crazy idea- i want a democratically elected veep.

[mopinko]

hear me out here-

i think that in a field that is such an embarrassment of riches, it would be great if the top vote getter gets the top of the ticket, and the #2 vote getter get second banana.

think of how this would change the race, and change it in a way that is going to totally engage the electorate.
it could be debates for the ages. i think it will be. kamala on msnbc giving a full throated defense for newsome's order.

the thought of watching beto and kamala (or any of them) debating, and not having to choose one makes me qvell. not winner take all, but running to be a part of a team.
i would bet that it would encourage the lower tier to stick it out a little longer.
more candidates on the road, doing retail politics for the next year.


cuz i think the game is gonna be- who can fix all these crises.
and how.

a ham sandwich should be able to beat any current member of the republican party. because it will all be hanging out there.
the problem- take you pick. clean air, water, land. rising seas. etc.
instead of trying to pick at each other, we paint the picture for the media.
the people who made the mess.
the people who have failed to do shit.
the people who made it worse.
the people who greased the wheels.
the people who got rich.
the people who were made poor.


the longer we have a bunch of great spokesmen for our party and and our values, the further we expand our zone of influence, and become a "spectacle" for the teevee machine. in a good way.
w a backdrop of investigations and arrests.

a blue wave of truth.

so, here is what i am gonna do- i am going to donate to at least 3 candidates in a minute here. i will be picking those i want in the debate the most.
i want them all to stay in as long as possible.

(also, that might mean we could maybe, maybe, maybe get the boys to let us pick more than one candidate.)

[brooklynite]

1. What exactly are you campaigning on when you "run" for VP?

[unblock]

2. What if they don't get along? or their constituencies overlap?

What if they're from the same state?
What if everyone agrees we should have a woman on the ticket but the top 2 happen to be male?

[mopinko]

10. well the same state is a problem, but

i think that chemistry between a couple candidates would bump them way up.

in a campaign of real ideas, overlap would be welcome.

it's making me kinda crazy that the talking heads keep talking about how they are all gonna differentiate themselves, but i keep thinking about what our common agenda would be.
this would encourage more of that kind of thinking, and put on a show of what it means to be a party.
to answer the question- what do dems stand for?

with this strong field we have a real opportunity to put our message out there. for voters to see what we agree on, instead of just what we differ on.

[George II]

16. Those are my thoughts, too. Obama chose Biden and they just might have been the best....

...one-two punch in our history.

[Hortensis]

19. Especially what if they don't get along or their

constituencies don't overlap. I think this is a horrible idea and the last thing I'd want.

The Democratic Party's increasingly synergistic president-vp duos is just one of the things we're doing much better than the Republicans, with their authoritarian hierarchies. We want to see more principled dynamic duos working together at the top.

What we don't want is a VP busily sabotaging the president and the agenda we elected for political reasons, which is of course what would happen all too often. There are big reasons why Hillary never considered B. Sanders for VP, for instance, and I can guarantee no one else would either.

Lol. Speaking of horrible thoughts, on a brief tour of that hostile little satellite forum's primary forum, the most popular pairing, mentioned in several threads, is a dream team of B. Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, both seen a very worthy, high-minded leaders who epitomize the standards that took them all down that rabbit hole.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

3. The VP is normally part of the President's team...

at least that is how it has been for a long time. (I do remember reading that FDR chose Truman for some expedient reason, and involved him very little in the administration, so that Truman was unaware of FDR's precarious health and came into office ignorant of development of the atomic bomb... )

I think that it is best that the President and VP can work more closely, so we probably need the P to have a big voice in choosing the VP. I imagine the ability of the VP to attract voters would be an important factor in the choice, however.

[mopinko]

11. i think that one important thing would be highlighted- who works well

w other people? who can build support for ideas and policies?

[hlthe2b]

4. there is usually some degree of competitiveness between them, but this approach would surely

maximize that... I'd not want the two highest offices to be engaged in back-stabbing 24/7 and that might well play out.

[Awsi Dooger]

5. Many wouldn't want it

You might have late tank jobs to avoid vice president.

The system works well as situated. Many criteria available for the nominee. We would have Ted Cruz as vice president right now under your model.

BTW, I have no idea where that ham sandwich line comes from. It reminds me of Ralph Nader's pathetic rationalization from 2000, something like, "If Al Gore can't beat that bumbling governor from Texas he needs to go back to Tennessee."

As long as conservatives are 9% above liberals nationally, we don't have anything close to a cinch. States like California are a cinch because that 9% gap is reversed, i.e. 37% liberals and 28% conservatives.

[mopinko]

12. i just think that by the time the dem house is done kicking the stuffing

out of the whole lot of them, yes, it will only take a ham sandwich.

obviously, if that doesnt happen, we have a horse race.
but i dont think they can keep this whole charade up that much longer w a dem house.

[Gothmog]

6. If your system was in place last cycle, then we would have had sanders as vp

That would have been a bad move

[Devil Child]

7. I know it's a crystal ball exercise to explore the what-ifs

But, I feel having Sen. Sanders as VP in 2016 would have contributed towards an unassailable Clinton victory and Clinton running for her second term right now.

[ehrnst]

14. Why do you say that? (nt)

[ehrnst]

18. So you think we should run who the GOP wants as VP? That's novel.

Ya see, conjecture doesn't cut it when there are actual metrics that can be applied to your statement.

Polls, things like that.

Any to offer?

Maybe you can ask "that bunch of republicans you know" for us.

[ehrnst]

15. Do you think that he would have accepted that if offered?

A Senator is more powerful and consequential than a VP.

And he wouldn't have been able to run in 2020 for POTUS if she won.

[Devil Child]

20. Honestly, I don't think Sen. Sanders would have accepted a VP offer

Just as I don't think that Clinton would have extended the VP offer. As you have noted with loss of senate seat and potential 2020 options it may have been too much of a "step-down" to accept.

[mopinko]

9. i'm suggesting it only because of the large, great field.

i wouldnt want it to be the rule, but the candidates could each make the promise. or not, but completely voluntary.

[leftieNanner]

8. I disagree

The eventual Presidential nominee should choose someone who fills in the interstices in their resume. Obama chose Biden, among other reasons, for his Foreign Policy expertise.