Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumAn experiment regarding "Bernie supporter sexism"
Presumably a "Bernie supporter sexist" would not support a female VP teaming up with Bernie Sanders.
Therefore, to all Bernie supporters: Who do you support to be the Vice Presidential Democratic candidate?
25 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
Elizabeth Warren | |
13 (52%) |
|
Nina Turner | |
2 (8%) |
|
Tulsi Gabbard | |
8 (32%) |
|
a woman candidate other than listed | |
2 (8%) |
|
a male candidate of your choice | |
0 (0%) |
|
2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But I have to admit the idea of having Keith Ellison, a Muslim VP to a Jewish President is also intriguing.
I was onboard with begging Warren to run pre-Bernie, but once he got in, I don't want her as VP because I don't want to lose both Bernie AND Warren from he Senate at the same time.
Bernie might not want to serve two terms, in which case he can throw his support behind Warren for President in 2020.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)think we could talk her into it?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Warren is best in the Senate, I've gotta agree. Nina Turner would definitely be a good choice.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,949 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)although I don't think Warren wants it, and I would love to see Senate Majority Leader Warren one of these days!
dchill
(39,647 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)young, strong, very well spoken. And just like Bernie, she knows who she is and doesn't apologize for it.
I think she is the perfect fit for Bernie. She is out on the campaign trail with him - she's amazing.
As much as I love Warren, Bernie will need her in the Senate to help him accomplish his goals.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)After the general election campaign, Vice President is not that important unless the President dies.
I'd rather see Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of Treasury taking on Wall Street and breaking up the too big to fail financial institutions, and Tulsi Gabbard as Secretary of Defense taking on the military industrial complex and rooting out the war mongers.
I love Nina Turner but don't think it is realistic for her to go from State Senator to the VP slot. I could see her as Bernie's White House Chief of Staff, or running for the U.S. Senate, or in many other roles.
How about creating a new department, perhaps under the Attorney General, to deal with overhauling the Criminal Justice system, including carrying out Bernie's pledge to dramatically reduce the number of people who are incarcerated for drug related crimes and to provide more help for people coming out of prison to acclimate back into society? This agency could also work to get rid of private prisons. Michelle Alexander would be ideal for a job like that.
As for the sexist crap being thrown around by the Hillary shills, like the BernieBros fiction it is not even worth responding to.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)but, that aside, who would you like to see as Bernie's VP?
As for responding to the sexist crap, I thought this pole would demonstrate and highlight the total crapness of the sexist crap. Besides, I'm curious on everyone's take on VP for Bernie. Like your thoughts vis-a-vis E.Warren, Nina Turner, etc., BTW.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I certainly don't mean that the VP slot should be treated as unimportant and probably didn't say it well in the previous post. But I would prefer that people with strengths in very specific areas who also have thick skin and reformer personalities, like Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard, be put in positions that play to their interests and strengths and where they can have an enormous impact.
I'd like to see more of a generalist with broad knowledge and experience as VP. I have been checked out of politics pretty much since a year or so into the Obama administration when I saw the revolving door between Wall Street and government, the hawkish military policies and the invasion of personal liberties (via the Patriot Act) were going to continue unabated. I have to do more research into some of the names others here are very familiar with.
One of the issues is that virtually the entire Democratic establishment has endorsed Hillary. That puts all of them out of consideration as far as I'm concerned.
intheflow
(28,784 posts)I don't like political dynasties and or war hawks. The fact that Clinton has a vagina has NOTHING to do with why I support Sanders.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's not uncommon for the nominee to pick one of his defeated rivals. Sometimes this ticket wins (Kennedy-Johnson, Reagan-Bush, Obama-Biden) and sometimes it doesn't (Kerry-Edwards).
I can't see Bernie offering it to Hillary and I can't see her accepting it.
Nevertheless, the basic idea of trying to unite the party for the general election is a sound one. Whoever wins the nomination will need the votes and active support of as many of the other candidate's adherents as possible. A ticket like Sanders-Turner or Sanders-Gabbard would thrill the Bernie Sanders Group on DU but would leave millions of Clinton supporters feeling completely excluded.
By contrast, Sherrod Brown is a good liberal Senator, he endorsed Clinton, and he would help deliver Ohio. Possibilities among women would include Kirsten Gillibrand, a Senator who endorsed Clinton, and who, before being appointed to the Senate, showed an ability to win in a somewhat conservative House district. A downside is that she won by being somewhat conservative herself, nor does a ticket of two northeastern Senators represent much balance in other ways.
My overall prediction is that, if Bernie wins the nomination, he will NOT pick someone who thrills the Bernie Sanders Group. We'll have to settle for being thrilled that he won the nomination, which I certainly will be.
On the gender issue raised by the OP, I agree that there would be benefits to picking a woman, but there are many other factors to consider as well. I would much rather see Sanders-Brown than Sanders-Turner.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I know that's conventional wisdom, but I just don't really recall seeing it.
And I don't see Bernie picking any sort of conservative as his VP. No Gillibrand, no McCaskill, no any other conservative type.
Clinton supporters have already told us, over and over, that they're motivated by fear or Republicans winning. So if Bernie wins the nomination, they're STILL going to be afraid of Trump or Cruz, and they'll still come out and vote to avoid either.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Years ago I read some political science research on this -- the conclusion was that the VP can deliver a boost of 3-4% in his or her home state. That could be enough. In 2004, the official count in Ohio gave Bush a margin of 2.1% of the vote. If Kerry had picked Strickland (then a Congressmember) instead of Edwards, and if that pick had boosted him by 3% in Ohio without hurting him anywhere else (except North Carolina, which he lost anyway), then Kerry would have become President.
Overall, though, I think you're right that the geographic factor is less important than it once was. In 2008, each major-party candidate picked a running mate from a small state that was already in the bag anyway.
As for the Clinton supporters, the ones on DU are, as compared with the average voter, more ideologically oriented and therefore more likely to recoil in horror from Trump or Cruz. Out in the real world, I think there are plenty of Clinton supporters who would incline to support Sanders (if he's nominated) but wouldn't incline real strongly. If they feel slighted, they might not bother to vote.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Picks along with Keith Ellison.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Because it's up to Bernie whom to choose. Gender of the candidate is irrelevant to me. Plus, if Elizabeth Warren isn't going to be sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, I think she's in a more powerful position as voting member of the Senate.