It looks like Bernie Sanders may end up winning 24 or 25 states. And it looks like he may do very well over the last four weeks of primary season causing Clinton to fall face first over the finish line badly bruised and damaged and looking not at all like somebody who just won something to be proud of.
Would the Democratic ticket be better off with Sanders as the Clinton VP? Would it shore up her falling numbers? Would it energize the ticket with the younger Sanders supporters then staying in the fold?
Or would the socialist label be used as a club against the ticket hurting it in the long run?
And if Bernie can win over the next several weeks - especially out west along the coast climaxing with California - what do you think the possibility is that this becomes almost mandatory in the way that JFK picked LBJ in 1960 and then won the election?
I think she'll pick someone who is Hispanic.
Sanders as VP -now mandatory for victory?
A lot of conservatives, moderates and libertarians are prepared to vote for Hillary: This time, incredibly, she is the lesser evil.
There's very little she can do to change their minds - except for putting Bernie on the ticket.
Another important question to throw into the mix... can Hillary and Sanders ideologically get along enough to have an effective campaign together against Trump and whoever that asshat picks?
It looks like Bernie Sanders may end up winning 24 or 25 states. And it looks like he may do very well over the last four weeks of primary season causing Clinton to fall face first over the finish line badly bruised and damaged and looking not at all like somebody who just won something to be proud of.
Would the Democratic ticket be better off with Sanders as the Clinton VP? Would it shore up her falling numbers? Would it energize the ticket with the younger Sanders supporters then staying in the fold?
Or would the socialist label be used as a club against the ticket hurting it in the long run?
And if Bernie can win over the next several weeks - especially out west along the coast climaxing with California - what do you think the possibility is that this becomes almost mandatory in the way that JFK picked LBJ in 1960 and then won the election?
I find it hard to believe that young people who support Sanders over Clinton would be swayed by Sanders as VP to Clinton. I find it even harder to believe that a man who claimed to be running on principle and who opposes so much of what Clinton stands for would be swayed to accept an offer to run on the ticket with her.
One of the best if only good things to come out of the Republican primary debacle is that so many principled conservatives have said there's no way they're supporting Trump. Sanders accepting such an offer, if presented, would cement the notion that Democrats lack any principles other than a greedy desire for power.
WOW!!!!! You do realize we are talking about politics and politicians here right?
Yes, I do. There are several Republican politicians, both in office and out, who have said they will not support Trump because he's not a conservative. Can you name any Democrats who have railed against Clinton and have said they won't support her if she is the nominee? I'd be surprised, because as I said previously the overriding "principle" that guides Democrats is a lust for power, regardless of how it's achieved.
It looks like Bernie Sanders may end up winning 24 or 25 states. And it looks like he may do very well over the last four weeks of primary season causing Clinton to fall face first over the finish line badly bruised and damaged and looking not at all like somebody who just won something to be proud of.
Would the Democratic ticket be better off with Sanders as the Clinton VP? Would it shore up her falling numbers? Would it energize the ticket with the younger Sanders supporters then staying in the fold?
Or would the socialist label be used as a club against the ticket hurting it in the long run?
And if Bernie can win over the next several weeks - especially out west along the coast climaxing with California - what do you think the possibility is that this becomes almost mandatory in the way that JFK picked LBJ in 1960 and then won the election?
I find it hard to believe that young people who support Sanders over Clinton would be swayed by Sanders as VP to Clinton. I find it even harder to believe that a man who claimed to be running on principle and who opposes so much of what Clinton stands for would be swayed to accept an offer to run on the ticket with her.
One of the best if only good things to come out of the Republican primary debacle is that so many principled conservatives have said there's no way they're supporting Trump. Sanders accepting such an offer, if presented, would cement the notion that Democrats lack any principles other than a greedy desire for power.
not only not mandatory, also not gonna happen. Vermont is not in play, as far as i can see. she needs someone from a rust belt swing state who actually seems likable and truthful.
her weaknesses :
1. unlikable legacy candidate who shifts positions depending on the political climate
2. everything she says sounds scripted, and even in private interviews, she seems to be acting. i can't think of one situation in which she didn't look like she was playing a role. even when she had the beer. this, the legacy candidate thing, and the 47% thing killed Romney's chances four years ago.
3. dumb policy priorities. STFU about guns and coal during the election, and talk about jobs and workers.
she needs a VP who is going to fix that for her. right now, her main strength is that Donald Trump is an unfit for office joke. most of the other candidates (excluding Cruz) would have wiped her out in the general.
so, who does she pick? she can't afford to lose midwestern swing states (or PA.) i'd look there first, and find someone who is liked by pretty much everyone.
And YOUNG!
Democrats want to govern, yes. That's why they're in the game. Republicans want to govern too, they just seem to have forgotten how to get there. They'll nominate another unelectable candidate and spend another four years moaning about how the electorate has let America down.
What you see as maintaining principles I see as incompetence, failure on the part of the Republican Party. If they can't put forward a candidate Republicans can get behind, how can they expect the rest of the country to endorse their party?
If nothing else, Trump's candidacy will make the decision easy for those liberals who don't support Clinton and wouldn't have voted without him looming on the horizon.
I don't disagree with some of your comments, however, I don't agree with the outcome you expect. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump is a more attractive candidate to a lot of Independents than Clinton is. After all, Trump is a left of center moderate in almost all his policy positions as evidenced by his life record. Forget some of the hyperbole from the primaries. Trump is a much better salesman than Clinton ever will be. For all of Trump's negativities, he's not the despised human being that many find Clinton to be.
As I've said in other threads, I think this election will have the lowest turnout, percentage and totals, of any Presidential election in decades. That might also serve Trump well.
IMO she doesn't need Sanders to win. I think most of his supporters will vote for her, especially when they look at the alternative on the ballot. Just like her supporters came out for Obama.
I think she'll pick someone who is Hispanic.
It looks like Bernie Sanders may end up winning 24 or 25 states. And it looks like he may do very well over the last four weeks of primary season causing Clinton to fall face first over the finish line badly bruised and damaged and looking not at all like somebody who just won something to be proud of.
Would the Democratic ticket be better off with Sanders as the Clinton VP? Would it shore up her falling numbers? Would it energize the ticket with the younger Sanders supporters then staying in the fold?
Or would the socialist label be used as a club against the ticket hurting it in the long run?
And if Bernie can win over the next several weeks - especially out west along the coast climaxing with California - what do you think the possibility is that this becomes almost mandatory in the way that JFK picked LBJ in 1960 and then won the election?
Yes, I do. There are several Republican politicians, both in office and out, who have said they will not support Trump because he's not a conservative. Can you name any Democrats who have railed against Clinton and have said they won't support her if she is the nominee? I'd be surprised, because as I said previously the overriding "principle" that guides Democrats is a lust for power, regardless of how it's achieved.
If Bernie does not win enough delegates to overturn Clinton, how can he be the stronger candidate?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?