A Sanders-Warren ticket could win big in 2020

[left-of-center2012]

On March 19, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will host a town meeting about income inequality that will feature Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), film producer and director Michael Moore and the New School economics professor Derrick Hamilton.

This subject is one of the most important issues facing all Americans in their daily lives. It strikes at the heart of the matter of jobs, wages, economic opportunity and the core fairness of the American economy.

Let's consider the Democratic options for the presidential ticket in the 2020 elections, with emphasis on the possibility of a Democratic ticket in 2020 of Sanders for president and Warren for vice president.

Democrats are blessed with a large number of excellent potential candidates in 2020 and should consider and confront the mythology spread by Republicans and some insider Democrats that the most progressive Democratic candidates are not the most electable Democratic candidates.

The first model for a Democratic ticket in 2020 would be led by Sanders and Warren. This would be the progressive populist ticket offering the most bold and sweeping agenda.

The second model for a Democratic ticket would be led by former Vice President Joe Biden, running with a vice-presidential nominee such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on a ticket that combines vast presidential calibre experience and a widely respected younger generation progressive leader.

The third model for a Democratic ticket would be led by Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.), a rising star of House Democrats, running with a vice presidential nominee such as California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who formerly served as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus in Congress, or Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

This ticket would offer a bold and daring move for dramatic political and generational change.

More at:
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/377583-a-sanders-warren-ticket-could-win-big-in-2020

[NightWatcher]

1. Please, no more Bernie.

There's too much baggage and he's only a Diem when he's running for Prez.

[left-of-center2012]

3. Bernie is one of the three options in this thread

[Cha]

11. Exactly. BS is the worst option.

[left-of-center2012]

21. Actually in this article, Bernie/Warren is #1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. Been sayin' that for a while now... they would be unstoppable!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[BoneyardDem]

59. And there are other article stating Trump is number one. Many opinions

...many are crazy.

No more Bernie. He's NOT a unifier.

[Stryst]

133. Our last presidential nominee made some pro-military decisions that threw many of us off

We're never going to have a perfect nominee that applies both to the younger, more progressive parts of the party and the more pro-military industrial, more religious parts of the party.

You disapprove of Bernie Sanders because he wasn't a unifier. Ok, that's your opinion. Do you think that Sec. Clinton was a unifier? I don't think she was, and I personally think that she thinks very little of religious nonbelievers. That's my opinion.

The questions is, if a Sanders/Warren ticket got the nomination, would you still cast a Democratic vote? My personal ethos told me to vote Clinton even though I had strong reservations because a Dem president is the best for us all. You're the only one that can decide what you're going to do in 2020.

[Cha]

74. Never.

[grantcart]

24. But its never too early to start the divisive campaign for him.

[RandomAccess]

64. OR the divisive campaign against him

[Chemisse]

84. Either way, it's divisive. That's how we lose in 2020.

Let's find a candidate we can all get on board with.

[RandomAccess]

92. Or better yet, let's leave behind all the old rivalries

I think they'r disgusting, and very, very tiring and depleting.

If people can't "get it" why a post like this one -- and so many more in this thread -- is counterproductive, I fear for the party. They fail to understand that there were MANY of us who voted for her but before that felt the same level of vehement antipathy toward Clinton that they then and now feel about Bernie. I've let it go. Why can't they? Why can't they just move the fuck on?

It's very discouraging. And I wish they could know how utterly, completely alienated those of us who were Bernie supporters feel with threads like this. Is that REALLY what they want - this alienation?

And to see Bernie supporters blamed for it, as in the post I responded to, is a real hoot. If the Clinton supporters would stop with the Bernie hate, there'd be no reason for us to ever speak up at all. We could -- what a concept -- just move the fuck on.

[mountain grammy]

98. So true!

So when Benie haters say "never" to a Sanders/Warren ticket, what does that mean. Will they vote to re-elect trump? Will they not vote at all? That's what got us into this mess. Hell, we'll be lucky to have another election, but by all means, let's keep bickering.

[RandomAccess]

103. Good point

But I imagine they'd feel entirely justified -- after all, aren't they sainted Hillary supporters?

[sheshe2]

146. Wow.

mountain grammy
98. So true!

So when Benie haters say "never" to a Sanders/Warren ticket, what does that mean. Will they vote to re-elect trump? Will they not vote at all? That's what got us into this mess. Hell, we'll be lucky to have another election, but by all means, let's keep bickering.

You have to sit back and ask yourself here...a slight twist of your question...

So when the Hillary haters said never Hillary, what did that mean? Did they vote to elect trump? Did they not vote at all? That is what got us in this mess.

That is was exactly what they said, anyone but Hillary and they said it loud and clear. They gave us trump.

[mountain grammy]

150. that might have been what they meant

but they were wrong. I supported Bernie, but would never say never to Hillary, why would I? But I see it here all the time.. never Bernie. Really? If he somehow became the nominee? I see almost no chance of that happening, but will not say "never" to any candidate that challenges this madness.

And yes, people not voting did get us into this mess, but I don't believe Bernie supporters didn't vote.. they voted, and overwhelmingly voted for Hillary.. over 95% of them. A rigged election and 46% of voters not voting gave us trump. 46% of American voters felt they had nothing to vote for or just didn't care. People supporting Bernie were woke and active and didn't sit it out. That's a fact, and few voted 3rd party. Stop blaming Bernie and his supporters, of which I was one, for this.

I don't blame Bernie or Hillary. Hillary blames herself more than she should. She ran a conventional campaign against an insane opponent and a media that loved the insanity more than the fucking truth. She said in her book she should have turned on him when he stalked her around the stage. She's right, she should have, but I get it. I'm her age, grew up same as her. Adults just don't act like that. This is a race for POTUS and requires dignity and policy. But that's not true in America anymore and now we know that. Can you imagine if she had confronted him when he was stalking her on the stage. Really confronted him. He would have withered like dead weed.

[treestar]

105. By the same token, if the Bernie supporters would stop

touting him for 2020, when he will be 79, there would be no reason to speak up at all.

[RandomAccess]

111. Yeah because ageism is just fine and he has no RIGHT to run, right?

How would you feel if Hillary might be interested in running again and some of us former Bernie supporters you that you had no right to tout her for 2020??

[treestar]

113. She isn't running

And ageism is one thing. Realizing that you are at retirement age is another. 79 on election day means he would be 79-83.

Are you OK with Feinstein running at 84?

[RandomAccess]

119. Yes, I'm fine with people running at whatever age they

are, being quite "old" myself.

I know she's not running -- that wasn't the point.

Suggesting there's any difference between ageism and your inference that people should recognize when they're at "retirement age" and gracefully bow out, is rationalizing on your part: it's ageism.

[treestar]

120. There's got to be some age you think is too old?

90?

[RandomAccess]

122. No. It depends on the person and their ability and health.

There are people at 90 who are in better health than I, at 20 years their junior. Why should they be excluded from ANYthing just because of their calendar age??

[treestar]

196. Maybe neither of you should do it?

No matter how good you appear at 90 things can take a sudden turn.

Life expectancy does not cover the term of office for most at that age.

But then you would be judging their health. What is the standard? You might not have thought JFK in good enough health at 43 had you known the whole story. FDR?

[thesquanderer]

174. re: "Let's find a candidate we can all get on board with."

There's no such thing.

Not everyone here was on board with Obama in 2008, either.

[Chemisse]

178. Indeed. That was a tough and divided primary too.

And you are right, there is no candidate everyone will like.

If we can just avoid cultism, I would be happy. We need to use our brains, not just follow our passions.

[David__77]

86. Indeed!

I suppose every group of squabbling factionalized could come to a different conclusions on who is divisive.

[elleng]

137. Exactly, as so often happens here.

I'm not hanging around, but thanks for noting that fact.

[leftynyc]

167. He's NOT a Democrat

That is his choice and we would be fucking insane to allow him to USE our party again. If he wants to run, let him do it as an Independent.

[RandomAccess]

191. I suppose you don't want his votes in the Senate

either, or his campaigning for Dem candidates??

[leftynyc]

194. He's voting his conscience

which is also, apparently, why he feels he doesn't want to join MY party. He USED a party he acts like he has no use for EXCEPT when it suits his purpose. So to answer your question, no, I don't give a crap who he campaigns for and he can vote anyway he wishes - that's up to his constituents to deal with.

[trueblue2007]

37. I AGREE. No more BS please. Need younger and i hope female people.

[Blue_true]

25. I am no Bernie fan.

But if he wants to run for the nomination and he wins it, I will support him 10000%. I will vote for someone else in the democratic primary though.

[Susan Calvin]

127. I agree with this rational opinion. nt

[FarPoint]

52. Exactly!!!

He's a Hitchhiker looking for a free ride AGAIN..

[aeromanKC]

87. Where is the Rec button for this post?

If I could find it, I would hit it 1000 times.

[erlewyne]

101. Please more Bernie

Bernie and Warren are anti Wall Street. Wall Street is responsible for
the woes in America. How many behind closed-doors Wall Street speeches
did Bernie and Elisabeth give?

[former9thward]

114. He is a Democrat when voting for Senate leadership.

I never saw Reid turn down his vote even once. Should Democrats reject his vote in the Senate?

[bettyellen]

2. Oh god, not again. Not unless we see the taxes and hes actually vetted.

[ehrnst]

75. Yes - transparency in matters of personal finance and health is non-negotiable. (nt)

[pandr32]

80. Agreed

[uponit7771]

144. +1

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Bernie's too old (among other reasons) and Sen. Warren is NOT interested. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. Why the ageism?!

[ehrnst]

81. POTUS requires stamina, both physical and mental

that the Senate does not.

Individuals vary, but 70 is when cognitive and physical issues start to appear in most people. Men usually experience them earlier than women.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

115. Could of sworn Bernie was well over 70 when he showed incredible physical & mental stamina at a

record number of campaign events, without the slightest sign of wear or slowing down, especially when compared to other candidates over the years who were younger in age.

[ehrnst]

173. Which candidates? (nt)

[smirkymonkey]

163. +100

This is an important point.

[treestar]

107. There is ageism and there is just too old

Someone in their 50s, 60s, early 70s. But once the 80s hit, things start to go. I have parents who went all over the world in their 70s, now could not do so, being in early 80s. I'm not the only one.

Bernie will be 79 in 2020.

09/08/41 - Bernie born. Bernie is 76 years old today. Bernie will be 79 on Sept. 8, 2020.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

118. Generally, that's true, but there are exceptions... I think Bernie is one of those.

[Chemisse]

108. Age is an important factor because it is related to health and stamina.

Would it be called 'ageism' if we opposed a 90-year-old candidate?

There is not one day when one wakes up and is suddenly too old to run for president. It's a continuum, and we are all somewhere on this continuum. I get uncomfortable about candidates who are 65 and older. And nobody gets younger over the course of 8 years in the White House.

It would be a factor in a general election, as well (provided the opponent is not Trump, of course).

[treestar]

112. Bernie is even older than the Dotard

Orange Dotard: June 14, 1946
Bernie: Sept. 4, 1941

Age in Nov. 2020:
Dotard: 74
Bernie: 79

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

125. If Bernie was showing signs of slowing down or being in ill health, I would agree...

I just don't see it. That's NOT to say the factors you mention, stamina and health, shouldn't be taken into consideration. Indeed, a 40-50 year-old could raise such concerns and the older one gets, the more of a concern it could become. Just saying that each candidate should be evaluated on an individual basis.

[crazycatlady]

186. FYI I know of a 71 yo who does not have the strength and stamina to be POTUS

ANd the lifestyle he wants to be living is more on the lines of "I want to golf in FL."

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. I'd hope any Dem ticket would win big in 2020.

It should be "2008 on Steroids". Obama or Clinton, whoever won the primary, they were a lock for the presidency.

But, by 2020, the U.S. will be badly damaged by Trump, his policies, his executive orders, his supreme court picks.

[CTyankee]

6. I would go with Schiff/Warren ticket myself.

Schiff is getting a lot of TV exposure and comes across as fair, reasonable, and emotionally stable. Same with Warren. Plus, lots of women out there could identify with Warren as the first woman vp.

I get excited just thinking about that ticket...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

142. Switch the ticket around and you may have something there.

[CTyankee]

152. fine with me!

[Squinch]

7. Oh, for fuck's sake.

[crazylikafox]

8. I vote for option three

[NCTraveler]

9. Warren wouldnt pick him.

She would have better options available. He wouldn’t bring a single vote to the table for her. She was most of Sanders supporters first choice.

[left-of-center2012]

22. In this Hill article ...

Warren isn't doing the picking. She's the V.P. candidate.

[NCTraveler]

32. lol NT

[left-of-center2012]

38. That's OK

You're allowed to make mistakes.

[NCTraveler]

66. It wouldnt be a mistake Warren would make. Nt

[QC]

10. But...but...but...

[Cha]

12. I don't give a shite what he is.. the answer is

No.

[redstateblues]

156. Well put Cha!!

[Cha]

157. Mahalo, redstateblues!

[smirkymonkey]

164. Hear, Hear!

Mahalo Cha!

[Cha]

166. Aloha, smirky!

[Glamrock]

13. Hahahahahahahaha

[Squinch]

16. Wait... does that mean we're pure or not pure when we say no to Sanders and his divisive nonsense?

I don't really seeing anything wrong with Democrats putting up a Democratic candidate.

You, apparently, do.

[Blue_true]

36. Bernie may win the nomination.

But if he doesn't, I hope that he and his supporters have the presence to fully support the person that does.

In 2008, I was basically anti-Obama during the primary, I contributed money and time to Hillary and contributed to paying off her campaign debt when she lost. I just could not figure out why Obama was beating Hillary, I was not a PUMA or whatever they were called, but I was damned, damned close. When it was clear that Obama was going to get the nomination, I wanted him to pick Hillary and was pissed when he did not. BUT, in the General, I turned on a dime and supported Obama 100%, maxing out on contributions and doing shoe leather work to convince those on the fence. There was no way I wanted to see McCain/Palin win. In 2008 and 2012 and for the rest of my life, I can say that I supported and voted for one of the country's ten best Presidents. It grieve me that a lot of Bernie supporters won't be able to say they voted for the first female President, who like President Obama, became one of the greats.

[Squinch]

45. Lots of people who supported Bernie this time around have turned away from him. He

has fewer supporters now. He won't win the nomination.

I supported Hillary against Obama too, and like you supported him energetically once he won. And I agree. He was one of our great presidents. Watching him showed me how to be a better person.

And yes, wouldn't Hillary have been great if we had just given her the chance?

[RandomAccess]

65. Please remember that a lot of the people you're mad at

-- or "grieve for" -- are Russian bots and trolls.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

143. Of course!! What choice do we have?!

[Cha]

158. I was anti-Hillary.. but, when I saw

how she came around to support President Obama and campaign her heart out for him.. I totally became a Hillary fan.

President Obama helped pay off her campaign debt, too.. and then she was his SOS.. and I was rooting for her as much as Obama!

I did that turning on a dime thing in 2004 when Kerry got the nom.. being a deaniac.. well not exactly on a dime. It took me about a week.

[LonePirate]

14. I do not think the DC media bubble understands how many true blue Dems dislike Sanders.

Warren seems to be well-respected by almost everyone on the left. The same cannot be said for Sanders who at times seems like he would be more at home running on the Republican ticket.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. The Republican ticket?! Oh really?! Now that's funny!!

[Cha]

159. The DC media bubble doesn't understand

a lot of things.. and that is one Glaring mistake of theirs. They're basically lazy, imv.

[Kentonio]

170. A lot of people here dont seem to understand..

..that the DU bubble does not represent the wider community of Democrats in any way. The kind of anti-Bernie hate that get spouted on this site, would get you treated as a crazy by most Democrats.

[Different Drummer]

15. #3 is my choice. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Can we please be over Senator Sanders?

[left-of-center2012]

23. Obviously not

He's attacked here daily.

[JI7]

18. Is he going to release his tax returns ?

I think everyone that runs needs to do it

[jrthin]

71. We're still waiting.... nt

[OldHippieChick]

19. I'm an old person and both of these persons are older than I am.

Love them to death, but prefer someone who can truly run up the stairs to Air Force One. If we are going to attract and hold the young vote, it will not be with the aged. Yes, they seemingly loved Bernie before, but it was his message.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. .

[OldHippieChick]

34. Yeah, okay, I

could do that once. Then bring on the oxygen.

[Squinch]

46. Bathroom?

[sheshe2]

67. ;)

[Action_Patrol]

136. Funny enough, thats him running to catch train

That’s the escalator to the Senate Train.

[ismnotwasm]

20. Nope

[blue cat]

26. no Bernie

Please post this stuff on socialist underground or anywhere but here.

[RandySF]

27. No

[Kingofalldems]

28. No mas. No mas.

He can't be a part time Democrat.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

29. Is Warren heading the ticket?

[left-of-center2012]

39. If you read the O.P.

A Sanders-Warren ticket

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

138. Guess I should have included the sarcasm tag

I have little interest in a Bernie Sanders sequel.

Sure I'd vote for him over any Republican but that's about it.

[Motley13]

30. No, too old & not a Dem

[sheshe2]

33. Please!

Let's concentrate on 2018 for now.

[Golden Raisin]

89. Yes. Thank you. And also assuming we still have elections.

Anything is possible with Trump and this complicit Republican Congress.

[sheshe2]

97. Ya, I know anything can happen with trump.

however I believe in the power of the good over evil. We can still win this, Golden Raisin.

Thanks~

[treestar]

121. very true

we have to have learned by now that Congress matters just as much.

[sheshe2]

123. One means nothing without the other.

Thanks, treestar.

[TeamPooka]

35. Harris/Kennedy works for me. No current House Rep has won the White House

[Squinch]

47. Tammy Duckworth!

[smirkymonkey]

40. No. Just no on both of them.

Bernie is a no for obvious reasons. Warren is doing a great job as a senator and I think that is where she should stay. She does not have broad appeal outside of extremely blue areas. Even in MA she is controversial. I think she's great, but she is not going to win it for us.

[Historic NY]

41. We need younger people, no more old fuddy duddies...

and I'm an old person. We've done that VP running thing a couple of times and it doesn't work. Lets stay away from michael moore, he turns people off.

PS if they let Sanders back in they're fucking nuts. He'll just drag in his baggage.

[Mike Nelson]

42. I think...

... Bernie will probably be running as an Independent. He would have to try to become a Democrat again, and have the Party allow him to run as a Democrat again... don't think it's gonna happen again... I think Biden should pass; like Bernie, he has not shown he can win a nomination. Warren is still intriguing, but I honestly think she's interested in getting stuff done I the Senate. Let's hope she has a majority soon! I like the others mentioned - but there are many more... We have more than one President in waiting!

[Jim Lane]

73. Your post reflects a widespread misconception (widespread on DU, at any rate)

You write:

He would have to try to become a Democrat again, and have the Party allow him to run as a Democrat again... don't think it's gonna happen again...

More precisely, two widespread misconceptions.

First, throughout his campaign (i.e., before, during, and after), he was listed on the Senate rolls as an independent. He did not deceptively switch to Democrat, run and lose, and then switch back, despite what the Bernie-bashers want you to believe.

Second, he was on the ballot in the Democratic primaries because he met each state's legal requirements. The Party did not allow him or forbid him, because it couldn't. Another Bernie-basher myth is that the DNC, because of its principled commitment to fairness and openness, held a vote and magnanimously waived its rule that only Democrats could run. Wrong. There is no such rule and there was no such vote.

Bernie will not run for President as an independent. I can't (yet) prove that my prediction is correct, but I can't prove that the Cleveland Browns won't win the next Super Bowl, either. In both cases I feel myself to be on pretty firm ground.

[Mike Nelson]

90. Thank you...

...for the polite clarifications!

[David__77]

140. Thank you for bringing important facts to these discussions.

...

[seaglass]

162. What do you mean? He was an Independent, declared as a Democrat and then went back to Independent.

It is naive to believe he became a Democrat for anything other than running for President. Obviously this is what he HAD to do to compete, it wasn't deceptive, it was self-serving.

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/11/05/sanders-declares-democrat-nh-primary/75242938/

The state’s paperwork to get on the ballot for the February primary requires a candidate to declare as a registered member of whichever party he or she is seeking the nomination. Sanders, a long-time Independent, declared himself a Democrat while filing on Thursday.

Sanders says he’ll run as a Democrat in future elections.

He says, “I am running as a Democrat obviously, I am a Democrat now.”

And:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356650-sanders-to-run-as-an-independent-in-2018


“I am an independent and I have always run in Vermont as an independent, while I caucus with the Democrats in the United States Senate. That’s what I’ve been doing for a long time and that’s what I’ll continue to do,” Sanders told Fox News.

[Jim Lane]

184. He ran for the Democratic nomination but he's not a Democrat.

Throughout his career in the Senate -- before, during, and after his campaign -- Bernie has been both an independent and a member of the Democratic caucus.

He never changed his listing with the Senate clerk, nor did he ever change his voter registration in Vermont.

Yes, he maintained this status (quite openly) during the campaign. Just about any day of the week during the 2015-16 primary season, you could come to DU and read the vitriolic denunciations of him for seeking the Democratic nomination without being a Democrat. People who thought that formal party affiliation was more important than substantive issues had all the information they needed to vote against him on that basis -- and, if you credit the posts on this board, many did so.

You might take note that, before, during, and after Bernie's campaign, the Democrats in the Senate have accepted his status. When the Democrats had the majority, Bernie was a committee chair. More recently, Chuck Schumer, knowing that Bernie was an independent, named him as one of the members of the expanded Democratic leadership team.

Back home, the Vermont Democratic Party includes Bernie in the "Federal Officials" page on the party website. (Incidentally, it's not the case that the party is just a nonpartisan civics organization providing information about all officials. The "State Officials" page omits the Governor, because he's a Republican. The Vermont Democratic Party quite naturally maintains a partisan website and includes Bernie.)

[seaglass]

187. I am quoting what Bernie said. If he wants to claim he was misquoted then he

can go ahead and do that. I am aware that he did not change his status from I in Vermont, at the time he said it was because he was elected as an I to the Senate. He wanted it both ways.

Here is Bernie again saying he is a Democrat:

Meanwhile, Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, found himself defending his own credentials as a member of the Democratic Party, noting that the party's leadership on Capitol Hill has placed him in high-ranking positions on congressional committees."Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination," he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/democratic-town-hall-highlights/

Chuck Schumer and Bernie are friends, Schumer has long supported Bernie.

[thesquanderer]

185. Actually, I'm not sure he ever went back and forth.

While you may find it disingenuous, he declared himself a Dem in New Hampshire (as required to get on the ballot), but he never declared himself a Dem in Vermont, where he is running now (and where declaring yourself as a member of a party is not required). So there was no need to switch either to or from being a Dem in VT (where he could be an independent even while also being endorsed by the Dem party and running on the Dem line); while his status in NH would seem to be, at the moment, entirely irrelevant.

And the line "Sanders says he’ll run as a Democrat in future elections" is not backed up by any direct quote, so we are missing context for that, at least. (Reporters often miss some nuance or sometimes even get things entirely wrong when they paraphrase.)

As for "it wasn't deceptive, it was self-serving" -- well, okay. But assuming he genuinely believed that his candidacy was offering something good for the country, then you could say he was also serving more than himself.

Not that there's any law against going back and forth if one wants to. (Hey, Elizabeth Taylor married Richard Burton twice.) I'm just not sure he did in this case.

Also, the Dem party itself has had no issues giving him committee assignments, despite his being an independent for all his time in Congress. So the labels seem to matter a lot more to some people on this board than it does to the Dems actually in the party leadership or holding office.

[redstateblues]

43. Please make it stop!

[revmclaren]

44. No!

That goes for all my family and most of my friends as well.

Once bitten = HELL NO!

only!

[Cobalt Violet]

49. Some here clearly would rather Trump.

Disgusting.

[sheshe2]

70. I sure hope.

I sure hope you are not on Democratic Underground accusing fellow members of being Republicans or Republican leaning.

Cobalt Violet
49. Some here clearly would rather Trump.

Disgusting.

[IluvPitties]

50. Nope, thanks.

[Heartstrings]

51. We need

Fresh faces and new blood.....Warren and Sanders are great just where they are, imo

[samnsara]

53. i will go with either joe but not that other guy...no no no nope nada never

.. ive always liked a harris-kennedy ticket!

[DonViejo]

54. The chances of two New Englanders on the national ticket are slim to none. eom

[Jim Lane]

76. Clinton-Gore from two adjoining states won twice.

For that matter, Bush and Cheney were from the same state and won twice, after Cheney's fraudulent switch of his legal residence.

In this media era, I don't think geographical balance is as big a factor as it once was. A Sanders-Warren ticket would be, in many ways, more balanced than a ticket featuring two WASP men, regardless of where they came from.

[DonViejo]

82. That's not New England, as you know.

[edbermac]

55. It will not happen.

Warren is more effective where she is.

[LexVegas]

56. Not after helping railroad Franken.

[randr]

57. If these two concentrated on doing the jobs they were elected to do

things may be better than they are. Unfortunately, one of them has yet to join our team and it is the candidate I foolishly supported at my last State Democratic Assembly

[greatauntoftriplets]

60. A thousand times no.

[BoneyardDem]

62. What's with all of rah rah posts pressing a non Dem as POTUS?

They suck.

[Generic Brad]

181. This is Democratic Underground, not Underground

I couldn't agree with you sentiments more.

[Nailzberg]

68. My first choice is a Democrat.

[Awsi Dooger]

69. Not much margin for error in 2020

Ousting an incumbent is extremely difficult to begin with. Now imagine how many extremes Trump will take while defending the position. Nothing will be out of bounds. He'll take the Koch money and Roy Cohn playbook and Russia meddling and a million lies and anything else he can think of.

I have no idea how "win big" is proposed given those realities. I'll take a 2 point electoral victory right now.

We need an absolutely ideal ticket given the roadblocks Trump will put forth. I don't dismiss Jeffrey Toobin's prediction that any Democratic nominee will be investigated during the election year, no matter who it is.

I can't identify the ideal ticket right now but Sanders/Warren doesn't strike me as ideal. We need someone younger than me atop the ticket, not 20 years older than me.

[CentralMass]

72. Two fine Senators on the right side of the issues.

[ehrnst]

77. But POTUS requires other skills and characteristics than "being"

POTUS has to have shown accomplishments.

Warren has more in that department than Sanders.

[JNelson6563]

78. No. Just no. In fact, fuck no.

No More Boomers.

[samplegirl]

79. No Bernie Sanders

Is not the Democrats ticket then or now.

[Crash2Parties]

83. Sanders? Great way to kill the ticket.

He'll lose the black vote, the women's vote & hey - plenty of Dem's remember how often he has attacked the party & said/done things against the party platform. Not to mention making it very clear that he is not a Democrat!

Oh, and that whole assault rifle thingy...

[Me.]

85. Win What?

[kimbutgar]

88. No Bernie he is not a Democrat but an independent.

Did he ever share his list with the DNC or the DSCC? No.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. SMDH

[stonecutter357]

93. Joe Biden 2020 !

[TexasTowelie]

149. Jimmy Carter 2020!

I don't want to be accused of ageism.

[Bucky]

190. Only if my draft Mondale movement fails to catch on

[democratisphere]

94. Never ever going to happen. Sanders and Warren are not Presidential material.

We need Sanders and Warren in the Senate where they can do the most for the American people and the Democratic Party.

[Dawson Leery]

95. Biden/Kennedy.

I would like to see Warren run too.

No Bernie.

I will be supporting a real Democrat, Beto O'Rourke.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210339594

[Silver Gaia]

96. No, no, and no.

Just NO.

[people]

99. Adam Schiff/ Kamala Harris

Not sure if Adam Schiff could win but I really like him. He's very honest and very smart and trustworthy. Kamala Harris is incredibly smart, fiery and principled. I think the democrats need a ticket that is somewhat younger and is not just white people. Let's think hard about who the democratic voters are. We are not all white people.

[Gothmog]

100. I would not support this ticket

[Bucky]

192. Ues you would

You may not like it. But politics is always about the lesser of two evils. This won't be the ticket in 2020. But if it was, you would vote for them, and you would like it

[Gothmog]

193. I doubt that this ticket has a chance

A number of blue states will be adopting ballot access laws that will require candidates in the primaries and general election to file and release tax returns. Trump can afford to ignore these states but anyone running for the Democratic nomination will need to run in these states which means releasing tax returns.

We will see what happens.

[Cryptoad]

102. Thats what the Russians keep saying,,,,,,,

[cab67]

104. Sanders' time has come and gone.

[getagrip_already]

106. no,, it would be 4 more years of republican anarchy

Any ticket headed by sanders will be torn apart by the rifts left over from the last election. He had a big part in trump winning, and anger against that will be easy to exploit.

Time for nice retirement. Sorry, but he already looks too old, and by the time he takes office he will be 80. We don't need another senile president.

[lunamagica]

109. Is he going to show his full tax returns this time?

Is Jane still looking for them?

[Clarity2]

135. He also voted against russia

sanctions twice.

Everyone forgets.

Just no.

[stonecutter357]

110. lol !

[frogmarch]

116. No Bernie nt

[Civic Justice]

117. Review and Consider

We Need a Winning Democratic Ticket
Review and Consider:

Actually, Bernie split the Democratic vote and did not know how to bring his people to the Democratic Nominees Support.
He wanted to Run on the Democratic Platform, but he did not respect it to the degree that should have been. He missed an opportunity to be and become part of the Clinton Administration, and administration which would have already embraced some of the things Sanders wanted. Which included "education reform to benefit american young people", medical care for the masses, and fair and equitable business dealing by the financial community. It was evident the Democratic Delegates had chosen Hillary, but Sanders got hung up in fantasy thinking, even when he knew which way the delegates were moving to support Hillary. He should have started "enlightening his people, to understand, the fact they could get some of their ideals met within and through the Clinton Administration.
His role was as it resulted to be, should have been one that understood the aim and need to awaken the young people to the political system and ideals of political interest, and to gather those who had for years and decades not been part of the voting public, and the young who are new to the political system. He unfortunately did not understand the value of that role, as being one who brought to the Democratic Nominee those additional numbers. At this time, it should be within his focus to help his followers to become to support the Democratic platform. He should have been more determined to not allow his followers to buy into the "name calling that Trump did" , and not to get hung up in the republican gaming about emails. He should also have made his followers aware that the Benghazi was a pre-scripted smear game set up by Republican, far ahead of the campaign program, because they knew Hillary would run for President. Republican crafted that madness more than 2 yrs or so before the campaigning started, and people fell into that trap.
Sanders role would have been more valuable if he had thought about these things, and moved to make sure his followers understood these elements.

Elizabeth Warren is a viable democratic person, whether she is heading a ticket of being selected as a running mate. Watch the youtube ads this man Tom Steyer has presented to the public; he could likely pair with Warren as a potential Democratic Ticket for President. He has invested much and stands up against the madness of the Trump Administration and Trump as President. The presence he makes to support liberal concerns and values is to be commended, and maybe people should pay attention to the principles he is addressing to american people. We need more Democratic supporters to make more people aware of the message that both Warren and Steyer are promoting.
Sanders could be a good support player to bring his followers for the interest both these individual stand in support of.

The message that Steyer is promoting is where the whole of the democratic party should be aligned. Along with the messages of Warren, who is a devoted supporter of business and financial affairs that benefit the people. She does not pander and become submissive to the Right Republican system and process of seeking out ways to disenfranchise and turn American people into 'indentured servants unto the wealthy". She support a fair system, that puts American people and this American Democracy and its values of full circle equality forefront for All American people.

It's time "now" that we hear their messages and spread their messages, and bring it to those who are not following political reality, that they may become aware, to share with others, which builds and expands the democratic message and its value concerns for the American people.
There should be no doubts in the minds of Democratic people when it comes to the Democratic Message, of "People First", because everything begins with "people"... Business cannot exist without people, therefore people should always be placed before business in the political concerns of this nation.
We have a system of Regulatory Governance, that is the exact same principles that give our currency value, and sustains our Democracy as one where majority rules, to establish what is Regulatory policy.

Trump has no concern for Regulation, he is a self consumed avarice driven wild man, who shoots from the hip and his only concern is "money", and personal publicity, at the expense of the people; he will do anything for the pursuit of money.

We need Democratic people to take back the House and the Senate, this must be the concerns of the people "at this particular time".
We have much to give attentions unto, for example: Even in our Education system, we need means to remove DeVos, as she has no concerns for invigorating the necessity of Civics Education within our School System among the other devastating aims he has to diminish public education and erode the sense of value American have for our public schools. Republican do not want a society that understand the Civics of society, because it means they will become politically aware. therefore, we must be motivated highly to return and expand Civics Education throughout the education process, including within the University sphere.

But our first mission at this time is to rally democrats to the responsibility "TO VOTE", and to gather all who understand and want a democracy that supports the people who make it function, for this nation and its people. To value the great privilege of voting.

We need all our Democratic elected person, across this nation, to "become nationally vocal" and promote the unified message, as to the value of people in American Society.
A value that must always be above the encroachments upon their lives by business and the wealthy who control business; who continue the devastation of our economy for the sake of business profits for a few at the expense and detriment to the people and this nation, its environment and its regulatory system of governance.

At this time we must focus on "Taking the House and Senate, to ensure we can stop Trump from further damaging this nation, its allied relations, its social civility within society, and to stop him from further damaging decades of work which has built up our Organizations, Departments and Divisions of Governance that has proven to be foundational in the stature and stability of America.

[Eyeball_Kid]

124. Please! No!

It’s time to pass the Baton to a younger brood of Democrats. Sanders will be too old, no matter his mental agility. And Warren is also more advanced in her years than her appearance suggests. Let them be elder statesmen in the party or perhaps high level operatives if there’s a relatively rapid leadership. But it’s time for youth.

[SCVDem]

126. No Bernie!

Enough divisiveness!

Do not revisit a losing battle.

I am a 62 yo Dem for life and would not support Bernie.

It's not him as much as the effect he has on our party.

[Honeycombe8]

130. +1. Same here. nt

[jmowreader]

128. Schneiderman-Castro

New York AG Eric Schneiderman plus Obama HUD Secretary Julián Castro.

If you want a woman on the ticket, Tammy Duckworth instead of Julián Castro.

[pecosbob]

129. All I have to offer here is a request

that Dems not engage in ratfucking their own kind this time around...there are plenty of Republicans willing to do that.

[LudwigPastorius]

131. I believe you are overestimating how many...

people would vote for a 79-year-old Presidential candidate.

[Honeycombe8]

132. No way that ticket would even come close to winning. But I know B lovers will continue

with the push, just like Dennis Kacinich supporters did.

Warren is even more of a problem than Bernie.

[Hekate]

134. What is the strategy for 2018?

[LeftInTX]

160. Texas is pretty much wrapped up

Except I'm afraid we're going to nominate a woman who is "not all with it" for governor. She failed to win newspaper endorsements because she had no real policy positions. She forgets and says, "I'm sorry, I'm 70 years old". But she's a Latina lesbian. She got 46% in the primary and headed to a runoff. People voted for her because she's a Latina lesbian. I saw her up close. I saw her debate. She was not articulate. She has the same facial expression that Reagan had when he would zone out.

[Juliusseizure]

139. I guess the poster wants to lose

First, I greatly admire both Sanders and Warren. That's not the point.

When has a liberal EVER won the presidency outside of FDR, who not coincidentally was elected in the Great Depression?

Sanders also Jewish. I'm Jewish. So have no hesitation in pointing out the obvious. After the hatred and division from the culture war with Obama, I don't think the general populace wants to deal with more of that "silent majority" racially tinged animous, with subsequent election of another racist shitbag for for revenge.

For dems to win, and to help unify the country again, we need a male moderate christian caucasian who's relatable to middle America (yes Christian caucasian - that strikes at the heart of GOP strategy).

[Tarheel_Dem]

141. Puh-leeze!

[leftyladyfrommo]

145. Kennedy/Warren. I would love it. nt

[Persondem]

147. No way. Inslee/Castro or Inslee/Kennedy. Time for fresh faces. nt

[Wwcd]

148. NO. Hillary Clinton should claim her rightful place as US President.

No one deserves that title more than her.
She'd see to it that the Russian people would live in a free society again.
And she is owed the right to kick Putin's ass.

Shit from 2016 needs to be made right.

President Hillary Clinton

[treestar]

176. Good point, if Bernie can run again

Then there should be no complaints were Hillary to run again.

[Wwcd]

182. Should be no complaints at all. Btw, Maryland votes to require Pres candidates show TAXES.

Of course it will be challenged by the likes of Trump who have much to hide.

Looks like Hillary would be easily cleared for a Pres run.
1.Taxes are open to scrutiny.
2.All "investigations" have ended in a big fat nothing.
3.Her foreign policy is second to none.
She has the stellar chops to put the dictators in a chokehold of sanctions until they squeal.
And our allies know they can depend on her.

Consider the enormous foreign policy task now facing our next President, America better be putting that skill & experience at the top of the list.

[NBachers]

151. *sigh*

[SHRED]

153. I'd rather an actual Democrat ran instead

[dalton99a]

179. +1

[LiberalFighter]

154. If Sanders is not a Democrat then he should not be allowed in the Dem primaries.

[bermudat]

155. Why all the Bernie posts? this is Democratic Underground for Democrats

Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat and Democratic fortunes
will not be decided by him.

[DFW]

161. Suddenly four of them in a short space of time

Sounds like someone has a small divide-and-conquer shop somewhere.

[smirkymonkey]

165. Yes, funny how they are cropping up all over the place

lately. Hmmm...

[Snotcicles]

175. NDS or BPD

aka... Nader Drive-by Syndrome. aka... Bitter PUMA Disorder.

[SidDithers]

168. ABB...nt

Sid

[eShirl]

169. Why no models with a woman at the top of the ticket?

[stonecutter357]

171. Warren: 'I'm not running for president'

[left-of-center2012]

177. But will not commit to serving out her full six year term as Senator.

"I'm not running for president" wink wink

[DemocratSinceBirth]

172. No.

[dmosh42]

180. I like the Biden-Klobuchar idea, a blend of moderate & progressive.

Actually, I think Amy Klobuchar might rise to the top by 2020. A smart woman politician, who I would take seriously without old baggage.

[MoonRiver]

183. Ridiculous

[redstatebluegirl]

188. No way!!!!!

I love Elizabeth but Bernie....nope. The ads write themselves. We need new blood, young blood who can appeal to the middle of the road people not just the left. You cannot win without getting a big chunk of independents. Please don't even float this boat.

[left-of-center2012]

189. What would Mighty Mouse say?

[DetlefK]

195. Bernie is toxic and Warren has said many times SHE DOESN'T WANT TO RUN.