You know who would beat Trump? A Bernie-Bloomberg ticket.

[DanTex]

Keep the Berners on board and all the enthusiasm. Bloomberg to assure everyone that Bernie isn't going to execute them in Central Park. Plus his billions.

That would unite the party.

[leftieNanner]

1. Interesting idea

But I have trouble voting for another TWO OLD WHITE MEN ticket.

[trueblue2007]

44. a Joe biden - Amy Ticket !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we don't need 2 old men. TIME FOR A WOMAN, PLEASE !!!

[still_one]

76. +++

[LexVegas]

2. Bloomberg would negate the pro-gun stuff too.

[Blue_true]

66. And Bernie would negate the flinty-eyed capitalist thing.

If it gets rid of Trump, I am all in.

[dhol82]

3. Right, I can just see this.

[BeyondGeography]

4. They'd have nothing on Felix and Oscar

That's fer sure.

[customerserviceguy]

12. There's an old saying

"Politics makes strange bedfellows." Surely the ticket the OP proposes would fit that adage.

I don't think that two old white males from NYC would be the best thing we have to go up against the present occupant, who also fits that definition.

[Clash City Rocker]

54. Dang, you beat me to it

I’ll post it anyway.

https://m.

[Liberty Belle]

5. That would win, but I don't think Bernie would agree. I could be wrong.

I do agree that if Bernie is the nominee, someone more moderate would help him bring in some more moderate voters. But Bloomberg would probably be too corporate-leaning to be palatable to Bernie.

[TwilightZone]

6. We shouldn't have to keep the Berners on board.

Everyone should already understand that Trump is an existential threat and that the election is the only chance we have of stopping him.

If people can't be bothered to show up under those circumstances, then they're just blowing smoke.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

11. Do you say that on every thread about every group of voters?

Or just certain ones.

[TwilightZone]

21. Yes, it applies to all groups.

And I have indeed said it when supporters of other candidates have suggested they may stay home if Sanders is the nominee.

I also routinely defend Democrats in places like South Carolina who some, almost exclusively Sanders supporters, insist should be summarily dismissed because of where they live.

Example: "Who cares about South Carolina Democrats or delegates because we'll never win SC!"

The reverse is also true, as I have noted often - Iowa and NH should matter as much as any other state with a similar number of delegates. I don't buy into the argument that they don't matter because of demographics.

The issue, however, is that there is arguably no group less likely to show up in November if the nominee is not their first choice than Sanders supporters. You may disagree, but I think this is a fact that's pretty commonly understood.

Who is less likely to show up: Biden/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Warren supporters if Sanders is the nominee or Sanders supporters if Bloomberg is the nominee?

[KPN]

78. Would you please just cut the crap? How about we

stop beating up on people for something we think they might do and just stick with the positive message:

Vote Blue No Matter Who!

[redqueen]

87. I've seen more than a few people talking about other people they know who won't vote for Bernie

They don't seem to get the same kinds of responses though.

[Codeine]

59. Every other group of voters

can be inherently counted upon to support the nominee with their vote. Only one group fails to provide that assurance.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

67. So the logical conclusion would seem to be to give young voters who they want.

If what you say is true, everyone else will vote for whomever had the D after their name. So we don't have to worry about them. Let's get the candidate that will get the most young voters out and we have the Presidency for sure.

[Codeine]

68. Not a fan of hostage taking. nt

[Cuthbert Allgood]

75. Just so we're clear on your stance...

EVERY group of voters but one will vote for the D candidate for sure. Reliable AF.

ONE group may not. We apparently know that going in. We also need that group to vote D in order to get the orange asshole out of office. But we shouldn't get a nominee that will get the SINGLE unreliable group out to vote even though that may mean a D loss.

I would then assume if we don't nominate someone that ONE SINGLE GROUP doesn't want to get behind, we will blame them even though WE KNEW GOING IN what needed to be done.

Seems like an odd strategy when one wants to win.

Clarification: I don't agree with your premise, but looking at the logical conclusion to your claims.

[Codeine]

80. Sublimating the preferences of the many

to appease the childish whims of the few is unpalatable. If that group can convince a majority of us to agree to that candidate or bring enough new voters on board to win the nomination then all is well and fair is fair, but the current strategy of throwing their toys out of the pram and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue is fabulously uninspiring.

All of this assumes their obstinance lasts, of course. One hopes they embrace some pragmatism should Mr. Sanders fail to achieve the nomination. Do you actually think they will? I have my doubts, but we shall certainly see how it plays out.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

81. So we are on the same page that one needs to win the votes of voters

and not expect that they will just fall in line. We need to "convince a majority" to vote for that person.

I think Sanders voters will vote pretty much like they did with Clinton last time if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. Pretty well. They voted at a higher percentage for Clinton than Clinton supporters did for Obama in 2008. Will there be some that don't vote D or don't vote at all? Sure. Won't even pretend that isn't a possibility. But I imagine that will be the case for all candidates.

I see a lot of people on here right now that are being way more Bros for Biden than the supposed BernieBros in 2016 when it comes to gloom and doom should Sanders win. I hope they will embrace some pragmatism should Sanders convince a majority.

[Codeine]

88. Gloom and doom isn't the hallmark of the Bro contingent.

It’s the threats, swarming, doxxing, and general boorishness of his supporters that both sets them apart and poisons the well against their candidate. That’s what makes a Bro a Bro.

I’ve no beef with Bernie per se (his electability is what’s in question in my mind) or his policies, it’s his attitude and the way his followers echo and then amplify that attitude that leaves the bad taste in my mouth. It also renders him (to my mind; reasonable people may disagree) unelectable in a general election.

[TexasTowelie]

7. If the two were to combine to form a ticket

then I would prefer it as Bloomberg-Bernie instead. However, I don't see either of them choosing the other as a running mate.

[cilla4progress]

8. Bernie/Amy

could do it, though?

[customerserviceguy]

13. The ticket needs racial balance.

One of Hillary's biggest mistakes was picking Tim Kaine as a running mate.

[BusyBeingBest]

20. I think Bernie/Amy would be good, not sure if Amy would do it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. LOL.

They are both older than God (an old presidential candidate with a heart condition definitely should not have an old running mate); Bernie wouldn't allow a running dog revanchist bourgeois tool of the capitalist oligarchy on his ticket, and Bloomberg, who is actually more qualified than Bernie to manage the federal government and fix the mess Trump has made of it, wouldn't want to be Bernie's second fiddle in any universe. That's a match made in Hell.

[greatauntoftriplets]

90. + 100,000

Perfectly stated.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Bernie to give away Bloomberg's billions?

Yeah, that will be popular, but maybe not with Bloomberg.

[George II]

15. Yes, imagine teaming up with....

"the billionaire class" or the "1%"? Oh wait, who is in that 1%?

[George II]

14. Why would we need to "keep the Berners on board"? Where else is there to go other than trump?

[DanTex]

17. Because we need enthusiasm and turnout. Bernie brings that.

[George II]

26. That's an intangible. People are saying he brought out the vote last night, which....

....he may have done. But they didn't vote for him. He went from 150,000 in 2016 to 75,000 in 2020.

Looking at it another way in 2016 about 135,000 voted for other candidates, in 2020 217,000 voted for other candidates.

[thesquanderer]

56. re: "in 2016 about 135,000 voted for other candidates, in 2020 217,000 voted for other candidates."

Yes, because many people find today's alternatives more to their liking than Hillary, so Bernie is no longer the beneficiary of also being an anti-somebody candidate. He still appears to have as much or more support among Dems as anyone else running.

[Mz Pip]

28. An unenthusiastic vote

will count as much as an enthusiastic one. I’m enthusiastic about getting Trump out of office. I’m less concerned about who does it.

That’s really the bottom line. Having your preferred candidate do it is just gravy IMHO.

[DanTex]

31. Yeah, problem is lack of enthusiasm means low turnout.

[LanternWaste]

40. Offset by a preponderance of enthusiasm to see trump gone.

A lack of enthusiasm for A does not imply nor indicate a lack of enthusiasm for B.

Yeah, problem is a logical fallacy means a fallacious conclusion.



Again... critical thought means that we don't simply type stuff because it sounds good to us (unless one is writing fiction, and if that's your thing, you should indicate it as such)

[DanTex]

42. Yeah, that was the strategy 2016. Didn't work.

I have no idea why people want to pretend that Bernie doesn't have a huge enthusiastic base of support.

[Codeine]

58. So basically,

it’s their way or the highway? That’s pretty shitty. I’ll vote for Bernie if he gets the nom, his followers should be willing to do the same.

[TwilightZone]

33. There's been little evidence of that thus far.

His claim about the youth vote in Iowa was false, and there's little evidence that the promised rush of new voters has materialized.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/sanders-spins-young-voter-turnout-in-iowa/

We heard the same things last cycle. Had they been true, he probably would have done better.

[George II]

36. The "youth vote" in New Hampshire was only 14% of the total vote....

And of those "new voters" who turned out vs. 2016, most voted for other candidates.

[TwilightZone]

38. Yep.

We've been hearing about the wave for five years, and it has yet to materialize. Ironically, youth turnout was up significantly in 2018 when Sanders wasn't running and moderate Dems were winning everything in sight.

[oasis]

24. They should be on board with our eventual nominee. If they haven't learned

the lessons of 2016, they're hopeless.

[NurseJackie]

16. Oh, honey! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

No.

[wiley]

18. A Bloomberg Yang ticket would be better

They are talking. See what Yang had to say about Bloomberg today.

[BusyBeingBest]

19. That would be pretty funny to watch.

Would it win? You bet. Would it work afterward as a partnership? Errrr....

[Dem2]

22. Seems highly unlikely

But I won't say that it's impossible.

[zentrum]

23. If Bloom really,

.....really wants to defeat Trump, he'd challenge him as a Republican. Force Trump to do primary debates. Be the one the Republican establishment and many in the Senate would heave a sigh of relief over. He'd get all the RW pundits who now dislike Trump, to support him.

But no---he has to split the Democratic vote. I don't buy his knight on a white charger story. At all.

[George II]

29. The republican party has already cancelled dozens of primaries. How would any other candidate....

....get delegates?

[zentrum]

91. Right. It's too late now.

Should have done it from day one.

[58Sunliner]

25. Step away from the pipe.

[Peacetrain]

27. That was just the thing I needed... a really good laugh

[cwydro]

85. Lol, I laughed too.

[underthematrix]

30. I think because of their ages, they need to select a younger VP.

Someone under sixty.

[George II]

35. It thought the proposal so uninspiring that I didn't even think of the two men themselves:

Two white men in their late 70s, both Jewish*, both from the East Coast. Nope.

*I don't have an issue with them being Jewish, just the opposite, but I'm just one voter. Think of all the evangelical Christians out there.

[underthematrix]

39. You probably haven't heard but white evangelicals have been appropriating

the Jewish faith tradition for years. If they're really in love with the Jewish faith then it seems they would vote for the Jewish candidate.

[Laelth]

32. Quite true.

Of course, I think Daffy Duck could beat Donald Trump in November 2020, so that's not saying much. This year we have the luxury of choice. That's one of the reasons why so many Democrats remain undecided.

That said, I don't think either Bloomberg or Bernie would settle for the VP job. They're both in it to win, and 2nd place wouldn't be good enough for either of them.

-Laelth

[Peregrine Took]

34. I could see a Bernie/Kamala ticket. I love her line about "trump's rapsheet."

She would be a great bulldog on the campaign trail as the VP candidate should be.

[Sunlei]

37. Clinton/Sanders would have beat Trump. This election Sanders & VPWarren or VPYang

Yangs already out. Unfortunately, looks to me like the 'Amy surge' & Bloombergs excellent TV ad surge will soon crush the Warren campaign.

[MenloParque]

41. Bloomberg/Sanders

With Bloomberg’s rising poll numbers with black voters, a Bloomberg/Sanders ticket may appeal to very strategic, high information black voters.

[CanonRay]

43. I can't see those two getting along.

[samnsara]

45. oh yeah two old white men....what 'enthusiasm' do you speak of?

[krissey]

46. Bloomberg would not be second to Sanders.

[msongs]

47. lol bernie would never be VEEP to bloomburg lololololol nt

[CentralMass]

48. I don't see them teaming up.

[irisblue]

49. Sanders twitter feed would erupt.

This isn't going anywhere

[Blue_Tires]

50. No way in hell are the Berners joining forces with a "moderate"

and an "establishment" one at that.

Nevermind the fact that to even get on Team Bernie you've got to have an established record of hating Hillary, Obama and the DNC

[calguy]

51. I'm for any ticket that doesn't include Sanders

[Turin_C3PO]

83. Sanders

might help us in turnout as VP. But I doubt he’d accept it.

[MFM008]

52. how about nah.

I was kinda hoping for a woman to be squeezed onto the old white guy ticket.

[rwheeler31]

53. Impossible they could not get along .

[OnDoutside]

55. Lol !

[highplainsdem]

57. Best laugh I've had all evening. I hope you meant this as a joke.

Sanders has been attacking the Democratic Party and billionaires for years. He's the last person who could credibly choose Bloomberg as a running mate.

[BlueStater]

60. Two nearly 80 year old guys on the same ticket?

The first White House duo in history where both of them could die in office from natural causes during their first term.

[brooklynite]

61. But will Bernie be willing to take the VP slot?

[democrattotheend]

62. That would be some ideological diversity

But the opposite of diverse in terms of race, age, gender, religion, or region. I hope I don't get flamed for this, but all other things being equal, I'd rather not have a ticket composed of two white males. I think to the extent possible, the ticket should be balanced and should reflect the diversity of our party.

[jcmaine72]

63. If that were to ever happen....

I would just give up on politics altogether.

[ecstatic]

64. lol. I'm willing to go with just about anything at this point.

There's only one candidate who would be instantly unifying & the frontrunner were she to enter the race. Unfortunately, she's made it clear on several occasions that she's not interested in politics.

[Blue_true]

65. It would be a very strange pairing. But I agree that it would work out well. nt

[Happy Hoosier]

69. Two things...

1) Bernie will NEVER pick Bloomberg. Just won't happen. And I doubt Bloomberg would accept in any case.
Bernie's pic for Veep would very likely be someone he already has in his orbit. Bernie won't want someone who can really bring in us disgusting "establishment" Democrats.

2) It wouldn't unite the party. The Veep becomes an extension of Presidential policy. Bloomberg would do nothing to moderate Bernie's approach.

[DanTex]

70. You're probably right about #1.

It doesn't seem like either one would do it. On the other hand, how much do they want to beat Trump? Sometimes it takes sacrifices, this is a national and global emergency. If they could set their ideologies aside, Bernie picking an "establishment billionaire" and Bloomberg accepting second fiddle to a "socialist" would go a long way towards bringing people together.

On #2, I think it definitely would unite the party. Yes, it would still be Bernie's policies, but his policies are popular -- they are the same policies that Warren is running on, more or less. People like Chris Matthews aren't afraid of Bernie's policies, they are afraid that Bernie is going to turn Stalinist and start hanging people in Central Park. Bloomberg being there would calm him and other centrists down.

[Happy Hoosier]

71. Dunno. We'll never find out, of course...

But I don;t really like either of those guys. LOL

As someone who is most decidedly NOT a Bernie fan, adding Bloomberg does not in any way solve my problem as a voter. Klobuchar would be better, IMO. But again, no way he picks anyone that close to the center.

[DanTex]

72. No, we won't. Just a thought experiment. Which apparently bombed lol.

Back to the drawing board...

I like Bernie, but I am concerned that if he gets the nomination and goes with someone like Nina Turner that could really alienate centrists. I buy into the whole "motivate the liberal base" theory to an extent, but he needs someone more moderate on the ticket with him to calm down people who are scared of "socialism". I figure Bloomberg would be good because if anyone has the cred to tell pro-business people that Bernie's not going to be forcing us all into collective farms, he could do it. In fact, if Bernie is the nominee, I hope he does that anyway, regardless of VP choice.

Klobuchar, yes, would be good VP choice for him.

[Happy Hoosier]

73. Take heart! Literally!

I found it interesting enough to read and respond to! Here's a heart!

[DanTex]

74. Aww thanks!

[33taw]

77. I find it difficult to imagine either of these individuals taking the VP.

[C_U_L8R]

79. Anybody and Anybody could beat Trump

If we all stand together

[comradebillyboy]

82. To dream the impossible dream....

[cwydro]

84. Bernie hates billionaires, or so he says.

How’s he going to change his tune to do that?

never happen.

Besides, no way will Bernie be the nominee imo.

[MrsCoffee]

86. Yeah... why should we have any options other than old white dudes?

[sheshe2]

92. Yep.

a multi millionaire and billionaire. Yikes.

[LanternWaste]

89. I'd imagine an entire host of possibilities could beat trump.

And though two plus two does indeed equal four, so does ten minus six. The pretense that one sum is right at the expense of all others is a serious flaw in uniting the party...

[CalFione]

93. Literally no way that a ticket with *TWO* 78-year-olds would win. Nor should it.

At least ONE of the names on the ticket has to not be near death's door.

[PETRUS]

94. hmmm...

I think the text of this OP proves... something.