SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Its late, so I'll save a detailed reply to your entire post for later.

I'll just ask one question, regarding your closing insinuation that I am "wanting to justify an accusation against Biden".

Why? Why would I possibly want to do that? Because I supported Bernie? The primary's over. I've committed, repeatedly, to voting for Biden. I've been accused, repeatedly, of being "okay" with rape for supporting him.

Surely the easy, self-serving course of action for me to take would be to say Biden must be innocent, so I don't have to take responsibility for the choice to vote for a man accused of rape to stop an even worse man. If this was about what I want.

So can we, just this once, leave the ad hominems out of this? Nothing about this situation is what I want. Believe me, I'd fucking love not to vote for a rapist in November.

[Coop D'etat]

So yeah, outside the statute of limitations, because apparently our society feels that if you get away with rape for long enough then its okay. But this does seem to be getting the story some more news coverage.

Society does it this way for nearly every crime for some very good reasons that you don't seem to understand. But lets not let that get away from your latest ignorant ass gripe about how the world doesn't conform to your ill-considered American left wing blogpost opinions.

Rape is hardly a typical crime. Its frequently regarded as just below murder in terms of seriousness and the damage it does (and murder generally does not fall under Statute of Limitations). It is also a crime with a notoriously low conviction rate, where it is well-known that victims often take years to come forward. Of course, you don't address any of these points, or offer any argument as to WHY rape should fall under statute of limitations, much less why it is so obvious that it should that I deserve ridicule for thinking otherwise. You just imply its self-evident with a vague handwave, followed by the usual round of ad hominem attacks on me and my nationality.

Why don't you elaborate as to why you feel a rapist should get off scott-free, regardless of evidence, if he manages to run out the clock because his victim was too scared or traumatized or worried that she wouldn't be believed (gee, I wonder why?) to come forward?

Rape and sexual assault exists across a wide spectrum of offending acts and really isn't more or less serious than a wide number of types of offenses. You could argue that the most serious violent classes of sexual assaults are as close to murder as it gets, but that doesn't cover the bulk of offending activity. There's a lot of different types of crime out there.

The statute of limitations doesn't exist to provide home base to sex offenders. It exists for the very important reason that evidence degrades with time and likelihood of a fair trial in either direction diminishes correspondingly. It doesn't exist to protect rapists or for any particular gendered reason, it exists to protect everyone and the integrity of the system. Memories fade and get less and less reliable. Documents get lost, destroyed or deleted, potential witnesses become unavailable. As this process goes on, the likelihood of unreliable evidence overcoming more reliable evidence because the reliable evidence is diminished or lost entirely increases so there's a legal hard limit to bringing cases.

This accusation is pretty much a textbook example of why the rule is necessary. In the three decades since the alleged incident, the material that could be brought into evidence is incredibly diminished, such that it would be quite difficult to have any kind of fair proceeding on the matter.

This is extremely basic shit I'm telling you here. If you get a lot of flack on this board, maybe your tendency to spout off off the cuff on subjects you don't really know much about with great moral indignation is a part of it.

[Dalton]

Bernie Sanders has endorsed Joe Biden.

I would also... *suggest* that participants in this thread calm the fuck down.

[Omega18]

So can we, just this once, leave the ad hominems out of this? Nothing about this situation is what I want. Believe me, I'd fucking love not to vote for a rapist in November.

I do think I got a fairly frustrated with my last response and I will take the part about you seemingly wanting it to be true back. I do think you still have been going way too far in the other direction in terms of how wary you are in terms of questioning rape/ sexual assault accusations though and you should try to take a step back and see why the cumulative weight of evidence is making other people so skeptical of this specific accusation by this particular point though.

Incidentally in Wisconsin there was a somewhat pleasant surprise and the Democrat supported State Supreme Court candidate Jill Karofsky won a clear victory over the Republican supported incumbent Daniel Kelly in spite of Republican efforts at voter suppression.

In terms of the Democratic Presidential Primary, Biden is currently leading by 34% and it does seem likely Bernie had internal polling indicating this sort of result when he decided to drop out of the race.

[The Romulan Republic]

So can we, just this once, leave the ad hominems out of this? Nothing about this situation is what I want. Believe me, I'd fucking love not to vote for a rapist in November.

I do think I got a fairly frustrated with my last response and I will take the part about you seemingly wanting it to be true back. I do think you still have been going way too far in the other direction in terms of how wary you are in terms of questioning rape/ sexual assault accusations though and you should try to take a step back and see why the cumulative weight of evidence is making other people so skeptical of this specific accusation by this particular point though.

Thank you. There are reasons, however, why I tend to lean in favor of believing the accuser- namely the relative rarity of false rape accusations, the ongoing history of victims being dismissed and disbelieved and smeared unjustly, the abysmally low conviction rate of rapes, and, in this case, the established history of other (albeit lesser) forms of misconduct against Biden.

We are all free to reach our own conclusions using our best judgement, and but while there are very good reasons for the presumption of innocence in a court room, when using my own personal judgement, I feel that I owe the benefit of the doubt to Ms. Reade, not to Joe Biden, for the reasons stated above.

Incidentally in Wisconsin there was a somewhat pleasant surprise and the Democrat supported State Supreme Court candidate Jill Karofsky won a clear victory over the Republican supported incumbent Daniel Kelly in spite of Republican efforts at voter suppression.

Yeah, I was just going to post about this. While I'm still inclined to feel that the election should never have happened, and to question the legitimacy of a vote conducted under such conditions, its a really, really good sign for Democratic enthusiasm and turnout this November that a pandemic combined with one of the most blatant voter supression efforts since the Civil Rights act failed so thoroughly to suppress our turnout. And in one of the key midwestern swing states that handed Trump the Presidency last time- probably the most right-leaning one of them at that. Trump and McConnell ought to be shitting themselves right now. This is the best electoral news I've heard since Bernie won Nevada (though, as that comparison suggests, its way too early for a victory celebration).

I do think, as one of my articles previously suggested, that this result is probably at least partly due to Bernie. His continued presence on the ballot in Wisconsin motivated voters to turn out who otherwise would not have- both supporters of his, and opponents who might not have turned out to vote on state judicial races if the primary contest had not been ongoing.

In terms of the Democratic Presidential Primary, Biden is currently leading by 34% and it does seem likely Bernie had internal polling indicating this sort of result when he decided to drop out of the race.

Likely, yes. Another factor being that campaigning to try to make up any of that gap is all but impossible under the present circumstances. And that Bernie was reportedly under pressure to drop out from within his own campaign.

Its a logical choice for Sanders at this point. He avoids accusations of a continuing a divisive primary he can't win/helping Trump, he suspends a campaign that couldn't really campaign much anyway due to COVID, but he still remains on the ballots, so his supporters can still vote for him and he can continue to get delegates and as much influence as possible (hell, he could probably step back into contention in the unlikely event that something did happen to force Biden out).

The more I think about it, he really loses nothing by doing this now.

Edit: Glad to see, as per Dalton's post, that Bernie has endorsed Biden, rather than dragging that out. Waiting any longer to endorse, now that he's suspended his campaign, would have appeared ungracious and like he was dragging his feet.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another interesting tidbit about the Wisconsin race:

There is currently a case going to the Wisconsin Supreme Court about whether to purge over 200,000 voters. Had the Republicans won control of the court, they would have presumably ruled in favor of the purge. Now, they presumably won't.

This race potentially just kept Wisconsin in play in the general election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Note that Bernie did not merely endorse Biden- his endorsement came with an annoucement that their campaigns will form joint task forces to determine policy, giving Bernie a continued influence on Democratic Party policy:

https://politico.com/news/2020/04/13/sa ... den-183961

Joe Biden became the Democratic Party’s indisputable presidential nominee Monday when Bernie Sanders paid a surprise visit to the former vice president’s livecast and issued an unexpected and full-throated endorsement.

Sanders, who formally suspended his campaign last week, said he needed everyone — not just his supporters — to back Biden and make sure that President Trump becomes a one-term president.

“Today, I am asking all Americans — I'm asking every Democrat; I’m asking every independent; I’m asking a lot of Republicans — to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy, which I endorse, to make certain that we defeat somebody who I believe is the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country,” Sanders told Biden.

“I will do all that I can to see that that happens, Joe,” Sanders pledged, after calling Trump a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe and a religious bigot who botched the nation’s initial response to the coronavirus pandemic.

“I want to thank you for that. It’s a big deal,” Biden said. “Your endorsement means a great deal, a great deal to me.”

Sanders and Biden pledged to form six task forces to advise the Biden campaign on policy to bridge divides with progressive voters and, especially, young people who voted for Sanders and against Biden in droves.

Last week, in the days leading up to Sanders’ withdrawal and after, the two spoke several times — including Wednesday, when the Vermont senator formally suspended his campaign. Sanders and Biden’s teams have also been in regular communication, with Sanders’ campaign manager Faiz Shakir and senior adviser Jeff Weaver speaking with Biden’s top two advisers, Anita Dunn and Ron Klain.

Sanders’ endorsement was no mere formality. Though the Vermont senator formally suspended his campaign last week, Sanders did not say he endorsed Biden, nor did he call on his dedicated followers to vote for his former opponent. Sanders also pledged to hang on to his delegates, which caused some Democrats to fear the primary could wind up repeating the mistakes of 2016, when acrimony marked the relationship between Sanders and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Many Democrats believe that bitter divide played a role in her loss to Trump in November.

That rancor between Clinton and Sanders surfaced again this year when the former senator and secretary of state made headlines during the primary for saying “nobody” likes Sanders.

But Biden did. He always made sure to be friendly and respectful with Sanders, who repaid the favor — sometimes too much, Sanders advisers fretted when he refused to bludgeon Biden on the debate stage.

Even in 2016, Sanders aides note, Biden made sure to praise Sanders when he was anathema to the rest of the Democratic establishment.

"Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real. And he has credibility on it. And that is the absolutely enormous concentration of wealth in a small group of people with the middle class being left out,” said Biden in January 2016. "It's relatively new for Hillary to talk about that.”

Biden repeated those words about Bernie’s credibility as he lavished praise on his former rival Monday.

Sanders’ endorsement gave Biden a chance to break into the news cycle with a headline-grabbing announcement, a rarity in recent weeks as he, along with Sanders, remains stuck at home during the pandemic as reports about the contagion and the president’s response to it suck up all the media oxygen.

“Not in a million years would we have believed that we would be talking to each other in our respective homes, that we could not do rallies, that we could not get out of the house,” Sanders said on the livestream.

The two men then traded compliments, took turns criticizing Trump and even asked each other questions. Biden, in response to a question from Sanders, reiterated he supports a $15 minimum wage. Sanders reminded Biden of the need to offer free college tuition.

Biden went so far as to say that, if banks receiving help from the just-passed stimulus bill don’t loan to small businesses, “the federal government should use their war time authority to compel them to do so.”

The endorsement follows an ongoing charm offensive that Biden has waged with Sanders and his supporters for a month, praising the senator and offering progressives more policy proposals concerning healthcare and education on Thursday.

Though many on the left said Biden was making a good first step, they still want to see more —and Biden and Sanders promised there will be more to come.

Their staffs have in recent days met to discuss establishing six task forces — concerning the economy, education, criminal justice, immigration, climate change and healthcare — to bridge any gaps between the two wings of the Democratic Party.

“The announcement of joint Sanders-Biden task forces is a good step forward and is aligned with key parts of the #EarnOurVote letter sent out by progressive millennial and youth organizations. We’re waiting on the details,” said Waleed Shahid, a spokesman for the progressive group Justice Democrats, who last week issued a letter on behalf of a coalition of progressive outfits asking Biden to adopt more Sanders policies.

Shahid said Sanders’ endorsement “generally seems more significant than anything Bernie 2016, Kucinich 2008, Dean 2004, Jackson 84-88 received directly from the nominee. Points to young people and progressives being taken more seriously as a key force within the Democratic Party.”

Sanders said “it’s no great secret” that he and Biden have differed on policy and they’re not going to ignore it.

A person familiar with Sanders' thinking said that while Biden has moved a bit left with his new proposal to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60, the Vermont senator will continue to continue to urge him to adopt more liberal health care policies.

"Because of the mutual respect, he understands who Bernie is," the source said of Biden. "He's not expecting him to [say], 'Okay, he's lowering the age to 60 and then that's fine and we'll just support that.' No, we'll continue to push for Medicare for All.”

Biden pledged to have “the most progressive administration since [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt.”

“What is important about these task forces is that it really represents an openness on the part of Vice President Biden and his campaign to bring the progressive wing of the party to the table and that's something very new,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders‘ adviser. “It is important that there is this kind of representation in these policy circles, which has not always been the case, which is part of the frustration of the progressive part of the party, which provides all the energy and volunteers and foot soldiers in the elections and then sometimes is left out after the campaign is won."

Not everyone from the Sanders campaign is on board, though.

Sanders former National Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray tweeted that she has “the utmost respect for Bernie Sanders, who is an incredible human being & a genuine inspiration, I don't endorse Joe Biden. I supported Bernie Sanders because he backed ideas like #MedicareForAll, canceling ALL student debt, & a wealth tax. Biden supports none of those.”

Sanders adviser David Sirota was more circumspect, saying he would vote for Biden but noting in a blog post that progressives want to know the answer to two questions: “Are we getting the retrograde triangulating Joe Biden?” and “Are we getting a new and evolved Joe Biden?”

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Before bringing on Sanders as a surprise guest Monday, the former vice president already sounded more like Sanders by ditching his usual promises to simply bring America back and instead focusing on the structural inequities that existed prior to the pandemic.

“When this crisis has receded, we can’t just talk about, think about, building back to the way things were before,” Biden said. “We need to build better for the future.”

When asked if he had some final words, Sanders briefly referenced the chess board behind him.

“I thought we’d play some chess,” he joked. “We’ll bore everybody for a few hours.”

Biden laughed.

“You and I have been friends. We’ve disagreed. But we’ve been friends,” Biden said. “I appreciate your friendship. And I promise you I won’t let you down.”

Maybe Biden will end up vetoing everything he proposes, but so far, it looks like Joe is at least earnest about reaching out to Sanders supporters and giving us a seat at the table. Certainly it seems that both campaigns are doing better at bridging the divide than occurred in 2016. If it weren't for the allegations against Biden, I'd be fucking thrilled about the direction things are heading going into the general election.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think the thing Biden needs to do to really prove himself on progressive policy (aside from the most hard-core Bernie or Buster types, who can hardly be called true progressives and who will never be satisfied), is to make at least one progressive high-level cabinet appointment. Because these task forces, or whatever campaign promises on policy he makes, can be abandoned after the election. A cabinet appointment is a lot more permanent. That's the clearest, most unequivocal thing he can do (short of a progressive VP, which I admit is probably too much to hope for) that he's sincere about giving progressives a seat at the table.

If the rumours are true that he's considering Warren for treasury secretary, that would be excellent. As much as I might have issues with Warren's attacks on Bernie, or some shifts in policy she made during the race, I don't doubt her credentials when it comes to taking on corrupt big business. Having her as treasury secretary would be an unambiguous signal that Biden takes progressive concerns seriously, though there are others he could pick.

[The Romulan Republic]

And the good news keeps on coming:

Justin Amash, the sole Republican House member to endorse impeachment in the wake of the Mueller report and now an Independent, is considering a third party presidential runner:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4926 ... ential-bid

Hard to imagine he'd take more blue votes than red, unless Biden and Bernie completely blow party unification.

I need more days like this.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's the actual video of Bernie's endorsement and conversation with Biden via Biden's official Youtube channel (held remotely, of course):

https://youtube.com/watch?v=E1XUeJA0-f0

I'm still going through it, but some highlights:

-Biden says the priority is to get help to Americans affected by COVID-19, and that there needs to be a focus on the racial disparities in COVID-19's effects, then hits Trump hard on his response, before inviting Sanders on.

-Biden emphasizes the need for systemic reform:

"When this crisis has receded, we can't just talk about think about building back to the way things were before. We need to build better for the future. Many of the biggest cracks in our social safety net have been laid bare by this crisis... we need to build... a 21st Century safety net that takes care of all of our citizens in times of crisis... in all times, not just in crisis." He specifically mentions infrastructure, protecting democracy, the climate crisis, health care, paid sick leave, and the unemployment system.

I'm definitely seeing a shift in tone on Joe's part, from simply restoring the Obama-era status quo to systemic reform.

"In short, we need to build a fair, more inclusive, more resilient America. And with that in mind, I'd like to welcome to this conversation a leader who shares those values, and has been an outspoken advocate for that vision for a long time: my friend Bernie Sanders."

-Bernie opens by talking about the need to address the COVID-19 crisis, then asks all Americans to support Biden against Trump.

-Obviously still some distance between them on health care, but the tone seems generally positive.

-Biden says he will need Sanders' help both to win and to govern.

Bernie questions Biden on policy:

-Biden endorses 15 an hour minimum wage! I'm not sure if he's said that before, but its the first I've heard of it.

-Biden reiterates endorsement of tuition-free university for families that make less than 125,000 a year.

-Biden says corporations should only get coronavirus relief if they commit to conditions like keeping workers on their payroll.

Biden says Sanders has been "the most powerful voice for a fair and more just America." "...you don't get enough credit, Bernie, for being the voice that forces us to take a hard look in the mirror, and ask ourselves if we've done enough. And we haven't."

This is good. This is really good. Anyone who watches this and says that voting for Biden is no different than voting for the Republicans, or that he's not giving progressives anything, is dealing in bad faith. As is anyone who claims that Bernie is undermining the Democrats, and not doing enough to help Biden.

[The Romulan Republic]

The other thing that's occurred to me is that Obama has just to some extent been sidelined. He remained neutral all through the primary, supposedly so he could help use his popularity and voice to unite the party afterward. But it looks like Bernie and Biden are doing that just fine without him.

Obama needs to endorse, now. Trump is making hay out of his not having done so.

Seriously, did ANYBODY think Bernie would endorse Biden before Obama did?

[Rogue 9]

Another interesting tidbit about the Wisconsin race:

There is currently a case going to the Wisconsin Supreme Court about whether to purge over 200,000 voters. Had the Republicans won control of the court, they would have presumably ruled in favor of the purge. Now, they presumably won't.

This race potentially just kept Wisconsin in play in the general election.

Conservatives still hold a 4-3 majority on the court; this election just took it down from 5-2. So we'll see.

As for the accusations against Biden, you're right that false rape allegations are relatively rare, but under the circumstances they're more likely than baseline because Biden is now the presumptive nominee. Remember Project Veritas. Yes, the default should be believing the accuser, but that's to avoid outright dismissal; if her claims don't hold up after good faith scrutiny there shouldn't be an automatic conviction of Biden anyway.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another interesting tidbit about the Wisconsin race:

There is currently a case going to the Wisconsin Supreme Court about whether to purge over 200,000 voters. Had the Republicans won control of the court, they would have presumably ruled in favor of the purge. Now, they presumably won't.

This race potentially just kept Wisconsin in play in the general election.

Conservatives still hold a 4-3 majority on the court; this election just took it down from 5-2. So we'll see.

Ah, my apologies. Still, its easier to swing one judge than two, and every bit helps.

As for the accusations against Biden, you're right that false rape allegations are relatively rare, but under the circumstances they're more likely than baseline because Biden is now the presumptive nominee. Remember Project Veritas. Yes, the default should be believing the accuser, but that's to avoid outright dismissal; if her claims don't hold up after good faith scrutiny there shouldn't be an automatic conviction of Biden anyway.

I'm well aware of Reich-wing frame jobs, thank you- I previously referenced the attempt to frame Robert Mueller for rape. There is no evidence as of yet that Tara Reade's story is such a case, though, and its disingenuous to suggest that there is. I've already addressed this issue: in past Reich-wing frame jobs, it usually came to light pretty quickly. There is absolutely no way way that Biden's people haven't looked at Reade for evidence that she's on a Republican's payroll. They evidently haven't found such evidence.

No, of course stories shouldn't be believed even if they're disproven. But nobody has actually shown that Reade's account of the rape is false. All they've done is identify inconsistencies in other things she said, inconsistencies which could be explained by things other than being a paid operative.

Also, the argument that Biden's status makes him more vulnerable to false claims cuts both ways: it may make him a more likely target for a partisan frame job, but it also may make it less likely that an individual would make an allegation against him, either truthfully or falsely, due to the greater risk of scrutiny and retaliation.

[The Romulan Republic]

New York Times Op-ed calls for Biden to announce a "Unity Cabinet" combining progressives, Centrist Dems, and Romney-style Republicans:

https://nytimes.com/2020/04/07/opinion/ ... covid.html

In the last Democratic debate, Joe Biden declared that he would nominate a woman as his vice-presidential running mate. That felt right at the time. But times have changed. Biden needs to go much, much further: At the Democratic convention he needs to name not just his vice president, but his entire cabinet. And it needs to be a totally different kind of cabinet — a national unity cabinet — from Democrats on the Bernie Sanders left to Republicans on the Mitt Romney right. Why?

Because while most people are playing nice right now managing this virus, the wreckage, pain and anger it will leave behind will require megadoses of solidarity and healing from the top.

And even if we get to the other side of this crisis by January, there are going to be a set of wrenching debates around who got bailed out and who didn’t and around how much civil liberty we should sacrifice to track and quarantine Covid-19 carriers until there is a vaccine. If handled on a partisan basis, those issues will rip our country apart.

In short, if this isn’t the time to leave behind the hyperpartisanship that has made it nearly impossible for us to do anything big and hard for two decades, then when?

Considering all the people who have come together in this crisis to tend to neighbors, contribute to hospitals, share scarce resources and learn from one another how to combat Covid-19, would it be asking too much for our political system to mirror the best in us rather than to continue to exacerbate the worst? Americans today deserve the government they need more than ever. It has literally become a matter of life and death.

Biden, because he doesn’t run anything right now, has had a hard time demonstrating leadership. The one giant contrast that he could draw with President Trump, though, is the approach he would take to governing.

Americans are not focused on this now — but they will be. And when they are, Biden needs to show that he isn’t running to be president of the 48 percent (or less), as Trump is; he’s not trying to suppress the vote, as Trump is; he’s not running to squeak by in the Electoral College, as Trump is. He needs to show he’s running to be a majority president, a unity president — but not just unity for unity’s sake, but unity of purpose based on a set of shared values for rebuilding America.

Biden should enlist people ready to embrace these values:

1) They have to believe in science — and not just around the coronavirus but around climate change, which is the next train coming at us.

2) If they were in power during this crisis, they have to have led their city, state or business in a way that took the science of this epidemic seriously from the start and cared for those under them.

3) They have to be open to taking extraordinary measures to help the poor, the unemployed and the bankrupted get back on their feet.

4) They have to believe that America thrives when there is a healthy balance between the public and private sectors, so anyone subscribing to the old idiot mantra of the G.O.P. thought policeman Grover Norquist — “my goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub” — is not welcome.

5) They have to want to extend health care to every American, for starters by strengthening Obamacare and adding a public option.

With those criteria, Biden could name his team of rivals. (I proposed an earlier version of this when the race for the nomination looked deadlocked, but the world has completely changed since.) My recommendations:

For vice president, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala or Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island; for Treasury secretary, Mike Bloomberg; health and human services secretary, Bill Gates; secretary of oversight for the trillions of dollars in emergency coronavirus spending, to make sure it’s done fairly and productively, Elizabeth Warren.

Attorney general, Merrick Garland; homeland security secretary, Andrew Cuomo; secretary of state, Mitt Romney; defense secretary, Michèle Flournoy; labor secretary, Ro Khanna (who co-chaired Sanders’s campaign).

Secretary of national infrastructure rebuild, a new cabinet post, Walmart C.E.O. Doug McMillon; commerce secretary, former American Express C.E.O. Ken Chenault; O.M.B. director, Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio; education secretary, Laurene Powell Jobs; U.N. ambassador, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

HUD secretary, Ford Foundation chief Darren Walker; Interior secretary, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico; energy secretary, Andy Karsner (a green Republican who led renewable energy for George W. Bush); E.P.A. administrator, Al Gore.

A fantasy, you say? No, no. I’ll give you fantasy. Fantasy is thinking we’ll be OK, post-Covid-19, with toxic politics as usual or, God forbid, four more years of Trump’s lying, dividing and impugning experts.

Can you imagine the fights that will break out, as this crisis abates, over whose company, restaurant, store, nonprofit or local government was saved by Washington’s trillions of dollars in rescue packages and whose went under? The societal stress is going to be enormous as people fully absorb their lost savings, businesses and jobs, while defaults mount and worker rehiring happens much slower than the layoffs did.

And that will happen in parallel with a debate about civil liberties. Just as every American after 9/11 wanted to know that the person in the next seat on an airplane was not carrying a bomb, until there is a vaccine everyone will want to know that the next passenger is not carrying Covid-19.

And that will require highly intrusive testing and digital tracking. As The Economist reported last month: Both China and South Korea “are using big data and social media to trace infections, alert people to hot spots and round up contacts. South Korea changed the law to allow the state to gain access to medical records and share them without a warrant.”

A U.S. national unity government with a strong foundation of expertise will be much better able to navigate these issues. As Gautam Mukunda, author of “Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter,” pointed out to me, only three previous presidents have been dropped into a crisis in this way: Abraham Lincoln in 1861, Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and Barack Obama in 2009.

“All three saw that they needed a cabinet made of the very best people in the United States,” explained Mukunda. “Lincoln assembled his legendary ‘Team of Rivals,’ which eventually expanded to include Edwin Stanton as secretary of war, even though Stanton was a Democrat who had served as his predecessor’s attorney general. Roosevelt made Frances Perkins, the first woman cabinet secretary, his secretary of labor because he thought she was the best person to lead the fight to create Social Security. Obama made Chuck Hagel, a Republican, his defense secretary.”

Such a national unity government might pay another dividend: fracture the Trump/McConnell/evangelical/Limbaugh/Fox/G.O.P. — a warped coalition dedicated to nothing but its own power and cutting taxes on the rich. Our country needs a healthy conservative party. Trump’s G.O.P. is not healthy.

If Biden seizes the moment to produce both a national unity government and a government that radically innovates — in ways we have not done for so many years — we might actually come out of this crisis stronger.

“Roosevelt,” noted Mukunda, “proclaimed that ‘the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. … If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something,’ and Roosevelt fulfilled that demand with the New Deal. Lincoln didn’t just win the Civil War, he proclaimed that ‘as our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew,’ and he fulfilled that promise through the Homestead Act and the creation of land grant colleges.”

That used to be us …

It has to be again. During the 2008 banking crisis, Warren Buffett said: “You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.” So it is with pandemics. You find out which countries have taken governance seriously and which didn’t. You find out which companies are living on credit and which have strong balance sheets. You find out who has a health care system that can manage a once-in-a-century crisis and who doesn’t. You find out which countries, cities and communities have a high degree of social trust and can pull together and which can’t. You find out who respects Mother Nature and who’s dumb enough to challenge her to a duel.

Well, by those indexes, with our bathing suit gone, we are not even remotely impressive. We are not who we think we are.

If we fail to use this crisis to get healthy again — as a people and a government — it will not only be remembered for the vast death and destruction it wrought, but it will be remembered as the moment America ceded its global leadership to China.

I'm usually wary of calls for "bipartisanship", since it tends to mean capitulating to the far Right while they give us little or nothing in return. But the article specifically excludes Trumpers (who have no interest in national unity) from this proposal and notes certain key issues on which compromise should not be made, and it makes a good case for why such a cabinet is needed now. We can quibble over the exact names and posts, but I think the idea is sound, especially since it would means progressive representation in the cabinet.

The other thing I'd emphasize is that as much as practicable, such a cabinet should reflect the demographic diversity of the United States.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hell, I'll add a couple others which would not be full cabinet posts I don't think, but which I'd like to see:

Secretary of the Navy- Captain Brett Crozier.

Ambassador to NATO- Pete Buttigieg (I can't claim credit for this one, I read the idea somewhere, can't recall where, a few months back, but it stuck with me. He's a little weasel, but he's a former military intelligence officer and he always did speak well on defense and foreign policy issues, to I think he'd be a good fit).

[Ace Pace]

Hell, I'll add a couple others which would not be full cabinet posts I don't think, but which I'd like to see:

Secretary of the Navy- Captain Brett Crozier.

Why should anyone nominate a Captain to run the worlds most complex military organization? Nevermind the absurdity of breaking military/civilian norms, what qualifications does he have for the role?

[The Romulan Republic]

Hell, I'll add a couple others which would not be full cabinet posts I don't think, but which I'd like to see:

Secretary of the Navy- Captain Brett Crozier.

Why should anyone nominate a Captain to run the worlds most complex military organization? Nevermind the absurdity of breaking military/civilian norms, what qualifications does he have for the role?

As to "military/civilian norms", its not unheard of by any means to give former military officers cabinet posts. As long as they're no longer active duty military, I don't see the problem. General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense is the most obvious and recent example, but there are plenty of others. It would, at least, give them more insight into how the Navy works than someone who's prior experience was political, business, or administrative.

I'm also not talking about the captain of a patrol boat here. I'm talking about the captain of an aircraft carrier, a powerful strategic asset manned by several thousand men which outguns most of the navies on Earth.

Captain Crozier's actions also demonstrated his moral character and his concern for the well-being of the military personnel under his command, and that he's not a mindless yes-man.

Also, I said Secretary of the Navy, not Secretary of Defense. He'd only run one branch of the world's most complex military organization.

Plus, I'd like to see one of the genuine heroes of the Coronavirus pandemic rewarded, as opposed to the abuse he received from the Trump regime.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some more good news- all six of the states considered likeliest to be key swing states currently allow unlimited mail voting:

https://theatlantic.com/politics/archiv ... mp-/609799

In the states that will likely decide the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump has already lost his newly declared war against voting by mail.

All six of the swing states that both sides see as the most probable tipping points allow their residents to vote by mail for any reason, and there’s virtually no chance that any of them will retrench their existing laws this year. That means that, however much Trump rages, the legal structure is in place for a mail-voting surge in those decisive states: Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona in the Sun Belt and Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the Rust Belt.

Such an increase “is going to happen” in states across the country this year, says Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “The president can’t prevent it from happening, his protestations notwithstanding. Voters are going to choose that option, and jurisdictions are going to need to make that option widely available in order to protect public health and administer their elections.”

That doesn’t mean Trump’s new crusade will have no effect. It’s so far stiffening Republican opposition to plans for furthering expand mail-voting access in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Those proposals include calls from Democrats and election-law reformers to preemptively mail all eligible voters a ballot, as five states do now, or to require all states to allow their residents to vote absentee for any reason. In the 28 states that already allow this “no excuse” absentee balloting, partisan struggles are nevertheless looming over whether to make the voting process easier.

But experts in voter turnout and mail voting anticipate that however these fights play out, the share of Americans who cast ballots by mail in November may roughly double from the previous presidential election, from just under one-quarter in 2016 to about one-half this year. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s secretary of state and a Democrat, expressed a broad consensus among local officials when she told me, “We will certainly see people voting by mail more than ever before in our state.”

This shift will create enormous logistical challenges, particularly in states where relatively few people historically have used the option. But contrary to the president’s warnings, the evidence suggests it is unlikely to provide a clear advantage for either party. Using data from the large post-election poll known as the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology political scientist Charles Stewart found that roughly the same share of Republicans and Democrats voted by mail in 2016.

“When you have a system of elections that have multiple methods by which people can vote—mail, in-person early voting, or Election Day—the mail ballots tend to be the most Republican of the group,” says Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist who specializes in voter turnout.

This mid-pandemic debate about voting by mail is muddied, in part, because Trump has been so unclear about exactly what form he objects to. All states allow one of three types.

Five states, the smallest grouping, are “all mail” states: Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, and, starting this year, Hawaii. There, all eligible voters are mailed a ballot to their home. (California allows its counties to use such a system, but has not yet applied it statewide.) These states preserve some in-person options on Election Day, but in those that used this system in 2018, at least 90 percent of voters cast their ballot by mail.

The largest group is the 28 states that allow for “no excuse,” or “no fault,” mail balloting. The procedure still adds one hurdle: Voters must affirmatively request a ballot. But some states in this cohort, such as Arizona, do allow residents to join a list that automatically receives absentee ballots for every election.

The final group, 17 states, allows voters to obtain a mail ballot only for cause. According to the database maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures, eligible causes include age (about half of the states allow older voters to obtain mail-in ballots on request) and studying at college outside of one’s home county (also a justifiable reason in roughly half of the states). All 17 also allow residents to request mail ballots because of illness or disability, a provision that could allow for broader access this fall. But it could also prompt extensive legal fights if election officials resist interpreting such provisions to include the coronavirus outbreak.

None of the five all-mail states (or California) are expected to be close in the coming contest between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, though the Trump campaign holds distant hopes of contesting Colorado. Of the 17 states that require voters to justify an absentee ballot, only New Hampshire and Texas could fit the category of potentially competitive states in the presidential race; the former still clearly leans toward Democrats, while Republicans remain favored in the latter.

The genuinely key states for November all fall into the middle category, allowing no-excuse mail balloting. They include not only the six noted above, but even a second tier of possibly competitive states, such as Iowa, Georgia, and Ohio (which Democrats might try to contest with smaller chances of success), and Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico (which Trump still hopes, at long odds, to contest).

The entire debate over voter access this fall would probably look very different without big recent changes to the law in two of the most crucial swing states: Michigan and Pennsylvania. Both states used to require voters to have an excuse for requesting a mail ballot. In November, both will use a no-excuse vote-by-mail system for the first time in a general election.

The irony in the president’s new offensive is that in many of the no-excuse states, Republicans have historically outpaced Democrats in organizing their supporters, especially older white voters, to vote by mail. In Arizona, for instance, Republicans outnumber Democrats on the state rolls of voters who have signed up to automatically receive a mail ballot. Arizonans over 50, a conservative-leaning bloc, also significantly outnumber those under 40. Voting by mail there has traditionally been “a Republican advantage,” Charles Coughlin, a veteran GOP consultant in the state, told me. “It was a program we have perfected over time because we chased it, and we made it happen.” The same is true in Florida.

Operatives in both parties say Democrats have narrowed the gap with Republicans since Barack Obama promoted voting by mail in his two presidential campaigns. For instance, armed with the new no-excuses law in Pennsylvania, the state Democratic Party is “turning our entire organizing effort into encouraging people to vote by mail,” says Brendan Welch, the party’s communications director. “It’s very clear that it is the safest way for people to vote in these circumstances.”

But generally speaking, Democrats have prioritized in-person early voting instead of mail balloting, such as the traditional “souls to the polls” pushes at African American churches the Sunday before Election Day. Seth Morris, the voter-protection director for the North Carolina Democratic Party, told me Democrats there are determined to preserve these practices. They aren’t seeking a complete shift to voting by mail in response to the outbreak.

“We don’t really want that to happen,” he said. “Particularly in African American communities, people like to go vote, and they trust that process a lot. In the states that have gone to universal vote by mail, it took them years … And I don’t think anyone here wants to do that.”

Congressional democrats want to set national rules for November’s election—to require all states to either permit no-excuse absentee voting, or mail ballots to every eligible voter if a national health emergency is declared close to Election Day. But given that such legislation has virtually no chance of clearing the Republican Senate—much less winning Trump’s signature—the partisan battles to come will play out primarily in the states and the courts. Early signs indicate that this struggle will unfold along three broad fronts.

The first front is about whether states should expand access to mail ballots at all. In states that require a justification for voting absentee, Democrats could press to allow no-excuse access to mail ballots. And in states that already permit no-excuse absentee voting, reform advocates like Weiser expect many officials to advocate for mailing all voters a ballot, eliminating the intermediate step of requiring voters to request one. Earlier this week, Minnesota’s Democratic secretary of state, Steve Simon, proposed such a step. Benson, Simon’s counterpart in Michigan, told me that many states may ultimately conclude that this is the safest way to conduct a mid-pandemic election.

“The ultimate efficiency—if you have the infrastructure to support it, and you have the voter will and demand behind it—is eliminating the request and enabling citizens to just receive their ballot based on being registered,” she said. Benson acknowledged that “it does take some time for the voters’ will to get there,” especially “if you have leaders questioning the sanctity of the process.“ But, she added, “I do think, in this unique moment, all [options] need to be considered and on the table in order to be sure that the voters’ will is heard in November.”

A small number of Republican governors, such as Ohio’s Mike DeWine, might pursue automatic mail voting for the general election, but most—if not all—are likely to be dubious. Florida, for instance, “has always been ahead of the curve on the vote-by-mail trend, and we already have a very high utilization,” says the GOP consultant Brad Herold, a former executive director of that state’s Republican Party. “I don’t think there is going to be widespread calls for the state to do more than we are already doing,”

In states with Democratic governors, Republicans are likely to fiercely oppose any efforts to move to an all-mail system, especially if governors try to use executive orders on public-health grounds. Minnesota’s Republican Party chairwoman, Jennifer Carnahan, responded to the all-mail proposal there by immediately declaring, “The apocalypse has arrived.” The plan is “simply a path to steal the elections in Minnesota this year,” she said in a statement this week.

Weiser told me that a preliminary Brennan Center review of state laws shows that most governors “have broad emergency powers” that authorize them to impose “these kind of changes.” But Republicans are unlikely to agree and would be sure to fight such declarations in state courts. (If cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court, the same five GOP-appointed justices who stymied Wisconsin’s efforts to extend mail voting in its primary this week could eventually vote to block other states’ moves too.) A compromise some states could strike is to send all voters a notice reminding them that they can apply for an absentee ballot; Ohio did that for its primary later this month, and Arizona is discussing this approach ahead of the general election.

The second front of conflict will be over the extensive rules surrounding the vote-by-mail process, even in the states with no-excuse absentee voting. “The details matter a ton at the state level,” says Phil Keisling, a former Democratic secretary of state of Oregon and the chair of the National Vote at Home Institute, an advocacy group.

Partisan conflicts could erupt over how exactly citizens can request absentee ballots (many don’t allow them to do so online); whether the state will pay the postage to return the ballot (Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania are among those that don’t); and whether, amid the outbreak, states should still require voters to obtain witness signatures before submitting their ballot (as North Carolina and Wisconsin, among others, do). “Probably … tens of thousands of people will have difficulty getting those witnesses,” Morris said.

The most contentious subject will be the standards used to judge which ballots are rejected, particularly on the grounds that a voter’s signature doesn’t match records on file.

Daniel A. Smith, a University of Florida political scientist, has found that mail ballots in that state from young people and minorities are rejected at higher rates than those from older people and white voters—a dynamic that has obvious benefits for Republicans. In some states, Weiser noted, the election officials determining whether to accept a ballot can see on their screen the age and partisan affiliation of the voter they are assessing. Stewart told me he anticipates “a lot of litigation about the rejection of absentee ballots.”

Finally, the third front of conflict that experts foresee is not ideological but logistical: whether states have enough money and staff to handle increased demand. Even no-excuse states vary enormously in the use of mail balloting. In Arizona, about three-fourths of votes are cast by mail. In Michigan and Minnesota, it’s about one-fourth. In other no-excuse states, the number is far, far lower: Six percent or less of votes in 2018 were cast by mail in Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia.

This week’s primary election in Wisconsin, which has no-excuse mail balloting, previewed the chaos that could be ahead. In both 2016 and 2018, only about 5 percent of the state’s votes were cast by mail. Final figures aren’t yet available, but preliminary results leave no doubt that amid the widespread health concerns, mail ballots accounted for a significant majority of the total primary vote. That demand overwhelmed the state’s system—to the point that thousands of voters apparently did not receive their ballots until it was too late to return them. (The U.S. Supreme Court’s late-in-game ruling required that all ballots be postmarked by Election Day.)

States “are not going to be able to manage just the mass requests that are going to come in and then the massive ballots that are going to be sent out,” McDonald says. “It’s going to be a mess. Wisconsin is the canary in the coal mine. In November, we are going to have a whole flock of dead canaries.”

McDonald and other experts say that to handle the increased workload—reflected in everything from the number of ballots a state prints to the number of workers it will need to review them—states will need a lot more than the $400 million Congress has already appropriated to expand access.

And, he added, Republicans resistant to increased funding or other reforms could be too clever by half. There’s no evidence that their base, which includes an increasing number of white voters with less education, will easily navigate a complicated vote-by-mail process. “I think Republicans could overthink this and they could hurt themselves come November,” he told me. “I hope they come around and realize their voters are at risk as much as the Democrats’ are.”

You feel that Donald? That's the walls, closing in.

[Knife]

Hell, I'll add a couple others which would not be full cabinet posts I don't think, but which I'd like to see:

Secretary of the Navy- Captain Brett Crozier.

Why should anyone nominate a Captain to run the worlds most complex military organization? Nevermind the absurdity of breaking military/civilian norms, what qualifications does he have for the role?

As to "military/civilian norms", its not unheard of by any means to give former military officers cabinet posts. As long as they're no longer active duty military, I don't see the problem. General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense is the most obvious and recent example, but there are plenty of others. It would, at least, give them more insight into how the Navy works than someone who's prior experience was political, business, or administrative.

I'm also not talking about the captain of a patrol boat here. I'm talking about the captain of an aircraft carrier, a powerful strategic asset manned by several thousand men which outguns most of the navies on Earth.

Captain Crozier's actions also demonstrated his moral character and his concern for the well-being of the military personnel under his command, and that he's not a mindless yes-man.

Also, I said Secretary of the Navy, not Secretary of Defense. He'd only run one branch of the world's most complex military organization.

Plus, I'd like to see one of the genuine heroes of the Coronavirus pandemic rewarded, as opposed to the abuse he received from the Trump regime.

Sorry, that's Trump level stupid. While not diminishing Crozier's career and abilities, he is simply not qualified to jump to Sec Nav or any other similar job straight out of his current position. If he had spent time as a flag officer with carrier groups or other large commands with multiple assets that made him consider more than his specialty, then maybe. But basically, as it stands, you want a small town mayor to be POTUS here. Running a city of 5 thousand people isn't the same as running an organization of millions.

This is why the age old GOP bit about 'run it like a business' or 'a business guy would do it right' has been categorically shown wrong. The skills to run a company, even a huge company are not the same to run a 300 million plus person country.

[Ralin]

Biden says Sanders has been "the most powerful voice for a fair and more just America." "...you don't get enough credit, Bernie, for being the voice that forces us to take a hard look in the mirror, and ask ourselves if we've done enough. And we haven't."

That is encouraging. Though the first thought that pops into my head is "So why did you run against him?"

[The Romulan Republic]

Why should anyone nominate a Captain to run the worlds most complex military organization? Nevermind the absurdity of breaking military/civilian norms, what qualifications does he have for the role?

As to "military/civilian norms", its not unheard of by any means to give former military officers cabinet posts. As long as they're no longer active duty military, I don't see the problem. General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense is the most obvious and recent example, but there are plenty of others. It would, at least, give them more insight into how the Navy works than someone who's prior experience was political, business, or administrative.

I'm also not talking about the captain of a patrol boat here. I'm talking about the captain of an aircraft carrier, a powerful strategic asset manned by several thousand men which outguns most of the navies on Earth.

Captain Crozier's actions also demonstrated his moral character and his concern for the well-being of the military personnel under his command, and that he's not a mindless yes-man.

Also, I said Secretary of the Navy, not Secretary of Defense. He'd only run one branch of the world's most complex military organization.

Plus, I'd like to see one of the genuine heroes of the Coronavirus pandemic rewarded, as opposed to the abuse he received from the Trump regime.

Sorry, that's Trump level stupid. While not diminishing Crozier's career and abilities, he is simply not qualified to jump to Sec Nav or any other similar job straight out of his current position. If he had spent time as a flag officer with carrier groups or other large commands with multiple assets that made him consider more than his specialty, then maybe. But basically, as it stands, you want a small town mayor to be POTUS here. Running a city of 5 thousand people isn't the same as running an organization of millions.

This is why the age old GOP bit about 'run it like a business' or 'a business guy would do it right' has been categorically shown wrong. The skills to run a company, even a huge company are not the same to run a 300 million plus person country.

No, Trump level stupid would be hiring someone who's main credentials were donating to the Trump campaign and/or believing in unlimited Presidential power.

Out of curiosity, what job do you feel would be adequate preparation? If no job that is less than controlling millions will prepare you for controlling millions, how do you get that experience?

While a different line of work, I always like to refer to Abe Lincoln- a man who'd never held an office above one-term Congressman until he became PotUS, and is generally considered one of the best to have ever held the job.

Experience matters, but its not the be-all and end-all some people treat it as.

Biden says Sanders has been "the most powerful voice for a fair and more just America." "...you don't get enough credit, Bernie, for being the voice that forces us to take a hard look in the mirror, and ask ourselves if we've done enough. And we haven't."

That is encouraging. Though the first thought that pops into my head is "So why did you run against him?"

Because he's "electable".

And, also, probably because he's former VP, and he and others around him felt that it was "his time" in the same way 2016 was "Hillary's time". There's a common sense that someone like that who's worked their way up through the various levels of office from Congress to the Vice Presidency is due a shot at the big chair.

Remember, this is Joe's third run- he just never had "Obama's VP" on his resume before. The man's wanted to be President for decades.

[The Romulan Republic]

Obama has endorsed Biden. Was probably just waiting for Biden and Bernie to sort things out before stepping in.

Obama's definitely striking the unity tone as well (quoted from Democrats Abroad on Facebook):

"Now Joe will be a better candidate for having run the gauntlet of primaries and caucuses alongside one of the most impressive Democratic fields ever," Obama said. "Each of our candidates were talented and decent, with a track record of accomplishment, smart ideas, and serious visions for the future. And that's certainly true of the candidate who made it farther than any other -Bernie Sanders."

Granted, calling some of those candidates "decent" is stretching the truth more than a little. Aside from Biden's history with women, we've got Michael" throw them up against a wall and frisk them" Bloomberg, and Tulsi "Russian Asset" Gabbard in there.

[Knife]

No, Trump level stupid would be hiring someone who's main credentials were donating to the Trump campaign and/or believing in unlimited Presidential power.

Out of curiosity, what job do you feel would be adequate preparation? If no job that is less than controlling millions will prepare you for controlling millions, how do you get that experience?

For Sec Nav? I'd say at a bare minimum, a flag level command. Northern Command, Southern Command, Commander Pac Fleet, MSC, or in the head shed of office of CNO. Basically someone who knows how to operate and maintain huge swath of people and equipment over a vast area with multiple skill sets doing multiple jobs.

While a different line of work, I always like to refer to Abe Lincoln- a man who'd never held an office above one-term Congressman until he became PotUS, and is generally considered one of the best to have ever held the job.

He was at least a lawyer and a great public orator. Skills that served him well to get elected. He also didn't really do a shitload of governing during the Civil War. Sure, he's a great President, his actions and personality held the Union together while huge amounts of people fought and died. Unfortunately he was killed before he actually had to govern after the war. At best, I'd call him an outlier, not the norm.

Experience matters, but its not the be-all and end-all some people treat it as.

I'm going back to; that's Trump level stupid. Governing a first world country with 300 million people in it is complicated with huge amounts of nuance. Are there extraordinary people out there who could step in without a lot of experience and do fine? Sure, but on the whole experience in related affairs is preferable because 'extraordinary' really isn't able to be detected until they get a chance to do it.

I doubt you'd let some lay person do surgery on you just because he says he is a super genius and can do it better than a trained and experienced doctor. Experience matters.

[Oscar Wilde]

So maybe this is me putting my pants on my head but is there a logic in a Biden/Sanders ticket? Assuming they can find common enough ground on policy and more importantly at least try to retain party solidarity...

[Gandalf]

So maybe this is me putting my pants on my head but is there a logic in a Biden/Sanders ticket? Assuming they can find common enough ground on policy and more importantly at least try to retain party solidarity...

I wouldn't think so. Sanders is too far from the mainstream of the party to be a decent VP pick, and then it would also be two old white guys on the ticket.