Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Joe Biden recently said he would consider choosing a Republican as a running mate under what he would call a “unity ticket.” 

      Personally, I think such a move could work depending on who he would choose. I think John Kasich is a Republican that could get the kind of crossover votes that Biden is seeking. At the same time, such a move would alienate more progressive members in the Democratic Party and could get some to either not vote in 2020 or write in a more progressive candidate like Bernie Sanders. My youngest brother, who is in that progressive camp, told me today that he would consider such a route. That is, not voting for Biden and instead writing in Bernie. Such a move would no doubt be risky, but I do think it’s possible for Biden to thread the needle with this. 

      That is of course if he is serious about it. I personally think it’s much more likely Biden chooses a Democratic nominee, one who is more centrist and in line with his vision. I’m not saying Biden is being disingenuous, but we have a lot of time until the primary and if he is the eventual nominee, I have a hard time seeing him follow through on this proposal. 

      Anyways, I am curious to get some thoughts on whether or not you think Biden is seriously considering such a move and whether or not such a move would work. I could see this going either way. Depending of course on what Republican he would choose. 

      (Image credit: Reuters)

    • It makes perfect sense for Biden to say that, but let’s be clear what he said when asked if he would consider a Republican as a running mate.

      "The answer is I would, but I can't think of one now," Biden replied. "Let me explain that. You know there's some really decent Republicans that are out there still, but here's the problem right now ... they've got to step up."

      From a political strategy standpoint, it’s a great way to reframe the conversation to “when he is the Democratic nominee” not if.

      It also increases the news media’s myth that Biden will win over moderate Republicans who are fed up with Trump. It’s a myth, because there’s been zero polling or other evidence that shows this to be true.

      By contrast, there is data showing that a significant portion of Bernie Sanders’s supporters in 2016 DID end up voting for Trump. Meaning that Sanders was able to win over Republican voters in that election. The moderate Democrats spin has been that Sanders’ Progressive supporters voted for Trump instead of Hillary, but that makes zero sense to me.

      So it’s a brilliant move by the Biden campaign. Now people are debating if his running mate should be a red state Democrat like Senator Joe Manchin.

      It changes the focus of the news media conversation: it assumes when Biden wins the nomination.

    • If Biden does get the nomination, it will be interesting to see what direction he goes. Red state Democrat/Republican or a progressive Democrat. He will need to decide which two groups are more likely to crossover to vote for him and his VP choice. As I said on the outset of this thread, he can’t make everyone happy.

    • It definitely creates the expectation that he’s gonna walk out of this race as the winner of the Democratic ticket.

      See, you’re now talking about his nomination as a given. 😉

      He tried this same gambit nine months ago when his campaign leaked that Stacy Abrams was the front runner for his VP choice. It completely backfired when she politely said to the effect “Fuck, no” with her

      I’d be open to VP consideration ‘by any nominee’ remark. (Politico)

      Imagine if it was leaked that Governor Kasich told him “Fuck, no.” There goes the unity ticket and any hope of getting all those Moderate Republican voters who supposedly will vote for Biden.

      There was an interesting CNN town hall with Sanders and Kasich and someone asked if they’d share a ticket for President. It’s not out of the realm of possibility in this political climate. (Curious as to what @lidja @Chris and @Apocryphal have to say about all that we’ve discussed so far.)

    • I got sucked into a heated discussion with a beloved family member last weekend, and I really regret it now, so I am reticent to step in here with much. 🥴 Here’s what’s rolling around in my head, though...

      I think Joe genuinely wants to see the return of civility and constructive collaboration. Would this idea do it?

      If we have two leaders of opposing parties who model civility and constructive collaboration as a key part of their shared leadership (instead of the bullying, name-calling, and dishonesty that is being modeled currently), it might calm partisans down a bit and help politicians extol better values again. Maybe.

      Could the media settle back down after four years of this intensity? That may be the bigger question, as media extremists could wreak havoc even if the leaders are committed to reason and compromise.

      I’m not sure we can ever go back to what Joe wistfully remembers of his days in Congress and the White House.

      There has been a seismic shift in how iGen perceives the world and interacts in it. Frenetic social media and digital overload is what they know. I doubt that will change much in the foreseeable future. The old way of “steady as she goes” may be history.

    • I know that this conversation started out being about Joe Biden but I've got to make a comment about what Lidja wrote about the News Media.

      Do you know why Orson Welles made Citizen Kane?

      Do you know why the term "muckraker" was created?

      Have you ever read Allen Drury's series of Novels which started with Advise and Consent and ended with two novels providing two different endings to the series?

      Do you know where the phrase "Nattering Nabobs of Negativity" came from?

      Anyone who has the idea that there once was a day when the News Media was impartial and steady has never studied the history of American political reporting. Prior to Donald Trump's candidacy I had developed hope that the Washington Post had changed its policies after Bezos purchased it because the articles and editorials it featured at first were pretty even-handed in dealing with both sides of the political spectrum. But, then Trump threw a monkey wrench into the mix and everything went haywire.

      But even if Trump is defeated next year, don't expect the News Media to be unbiased. This very day because the supporters of the Iranian backed militia known as "Kata'ib Hezbollah" carried coffins while they marched across the bridge into the "Green Zone" the NYT referred to them as "Mourners."

      Why did they go across the bridge into the Green Zone? If they had been mourners they would not have entered the Green Zone. they were protestors from the very beginning. There's no way to currently know if they had originally intended to physically attack the embassy prior to their arrival at the embassy but their reasons for crossing into the Green Zone seem to be obvious. (I could be missing something, but I doubt it.)

    • Just wanted to say how awesome it is that this spirited discussion is occurring in such a respectful manner. I’m looking forward to learning from everyone involved as well as for the opportunity to continue to share my opinions, which may not always agree with everyone else’s.

    • @Shewmaker—you have shared some clear observations. I happen to agree with some of them.

      One of the things that makes me a little crazy lately is how many politicians invoke the “but they have messed with our elections!” accusations as if this is absolutely beyond belief.

      Excuse me, but EVERYONE messes with elections in countries other than their own - sometimes on the up-and-up as in endorsing certain candidates, and sometimes in much more covert ways. (Even including assasination! 😵)

      It’s just that now, that kind of influence can be much more widespread than ever before. In countries that pretend to have free elections, there isn’t much that outsiders can do to sway the outcome using technology, but in countries that protect free elections, all sorts of harm can be done by outsiders now.

    • I’m not sure what you’d like to hear from me. This thread is deeper than I usually go into US politics, being a Canadian. I expect that, like most non-US members of Cake, I rather hope that you won’t elect an obvious liar this time. But I don’t feel confortable saying even that, because we elected an obvious liar in my district two years ago, and people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    • I cried in — of all places — the children's library when I took the girls there. Among the wonderful, happy books on display was this one, face out:

      It was just 3 years ago when we had a gracious couple in the White House, like George H.W. & Barbara Bush were. Yes, some media went after them, like when Bush threw up because he attended a dinner in Japan when sick, or when Obama wore a tan suit like Reagan did.

      I don't blame the media any more than I blame the food companies for making Coke; it's the consumers. Fox is popular because they give older white males what they want.

      We Americans can sometimes support things in the moment, then look back and wonder what we were thinking. Here's to hoping we do that and at least the White House gets a gracious couple in the future.

    • One of the things that makes me a little crazy lately is how many politicians invoke the “but they have messed with our elections!” accusations as if this is absolutely beyond belief.

      Excuse me, but EVERYONE messes with elections in countries other than their own - sometimes on the up-and-up as in endorsing certain candidates, and sometimes in much more covert ways. (Even including assasination! 😵)

      My understanding is that the CIA has supported the toppling of legitimately elected governments in order to install dictators who were pro-US. The US Military have also trained the military of these dictators, increasing their hold on power.

      However, when Russia is successful in influencing our elections, I do want our politicians to cry “foul” and to follow through with actions to prevent reoccurrence.

    • There was an interesting CNN town hall with Sanders and Kasich and someone asked if they’d share a ticket for President. It’s not out of the realm of possibility in this political climate.

      This was just shared on social media by Bernie Sanders’s speech writer 👇

    • Biden has never attempted to run as a socialist of socialists. Sanders has always run as a socialist idealist.

      There are some republicans that are not as strongly against socialism as others but even those who are closer to the Democrats than to the other wing of the GOP would be incompatible with Sanders.

      If Sanders had said that he would be willing to consider a GOP running mate, jaws would have hit the floor. Biden saying that is not surprising because he wants to be a moderate candidate.

    • Well, this does seem to illustrate the battle going on in the Democratic Party right now. It’s the moderates that feel the party is going too far left and the progressives that feel going more left is what’s needed to make real change. I think Trump being the opponent and the stakes being so high to get him out will make more voters go to the center to elect a more “safe” candidate, but we shall see...

    • I think Trump being the opponent and the stakes being so high to get him out will make more voters go to the center to elect a more “safe” candidate, but we shall see...

      Define “safe”.

      A few facts to consider, pulled from social media with sources listed as appropriate:

      Bernie has run 11 federal races, flipping a GOP House & GOP Senate seat & won 1,865 presidential primary delegates, which means he isnt vetted.

      Biden got blasted out of 2 past presidential campaigns without winning a single delegate, which means he’s the “safe bet.”

      Bernie Sanders raised 40% more than Pete Buttigieg during the fourth quarter without hosting a single big-donor fundraiser.

      JOE BIDEN: “When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare & Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits....And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a 3rd time & I tried it a 4th time.” (Source: congress.gov )

      Bernie Sanders just introduced a proposal for a Social Security Expansion Act.

      Over 20% of Sanders supporters in 2016 were people who voted for Trump, so Sanders has a record of getting Republicans to support him.

      This feels like 2016 again where the pundits were convinced that Hillary was a “safe” bet.

      We shall see. 😉

    • By "safe" I just mean one who everyone thinks is more likely to beat Trump. But as we saw in 2016, the "safe" candidate Hilllary Clinton lost, so maybe the Democrats shouldn't go with who they think is the most "safe."

    • By "safe" I just mean one who everyone thinks is more likely to beat Trump.

      Who is “everyone”?

      Quinnipiac poll from early October has a three way tie with Sanders and Warren:

      Biden is shown beating Trump by a margin of 51 to 40 percent, Sanders tops Trump at 49 to 42 percentage points and Warren would win against Trump by 49 to 41 percent. The Quinnipiac poll has a +/- 3.1 percentage point margin of error. (Newsweek)

      New York Times poll from November puts Biden even with Trump. Interestingly, to the belief that Biden will convert Trump voters the poll noted that

      Nearly two-thirds of the Trump voters who said they voted for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 say that they’ll back the president against all three named opponents. (New York Times)

      USA Today poll from December actually has Trump beating Biden: “The survey shows Trump beating former Vice President Joe Biden by about 3 percentage points.” (Fortune)

    • I think Trump being the opponent and the stakes being so high to get him out will make more voters go to the center to elect a more “safe” candidate.

      By "safe" I just mean one who everyone thinks is more likely to beat Trump.

      The way Biden is billing himself is as the one who can beat Trump. Maybe the polling doesn’t indicate that’s as much the case as he wants us to believe.

      It appears that you’ve gone from saying that voters feel Biden is the safe choice to now saying that voters do not feel Biden is the safe choice.

      Curious as to how you came to your original conclusion.

      Do you think it was from something you read in the political emails you get from the Biden campaign?


      Or from Russian bots on Twitter?

      I’m genuinely curious whether the news media, a political campaign email, or social media influenced your perceptions on Biden being the safe bet to beat Trump; when the actual poll data shows that Biden went from tying with Sanders and Warren, in beating Trump by at least 10 points in early October, to losing to Trump by 3 points in late December.

    • I had to hide my surprise when I got a little dose of reality today listening to some financial advisors saying institutions have already assumed the Senate trial will be a big zero, and that Trump will be re-elected - and have factored that into their financial projections for the upcoming year...
      😵

    • New CBS/YouGov Poll has Sanders ahead of Biden in New Hampshire. This represents a +7 points improvement for Sanders compared to the previous poll. He is also tied with Biden in Iowa.

      This video 👇 circulating on social media isn’t helping Biden’s cause as a “moderate.”

      Especially when Paul Ryan’s fiscal policy, implemented with the 2018 $2 trillion tax cuts, is to starve revenues and increase military spending beyond what is required; and then use the resulting deficit as an excuse to cut Social Security and other liberal government programs.

    • If you’re a polling junkie, you might find Real Clear Politics to be a good curator of recent political polls: you learn that you should never rely on one poll to determine your assessment of who the front runner is. In the most recent Harvard-Harris Poll, for example, Biden is ahead of the competition by over 10 points. Polls typically have a statistical margin of error of +/- 3 points so a 10 point lead is significant. Other polls listed have Biden in third place (see photo). But look at the point difference between Buttigieg and Biden: it’s less than the 3 points margin of error, which means I wouldn’t put much faith in Biden’s third place status or Sanders’s first place status for this poll.

      Numbers can be deceiving.