically, Mayor Pete isn't that far from Biden either.

Elizabeth Warren would bring a decent slice of progressives to Team Biden, and she's shown she has an impressive amount of voter support out there. Also, Warren pointedly did not just endorse Bernie Sanders, which many are already seeing as her leaving the door open to a Biden veep pick. She's from New England, which isn't really a region seen as up for grabs in the general election, and she's not that much younger than Biden is, either. But she certainly would ideologically round out the ticket.

Of the candidates left to choose from, Kirsten Gillibrand is probably the least likely to be chosen. She's from New York -- a pretty safe blue state -- and she's younger and female, but she wasn't all that impressive in the debates or generating her own voter support.

Thinking conventionally, though, there are four very strong candidates who would each bring some heft to the table. Cory Booker is black, but then again New Jersey isn't all that far from Delaware. Kamala Harris would be more appealing, since she's a woman, she's young, and she's black. She's also from California, where Biden was just beaten by Bernie. And she showed she can debate effectively and easily fill the "attack dog" role -- however, her best moments in the debates were when she was skewering Biden, so perhaps there's still some resentment there.

Julián Castro is the obvious choice if Biden is thinking about his weakness with Latinos -- and there's never been a Latino candidate even for vice president before, so he would also be a historic choice. Beto O'Rourke might be more appealing, though, since although he's not Latino he is also from Texas and probably has a higher level of support in the state than Castro does. If Biden really wanted to make a play for the Lone Star State in November, O'Rourke might be the best choice.

After listing them all, I find that only four of them really stand out as actual possibilities for a Biden nod: Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke. Of those, Warren or Harris seem like the best choices for Biden's chances, but that's just a gut feeling.

Of course, Biden could look further afield. The name that keeps popping up as the ideal veep choice (for any Democratic nominee, really) is Stacey Abrams of Georgia. She is a very impressive politician, she gives a fantastic speech, and she is tough as nails when it counts. She's also black, although Biden really doesn't seem like he needs to shore up his African-American voter support at this point. Still, she could put Georgia in play in the general election, which (much like Texas) has been a recent dream of many Democratic operatives.

Biden could choose a Florida Cuban-American Democrat, which would make a lot of sense. He'd shore up his Latino support to some degree (not completely, as the Cuban community is not really representative of Latinos nationwide) and he'd make a big play for Florida in the general by such a move. There are other politicians Biden might also reach out to, such as the governor of Michigan (who just endorsed him) or even Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio -- who would bring a lot of ideological balance to the ticket without being seen as too far left.

If I were Biden, I would most likely pick either Elizabeth Warren (assuming she'd agree) or Stacey Abrams. Either one would round out his ticket in a big way. But since I'm not Biden, I think it more likely he'd choose Amy Klobuchar or Beto O'Rourke in the end.

 

Bernie Sanders

Bernie's strengths: appeals to younger voters, non-college-attending voters, Union voters, progressive voters, and Latino voters.

Bernie's weaknesses: limited appeal to older voters, African-American voters, women voters, and moderate voters. Also: his age, his health, his not-very-cuddly persona, and his hard-left ideology.

Home state: Vermont.

Like with Biden, most of the list of 2020 presidential candidates can be immediately discarded as possible Sanders veep choices. The only ones that really stand out as actual possibilities (to me, at least) are: Cory Booker, Bill de Blasio, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang.

Bill de Blasio and Andrew Yang are ideologically similar enough to Sanders as to be a fairly good fit, but I seriously doubt whether Bernie would choose either one of them. Likewise, I seriously doubt that Bernie would pick Pete Buttigieg, even though he is incredibly young. Bernie's already got the youth vote sewn up, so he doesn't need reinforcement here, and Mayor Pete got awfully personal during the debates in his attacks on Sanders, so I doubt that hatchet would ever be fully buried. Likewise with Amy Klobuchar. Bernie is confident (within his own mind) of being able to win across the Midwest, which he will indeed have to do if he's going to win the nomination. So I doubt he'd pick either Pete or Amy for that reason alone.

This leaves three obvious choices: Warren, Harris, and Booker. Bernie needs to build support with black voters, so choosing either Harris or Booker would certainly help him out in this regard. Both Harris and Booker also bring something unusual to a veep choice: optimism. Usually the presidential candidate is the one who is sunny and rosy-tinted, while the veep is left to attack the other party's choices. However, Bernie simply cannot be described as "sunny" in any way (at least not with a straight face). So to balance his fervor he'd need someone who is, and Cory Booker would certainly fit that bill. So would Harris, but to a lesser degree. Both are significantly younger than Bernie, which would put the fears of his age and health at least partly to rest with the voters.

Elizabeth Warren would be the obvious choice for an ideologically-consistent ticket. She's closest to Bernie agenda-wise, and she would help Bernie out in the "getting things done" department (where he is somewhat weak). But the spat between Warren and Sanders may have already gone too deep for her to be Bernie's veep choice. She very pointedly did not endorse Bernie today, and while she still has time to do so my guess is that if she refuses to by the next primary date (next Tuesday), Bernie will consider it a slap in the face that he likely won't forgive. If Warren does refuse to endorse, she is likely betting that Biden will be the eventual candidate and the door for veep choice will still be open for her on his ticket -- something that may not be possible if she endorses Bernie. So it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next few days.

Like Biden, there are three obvious choices outside the ranks of the 2020 candidates: Sherrod Brown, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Stacey Brown. Brown would be an acceptable choice for Bernie, as he's one of the strongest supporters of Labor in Congress today. He would also put Ohio into play, which could be crucial in November. However, he's a white guy and (even worse) if he were elected he'd be replaced in the Senate by a Republican (which is also true of Elizabeth Warren, I should point out), because his state has a GOP governor.

Whitmer would be an interesting choice, even after she endorsed Biden. But while she's a woman, she wouldn't help Bernie much with the black vote. Which is why of the three Stacey Abrams makes the most sense. Bernie is weak in the South and he's weak among African-Americans (there's a lot of overlap between those two, obviously). Choosing a strong Southern black woman who is acceptably progressive would certainly help Bernie out both geographically and demographically.

Even if Bernie becomes the eventual Democratic nominee, my guess is that he's going to almost have to choose an African-American for his running mate. This would seem to point to either Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, or Stacey Abrams. Any one of these three would likely turn out to be a good choice, in the end. Abrams is a lot closer to Sanders ideologically, but that also means that choosing Booker or Harris might help Bernie out with more-moderate voters in November.

One final thing is worth mentioning (and dismissing) here. There is always a big push after a contested race for the winner to nominate the loser as his running mate. This almost never actually happens, though. There was no "Obama/Clinton" ticket or "Clinton/Sanders" ticket, obviously. And I really don't expect it to happen this time around either, which is why I didn't even speculate about a "Biden/Sanders" or a "Sanders/Biden" ticket. Somehow I seriously doubt that either one of these candidates would decide to try to unite the party by choosing the second-place finisher. Whether for reasons of personality (especially if the rest of the primary race gets vicious) or just for the fact that they're both so incredibly old, I just cannot see this outcome as even within the realm of possibility, no matter which one of them becomes the presidential nominee.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

79 Comments on “Ridiculously Premature Veepstakes Speculation”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Remember the qualifications that Biden himself has put forth when speculating on a veep pick for him.

  2. [2] 
    andygaus wrote:

    The last winner/loser ticket I remember was John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and that only happened (according to plausible testimony from Kennedy's secretary Evelyn Lincoln) because Johnson was in a position to blackmail Kennedy about his extramarital affairs, which at that point in history could still be considered shocking.

  3. [3] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Really just testing whether I can post, but thought I'd point out that you have Stacey Brown listed as a viable VP candidate choice for Sanders.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @mv,
    i think he meant stacey abrams

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He's having some difficulty with names, it seems. :)

    I don't think I've heard mention in this space - blog or comments - a name that will end up being Biden's pick.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If I were to predict, then I'd say John Kerry would be picked for Biden's veep or, failing that, secretary of state, at the very least.

    Questions, comments, insults?

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Catherine Cortez Masto

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If I were to predict, then I'd say John Kerry would be picked for Biden's veep or, failing that, secretary of state, at the very least.

    I could see him doing the job...again. The State Dept. is one neglected and hurting agency thanks to Trump. Kerry would definitely bring some much needed stability to the place.

    I think Kamala Harris would be a great AG. It is going to take a strong person to help fix the damage done since Trump took office, and I think she could handle it.

    Warren could finally run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...or she could be the Sec.of Treasury, or any other position she might want. Warren has some very good ideas that benefit people over corporations, so I want her where she can do the most good. Wall Street and Big Banks are terrified of her, as they should be!

    WA State Gov. Jay Inslee , my governor, should run the EPA. He is someone who takes climate change very seriously.

    Compared to the Clown Car of Fools that have made up Trump’s Administration (Hey Jared!) the Democrat’s are going to need to bring in the best people possible to help federal agencies to recover from Trump’s corruption and neglect.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In my dream to end all dreams, Warren would head up the CFPB, as you say, Russ. But, there is where we'd part ways as I would have the former treasury secretary Geithner take on that role again.

    I think I'll fall asleep tonight, laughing ...

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ, wouldn't Inslee be better shepherding the climate change file, domestically and internationally?

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I guess that would be EPA … maybe you're right and there doesn't need to be a new agency - maybe just an overhaul of EPA ...

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Another think to remember when predicting who Biden will choose as his running mate - someone he can delegate a lot to with no need to micromanage.

    Hey, everyone!

    How about Jennifer Granholm, eh!? Is that a perfect choice or what!?

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In my dream to end all dreams, Warren would head up the CFPB, as you say, Russ. But, there is where we'd part ways as I would have the former treasury secretary Geithner take on that role again.

    Partly because it would make Bernie Sanders' head explode. Heh. Only a small part, you understand.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way and just for the record, there is no one who would be better at ensuring the Dodd-Frank regime for financial stability would be restored and strengthened, and at keeping or restoring the estate tax (seriously! - what you don't know about secretary Geithner is a lot), and at helping to implement a pro-growth tax and fiscal policy that would bring more balance to income distribution … ooh, such a bad word, that distribution, than, wait for it … Timothy Geithner.

    Let the floodgates open!

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or not. :(

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This has become a very depressing place. But, I still retain a scintilla of hope … because, that's just who I am. :)

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Compared to the Clown Car of Fools that have made up Trump’s Administration (Hey Jared!) the Democrat’s are going to need to bring in the best people possible to help federal agencies to recover from Trump’s corruption and neglect.

    That is, indeed, a fact. I know Biden will choose very, very wisely.

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    RANDOM VP THOUGHTS

    Okay, here's the deal. Now that time has passed and we know more today than we did yesterday, it seems to me like the VP candidate is going to have to be a woman and preferably a woman of color. Oh, wait... we already knew that.

    Stacey Abrams is from Georgia (the potential to be flipped or at the very least make them spend a lot of money there to defend it), but she was born in Wisconsin... a key state in the 2020 election. She is darn near the perfect pick since she holds no office but arguably should now be the Governor of Georgia but for the disenfranchisement of voters by the GOP in Georgia.

    Were Biden to pick Kamala Harris for VP or AG, she would also be easily replaced with another Democrat by Gavin Newsom in order to keep her Senate Seat in the hands of Democrats. Biden doesn't need California, though, it's already in his back pocket.

    Catherine Cortez Masto -- Senator from Nevada that could also be easily replaced with another Democrat. She served two terms as Attorney General of Nevada and in November 2016, she made history by becoming the first woman from Nevada and the first Latina ever elected to the United States Senate.

    As for Elizabeth Warren: The Governor of Massachusetts is a Republican. If Warren is tapped for any position at all, Democrats would lose a seat in the Senate they can't afford to lose.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    A woman would certainly bring back some diversity to what is now a contest between two old, white men.

    Whaa?? You think it's a problem that the Party of "DIVERSITY" and "INTERSECTIONALITY" would have only 2 old white guys to choose from for their nominee??

    Hmmmmmm

    I hadn't thought of that.. :^D

    Also in serious contention is Pete Buttigieg, who is male but also gay (so he'd be a historic candidate on a major ticket).

    If Biden choose Buttagig, Biden would lose the black American vote.....

    Thinking conventionally, though, there are four very strong candidates who would each bring some heft to the table. Cory Booker is black, but then again New Jersey isn't all that far from Delaware. Kamala Harris would be more appealing, since she's a woman, she's young, and she's black. She's also from California, where Biden was just beaten by Bernie. And she showed she can debate effectively and easily fill the "attack dog" role -- however, her best moments in the debates were when she was skewering Biden, so perhaps there's still some resentment there.

    Why is it always about Race with Lefties???

    I always find that amazing that the Party that says we're all the same and no one race is better than the other constantly go out of their way to emphasis the differences in the race...

    Collective guilt for starting the racist movement here in the US???

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really don't have a comment to make on the subject because it won't matter who Biden or Sanders chooses as their VP..

    NO choice can shore up the difficulties with the Pres candidates enough to actually give them a chance to beat President Trump..

    So Biden could choose a John Kennedy or Sanders can choose a Che Guevara and it won't matter a lick.

    Either of them will still lose in Nov....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
    -Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

    So, Democrats have become SO desperate they are now physically THREATENING violence on SCOTUS Justices who won't go their way....

    "VOTE OUR WAY OR YOU WON'T KNOW WHAT *HIT* YOU!!"

    HashTag How Low Can Democrats Sink??

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over, I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST.”

    MSNBC hosts gush about this "incredible" amazing tweet.. How it shows it situation perfectly...

    Unfortunately for them, it shows perfectly how utterly idiotic Democrats are...

    What **IS** it with Democrats???

    Cue "But Trump!!! Russia!!!!" in 3.... 2..... 1.....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats Should Be Very, Very Nervous

    If doddering Joe Biden is your party’s best hope, your party might be in deep trouble.
    So, let me get this straight.

    After a year of campaigning, discussion, and debate among the Democrats, as of early February the party had decided Joe Biden was the favorite for its presidential nomination: He led in 19 of the 21 national polls taken before the Iowa caucuses. Then people started to vote, and it turned out they didn’t like Biden at all. He finished fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, and a distant second in Nevada. As of last week, the Democrats had decided to be an openly socialist party: Bernie Sanders led 20 consecutive national polls after Iowa, half of them by double digits. And then, this week, Democrats decided not to be socialist after all: They just gave Biden, the doddering avatar of the party establishment, a resounding Super Tuesday victory.
    https://tinyurl.com/sx7qp9v

    I am done making Democrat Primary predictions.. Ya'all are too crazy and irrational and illogical to make valid predictions on.. :D

    I DO know that who ever wins doesn't stand a chance against President Trump... Each Dem candidate brings a unique set of baggage to the General and each has a buttload of it..

    So, regardless, President Trump's a shoe-in...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I do not buy the concept, popular in the ’60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race. I don’t buy that. I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation. And I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.”

    You would think that President Trump would have said that, eh??

    You would be wrong..

    That is a quote from none other than Joe Biden...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Biden beats Trump regularly in head-to-head polls, but you can ask Hillary Clinton about how much beating Trump in early polls is worth. In just the past ten days, he has claimed half the population of the country died of gunshot wounds, forgotten what office he is running for, asked voters to support him on “Super Thursday,” and offered this précis of our nation’s founding principle: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”

    Ya'all cap on the crazy things President Trump says..

    But you give a pass to the crazy things Biden says..

    Hay, I get it.. It's only natural that you support the Party and hate on the other Party..

    What I don't get is why ya'all bother denying it when the facts prove it so perfectly??

    Ya'all's BEST response to that accusation is, "HELL YEA, WE GIVE OUR GUY A PASS!!!!" DUH!!!!!"

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even at his best, Biden was notorious for being loopy, digressive, and sloppy, and he’s long past his best. Clarence Thomas noted of Biden’s line of questioning during his Senate confirmation hearings, “You have to sit there and look attentively at people [who] you know have no idea what they are talking about.” His bizarre 2012 debate with Paul Ryan consisted of bursts of strangely out-of-context laughter and boorish interruptions. His own aides panic every time he goes off-script, to such a degree that David Axelrod once quipped that Biden was being kept in a “candidate-protection program.” When he starts riffing, he is given to making false claims such as that he was arrested trying to visit Nelson Mandela in prison. His answer to all questions in debate is a subject, a verb, and Obama.

    Hay, if you people want Biden, I say go for it!!!

    President Trump will eat him for breakfast!!

    "I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast!!"
    "You eat pieces of shit for breakfast!?!?"

    -HAPPY GILMOUR

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moreover, Biden looks moderate only in the context of the insanity that is gripping the Democratic Party, only by comparison to wackadoodles such as Warren and Sanders. He has so far escaped scrutiny for the implications of his policy proposals, such as a “public option” for health insurance that would inevitably destroy the private insurance market. He was specifically asked whether this could happen by the New York Times and replied, “Bingo. . . . Sure they would.” He blithely said that when employer-based private health insurance dies out, people could simply go on “the Biden plan.” His health-care policy is just a slo-mo version of Sanders’s and Warren’s policy. He has called for massive tax hikes, offered public health care for illegal immigrants, said such immigrants should not be deported if they’re convicted of drunk driving, and endorsed the $93 trillion boondoggle known as the Green New Deal.

    On top of all of this, Biden would be the oldest president ever — he’s older than the oldest boomer, and would be older on his first day in office than Ronald Reagan was on his last day. No one knows how mentally agile he’ll be tomorrow, much less in November. If a man who could come completely unglued on live television at any moment is your party’s best hope, your party should be very, very nervous.

    As I said.. Choose Biden over Sanders... It won't matter one whit in the end result..

    It'll still be President Trump re-elected in the end...

    Even the ones here who have MANY more brain cells than 2 to rub together acknowledge this fact..

    The ONLY downside for me is I might be voting for Biden for POTUS.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    To Fight Biden, Sanders Should Learn How to Say 'Comeback Kid' in Ukrainian
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/05/to_fight_biden_sanders_should_learn_how_to_say_comeback_kid_in_ukrainian_142577.html

    The only way Sanders can win is to attack Biden on Ukraine...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:


    With 60 percent of Democratic Party delegates still up for grabs, with the Democratic Media Complex in lockstep with Biden, what should Bernie do?

    If Sanders truly wants to fight for the Democratic nomination and not roll over for the establishment as he did in 2016, then he, too, should call Biden the Comeback Kid.

    But Bernie should say it loudly in Ukrainian:

    Povernennya Dytyny.

    According to Google Translator, anyway. I hope that's right and it doesn't mean "creepy old guy who sniffs women's hair without asking" or "lying dog-faced pony soldier." If you can't trust Google, what's the news business coming to?

    Joe's son Hunter Biden should know how to pronounce Povernennya Dytyny. Hunter had that $50,000-a-month no-show job with Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma, when his daddy was the Obama administration point man in Ukraine leveraging the firing of prosecutors against U.S. loan guarantees. And Hunter scored big in China, too, because his name was Biden.

    But Hunter's too busy to teach conversational Ukrainian. He's probably boning up on natural gas jargon before he's called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., the committee chairman, wants Hunter as a witness to get to the bottom of that swampy Ukrainian business.

    heh

    Gonna love seeing Democrats squirm... :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you dare mention Hunter and Ukraine, the Democratic establishment pols start frothing at the mouth. So, I'll light a candle and pray Donna Brazile doesn't tell me to "go to hell." It's Lent, Donna. C'mon, man.

    If Bernie Sanders wants to really fight and draw a contrast between himself and Biden, he should go to that Ukrainian business. Yammering about Biden and Social Security won't cut it.

    Joe Biden is a swamp creature and his family has scored off Joe's political leverage, just as if Joe were mayor of Chicago in the old days. Bernie is not a swamp creature. He's an ideologue of the left and the Democratic establishment hates him.

    It's not policy. They're all going the same direction. This is about control. If the Democratic establishment had a choice between losing elections or losing control of the party, they'd lose elections. Without control of the party they have no leverage to make their deals. The Republican establishment was the same in 2016. They would have rather lost the White House than have President Donald Trump run their party. But Trump rushed them and fought in the mud and the blood and the beer, biting ears off and giving no quarter.

    Sanders didn't fight against Hillary Clinton as if it were a battle to the death. He let her off the hook on that scandal about her unsecured email.

    With the Democratic establishment and the Beltway media in lockstep against him, Bernie, too, must fight in the mud and bite off an ear. Slaps won't do it. No one ever won a fight with little policy slaps.

    That wasn't a little slap that Sen. Elizabeth Warren used on billionaire Mike Bloomberg in the Democratic debates. She ripped out Bloomberg's spine and held it aloft like she was an avatar from Mortal Kombat. It helped Biden.

    Does Bernie have what it takes to offer his hand to Biden.... then reach down Biden's pants, rip out his testicles and shove them down Biden's throat???

    That's about the only way Bernie will win...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Team Biden must hope you don't pay attention, because their man is fading before our eyes. Think of Biden just a few years ago in debate, he was quick and devilish. But Biden isn't that way now, is he? The Democratic bosses must know this, they see Biden thinning. Joe is just too little butter spread out over too much bread. But they don't care.

    If he wins, his choice for vice president could be running the country by next spring. And then the 25th Amendment would be a real thing, not some drug-induced political fantasy. If he were my father, I'd take him away from all this, take him fishing, take him anywhere but a presidential campaign.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident," Biden said during a campaign stop in Texas a few days ago. "All men and women created by -- you know, you know, the thing."

    The thing, Joe. That thing that shaped America, and deals with how we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. You know, Joe, the thing.

    If Democrats want to their own Jonestown, with Joe Biden in the Powers Booth role???

    Knock yerselves out...

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You are right it is way too early, but who am I to begrudge you for having some fun.

    Now that you have that out of your system it's time to hunker down and cover One Demand even though is is way too late from when you should have covered it.

    The best "running mate" for the Dem nominee is millions of small donors financing the campaign.

    Then we can get the big money out of our political system that is not any fun at all.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Let me say for the record, clearly, clearly Democrats are as immoral as Republicans, and maybe in big cities, a good deal more immoral in the traditional sense. But as a practical matter, politicians as a whole, in my opinion, having practiced law for four years, are a good deal more moral than lawyers, for example, or doctors or businessmen as a whole.”

    Again... Did Donald Trump say this???

    Nope.. Joe Biden said that... :D

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Isn't there any room in the Dems big tent that is supposed to be filled with diversity for people that want small donor only candidates?

    Or is it limited to just diversity that is pre-approved by the big money interests?

    "It's fun, fun, fun
    'til sugar daddy takes the country away."
    Beach Boys(?) parody

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Dems are supposed to be having a battle for the soul of their party.

    As long as the Dems are controlled by big money, they are only battling for control of the hole that big money puts them in- no soul allowed.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    The problem with One Demand treats the symptom, not the disease..

    The problem is politicians being bought. If it wasn't money, it would be something else...

    Politicians will ALWAYS be bought by SOMETHING...

    THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed...

    Let's face reality.. The biggest impedance to good government is not big money but power...

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Does diversity include a diversity of opinions?

    If it does then you are certainly not meeting the diversity requirement here.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does diversity include a diversity of opinions?

    Abso-frakin'-loutly...

    We DO have diversity of opinion here.. For the most part...

    But ALLOWING diversity of opinion in no way obligates ACCEPTANCE of said opinion's...

    Only supporting FACTS obligates acceptance...

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    100% wrong.

    One Demand treats cause of the disease- not the symptom.

    You are right that if the politicians weren't bought by money it would be something else.

    Right now they are bought by money and we give them our votes for nothing.

    The fact that we give them our votes for nothing is the cause of the problem.

    The politicians are not going to buy the cow if they get the milk for free.

    One Demand uses the one thing other than money to buy the politicans that politicians need- our votes.

    It's time citizens demanded that the politicians make the choice between being bought by big money or earning our votes.

    "one plus one
    that's how we can get it done
    one plus one
    the power is in the sum."
    -One Plus One
    Don Harris

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    We DO have diversity of opinion here.. For the most part...

    And by that, I mean, my opinions based on fact and reality..

    And whatever ya'all believe... :D

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's one thing to allow a diversity of opinion to be posted, but if you refuse to discuss dissenting opinions then it is not really being fully included.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    One Demand treats cause of the disease- not the symptom.

    You are right that if the politicians weren't bought by money it would be something else.

    Your second statement, by definition, negates your first statement...

    The problem isn't money, it's power...

    More accurately, it's power + human nature...

    And that's a battle you cannot win..

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And putting a diversity of ideas into the public discourse beyond the comments section is a whole other animal.

    Does anyone know a Cryptozoologist?

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's one thing to allow a diversity of opinion to be posted, but if you refuse to discuss dissenting opinions then it is not really being fully included.

    I have ta disagree with ya there...

    And that is coming from a person with PLENTY of experience in being ignored.. :D

    But, for me anyways, the joy comes in letting the facts and reality prove the wisdom of my predictions and opinions..

    Oh sure, there are failures. The most recent Super Tuesday prediction proves that..

    But I don't let that get me down, but rather use the loss as a learning experience..

    In that, I am unique.. Most everyone else here simply ignores their considerable losses and pretend they never happened..

    Ergo, they never learn anything..

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    EM-
    Why are you so depressed? We are supposed to be having FUN today

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No my statements VERIFY each other.

    The power is in the votes.

    Here's your opportunity to prove that you can learn from your mistakes. :D

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Human nature depends on which humans you are talking about- there is much diversity.

    The human nature of this person is to stand up for what I believe is right.

    There are some that will just give up and give in without trying.

    You may be right that there are more humans at the moment that fall into the latter category, but that does not mean that they can't learn to be better humans.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    The human nature of this person is to stand up for what I believe is right.

    No.. That's YOUR nature..

    I am sure you are not egotistical enough to believe YOUR nature = Human Nature..

    Only *I* am that egotistical.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    ????????

    I say that my nature is to stand up for what I believe is right and you say no that's my nature?

    I say that others have a different nature and you imply that it somehow means that everyone has my nature?

    Talk about projecting your nature onto someone else... :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sen. Chuck Schumer's threatening rhetoric to Supreme Court justices crosses a line

    Democratic leader tried to walk it back with I'm-from-Brooklyn equivocation. As they might also say in Brooklyn, it was a day late and a dollar short: Our view

    For the Senate's Democratic leader to stand on the front steps of the Supreme Court and furiously shout words that sound very much like a threat against two high court justices is unseemly and warrants a full-throated apology.

    "I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."

    To refer to conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by their last names was disrespectful. To seemingly menace them about a pending decision was beyond the pale. The remarks earned a rare and deserved rebuke hours later, when Chief Justice John Roberts said Schumer's words were "not only inappropriate; they are dangerous."
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2020/03/05/chuck-schumer-threatening-rhetoric-gorsuch-kavanaugh-crosses-line-editorials-debates/4964578002/

    See, DH.. Here is a perfect example..

    It's perfectly acceptable for me to have the opinion that Schumer's words were whacked...

    The facts clearly support my opinion as fact..

    And everyone here is under no obligation to acknowledge these facts and simply ignore it because Schumer's actions truly are indefensible..

    So, once again, Weigantians live by their Charlottesville Rule..

    SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

    By ignoring the facts, everyone else is conceding the facts.. :D

    You see how easy that is???

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I say that my nature is to stand up for what I believe is right and you say no that's my nature?

    My mistake.. I misread your comment..

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Silence gives assent doesn't work for me.

    If CW is silent about my dissenting opinion I don't see it as CW conceding my point(s).

    When CW keeps pretending in his articles that there is no other choice when another choice is being offered, that is proof that he is not conceding my point(s).

    When other commenters (or CW a few YEARS ago) argue against what One Demand is not instead of what One Demand is I don't see that as conceding my point(s), I just see it as they have no valid argument so they change the argument to fit what they have.

    It's not in my nature to make myself feel good by pretending that silence gives assent. :D

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And it's not in my nature to give CW a free pass anymore than it is in my nature to give the big money politicians a free pass by voting for them.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Silence gives assent doesn't work for me.

    Of course it doesn't..

    But Weigantians, by majority decree, made the rule when President Trump allegedly was silent about the events in Charlottesville..

    So, it's their rule, we just abide by it.. :D

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No. You abide by it.

    I take my reponsibility as an American seriously and that means not abiding when abiding is not in the best interests of our democracy, country and citizens.

    "He's just trying to tell you the way things are."
    -Hedda Hopper
    "Maybe I don't like the way things are."
    -Kirk Douglas
    Trumbo

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of Trumbo, how is it that a COMMUNIST does a better job of standing up and not abiding when it is in the best interests of our democracy, country and citizens than you do? :D

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe that question should not just be limited to you.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    a better job of standing up and not abiding when it is in the best interests of our democracy, country and citizens

    Simple..

    "a better job" in that regard is in the eye of the beholder..

    In other words, yer treating yer opinion as fact with no facts to back it up.

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    but who will be secretary of pie?

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In other words, yer treating yer opinion as fact with no facts to back it up.

    doctor, heal thyself. ah, sweet irony... ;P

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    This is another case of interpretation of the facts.

    There is no lack of facts.

    Dalton Trumbo was a real person that stood up against McCarthyism and even went to jail for it.

    My interpretation of those facts is that that is superior to someone that just accepts things as they are.

    You seem to interpret the facts differently and are the one with nothing to back up your interpretation, though you are entitled to believe your interpretation if you need to to rationalize giving up.

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And it is an insult to all those that stood up and put their lives on the line for democracy in the history of our country when citizens can't even have the courage to stand up in the voting booth.

    That may just be my opinion/interpetation, but I'm sticking by it unless someone can explain why I'm wrong.

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As I type this The Truman Show is just about end.

    When are citizens going to realize that they are Truman and say "In case I don't see ya, good morning, good afternoon and goodnight." and walk out the door and away from the CMPs and media that are creating the fantasy world to keep them under control for the benefit of the big money interests?

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    OOOps.

    I should have waited. It's good afternoon, good evening and good night.

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sweet and sour irony. :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    doctor, heal thyself. ah, sweet irony... ;P

    Except I always have facts to back up my opinions..

    Like with the Mueller report, like with the faux impeachment coup like with everything else I called dead on ballz accurate.. :D

    Ya'all just didn't LIKE the facts.. :D

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Yet you keep arguing you have the facts when the argument is your flawed interpretation of the facts.

    What's the matter? You don't LIKE that fact that is proven by your comments?

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet you keep arguing you have the facts when the argument is your flawed interpretation of the facts.

    That's because you never have any facts to support your claim that my interpretation of the facts is flawed..

    How can I argue a point you refuse to substantiate???

  69. [69] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You are substantiating my points with your comments.

    Why should I have to provide the facts you have already provided? Do you not have the capacity to realize it or do you just choose to ignore inconvenient facts?

    It seems more like bullshit gives confirmation for you in your mind.

    But for the rest of us it doesn't pass the smell test.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are substantiating my points with your comments.

    TRANSLATION:

    I am going to talk in circles because I cannot substantiate the claims I am making..

    I accept your concession... :D

    But for the rest of us it doesn't pass the smell test.

    Oh, so now yer throwing in yer lot with everyone else??

    Feeling lonely, Don?? :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems more like bullshit gives confirmation for you in your mind.

    If you had any facts to substantiate that claim, it might have some merit... :D

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    You and I both know you have a habit of posting opinions and predictions and referring to them as facts, sometimes in all caps. Maybe you're right about don doing the same, but it sure is funny you should say so.

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Faulty translation.

    How do you get me providing the facts of your comments as me saying I can't substantiate my claims when you substantiate my claims with your comments?

    If Michale says up is down it must be true!

    I am not throwing my lot in with everyone else. I am pointing out how even those fooled the the Dems bullshit are not fooled by your bullshit.

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Maybe I was wrong about other commenters not being fooled by Michale's bullshit.

    That's probably closer to a definite maybe then your maybe about me claiming opinions and predictions are facts.

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,
    my maybe was because i didn't read your posts that michale was referring to. say what you will about him, but at least michale is rarely boring.

  76. [76] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    My 2 cents:

    There’s no way either Sanders or Biden would ever choose Warren, simply because of the fact that Massachusetts has a Republican governor alone. Why make it harder to nab the senate in 2020? And from the perspective of a progressive(and since I am unabashedly pro-Bernie, that’s the perspective I take in my strategic speculation), Warren’s probably the most useful staying in the Senate. She’s been a good asset to the progressive movement there.

    On the other hand, my personal feelings toward her right now are unfit for print. Chris said it all. She won’t endorse Sanders even though he CLEARLY is much closer to her politically than Biden, just because she is worried about her career prospects if she outright breaks with Biden and the establishment. Myself, I’m more concerned about being able to afford health care(I’m dealing with a serious mental illness without access to medical treatment))... but I guess we all have our priorities.

  77. [77] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    ^was supposed to read “why make it harder to nab the senate in 2022”. Also,(in the event that he won the nomination) Sanders doesn’t *need* Warren because they’re so ideologically similar. The Venn diagram of their supporters likely mostly overlapping. And there are likely to be a lot of Bernie supporters out there who are pissed with Warren for not endorsing him. I’ve always suspected that Warren’s refusal to endorse Sanders in 2016 damaged her support among progressives. At the very least, she didn’t make herself any friends in either Bernie’s or Hilary’s camp. Sometimes staying neutral just means both sides hate you.

    Honestly, it’s hard for me to imagine a Sanders/Booker ticket either. Booker has heavy ties to the pharmaceutical industry IIRC. So Sanders/Booker has a bit of the sound of Lincoln/Andrew Johnson haha.

  78. [78] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "..Michale is rarely boring."

    I guess you are more easily entertained than I am. :D

    I would use really instead of rarely.

    It's a shame that you imply that you find the rational political discussions I am offering boring.

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't see the VP pick as the partner that voters should worry about with the Dem nominee.

    The important partner to worry about is the SENIOR partner with veto power- the big money interests.

    Why would anyone vote for the junior partner of the big money interests?

    Why wouldn't a voter want the Dem nominee to partner with ordinary citizens to finance their campaigns and demand that the candidate choose ordinary citizens over the big money interests to earn their vote?

    What possible reason could there be to give away your vote for nothing?

    Or maybe that should be less than nothing as the big money legislators actually work against the people that give them their votes for free.

Comments for this article are closed.