I don’t think that’s right. The Dems have no choice in the matter.
I thought that the parties have no say in who can run for their nomination? That it’s all governed by state law, and anyone who meets the state’s ballot access law can run for the nomination.
How about a Biden/Pete ticket? Everyone assumes Biden/Abrams or Biden/Harris makes the most sense but Biden already has the African-American vote. If he wants to expand his voting base, I think a Pete or even Warren makes more sense. Biden is strong with working class and African-Americans, he is weaker with the college educated, Pete’s and Liz’s strength.
I think he needs a woman on the ticket. I’ve been thinking a nice unity (moderate/progressive) ticket would be Biden-Warren.
Or if he wants to do a hat-tip to the AA community for bringing his campaign back from the dead, he could do a lot worse than Abrams.
I don’t think Pete would bring enough to the ticket, demographically, geographically, or “lane-wise.”
I dont think another candidate will be chosen, that’s not common.
My Dream team is Biden and Michelle Obama, a sure winner.
But Pete would make a nice young energetic veep fersure.
I support Biden/Pete, definitely bridges the age gap and Pete and Chasten on the campaign trail non stop would be great. And, Pete’s Midwestern.
But the biggest reason is the endorsement press conference. Biden was choking up when he compared Pete to his son Beau.
Look, I know I’m biased as hell because of my Pete support. But, I’ve been around politics a while and it isn’t usual for a former VP to compare someone to his deceased son which was the reason Biden didn’t run in 2016.
This is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. And, as a one liner, it suggests you don’t have a counterargument. One liners do not contribute to any debate. It is very unlikely they can refute a long argument. It’s one of the more annoying things on this board that people think they do.
“No one likes Bernie Bros” is a true statement, but only because “Bernie Bro” is defined as “bad people who support Bernie Sanders for president.” The Bro part is meant to evoke the idea of bro-culture, despite it not applying to the majority of his supporters.
The reality is that people don’t have much of a problem with Bernie supporters, as evidenced by the fact that so many people support him. You can’t have a problem with over a quarter of the electorate. They can’t just be one type of person.
I’m not a Bernie fan. I’m also, however, not a Biden fan, as I think his gropey shit could be just as damaging as Bernie’s socialist shit. I think there are more people who can’t see the difference between Biden and Trump than there are people who can’t tell the difference between Bernie and Trump. I notice that, somehow, Bernie actually has conservative people who like him, suggesting that the conventional wisdom about needing to stay in the center may not be true.
And I do see how all the people going after Bernie and his supporters makes it seem like the elections aren’t being held fairly, when even the media itself is freaking out about the possibility of a Sanders nomination. It’s not about people thinking it must be rigged, as it is about how prominent Democrats are reacting to the possibility of a Sanders win.
If you don’t want them to think this way, then you need to stop going after them. The way you make things seem fair is that you do the fair handshake and say “may the best candidate win,” not attacking people who support the candidate you don’t like.
What is bro-culture?
As far as I can tell, a Bernie Bro is just any male who is an outspoken supporter of Sanders and outspoken critic of the other candidates. (And why the need for a gendered term of abuse against Sanders supporters?) It’s a stupid buzzword.
I wasn’t sure who was endorsing whom!
as far as vp for biden klobuchar would be a good pick or Duckworth. pull in the Midwest.
I sometimes use it as shorthand for “someone who won’t vote for the Dem nominee in November unless it’s Sanders (or maybe Warren),” but you’re right, it’s not an ideal term for that. “Bernie or Bust voter” is more apt.
But what about those who, in addition, will actively try to convince others that the non-Sanders dem nominee isn’t worth voting for in November? That’s more than just “Bernie or bust.” That’s more what some use the “bro” term to convey. Still problematic, I agree (in part for the gendered issue).
Alleging a vast conspiracy means that is precisely what he said. Not a misrepresentation at all.
Amen to that. I’m a Sanders supporter, and I think that the party leadership absolutely put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Clinton in 2016, and I think that doing so was a tactical blunder… but I don’t think there was anything improper or unethical about it. Of course they’re biased; they’re a political party. Bias is what a political party is all about. And if they have by-laws that say they’re not supposed to be biased, then those are stupid by-laws that should be discarded.
I’m thinking that would mean the median Dem voter would be for Warren. 
Unbelievable. “If” they have those bylaws? Yes, as you’ve been told a thousand times, they do have those bylaws. And if Democrats wanted to get rid of them, they’d vote to change them. They wouldn’t just follow the whim of an amnesiac internet poster.
Yes, I know they have those bylaws. “If” does not necessarily imply ignorance.
You have displayed that precise ignorance many times.
The fact is, there doesn’t seem much of a push to remove the neutrality of the DNC between candidates. Probably because that would look really horrible. So you should stop making arguments based on pretending that rule doesn’t exist.
As established in the bernie-supporters vs dnc lawsuits, the dnc is extremely aware that there is no one holding them to any standard but themselves. The by-laws are unenforceable at best and the legitimacy of the parties is on the honor system. If, say, Hillary went to the head of the dnc and told him to step down and let one of her creatures in and in exchange he’d be the vp pick, then that creature “mishandled” the role, there wouldn’t be anything illegal or rule-breaking about it. Ethical=/=legal and vice versa
Getting back to the thread topic, it’s quite clear how Pete won IA and tied in NH. The Biden campaign doesn’t seem to have any of the digital or grassroots outreach that helped Pete. Most of us former Pete people are chomping at the bit to get started text banking, phone banking, canvassing and spreading the Biden message on social media, that seems to be a severely limited strategy so far with Biden.
Just wait until Joe sees what #TeamPete can do to help , there’s a reason an unknown candidate won the Iowa caucuses!
Yes, they fed Clinton the questions for one debate.
I doubt if that made a difference.
++
Right there with ya’!
Note that this time, Bernie has a good number of Super-delegates behind him.
However, his crusade against them could hurt him: