What is the Optimal Democrat Ticket?

Yeah, but he can pick an honest, popular moderate. He’s just got no reason to pick a candidate who he can’t trust to tell the truth, who will add drama to his ticket, plus Bill hollering in his ear trying to tell him how to run his campaign. There’s a reason Obama picked Biden instead of Clinton. Sanders will approach the VP slot the same way.

Kerry/Edwards proved to be a big mistake, and it took Kerry only months after the election to say it was a mistake. Picking your primary competitor might be popular with the base in the short term, but there are practical reasons why it doesn’t work very well.

What makes you think Sanders doesn’t want Bill hollering in his ear about how to run a campaign? Sanders’ strength is clearly not campaign strategy.

Listening to Bill means bringing in an army of consultants and strategists to handle Sanders until he’s a sock puppet like Hillary. Bill was talented enough to read his lines and make it sound like himself. Clinton and Sanders are not that talented. The difference is that Sanders knows it, or at least trusts that the voters will appreciate someone awkward yet authentic. Adding Clinton to the ticket would ruin Sanders. He’ll want someone like Warren, and if he can’t get Warren he can get someone like Cory Booker or even go down in the field like Obama did and pick O’Malley.

You are assuming too much. Listening to Bill means what Sanders wants it to mean, if he’s the candidate. And I expect that means adopting the Clintons’ field operations, and leaving the rest.

Not. Gonna. Happen. I’d bet almost any amount of money that Clinton and Sanders will not be on the same ticket.

Not a bold prediction there, but a prediction nonetheless. Log it.

You don’t think Clinton would take Sanders and his Paul-esque legions of young, active voters along for the ride? He’d be the perfect VP.

And it’s that Clinton will not play second banana to anyone. SoS was a good fit for her - a lot of autonomy and influence and a chance to make her mark. In many respects VP is a less significant position.

And Clinton certainly isn’t going to play second banana to Bernie. It’s the top job or she’s going home.

Clinton keeps loyalists around her. There are tons of well qualified candidates who have been long time supporters of hers, and more importantly, can succeed her as President. Sanders cannot. He’ll be in his 80s.

You are underestimating the number of people who are practically frothing at the mouth to vote for Hillary Clinton and the people who, while I wouldn’t say they are rabid in their devotion the way Hillary’s supporters are, truly believe Sanders is representing the people - not the corporations, not big money, but the American people - and are itching to vote for the man because of it. These are not small numbers of people, and neither candidate will have another shot at president after this. I think Sanders really just wants to make a difference and will gladly do so as VP if he can’t be president. I think Hillary wants to be president but also wants her name in the history books and will take VP if she doesn’t have the option to be president. And if they work together they could potentially get the largest number of registered democrats to the polls that we have ever seen. They would be stupid not to work together on this one.

The only problem with that theory is that if they unite on one ticket they won’t win. Sanders would be better off with Warren and Clinton would be better off with someone she’s personally comfortable with, like Terry Mac or Tom Vilsack. Each candidate’s likely respective choice also reinforces their message. YOu balance a ticket for ideological or regional considerations, not to add negatives that aren’t already a problem. Sanders/Warren is a populist left ticket. Clinton/Vilsack is a competence and experience ticket. Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton is just far left without authenticity and with Wall Street baggage.

Besides, if Sanders won and was able to land Warren, 90% of Democrats would go “Hillary who?” Warren’s the one most Democrats really want these days.

this probably means nothing, especially since we’re talking about Clinton, but she said she’s not interested in being VP:

Of course, they all say that, and with Clinton you always have to read her words like a lawyer would. So her “no” may very well mean yes.

Am I talking to myself here?

“Clinton says she doesn’t eat kittens but with Clinton you always have to read her words like a lawyer would, so it may very well mean that she eats puppies.”

I’ve stated previously that Jim Webb is my favorite candidate. He’s got diverse experience, cross-aisle appeal, he’s a decorated combat vet who almost certainly couldn’t be swiftboated, and he’s not the least bit afraid to buck the trends of popular thinking. Problem is, his campaign simply hasn’t been able to get any traction.

I’ve also become fond of Joe Biden for most of the reasons given here. So, my dream ticket would be Biden/Webb. Biden the wise elder statesman, Webb the tough vigorous up-and comer, eminently qualified to step up to the plate should Biden’s health fail or should he retire after a single term.

Webb is my least favorite Democratic candidate – chiefly because he opposes the Iran nuclear deal (which seems like a total no-brainer to anyone who doesn’t want Iran to get nukes), and because I think he’s the most likely Democrat to get us into another dumb war.

I’d still probably support him over any Republican (because they are just as bad or worse on this issue), but I’d be very unhappy about it. Luckily for me, Webb doesn’t seem to have much of a constituency within the party (especially considering his weird support for the Confederate flag).

The problem for Webb is that there is a constituency in the party for him, although certainly nowhere near a majority. But he’s not really going hard for them. He’s just sort of there, ready for their support if they’ll give it to him, but not really campaigning for their votes.

The best ticket would be “Brown/Weiner,” because it would remind some people of food, and other people of sex, and it would be funny. Funny goes a long way. Vegans, ascetics, and the humorless could hold their noses and vote for it.

Sadly, neither Brown nor Weiner is running.

I’ll admit his opposition to the Iran deal is puzzling, like you I think it’s a no-brainer. I’d say though, that as a military man his opinion carries a certain amount of weight. It’s obviously not just a knee-jerk opposition as it is with the republicans. I don’t agree he’s likely to get us into another dumb war; he opposed the Iraq invasion at a time when it was unpopular to do so - he’s obviously no hawk. The Confederate flag issue was nothing much. He opposed a ban of any kind, but supported removing it from state properties.

Webb is certainly not a perfect candidate, he’s said to be “weak on the environment” whatever that means, and that’s a big issue for me. He is no orator; watching him speak reminds me of old videos of Harry Truman’s speeches. Concise and plain-spoken but with kind of a halting, wooden delivery. He writes much better than he speaks.

On the plus side, he seems to have integrity and he’s shown that his ideas can evolve over time (e.g. his initial opposition to women in combat and gays in the military, both of which he now supports). He’s an economic populist and is big on criminal justice reform. I think Biden/Webb would make an excellent team and equally important, would be more electable than any other combination I can think of.


Good thing you put “almost” in there. Of course he could be, so could anyone. All it takes from them is enough willingness to lie - and we haven’t found the limit yet.