POLL: If they gave the nomination to Biden, should Bernie run as an independent?

[thesquanderer]

If by some chance, Hillary's legal issues force her out of the race, there has been talk of Biden being available to jump in. I know, Sanders said he would not mount an independent or third-party run, but that was only spoken about in the context of Hillary winning the nomination. If the party gave the nomination to Biden rather than to the other candidate who actually ran competitively against Hillary, what should Bernie do?

47 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Bernie should run in the general against Biden and Trump. It is simply unfair to pull the nomination from a highly competitive candidate and hand it to someone who no one voted for.
	38 (81%)
	Bernie should only run in the general if he actually managed to end up with more pledged candidates than Hillary (i.e. where it is that much more clear that the nomination was effectively "stolen" from him).
	0 (0%)
	Bernie should not run in the general no matter what. It may be unfair, but it's not worth the risk of a split Dem vote making it easier for Trump.
	5 (11%)
	Bernie should lobby for Biden's VP spot in exchange for not running.
	1 (2%)
	Some other possibility (post below).
	3 (6%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. NO, he should not do that. Biden will not get the nom, anyway. n/t

[thesquanderer]

3. re: "Biden will not get the nom, anyway."

Let's say that Hillary is forced out by legal circumstances... say, some time between the last primary and the beginning of the convention. Do you think they would automatically give the nomination to Bernie? Or do you think they would give it to someone other than Biden?

And what about if it happens after the convention, when Hillary has already been declared the nominee? Same question...

[Baobab]

21. If Hillary i forced out by being indicted, that means Bernie wins

period.


Read this

Hillary claims she had a viable health care plan but the facts show she was just trying to cover up a scheme that was attempting to (and has successfully) taken our ability to have affordable healthcare (and education) away by giving foreign companies rights to operate here that irreversibly force privatizations and displace jobs and liely wont even lower prices, just increase profits.

Plus we will lose our family doctors and nurses. Same with teachers, IT and other professions they have targeted.

[Autumn Colors]

32. Your link doesn't work (nt)

[yourpaljoey]

2. Biden should start his own signature line of hair products

Something he actually knows about.

[thereismore]

12. Another one for the bin. Bye now. nt

[HassleCat]

4. Force her out?

What legal issues would force her out? Even if she is indicted to the email thing, she is not going to drop out.

[thesquanderer]

5. Interesting.

I tend to agree that, merely the FBI's recommendation of an indictment would not force her out. But if the DOJ actually followed that recommendation and indicted her, I thought she might. The time and energy required to mount a defense would take away from the ability to run a successful campaign, and running against an indicted candidate would make it that much easier for Trump to get his shot. But you're right, maybe she wouldn't drop out regardless. Though I wonder if the party might pressure her to do so.

[grasswire]

11. she likely will not have a choice

If the FBI recommends indictment, the Attorney General may be forced to offer a plea deal to Hillary. And part of that plea may be that she drop out and never hold elected office again.

[yourpaljoey]

13. If they have Obama lead the prosecution he will begin by INSISTING she be President!!!

Then he will barter from there.
He just might have to ratify the TPP thru Executive Order,
appoint a Repuglican to the Supreme Court,
and cut Social Security to get a deal!!!

O, what shall become of his 'legacy'?!

[thesquanderer]

15. Interesting point about plea deals. They still have consequences.

It would be hard to imagine a plea whose consequences would not include limiting security access. That alone could effectively prevent her from being able to be president. What else could they do? A fine and community service?

[grasswire]

16. remember there's not just one threat to her here

The FBI reportedly has expanded its investigation to include possible corruption in the Clinton Foundation and the intersect of that with State Department. It is expected that THAT part of the investigation will go on past the Fall, because it is very complex.

Then there's the part about the mishandling of classified documents and all that entails -- the private server, the alleged hacking, the attempts to avoid oversight.

Then there is the civil suit brought by Judicial Watch regarding the efforts to subvert FOIA.

I have seen some speculation that a plea agreement might include forfeiture of donations that were made to the Foundation from foreign entities doing business with the State Department and a demand for closing down of the Foundation.

Her real right-now jeopardy is the second issue. The FBI will present its evidence to the AG for her decision to prosecute or not -- and we know that skilled prosecutors from the Department of Justice have been working WITH the FBI. If the AG decides to prosecute, the evidence of the case will be told to Hillary's lawyer and he will be asked what she will offer in order to prevent prison. That's what the legal beagles are saying. If the AG decides not to prosecute, leaks are going to happen from an angered FBI and all hell is going to break loose a la Watergate.

[thesquanderer]

20. re: "Her real right-now jeopardy is the second issue. "

Yes, that's the one I was thinking about

re: "If the AG decides to prosecute, the evidence of the case will be told to Hillary's lawyer and he will be asked what she will offer in order to prevent prison." Interesting... I didn't realize that the accused makes the first offer.

You make another good point that, no matter how the "second issue" goes, the "first issue" may well persist and dog her after the election. Not an auspicious start to her presidency.

[AntiBank]

30. IF (and it is a HUGE if) she was indicted, that's curtains, she is done like burnt toast

Any other thinking is delusional.

That said, I absolutely do not think she will be indicted.

[MissDeeds]

6. If the primary had been fair and equitable

I would say that Bernie should absolutely not run as an independent, but this primary has been anything but fair and impartial.

Bernie entered the race in good faith and ran a clean campaign, but his candidacy has been thwarted at every turn by dirty tactics designed to anoint HRC as the nominee. He owes DWS and the DNC nothing.

[coyote]

8. This!

[Pharaoh]

7. Some other possibility

If the republicans, decide to nominate someone like Ryan, Trump would have a hissyfit split the party and run as an independent.

Under that scenario Bernie could run also independent and win the race in a landslide since Trump and Hillary are so universally disliked.

I know its a wild assertion, but this is a very crazy election!!!!!!

[thesquanderer]

9. There's also the possibility that a Republican runs ind/3rd party against Trump.

So yeah, there are all kinds of unpredictable scenarios!

The problem with four ostensibly viable candidates (Biden, Trump, Sanders, and some other Republican like Ryan) is that it may become increasingly hard to see how any one of them gets to 270 electoral votes, and absent that, it gets thrown to the House. That's a problem when the House is controlled by Republicans.

[AntiBank]

28. correct, its one vote per each of the 50 House delegations, the Rethugs will control around 30 of 50

so (as I posted below) they could run a carefully targeted 3 to 7 state campaign of a moderate, establishment ticket (say Kasich at the top) and deny both Trump and Clinton the 270, kick it into the House with only the top 3 electoral vote getters (with no Sanders 3rd party it would be Clinton, Trump and Kasich or whoever they picked) and twist arms for 26 delegations to vote for the establish, 3,4 state winning candidate. Interestingly, IF the Dems took back the Senate, they would vote in a Democratic Vice President, so a split Executive branch.

[thesquanderer]

33. re: "Interestingly, IF the Dems took back the Senate, they would vote in a Democratic VP"

I didn't realize it was the NEXT congress that determines the President/VP if no one gets to 270, I had thought it was the current one. That does provide one more interesting twist on things!

Also, while the House can pick any of top three Presidential candidates, the Senate can only pick from among the top TWO veep candidates. So in your scenario, you could end up with the Republican establishment 3-4or-4 state winning candidate (Kasich, in your example), and the VP would have to be either Trump's VP or Clinton's VP.

[AntiBank]

29. a 3rd party progressive can't win the POTUS atm, see below

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Sure. If the DNC acts in bad faith, fuck 'em.

It is an extremely unlikely scenario.

[RoccoR5955]

14. Hey, they could indict both Drumpf AND Clinton

Then the candidates would be equal, finally.
Finally, they are out as criminals. Now vote for the one you want.

[HereSince1628]

17. It's Sanders choice, not mine. Sanders said he would back the Dem nominee

I take him at his word.

I know that we need Sanders to help move the movement forward. I respect him, and I want him to choose if the movement is inside the party or outside.

Historically, new parties have struggled. In the past 35-40 years we have seen success of movements inside parties...first with the moral majority, then with the DLC, then with the tea-party. The NeoCons, briefly had some success in the adminisitration and the bureaucracies but not in elected office.

If you look at from the Koch point of view you can see their effort as a third party movement failed while their effort to reform the republicans was a success.

So if Sanders wants the movement inside, I can understand that, too.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. Biden won't run

[thesquanderer]

19. Are you saying he would turn it down if they offered it to him? (n/t)

[TexasBushwhacker]

22. I don't think he will either

He knows that the party would be in chaos, with the true blue Clinton AND Sanders supporters staying home. There's a damn good chance he wouldn't beat Trump. Now he can retire having served as VP in a successful administration.

[Duckfan]

23. I'm with Rosa.

He won't do it because Jill apparently said something to the effect of "please don't do it".

He listens to Jill often.

[JDPriestly]

24. IF they gave the nomination to Biden rather than to Sanders should Hillary win and then

drop pout, it would be a betrayal of the democratic process. Biden chose not to run for the nomination.

We Bernie supporters are constantly reminded that, thus far, Hillary has more popular votes than Bernie and that, therefore, even though she polls less well compared to Trump than Bernie does, the popular vote should matter, not electability or other factors.

Biden has no electoral votes.

What is more, if Biden is likely to do worse than Hillary compared to Trump because he is likely to be pro-TPP and a continuation of those of Obama's policies and Americans seem to want change very much even though we like Obama.

So, yes, if Biden runs, Bernie should take that as a repudiation of his pact to participate in the Democratic primary process and run independently.

I would not vote for Biden in the general election under any circumstances. If he wanted to run, he should have run in the primary so that we could know more about him and his platform.

Besides, he is involved in supporting the fight against cancer. Generally, vice presidents don't make great candidates for the presidency. George H.W. Bush was the last vice president to actually be elected as president. He lasted one term, and a miserable term it was.

[eridani]

25. Voters will never believe that Biden is serious. Thererfore it won't happen.

If he had wanted to run, he would have jumped in by now.

[mikehiggins]

26. No, not because they "stole" the election but because he promised not to.

If the Democratic Party is going to go down with a Hillary candidacy, so be it.

We still have a chance to win, one way or another, but if it doesn't happen and Hillary gets trounced, we don't want any truth to the claim that it was our fault. They'll try to blame us anyway but without being able to call Bernie another Nader there'll be no way to back up the claim.

If Hillary gets Trumped there will be no one to blame but the people who backed a weak candidate.

[thesquanderer]

31. re: "If the Democratic Party is going to go down with a Hillary candidacy, so be it. "

The scenario I'm talking about in the OP is about what happens if Hillary is NOT able to run (due to legal complications).

[AntiBank]

27. Unfortunately, its a moot point, no 3rd non right wing can become POTUS atm

If there was a 3 or 4 way race and no one got to 270 electoral college votes, it gets tossed into the US House of Representatives, with each of the 50 state delegation getting one vote per delegation. The Republicans will control approx 30 of the 50 delegations.

Only the top 3 electoral college vote getters can be voted for. So if it was Biden (or Hillary if she ran and had no legal issues), Trump,, and then Sanders, with none getting 270, the House would vote Trump in the POTUS.

IF its Hillary versus Trump, and NO Sanders 3rd party run, the GOP establishment COULD run a 3, 4, 6, 7 or so state targeted campaign with Kasich or some other moderate establishment ticket, with the states carefully chosen to deny BOTH Trump and Clinton 270, and be in 3rd place with a handful of Electoral College votes.

Again, in this scenario, if goes to the House AND if the establishment GOP can twist enough House members' arms to vote for the Kasich or whoever candidate, that person could become president whilst actually only winning 3,4 or so states.

[thesquanderer]

34. re: "the GOP establishment COULD run a 3, 4, 6, 7 or so state targeted campaign"

It's an interesting exercise to think about which states should be targeted.

For a 3 person race (Clinton, Trump, and an alternative Republican), I discussed a possible 5-state scenario here. It is based on letting Trump get the states he'll likely get regardless (which is not enough to hit 270), and having the alternative Republican target Hillary states that are not a lock for her, as being potentially the easiest way to force the election into the Republican House.

But if we switch to a 4-person race (Biden, Trump, alternative Republican, and Sanders), the targeted states would shift. Sanders would have the best shot at the blue and blue-leaning states where he beat Hillary in the primaries, and the alternative GOP candidate would have the best shot at red and red-leaning states where Trump lost his primary. Since the House can only choose from the top 3 candidates, Sanders' primary goal might be to merely beat the alternative GOP candidate in order to make the final cut.

Still, if the House can choose among Trump, Biden, and Sanders, I rather doubt Sanders gets the nod. I think they might actually choose Biden over Trump, though.

Which actually led me to a different interesting scenario. Posted at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511932910