Biden/Buttigieg ticket

[hollodero]

Just a quick question. All the other democrats want to stop Bernie, and it is said the moderates cost each other. Isn't the only possibility to create a counterweight to Bernie an announcement of Joe Biden that he will serve just one term and Buttigieg will be his running mate? Wouldn't that make a lot of sense.

I am aware that in the US, a running mate is usually announced way later, after the primaries. But that's not law. Those two could come out today and announce their shared ticket. And there would be one viable alternative to Bernie, instead of zero as it stands now.

And Pete could run again in four years, as VP and in an age that is a tad more appropriate for a presidency.

Now please educate me on how this is an awful idea :)

[BmorePat87]

Too white. Too male.

As a Buttigieg supporter, I don’t want him to be anyone’s VP because everyone left is white.

The ticket needs to represent the diversity of the party because representation in politics is crucial.

If Buttigieg is the nominee, I’d hope for a woman of color who can represent one of the coasts.

[hollodero]

(02-27-2020, 06:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Too white. Too male.

I get why this is a criteria, I get the intention, I just think it isn't the main consideration in the current circumstances. One could always see things in different perspectives; I get those that speak for it, but one of the perspectives would be the white people fight out who's boss, and then some non-white person is granted the mercy of standing for diversity as VP. Handing out a VP post as some kind of affirmative action has a tone of figleafing deeper issues, doesn't it?

And I'm not so sure about the message. Raciually sensitive folks don't need one. And less racially sensitive folks might then claim "oh that person's just VP because she's an african-american women". And factually, this would be correct.

(02-27-2020, 06:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As a Buttigieg supporter, I don’t want him to be anyone’s VP because everyone left is white.

The ticket needs to represent the diversity of the party because representation in politics is crucial.

If Buttigieg is the nominee, I’d hope for a woman of color who can represent one of the coasts.

But this hope does not seem quite realistic, does it. It's probably Bernie at this point. And if it's not, it's probably Biden with his support from the black community. Pete does well and all, but all indications are he won't be the nominee. His numbers in black and latino communities are too abysmal.
4 years as VP, which also seems more age appropriate, could possibly change that. Several months of campaigning could not. To me, VP seems the most logical career step Pete could make right now.

-- All just thoughts, of course. I myself have only two criteria, beat Trump and believe in climate change. I have doubts regarding the former if it's Bernie; I think my ticket would stand a better chance and that all other considerations are already moot.

[Yojimbo]

One thing to consider is how many Biden supporters don’t like Pete and vice versa, that could lead to both losing support.

[hollodero]

(02-27-2020, 08:11 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: One thing to consider is how many Biden supporters don’t like Pete and vice versa, that could lead to both losing support.

I doubt this dislike goes that far. Like Biden people saying no when Pete's VP, I rather stay home or go Trump. Or Pete folks that could not live with a VP Pete under Biden. I mean, maybe the trenches are that extreme, but I wouldn't think so.


--- My biggest worry, btw., is that Hunter Biden messed it up for his dad.

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2020, 08:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get why this is a criteria, I get the intention, I just think it isn't the main consideration in the current circumstances. One could always see things in different perspectives; I get those that speak for it, but one of the perspectives would be the white people fight out who's boss, and then some non-white person is granted the mercy of standing for diversity as VP. Handing out a VP post as some kind of affirmative action has a tone of figleafing deeper issues, doesn't it?

And I'm not so sure about the message. Raciually sensitive folks don't need one. And less racially sensitive folks might then claim "oh that person's just VP because she's an african-american women". And factually, this would be correct.



But this hope does not seem quite realistic, does it. It's probably Bernie at this point. And if it's not, it's probably Biden with his support from the black community. Pete does well and all, but all indications are he won't be the nominee. His numbers in black and latino communities are too abysmal.
4 years as VP, which also seems more age appropriate, could possibly change that. Several months of campaigning could not. To me, VP seems the most logical career step Pete could make right now.

-- All just thoughts, of course. I myself have only two criteria, beat Trump and believe in climate change. I have doubts regarding the former if it's Bernie; I think my ticket would stand a better chance and that all other considerations are already moot.

There are a number of tremendous candidates of color whose campaigns failed because they couldn't get the funding. Yes, I want a person of color because I value it, but I also don't want it given to just anyone. The fact that they are of color is an added qualification, and not an empty one. 

It's very rare in recent years for the VP to have been a major primary challenger. Biden dropped out immediately after the first state in 2008.  George H W Bush was a major challenger in 1980. In 1960 LBJ wasn't on any ballots but had a minor campaign to garner delegates at the convention. I just don't see any of the current candidates teaming up. Biden is more likely to extend a cabinet level position to Buttigieg. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2020, 08:11 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: One thing to consider is how many Biden supporters don’t like Pete and vice versa, that could lead to both losing support.

(02-27-2020, 08:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: I doubt this dislike goes that far. Like Biden people saying no when Pete's VP, I rather stay home or go Trump. Or Pete folks that could not live with a VP Pete under Biden. I mean, maybe the trenches are that extreme, but I wouldn't think so.


--- My biggest worry, btw., is that Hunter Biden messed it up for his dad.

Having browsed various online forums and talked with people at events, there's not really any animosity between any of the campaign outside of Sanders. Warren and Biden are frequently the top 2nd choice for Buttigieg supporters, as seen in multiple unscientific polls on a 12k member facebook group lol.

[Belsnickel]

To comment a little further on what Pat said, because I agree, is that the big problem for Clinton was that she didn't excite the voters and so Democratic turnout was low. A Joe/Pete ticket would have the same effect.

[hollodero]

(02-27-2020, 08:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There are a number of tremendous candidates of color whose campaigns failed because they couldn't get the funding. Yes, I want a person of color because I value it, but I also don't want it given to just anyone. The fact that they are of color is an added qualification, and not an empty one. 

I hope I did not come across as too ignorant... I understand why you want that, and (as far as I can as a foreigner) I share the sentiment.
I do, however, argue that a Pete + woman of color-ticket won't happen. For a nominee Pete won't happen. In this circumstances, it's likely Bernie, and if all the more moderates stay in the race this will be the outcome.
I don't know how all states handle their primaries, but in California, I learned, there's a 15% hurdle to gain any delegates. It might as well happen that most or even all moderates stay below that and Bernie runs away with all the delegates from there. And if one tops the 15%, Bernie still will run away with most.

Which imho can only be avoided if moderates drop out - or team up. I see no third path. I understand that the teaming up option is deeply unconventional. Doesn't mean it can't be done.

Now that sure is not a success story, but didn't Cruz + Fiorina try something like that last time?

(02-27-2020, 08:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Biden is more likely to extend a cabinet level position to Buttigieg. 

To unnecessarily enhance my point once more: If both stay in the race, the only likely thing seems that neither Pete nor Biden hand any position to anyone, for Bernie will be the nominee. That's the basis for all of my words.

One last point, a black or latino VP could be a nice signal for diversity, but a gay VP isn't too shabby a signal either.

[hollodero]

(02-27-2020, 08:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To comment a little further on what Pat said, because I agree, is that the big problem for Clinton was that she didn't excite the voters and so Democratic turnout was low. A Joe/Pete ticket would have the same effect.

That seems to be a perfectly valid point.

Just - the alternative is Bernie. Who might excite voters, but also turn those conservatives in the suburbs away. I'd figure this effect might very well cancel out the mobilization effect. you would know more about that than me though.

As for excitement and mobilization, one could argue that Trump does enough work in that regard. Even if one does not get excited about Biden, when Trump's the alternative, wouldn't many still vote for him anyways?
(And I know Clinton ran against Trump as well - but I'd figure many still thought of Trump as maybe being not that awful or growing with the job.)

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2020, 08:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: I hope I did not come across as too ignorant... I understand why you want that, and (as far as I can as a foreigner) I share the sentiment.
I do, however, argue that a Pete + woman of color-ticket won't happen. For a nominee Pete won't happen. In this circumstances, it's likely Bernie, and if all the more moderates stay in the race this will be the outcome.
I don't know how all states handle their primaries, but in California, I learned, there's a 15% hurdle to gain any delegates. It might as well happen that most or even all moderates stay below that and Bernie runs away with all the delegates from there. And if one tops the 15%, Bernie still will run away with most.

Which imho can only be avoided if moderates drop out - or team up. I see no third path. I understand that the teaming up option is deeply unconventional. Doesn't mean it can't be done.

Now that sure is not a success story, but didn't Cruz + Fiorina try something like that last time?



To unnecessarily enhance my point once more: If both stay in the race, the only likely thing seems that neither Pete nor Biden hand any position to anyone, for Bernie will be the nominee. That's the basis for all of my words.

One last point, a black or latino VP could be a nice signal for diversity, but a gay VP isn't too shabby a signal either.

The big difference between the GOP primary and DNC primary is that the DNC assigns delegates proportionally. At the current rate, Bernie won't have a majority of delegates, which means that delegates can vote for whoever they want in the 2nd round of voting. You'll likely see some sort of moderate compromise here, and that's the Buttigieg strategy. I think Biden is the more likely option, but Pete is a strong one.

Unless Bernie broadens his base, he won't be able to secure a majority. 

[hollodero]

(02-27-2020, 08:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The big difference between the GOP primary and DNC primary is that the DNC assigns delegates proportionally. At the current rate, Bernie won't have a majority of delegates, which means that delegates can vote for whoever they want in the 2nd round of voting. You'll likely see some sort of moderate compromise here, and that's the Buttigieg strategy. I think Biden is the more likely option, but Pete is a strong one.

Unless Bernie broadens his base, he won't be able to secure a majority. 

Poah, that seems like an awful strategy. I say that because that would severely piss off all Bernie supporters. I'd guess many would not vote for the person that screwed Bernie out of the nomination despite having way less delegates.

Really, that seems like a dream scenario for Trump.

In this scenario, if teaming up anyway in the end is the plan, then playing it straight from the start and going for a shared ticket right away would be way more honest.

[Belsnickel]

(02-27-2020, 08:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: That seems to be a perfectly valid point.

Just - the alternative is Bernie. Who might excite voters, but also turn those conservatives in the suburbs away. I'd figure this effect might very well cancel out the mobilization effect. you would know more about that than me though.

As for excitement and mobilization, one could argue that Trump does enough work in that regard. Even if one does not get excited about Biden, when Trump's the alternative, wouldn't many still vote for him anyways?
(And I know Clinton ran against Trump as well - but I'd figure many still thought of Trump as maybe being not that awful or growing with the job.)

Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country. This is why Democrats focus so much on getting voters out to the polls and Republicans try to suppress the vote. The idea that Democrats need to court the moderate Republican vote to win is fallacious for this reason. If you have a Democratic candidate that excites the Democratic base enough, then the moderate Republicans aren't needed.

[hollodero]

(02-27-2020, 09:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country. This is why Democrats focus so much on getting voters out to the polls and Republicans try to suppress the vote. The idea that Democrats need to court the moderate Republican vote to win is fallacious for this reason. If you have a Democratic candidate that excites the Democratic base enough, then the moderate Republicans aren't needed.

That makes sense. I just want to add that outnumbering Republicans in the country does not seem to be the only decisive factor. My question would be whether Democrats also outnumber Republicans in the few swing states that actually decide the election.

Winning the popular vote while losing in states like Ohio, where moderate Republicans could be had, seems like a clear danger for a candidate that excites the base, but does not broaden it. Or isn't it. You still would know way more about these things than I.

[Dill]

(02-27-2020, 03:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Just a quick question. All the other democrats want to stop Bernie, and it is said the moderates cost each other. Isn't the only possibility to create a counterweight to Bernie an announcement of Joe Biden that he will serve just one term and Buttigieg will be his running mate? Wouldn't that make a lot of sense.

Now please educate me on how this is an awful idea :)

One more point--Black voters are at the moment expected to turn out for Biden in good numbers. If he carries it in SC, that will likely continue. That is his edge over every other candidate.

But not with Buttigieg as VP.  There is a risk he might cancel a significant fraction of the black vote for Biden.

[hollodero]

(02-27-2020, 11:49 PM)Dill Wrote: One more point--Black voters are at the moment expected to turn out for Biden in good numbers. If he carries it in SC, that will likely continue. That is his edge over every other candidate.

But not with Buttigieg as VP.  There is a risk he might cancel a significant fraction of the black vote for Biden.

I don't know. The black vote might not be in favor of Pete, but do they really dislike him that much? I mean, these are people who are largely with Biden to begin with. Meaning, they seem pragmatic to me, I can't quite imagine a VP Pete would really make them flee in numbers. (I do have zero insight and a very shallow view on that for sure. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.)

But even if it cost him some with the black vote - on the plus side for Biden, he'd have Pete off the ballot. And at least some Pete supporters outright switching over. This all in all hardly could amount to a net negative for Biden.

- Also, bigger picture of course, if the not-Sanderses all stay in the race, then no edge with the black vote for Biden will matter and Bernie will get the most delegates by far. Possibly not as much as he needs though. And to seriouly consider just horsetrading delegates to a way weaker candidate then on a murderous "contested convention" seems disastrous strategy. If one wants a viable more moderate candidate, then the herd needs some serious thinning now, after the next vote the latest, before half the country votes. Amy and Steyer won't be sufficient. Is any of that illogical or untrue.

[BmorePat87]

(02-28-2020, 12:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know. The black vote might not be in favor of Pete, but do they really dislike him that much? I mean, these are people who are largely with Biden to begin with. Meaning, they seem pragmatic to me, I can't quite imagine a VP Pete would really make them flee in numbers. (I do have zero insight and a very shallow view on that for sure. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.)

I think it's more that, in general, black voters tend to be hesitant to support unknown politicians, especially at a national level. When your community is often victimize by politicians, you don't give that trust out too readily. Biden is a trusted candidate and Bernie is getting there too. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2020, 08:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: Poah, that seems like an awful strategy. I say that because that would severely piss off all Bernie supporters. I'd guess many would not vote for the person that screwed Bernie out of the nomination despite having way less delegates.

Really, that seems like a dream scenario for Trump.

In this scenario, if teaming up anyway in the end is the plan, then playing it straight from the start and going for a shared ticket right away would be way more honest.

It would piss off Bernie supporters but you have to ask:

Do we want a Democratic Socialist who isn't a member of our party and hasn't garnered more than 40% or do we want a candidate that the moderate majority can be comfortable voting for?

If you go with Bernie, you have to hope the moderates complete dislike of Trump gets them to hold their nose and support Bernie. 

[hollodero]

(02-28-2020, 01:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It would piss off Bernie supporters but you have to ask:

Do we want a Democratic Socialist who isn't a member of our party and hasn't garnered more than 40% or do we want a candidate that the moderate majority can be comfortable voting for?

If you go with Bernie, you have to hope the moderates complete dislike of Trump gets them to hold their nose and support Bernie. 

I get the conundrum. I do. But yeah, those 30-40% Bernie supporters will indeed be sooo pissed if the moderates just pile up their delegates to beat him at the convention. And this is not a minor issue. Will they really just shrug it off and all vote for that establishment figure that robbed Bernie of his nomination? After they already percieved said robbery four years ago?
Sure, if they were pragmatic they probably should, but I doubt most would be. Many of those Bernie supporters don't strike me as the type. This, as I said, appears to be a dream scenario for Trump. Facing a weak candidate from a divided party.

And this is actually what I'd say one really has to ask. What is the best way forward to beat Trump. This contested convention route, I dare to reach that conclusion, most definitely is not. If there are still 7 or so serious candidates going into that super tuesday madness, then it's in all likelihood either Bernie or a really bad alternative scenario. No good one left.

[BmorePat87]

(02-28-2020, 02:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: I get the conundrum. I do. But yeah, those 30-40% Bernie supporters will indeed be sooo pissed if the moderates just pile up their delegates to beat him at the convention. And this is not a minor issue. Will they really just shrug it off and all vote for that establishment figure that robbed Bernie of his nomination? After they already percieved said robbery four years ago?
Sure, if they were pragmatic they probably should, but I doubt most would be. Many of those Bernie supporters don't strike me as the type. This, as I said, appears to be a dream scenario for Trump. Facing a weak candidate from a divided party.

And this is actually what I'd say one really has to ask. What is the best way forward to beat Trump. This contested convention route, I dare to reach that conclusion, most definitely is not. If there are still 7 or so serious candidates going into that super tuesday madness, then it's in all likelihood either Bernie or a really bad alternative scenario. No good one left.

I definitely think we will see less candidates in 2 weeks, which will bring more clarity to this.