I'm listening to Bob Cesca say a Clinton/Sanders ticket

[mountain grammy]

would destroy the GOP. A 50 state blue map in my lifetime. Does our Democratic Party have the courage to do this?

[Demsrule86]

1. No it would not

Bernie has serious baggage and comes from a nothing state.

[TCJ70]

3. You're hilarious...

...Bernie has serious baggage. Are you suggesting Hillary doesn't? Or that it doesn't compare?

[arcane1]

10. "A nothing state"? That kind of regional prejudice is usually practiced by conservatives.

Are you sure you're on the correct site? Was it a nothing state when Howard Dean was running?

[KingFlorez]

17. It has three electoral votes and is not a swing state

That means it doesn't offer enough to put Sanders on the ticket. It's not going to go Republican without Sanders on the ticket.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

30. Kind of like Delaware, eh?

[Demsrule86]

21. Certainly

While Vermont may be a wonderful state, it is not significant in terms of the electoral college. We need to pick a candidate that can give us an advantage. I don't think Bernie or Vermont can do that. I want to beat Trump period. If I thought Bernie would help, I would be all for it. But he wouldn't.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Mmmm trollicious!

[Demsrule86]

20. Hey I would never post trash about any Democrat including Bernie or any member of his family

But I have seen it...it is out there. There is probably more too. We always knew the GOP had a reason for wanting Bernie as the Dem. Nominee. I don't think he would help her...so say what you want. I thought he was too pure anyway.

[tonyt53]

27. Roh roh. You mean that socialist tag can stick?

Sure it can, and will, to voters over 50.

[villager]

29. Projection: Not just for movie theaters anymore. nt

[Lazy Daisy]

40. Care to expound?

Exactly what is his baggage? Not that I want Bernie to be Hillary's VP, but your statement sounds like pure crap just for the sake of crappiness.

[MBS]

52. not gonna happen.

I don't think it would be an effective partnership, either in the election or in the White House. This says nothing negative about either one, but it just wouldn't work.

They both have something to contribute to the country, but I can't see them working well together as long-time close associates, which is what the best Pres/VP partnerships require.

[hrmjustin]

2. I am not too thrilled with this idea.

[TCJ70]

4. I don't think that'll happen...

...and even if it did, I wouldn't want Clinton at the top. She'd still be making the final calls on things and she hasn't shown good judgement over the years (at least not the first time around...give her 10-15 years and she usually comes around).

[Sheepshank]

5. I very much doubt this would ever happen

[oldandhappy]

6. funny how the people not in the loop are calling the ticket

[LexVegas]

7. Bernie's not qualified. nt

[whatchamacallit]

19. If you mean to say he's not qualified to be part of Hill's corporate tool administration

I'd have to agree.

[TransitJohn]

56. He's as qualified as Biden, and more qualified than Obama was.

Biden had a bit more Congressional experience.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. No. Putting an anti-corruption activist on the same ticket as a corrupt politician is absurd.

[thesquanderer]

49. Not if you think the top of the ticket is not going to be able to serve 4 years. (n/t)

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. No way. The owners of the Democratic party hate Bernie Sanders with a burning passion.

[dana_b]

57. exactly

they would much rather see another neocon/pro war/free trade loving conservative in it with her.

[BeyondGeography]

11. Clinton/Warren would be stronger and make Bernie irrelevant

[mountain grammy]

34. That would be a strong ticket, and my choice..

but Bernie Sanders will never be irrelevant. You are sadly mistaken about that.

[BeyondGeography]

35. VP's are mostly irrelevant, also-rans for VP even more so

There's the debate and not much else.

[Lazy Daisy]

42. Bernie wasn't irrelevant before

that's what they don't get.

[Hiraeth]

55. That is also a losing ticket.

[KingFlorez]

12. No, no, no

Sanders bizarre essays and votes against Amber Alert would be enough to sink such a ticket.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Good God, most voters have brains, he did not vote against Amber Alert. At all. That's bull.

And the bill you speak of, which had as one part the creation of a national coordination team for the already existing Amber Alerts got a no vote from Bernie and from John Lewis, Maxine Waters, Bobby Scott, Barney Frank and a wide variety of progressive minority Congress people.
Why do you cast shade on John Lewis? Why do you create suspicion around that vote? What motivates you to do such things?

[notadmblnd]

13. No, clinton needs to earn the Presidency herself

and not ride Senator Sander's coat tails to the top.

[Tarc]

14. There is no state on the map that Sanders can tip blue that she isn't fine in already

No.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I am for any ticket that wins but the advanced age of both candidates should give anybody pause.

I am for any ticket that wins but the advanced age of both candidates together should give anybody pause. The older you are the more likely you are to have an adverse medical event. This is straightforward actuarial stuff.

[oasis]

16. Oh hell no. nt

[Maedhros]

22. Sanders as VP, in a Clinton Administration, would be neutralized.

No sale.

[Joob]

23. Wouldn't make sense, neither would a Sanders/Clinton ticket nt

[SheilaT]

24. Sanders has far too much integrity

(a word Hillary should get acquainted with) to pair himself with her lying dishonesty.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. *shudder*

[KPN]

26. Hillary would never go for that -- under any circumstances.

I doubt Bernie would either, but for more admirable reasons.

[CobaltBlue]

31. mountain grammy—I distrust Bob Cesca, Chez Pazienza, and ‘Daily Banter’

[mountain grammy]

33. Oh, I agree. Just wondered what Democrats thought about this idea.

I think it's interesting, maybe unite the party, but not according to comments here. I honestly think Hillary could lose to Trump, and, believe me, I hate to say that.

[jillan]

32. Sorry. Hillary does not get to use Bernie to

help her win over the under 45 yo vote OR dem leaning independents.

She needs to do that on her own.

I'd be very disappointed in Bernie if he agreed to that.

[senz]

45. He sees through her. He wouldn't do it.

[bigwillq]

36. Unlikey that ticket wins all 50 states

It's unlikely any DEM combo wins all 50.

[pdsimdars]

37. Fresh spring water and Flint, MI water don't mix.

[brooklynite]

38. Depends...who's Bob Cesca?

As to your 50 State dream, how does Sanders winning a Democratic Caucus in AK, OK, NE, MT, UT, ND, SD...and LOSING Democratic Primaries in SC, GA, MS, AL, LA and TX get you 50 States?

[lovemydog]

39. Probably another person who wants to get clicks

by posting provocative fantasy.

Good question you pose. The answer of course is, it doesn't.

[mountain grammy]

41. Fair enough, but how does Hillary winning the primaries of

SC, GA, MS, AL, LA and TX get Democrats any electoral votes from those states in the GE? Hillary will lose those states flat out, and several more. So, what's your point?

[brooklynite]

43. I'm not claiming a 50 State landslide...

...and the Southern States aren't needed for an EV win (see: 2008, 2012).

As it is, Clinton appears to be putting AZ and GA into play, and the HB2 debalce could flip NC.

[mountain grammy]

44. I hope you're right.

[thesquanderer]

50. re: " the Southern States aren't needed for an EV win"

Careful. With logical statements like that, someone might accuse you of calling southern states, southern voters, or AA voters irrelevant.

But I agree, Clinton/Sanders is not a path to a 50 state victory. But it could help Clinton win more states. Voters who are otherwise either so unmotivated by the options that they stay home OR are so oriented toward anti-establishment that they reluctantly swing to Trump over Clinton may actually "hold their noses" and vote Clinton if Sanders is on the ticket. Sanders' die-hard supporters will come out to vote for him in the only way they can, and that could swing some states to her. Possibly more than any other "strategic" pick.

And it's not a cynical or "sell-out" move for Bernie either, as some suggest. As I said in one of the many related threads, he could get some concessions from her in exchange for being on the ticket, so it could actually be a policy victory as well. Better to get something than nothing. And if Hillary ever has to step down, he becomes President. Assuming he does not get the nomination, it's the only shot he's got.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. He's a Hillary supporter and down the middle Party regular. He was for example harshly critical of

Dan Choi and other LGBT who dared to challenge Obama policy. I generally can't stand him and I think this ticket is not very logical but I also think he's right, it would cause a huge landslide for the Democratic ticket.

[Blue_Tires]

46. Never happen in a million years

the Berniestans would turn against Sanders in a split-second if he made any deal with Hillary.

[Bernie4VP]

47. YES! YES! YES!

A Hillary/Bernie ticket would reunite the party! Bernie on the ticket would reassure his followers that she is serious about moving left, and save us from the nightmare of a Trump presidency; He's got the nomination in the bag, so it's real now! We have to stop kidding ourselves that it's going to be someone like Ted Cruz

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. I want whatever he is having

Clinton will go for a much younger VEEP from a swing state. She needs to build a wall, if she wants to win. And I will add, a neo liberal Why the Castro brothers keep getting floated. I am almost betting somebody from the Mid West.

In another reality this would be a unity ticket, that is not the way the Clintons think.

[yellowcanine]

51. Well then, if Bob said it.......it must be true.

[Hiraeth]

54. I disagree. That is a losing ticket.

[Orsino]

59. Both of these candidates will be working together to defeat the GOP's evil clowns.

Not by 50 states, but the outlook is good.