Did Biden Tell Sanders He Will Choose Warren as VP?

[Don1]

So we know they had a meeting where the subject of VP came up.

We know that the Democratic Party wants democracy which means the large progressive contingent should not be made irrelevant, but instead have proportional or due influence. Not UNDUE influence.

We know Sanders and Biden don't want people out of their homes voting in the primary which is why Sanders asked that the Wisconsin primary be postponed.

We know Biden said he'd name a female VP. We know Warren is very energizing.

We know the Biden campaign wants Sanders out now but also needs unity in the Party.

Is it possible Biden told Sanders he has chosen Warren and Warren agreed?

Personally, I could really get behind a Biden Warren ticket.

[TexasTowelie]

1. No.

I don't believe that Warren offers much to Biden in regards to attracting voters in swing states which would help him win the Electoral College. Biden may also feel that there are more voters that can be persuaded to vote for him among moderates than what is available on the left.

[Don1]

2. Respectfully, ...

Biden is destroying Trump is swing states in polls. Having Warren as VP wouldn't lose votes in swing states as compared to other VPs, would it?

The value Warren adds is energizing. And she could also kick Trump and Pence in the pants 1 on 2...which anyone can see from the debates.

[TexasTowelie]

6. There are other options available that could help Biden win in other states

and if Warren is elected as VP, then the Republican governor of Massachusetts will get to decide who replaces her so the Democrats will lose one vote in the Senate and Biden will need to protect those Senate seats when it comes time to appoint judges.

I also don't believe that Biden and Warren are necessarily on the same page on several policies which doesn't make them to be a "good fit" for each other.

[groundloop]

32. Exactly.... DON'T lose the Senate

I was a Warren supporter until she dropped out, I think she'll be great at whatever she decides to do. She more closely represents my views and opinions than anyone. But I DO NOT want to see her on the ticket with Biden, she can do much more for our country in the Senate than as VP, and we absolutely don't need to be giving away Senate seats to the repubs.

[bluescribbler]

50. I agree.

I said at the beginning of the campaign that I wanted her to remain in the Senate where there are no term limits. I still feel that way, even though I voted for her in the primary.

[onetexan]

38. +1 K&R

[blm]

54. Massachusetts mandates quick elections.

And the governor there carefully guards his favorable reputation with Democrats.

[Don1]

88. see post 85

[Dem4Life1102]

29. Engergizing?

Would Warren energize African American voters? Does she help in swing states such as Florida or North Carolina?

[Thekaspervote]

86. Exactly! The AA voting block SAVED us!! We need them to be energized and voting

Jim Clyburn weighed in and said it needs to be a POC. He knows of what he speaks

[Dem4Life1102]

91. Agreed

And thankfully there are several great choices.

[DownriverDem]

34. I hope not

Biden & Warren are in their 70s. Biden needs to pick a younger progressive Dem woman to be VP.

[onetexan]

39. Spot on. Elizabeth wld be better off in the Senate.

[rurallib]

78. Absolutely!

[Gothmog]

52. We would lose a senate seat if Warren is elected VP

Mass. has a GOP governor who will pick a republican to replace Warren

[empedocles]

67. Key!

[Don1]

85. ​M.G.L.A. 54 140

In most instances the law requires elections and Liz Warren is smart enough to work with the laws in such a way as to ensure there is an election, rather than an appointment...which also would have been the same plan had she stayed in the race. So, all she would have to do is give her notice to continue on as Senator until nearly she is sworn in as VP. And they'd include Senator as a vacancy election in the regular November election provided she gave 70 days notice which she would give more than 70 days notice. How else do you think she was going to run for President and leave her Senator spot to a Democrat?

Section 140. (a) Upon failure to choose a senator or representative in congress or upon creation of a vacancy in that office, the governor shall immediately cause precepts to be issued to the aldermen in every city and the selectmen in every town in the district, directing them to call an election on the day appointed in the precepts for the election of such senator or representative. The day so appointed shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created or a failure to choose occurs. Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective.
(b) If a vacancy under this section is created after February 1 of an even-numbered year, the governor shall not issue the precepts required by subsection (a), except as subsection (c) provides for a vacancy for senator.
(c) If a vacancy is created for senator in congress after April 10 of an even-numbered year, the governor shall issue precepts under this section, unless section 152 requires that office to appear on the biennial state election ballot in that year. If this section prevents issuance of precepts for senator, the office shall appear on the biennial state election ballot in that year. If a vacancy for senator is created after April 10 of an even-numbered year, but on or before the seventieth day preceding the regular state primary, the precepts shall appoint the day of the regular state primary and the biennial state election for holding the special primary and special election required by this section.
(d) If at the time a senator or representative in congress is elected at the biennial state election, there exists a vacancy in that office, the senator or representative shall also be deemed to have been elected to serve out that vacancy.
(e) A senator elected to fill a vacancy under this section shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term.
(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).

https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titleviii/chapter54/section140

[Gothmog]

112. If Warren is elected as Vice President, she will have no control over timing

Watten will ne needed during lame duck session and will have to resign in 2021 which will allow a the GOP governor to appoint a replacement who will serve until special election

[Aquaria]

55. You seem to be under the misapprehension

That “progressives” are the base of the Democratic Party. They are not. Women and minorities are. They are the ones who will drive turnout.

We already know Biden will choose a woman. If he has any sense, she will be a minority. Plus one who wouldn’t be replaced by a repuke if she had to give up her Senate seat.

Unlike Warren.

Warren needs to stay where she is until Massachusetts stops being stupid and puts a Democrat in the governor’s seat.

[GemDigger]

64. And one who is young enough to run after his term.

That means she needs to be young enough to survive 12 years, 4 as vp and 8 as pres.

[Aquaria]

65. Excellent point.

We need someone who can be there long enough to clean up the mess the Mango MAGAt will leave in his wake.

It’s going to take at least a decade of Democrats in the White House to get us to treading water level.

[Wanderlust988]

3. Warren doesn't seem like a VP type of person

Especially to Biden. They are on different political plains. I'm not even sure Warren likes Biden all that much. At the end of the day, the VP does need to be loyal and backing up the president and being on the same page on everything.

[blm]

59. You don't know Biden then.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/biden-wanted-warren-veep-run-prez-report-article-1.2634653

[Buckeye_Democrat]

4. I'd love that pick too, but there's been recent buzz...

... about Gretchen Whitmer, the Michigan Governor.

She’s from a state viewed as crucial in the electoral college.

[Dem4Life1102]

30. Very true

Whitmer would help bring Michigan back into the Democratic column.

[DownriverDem]

35. Age factor

Whitmer is in her 40s and would be good except she's my Governor and we need her here in Michigan.

[W_HAMILTON]

51. I like Whitmer, but I think she would be a poor choice for a lot of reasons.

(1) I'm not sure that she could even guarantee Michigan, much less push some other swing states across the finish line.

(2) As this coronavirus situation gets worse, I think there will be a backlash in general against all elected leaders.

(3) Whitmer having to balance campaigning for vice president while running a state during what will still be an ongoing pandemic will be a bad look and certainly played up by Republicans.

I am still on the record for hoping Kamala is the choice, but I am still open to other suggestions if they make sense to me.

[The Magistrate]

5. You Continue, Sir, To Labor Under Some Mis-Apprehension Of What Democracy Is

It is not rule by minority. That is oligarchy, or in extreme cases autocracy.

Having, say, thirty percent of the vote, or of the delegates, does not mean three out of ten decisions go your way. The minority is entitled to nothing, and receives only what the majority may be willing to grant.

At present 'progressives', defined as people who continue in support of Sanders, are in no position to demand anything. They are busily doing their best to demonstrate they are not reliable partners in a coalition. The means by which such 'progressives' seek to secure influence is to state they will punish the Party if not cottoned to by being granted a degree of influence their strength, whether in primary votes or convention delegates, does not entitle them to. This has the effect, not of moving the Party to court 'progressives', but rather to seek elsewhere for reliable blocs of voters. With the left-most tail of the political bell-curve engaged in some combination of sulks and vapors, such blocs must be sought towards the center. No one on the left should need courting to rally against the cheap thug Trump. Those who do demand they be courted, and threaten to withhold their votes from our nominee, will find they have driven the Party more towards the center instead of drawing it to the left, by their foolish strategy.





"From Bernie’s perspective, dropping out of a race once you have no chance of winning is peculiar behavior that can only be explained by the work of a hidden hand. For most politicians, though, it is actually standard operating procedure. Only Sanders seems to think the normal thing to do once voters have made clear they don’t want to nominate you is to continue campaigning anyway."




"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[Aquaria]

63. Exactly.

You get concessions when you have something to offer. BS and his fans had that in 2016. Sort of. That’s why they got concessions then.

They have nothing more to offer now. They didn’t increase their turnout or expand their coalition any. They bombed in delivering the youth vote.

Only BS and his fans are too politically ignorant and naive to grasp that, without anything new to offer, they don’t rate new concessions.

[Don1]

66. No

I even wrote "due influence" in the op but you continue to frame what I am writing in a different way.

[The Magistrate]

71. The 'Due' Influence, Sir, Is None

When a faction lacks the votes, its influence is what the majority is inclined to grant. If a minority faction seeks to procure more by some extra-parliamentary technique, such as disruption on the floor or threats to behave in a manner it believes injurious to the Party's electoral prospects, it is not incumbent on the majority to placate them, and they may well decide to reply in the spirit of 'publish and be damned' which draws a blackmailer's teeth.

And this does not even engage whether your assessment of relative factional strengths is accurate. I suspect it is not, but even if it were spot-on, that would not alter the case.





"From Bernie’s perspective, dropping out of a race once you have no chance of winning is peculiar behavior that can only be explained by the work of a hidden hand. For most politicians, though, it is actually standard operating procedure. Only Sanders seems to think the normal thing to do once voters have made clear they don’t want to nominate you is to continue campaigning anyway."





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[Don1]

87. Democracy is not totalitarianism.

It's composed of multiple different groups, often all minorities in and of themselves. Your totalitarianism claim is like saying Democrats don't have to do anything for minorities because minorities are not a majority of the party. The Democratic Party doesn't believe in that nonsense of totalitarianism. They rely on delegates to vote not a King to decide.

[The Magistrate]

93. It Is Consulting The People, Sir, And Abiding By The Majority Opinion

Safeguards against oppression of a minority are required where government action, or mob action, is concerned. It is instructive to realize that, when you read comments urging protection of minorities in the debates around adoption of our Constitution, the minorities referred to were not the smaller racial or ethnic groups we expect the term to indicate today, but large property holders and creditors, who necessarily are outnumbered in any society, for it was an abiding fear of the gentlemen who put our system together that the franchise would be employed to cancel debts and perhaps even redistribute land and goods.

But in a convention, or the arrangements of any private body (which our political parties all are), neither life, limb, nor property is at stake for anyone. Majority rule is absolute. If a majority of delegates votes a motion, whether a platform plank or a rule of procedure or a nomination, that decision is absolute, and there is no recourse from it. The majority of delegates may choose to indulge a minority faction, but it is under no obligation to do so. Whether the majority chooses to indulge the minority is its decision, and how the minority chooses to behave is the sole means it has to influence that decision. Minorities which threaten, and engage in blackmail, tend to be smacked down and ought to be smacked down. What you refer to as 'minorities' in the racial or ethnic sense are, within the Democratic Party, solid constituents of the majority coalition at any convention, and welcomed and cherished as such because they can be relied on by the Party to vote for its candidates.

What you are inclined to dub 'progressives', by which to all appearances you mean people still devoted to 'Bernie' Sanders, not only have not earned such a place in the majority coalition of the Party, but can even be often heard disclaiming any particular desire to join the Party's majority coalition, except perhaps on terms the majority coalition could never accept. The 'progressive' faction you seem to back did, in re-writing of rules for future procedures after the 2016 convention, insisted on, and was granted, a major change in selection of 'super-delegates' which was bitterly opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus, and many African American officials of the Party at all levels. These were overruled, and that was done in the interests of buying the loyalty of the 'progressive' faction by adopting the measure.

And what do we see this year?

We see the exact same assault on the Democratic Party, under the leadership of the exact same figure who demanded that change in the rules, and we see the exact same threats by supporters of that figure to do whatever harm they can to the Party's electoral prospects this November. One of the older definitions of an honest politician is a fellow who stays bought, and it would seem Sanders and his followers cannot even meet this minimal definition of good faith. Sanders and followers seem to negotiate on the principle that 'what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.' People like that cannot be counted on to stick to a bargain, but must be relied to always try and noodge a bit more, and to proceed on the assumption that a threat which previously enjoyed some success will work indefinitely.

You may be sure that is not the case this year. The rank and file of the Party, the people the Party can rely on for Party work and for votes, are damned sick and tired of the posturings and threats of Sanders and his most ardent followers, and are not inclined to indulge these again.






"From Bernie’s perspective, dropping out of a race once you have no chance of winning is peculiar behavior that can only be explained by the work of a hidden hand. For most politicians, though, it is actually standard operating procedure. Only Sanders seems to think the normal thing to do once voters have made clear they don’t want to nominate you is to continue campaigning anyway."





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[brush]

7. Warren is best as treasury sec. or commerce. Her as VP just feeds into the socialism argument...

that repugs will try to paint Dems as. She would be very effective as Senate Majority leader also.

[beachbumbob]

8. I hope not.

[Dave in VA]

9. No

Biden must choose a younger woman of color. I originally was hoping for a Biden/Abrams ticket, but I'm starting to warm up to other options such as Kamala Harris. Joe needs to keep the suspense going in order to keep attracting media coverage. Horse race and all of that...

Just my $0.02!

[3Hotdogs]

22. For me, anyone but Harris or Gillibrand. Remember Franken.

And the first thing she did, out of the post, first debate? Attack Biden.

[Dem4Life1102]

31. Plus both come from solid blue states

and wouldn't help flip a swing state.

[MrsCoffee]

33. For the country, Harris would be a fantastic choice.

You’ll just have to get over the fact that 38 Senators, including your hero Sanders, called for Franken to resign.

[Skittles]

10. NO

[pnwmom]

11. Biden owes Sanders nothing. In a democracy there is no rule that the large-majority winner

has to give "proportional" influence to the loser, whatever that means.

If Biden asks Warren, or Harris, or Abrams or another woman -- great. But he doesn't owe anything to Sanders.

And it is also incorrect to imply that Sanders represents most of the progressives in the party. There are many progressives in the party -- for example, Warren supporters -- who don't support Bernie or his democratic socialism. And Joe Biden himself, by any reasonable measure, IS a progressive.

[Don1]

68. Huh?

No one said Biden has to give proportional representation to SANDERS.

[pnwmom]

75. Biden will represent all US voters, so yes, in that sense he will represent Sanders people.

In the same sense that he will represent Republicans, for instance.

[DIVINEprividence]

12. GOP Gov picks Warren's replacement

I think Warren would be a good choice and do not disagree with the rationale but losing a Senate seat is too steep a price.

[James48]

13. Or-

Maybe Biden told Sanders he will pick Sanders as VP. THAT will bring Sanders voters into play and give Biden a shot at possibly winning.

[PAMod]

25. Vice President Biden already indicated that he would choose a woman for VP.

You really think going against that assurance would be beneficial?

It would just add to the cynicism that already overwhelms our American body politic.

[DownriverDem]

36. Sanders?

Two white men in their 70s? No way, no how.

[comradebillyboy]

41. Now that would be a recipe for disaster. Sanders is not

a team player.

[The Magistrate]

43. Very True, Sir --- The Man Is Absolutely Unacceptable

And given the lay of the electoral landscape, certainly is not being considered for the position.





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[Aquaria]

57. Biden isn't that stupid.

That would be absolutely the worst pick he could make.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

62. Seriously?

It would be downright insane for a 78-year-old candidate to select as a running mate an even older person with a heart condition. A ticket of two old white guys from the same geographic area just to appease a few whiny malcontents whose candidate crashed and burned in the primaries? No, just hell no.

[DarthDem]

76. LOL, well said

N/t

[TexasTowelie]

95. .

There aren't many things in life that I'm certain about, but I'm certain that Sanders is not going to be Biden's VP pick.

[Sparky 1]

14. I could get really excited if Joe picked Sen. Warren.

Joe doesn't excite me but I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, and it looks like he will be. But Elizabeth was my first choice, and I believe she'd really pull in the Bernie voters and the women voters. It would be smart of Joe to pick her, but I'm not holding my breath.

[CountAllVotes]

19. +1

Same here.

I voted for Elizabeth Warren in the primary.

I'd love to see this very qualified woman who was on the same stage as Biden to be the VP. She'd be a great president if it came to it.

Biden/Warren = a winning ticket that cannot be beat!!!

[McKim]

21. Warren Would Skyrocket My Enthusiasm

Warren would skyrocket my enthusiasm. I am planning on voting for Biden but a Warren VP would really get me excited. She would also be very valuable as Treasury Secretary. I love that Biden promises to end the Forever Wars and I hope he does it.

[treestar]

110. So you've sort of just proven that it does not

matter whether the voter is "excited" or not.

Still don't get the demand that the candidate "excite."

[DownriverDem]

37. Not me

2 white folks in their 70s? I'm white and see that this is not a good way to go.

[quickesst]

15. no to any of the former primary candidates

This is only my opinion. I hope he looks for a running mate outside the field of candidates who ran for the Democratic nomination. Here are some of some of the reasons I have formed this opinion.

1. There are some candidates who I believe will bring little or nothing to his campaign.
2. There are several candidates that would better serve the country, and themselves by staying in the positions they now hold.
3. There are several candidates who would be ideal choices for key positions in a Biden Administration.

I especially do not understand the fascination with Kamala Harris. She is from a solid Blue State, was able to barely garner 5% of the black vote during her entire campaign, and tried unsuccessfully several times to play the race card in order to throw Joe Biden under the bus, all of which backfired on her.

My preference? Val Demings for one, along with several other well-qualified women. I can only hope that logic plays a large part in the choice he makes.

[Skya Rhen]

42. Val Demings, yes! She'll put Florida in play. Joe needs someone who can bring something to the table

[quickesst]

108. I agree Skya

She is an all-around Class Act.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Not going to happen

Pure speculation involving logic divorced from reality.

The Democratic party is not a monolith. "It" doesn't want anything, it is the sum of its members and leadership which go many different ways.

Where is the "should" in platform and policy? It's not a moral imperative. It's an opinion.

If Warren is so energizing how did she fail to energize voters? That's the problem with those who dropped out of the race. Only those who drop out early can seem new for a VP slot.

Biden will choose who he is comfortable with, can work with, more than anything. My view is he might be best to bypass all of the female former presidential candidates, and choose a governor in a crucial state. And I don't think he should do so early, it creates more suspense if held until mid-summer, and the VP is a fresh, new, energizing entity at that time.

[safeinOhio]

17. No, because if that were the case, he would pick

Nina Turner.

[yuiyoshida]

18. I would love to see Kamala Harris

as VP...our first female VP!!

[FloridaBlues]

20. Don't see that happening. But life is full of surprises

[PubliusEnigma]

23. How can you still be undecided? Biden is obviously the Nominee.

[Sloumeau]

24. It's highly unlikely that Biden made that promise to Sanders.

Biden very likely realizes that, in order to go down the exact same road Hillary Clinton did, he should choose a woman of color as the VP. This will help ensure turnout among African Americans, which Biden really needs in states like Michigan. I believe that the Bernie or Bust voters from 2016 who voted for Jill Stein will not be satisfied with a Warren candidacy anyway, and that whatever Biden might gain in choosing Warren would be more than offset in his losses among voters of color who would not come to the polls unless a person of color were on the ticket.

[mercuryblues]

26. Joe Biden needs to find

his Joe Biden for VP.

[emmaverybo]

80. Tall order. As close to as possible.

[AwakeAtLast]

113. Oh, so Obama then.

[polmaven]

27. Same here!!

I would really appreciate a Biden/Warren ticket! I did support Senator Warren in the primaries.She would be a GREAT VP.

[Andy823]

40. Well at least

this is better than the "what if Biden dies, or what if Sanders dies" posts!

[B Stieg]

45. She would destroy "Dead Eyes Pence" in a debate.

A bit too gradual for me (woman of color) but a female veep would be a step up, nonetheless.

[The Magistrate]

60. That Is Not Such a Sure Thing, Ma'am

Pence began as an AM band hate radio talker. He is an exceptionally smooth liar, and quite adept at the 'Gish gallop' technique, throwing out so many lies so quickly that an opponent faces a difficult choice --- either spend all his or her time trying to refute the lies, which leaves no time for pressing one's own points, or allow the lies to stand unchallenged while pressing one's own points, which the lies left standing will weaken in the minds of an audience. Pence sliced and diced Kaine in 2016. I am not saying the man is invincible, but anyone who goes against him thinking he will be a pushover is almost certain to be defeated.






"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[Don1]

70. She would.

She would absolutely destroy Pence. You are right. Not only that, she would also destroy Trump by referencing him in the same debate.

[colsohlibgal]

46. Just No

We desperately need to retake the Senate. Others have correctly pointed out that Biden needs to leave Warren in the Senate. To get things done we need the Senate. Warren would be replaced with a Republican. What sense would that make?

Whitner would be an awesome pick and would help us in Michigan.......and not make taking the Senate harder.

[Don1]

89. see post 85

[Cozmo]

47. Just saying and for what it's worth, I like Val

I love all the potential VPs on Biden's list but thus far, Val Demings would make a great contribution to the ticket. She's strong, smart, well-spoken and she's from Florida. Fun Fact: She's a Pisces and Joe's a Scorpio ~ They'll make an excellent team.

[Aquaria]

61. Well, you keep telling yourself that.

It would do nothing for the minority vote. Like it or not, minorities + women are the base. You can’t win without both of them, as Hillary got to learn the hard way in 2016.

[Aquaria]

49. No.

He won’t pull a Democratic Senator from a state with a Republican governor with the power to choose her replacement. That would be insanely stupid.

Appeasing BS and his bernbots has no upside, because they’ll vote exactly like they did in 2016: The ones who have brains will vote for Biden. The purity nitwits will vote third party. The bros will vote for Dolt45 out of spite.

You don’t pick a VP to win zero new votes. You pick a VP who helps The ticket amp turnout where votes are to be gained. And all gains in votes will come from women and minorities. Contrary to what BS and his fans think, the base of the Democratic Party isn’t “progressives;” it’s black women.

That’s why Biden will pick either a black woman to get them to vote at 2008/2012 levels, or higher. Or he’ll pick a Hispanic to get them to turn out in record numbers for their first top of the ticket candidate.

[Don1]

90. see post 85

[Squinch]

53. Why would Biden tell BS anything about his plans? BS is irrelevant.

[empedocles]

69. JB's needs may change over time. Why commit now?

[Squinch]

73. And why tell BS? Really, BSs followers are often delusional about his influence.

[Don1]

82. I am not a Sanders follower or delusional.

Argument through insults is the last refuge of not being able to come up with rational argumentation. I even explained this point in the op: it's because the Biden campaign wants Sanders to drop out: If Sanders has assurance that progressive issues will have a due place in the Administration and the Party, that could be the extra reason he has to drop out.

[Squinch]

83. Yeah, sure bro.

[Don1]

97. Argument through insults is the last refuge of not being able to come up with rational argumentation

[Squinch]

99. So you've said. Twice now. I guess that passes for rational argumentation these days.

But consider this: some BS followers really just ARE delusional!

[Don1]

101. It is rational argument. Insults aren't.

Yeah, some X are Y, pretty much with every category. And?

[Squinch]

106. LOL! Have a lovely day.

[randr]

56. Lose a Senator?

Warren is needed in the Senate, period!

[blm]

58. No, but everyone knows by now Joe wanted Warren in 2016

and after deciding not to run, urged HRC to select Warren who he believed to be the ONLY best choice.

[pattyloutwo]

72. Hope so

She’s great at policy and we need good policy. Then the special election will replace her senate seat with a dem.

[relayerbob]

74. Very unlikely

[question everything]

77. Warren has to endorse him first!! Biden should not grovel!

[blm]

96. Was he groveling in 2015 when he asked her to run with him?

[question everything]

102. What are you talking about?

To what office was Biden running in 2015? When he was mourning his son?

[blm]

103. He was weighing a 2016 run and if he did he wanted

Warren to run with him. He chose not to run.

Surely this can’t be the first time you are hearing this. There were numerous articles written about in 2016, because Biden then was advising HRC that Warren should be her VPpick.

You could always do a search on Biden wanted to run with Warren in 2016. Lots of articles....See for yourself.

[question everything]

104. Four years is a lifetime in politics

In 2016 she did not ask in which primaries Biden was running since he did not agree with her plans. Still does not.

[blm]

105. OK, so you are a no. Biden took a few jabs at Obama, btw.

That didn’t stop Obama from selecting him as a running mate.

But, hey, you did find that I was accurate about Biden wanting Warren to be his running mate in 2016, didntcha?

[OAITW r.2.0]

79. I sure hope it does go down that way.

If Biden offered to run with Warren, wouldn't that be a win for Bernie and his policies? There is going to be a significant restructuring of our thinking about health delivery, governmental oversight, economics, and climate change.

Bernie can do a lot of good in the Senate, being an ally of Biden and Warren on the transformation of the Fed. Government in real leadership to fix what Trump Republicanism has done and is doing to this country.

Putin applauds Donald Trump's handling of this pandemic crisis.

[Chemisse]

84. I don't even think BS would care. He's in it for his ego, not for his policies.

His behavior this year and in 2016 has shown what he values the most.

[LongtimeAZDem]

92. Exactly right

[left-of-center2012]

94. ROTFLMAO

[peggysue2]

98. I seriously doubt this speculation

And that's not a knock against Elizabeth Warren. I just don't see a political melding between Biden and Warren, particularly since Joe Biden has already said he wants someone who is completely on the same page.

His page.

That's simply not Elizabeth Warren.

Or as another DUer once said: this would be a marriage between two porcupines.

Just don't see it happening.

[Hortensis]

107. LOL, Not. A. Chance. Knowledge is power.

And anyway, would YOU tell Sanders anything he would use against you? That, of course, being absolutely any gift of information you gave away to him, truth no barrier to dirty, ruthless politicking.

[helpisontheway]

109. Nope..We need Elizabeth in the senate. She is not a good fit for a Biden ticket. Nt

[BGBD]

111. I hate it strategically.

Entirely white, 70+ ticket. R Gov would get to pick a temporary senator, VP from an already very strong democratic region.

It's there a progressive candidate who could be on the ticket who is younger, more diverse, and from somewhere we aren't going to win by 25 points already?