Is that right? Didn't know, TIL. Don't really follow politics all that closely, although I am disappointed that Bernie didn't make it through these primaries.
Iirc only people who would be eligible for the presidency can be elected as VP, which would disqualify Obama. This is the same reason Bernie couldn't have chosen AOC as his running mate
There is no such restriction. Article II never specified any limit on how long someone could serve.
The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.
Not exactly. The 22nd Amendment would prohibit the second election of someone who had served for more than two years without having been elected.
For example, if Gerald Ford had been elected president after he finished Nixon's term, he would be ineligible to be elected a second time, since he initially served for a little over two years and five months.
That doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only restricts the election of a president. If someone has already served in the office for ten years, they could still be the VP who upon whom the presidency devolves, because there is no constitutional restriction on such eligibility.
> The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.
So it would be constitutional to give Obama a third term through a Putin-esque sham where Biden runs at the top of the ticket then immediately resigns after taking office?
There are things everyone agrees about, but for everything else, constitutionality isn't really established until it's been enacted and then ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Would the Supreme Court allow such a move to stand? It's possible, especially without clear evidence that the campaign and resignation was planned and executed specifically to circumvent the 22nd Amendment.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 discusses who "shall be eligible to the Office of President". AOC doesn't meet the requirement of being 35 years old, which means she's not eligible in the first place.
But the 22nd Amendment refers to who "shall be elected to the office of the President". That's not the same thing.
Sorry to follow up with a second comment; it's too late to edit my original.
Care to explain why? You have no evidence as to why that would be, I assume.
The viability of Sanders' campaign is a serious question and is why he wasn't nominated. If there had been resounding support for him as a candidate, he would have been nominated...
I understand that his campaign and supporters will make some argument about how it's the DNC holding him down, or some conspiracy, or whatever, but the reality is that he isn't/wasn't/won't be viable in a general election against Trump.
Socialism, or whatever Bernie wants to sell himself as does not sell to the broader electorate that is going to have to be captured in November.
In my view, Sanders wasn't viable to win the primary once there were only two candidates. But I think he might possibly have had a better shot at beating Trump than Biden, because Trump is a populist. Running another populist against him divides those who are looking for "something different" as opposed to "business as usual" - especially of some of those who voted for "something different" decide that they haven't actually gotten much from Trump.
On the other hand, there are people who think that Sanders was too extreme to be elected, and those people may well be right.
TL;DR: I don't know. I'm not sure either Biden or Sanders could beat Trump.
> In my view, Sanders wasn't viable to win the primary once there were only two candidates. But I think he might possibly have had a better shot at beating Trump than Biden, because Trump is a populist. Running another populist against him divides those who are looking for "something different" as opposed to "business as usual" - especially of some of those who voted for "something different" decide that they haven't actually gotten much from Trump.
For that reason, I think Biden should really pick a VP with populist bona fides, or at least someone who's willing to imagine something beyond a slightly tweaked status quo.
Purely from an observational opinion I don't see Biden as electable. Sanders would of also had a tough time, but running a populist vs populist versus a career politician vs populist I think the former has the strongest chance.
I also think Bernie's approach to healthcare during the times we are in now would hold a lot of favor.
I think Biden is either senile now or turning senile quickly (based on observing him speaking publicly the last 4 months) and won't fair well in debates or campaigning as a result. He's doddering, did not do much as VP, and doesn't have a history of strong stances that he can hold up and swing voters or independents.
I'm not for or against any of the candidates and this is obviously opinion but I think Trump just won re-election.
It's fairly easy to imagine the attacks that Trump will land against Sanders, which would work to discredit him through fear.
I don't think you'll see that with Biden. Sanders' campaign would quickly fall apart under the weight of those attacks.
Also, I'm tired of hearing this senile line. It's a form of ageism. He's never been a talented public speaker, specifically when he's not feeding off the energy of a crowd. Just go back and look at his old speeches.
If you are looking for a young, vibrant candidate, neither Sanders or Biden is your ticket, anyway. Sanders is older than Biden.
It's not ageism when all three candidates are very old. If you look back to when Biden was VP and how he speaks now there is a noticeable difference.
I think both Biden and Sanders would have had a hard time campaigning for the reasons you listed. I believe Sanders would have stood a better chance again because of the populist vs populist approach. I believe Sanders supporters are as vocal as Trump supporters and you dont have that with Biden supporters at all.
You can't lobby much against Biden because he doesnt stand for much (again obviously opinion, and Im not trying to start a fight or argument) as compared to Sanders. They have vastly different goals in mind for a presidency.
Ageism is still ageism, even if the other people you are comparing are of advanced age, too...The literal definition of ageism is thinking someone can't do something due to age.
> "But I think he might possibly have had a better shot at beating Trump than Biden"
If the populists didn't turn out enough to give Sanders the primaries, they're not going to turn out enough to give him the general election.
> "I also think Bernie's approach to healthcare during the times we are in now would hold a lot of favor."
I think that, outside of his own base, it was pretty clear to voters that Sanders was making promises that he'd never be able to get past Congress. They likely wouldn't have voted for Sanders in the general election. Not that I particularly like him but Biden is making far more realistic promises and has a better shot at unseating Trump IMO.
> If the populists didn't turn out enough to give Sanders the primaries, they're not going to turn out enough to give him the general election.
I think that is an assumption because when you are down to 2 candidates only things change, all the Biden supporters (and others that already dropped) probably wont stay home and not vote. But who knows?
>I think that, outside of his own base, it was pretty clear to voters that Sanders was making promises that he'd never be able to get past Congress. They likely wouldn't have voted for Sanders in the general election
If the Senate goes blue after this election who knows. He was making large promises (they all do, where is our wall that Mexico is paying for as an example), but I think overall people now realize affordable healthcare is a bigger deal than people realize. I am curious what will happen if medical bills for COVID start getting mailed out prior to election day. 40k for treatment will break a lot of individuals and family's.
I'm not on one side of the fence or the other. I think they all have good and bad things about them and think none of the candidates are good for the country in the long run. My original post was merely to say I do not believe Biden beats Trump.
I didn't vote for Trump last time (Johnson got my vote), but I do like some of his populist actions. I'm likely to vote for Trump this time.
Oddly, I also liked some of what Sanders said last time. (I think the populist thing.) But I lost a great amount of respect for Sanders when he knuckled under to Hillary Clinton after she hosed him out of the nomination. (The changed debate schedule, the emailed debate questions, etc.) I really hoped Bernie would stick to his principles, but he caved in and endorsed her. I wasn't as excited about Bernie this time around.
If we find ourselves with a few 100Ks of Covid deaths, you'd think that anyone could run an ad featuring archival video "We've got this whole thing under control, and it's going to go away on its own," and win against Trump.
The guidelines say politics are generally considered off-topic and, "If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it." I can see why it was flagged, that's all.
My guess is that it's purely politics, and there's a large number of users who just don't want to have purely political discussions.
HN sometimes has decent threads about political policy on non hot-button issues, but threads about political personalities are unlikely to go well and are thus not worth the trouble.
Why indeed? I have personally never seen a submission flagged on Hacker News that actually deserved it. And no, "Off Topic" is not a legitimate reason.
This is substantial enough to warrant an exception to HN's usual preference for avoiding politics. You could (for example) discuss the way the covid-19 outbreak intersected with the primary or something like that if you don't want to talk about the candidates.
Meh, Sanders was dead in the water before Covid shut things down. Sanders was done as soon as it was down to him and Biden. The populist wing of the Democratic Party was enough to make Sanders win against five other candidates, but not strong enough to make him win against one centrist.
Well, damn, I guess that means that Trump will have a second term then.
I mean, its unlikely that someone who voted for Trump last time will be voting for Biden this time. I think the Democratic party is missing the boat on this one. They're so busy pushing someone "presidential" that they are forgetting who the actual target audience is, Trump voters.
>I think the Democratic party is missing the boat on this one. They're so busy pushing someone "presidential" that they are forgetting who the actual target audience is, Trump voters.
Don't you mean the Democratic primary voters are missing the boat? Bernie's dropping out because he simply didn't get enough primary votes.
Also, for all of Biden's problems, it's quite possible he'd do better than Bernie in the general election against Trump. Many undecided voters, and pretty much all past Trump supporters, strongly associate Bernie with communism, which is basically one level under "terrorism" in their mind.
I say all of this as a Bernie supporter. Democrats were going to be very likely to lose the election whether it was Bernie or Biden. Yang, Gabbard, and Klobuchar would possibly have a higher chance in the general election, but that's also unclear.
> I mean, its unlikely that someone who voted for Trump last time will be voting for Biden this time.
Why do you say that? Voter turnout during primaries was higher than 2016, and Biden was doing well. Even though it may seem like Bernie is more popular on the internet, Biden is more popular among people that actually vote (older people).
Trump is anti-establishment. Biden is as establishment as it gets. Trump is pro social security and Medicare. Biden wants to cut it. They're polar opposites in so many ways
63 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadElizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Gretchen Whitmer, or Tammy Baldwin seem like reasonable guesses.
Warren would have to re-assert her native American ancestry.
The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.
That being said, I'm not sure either if the restriction in the parent exists.
Edit: a reference I found afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_office#Federal
For example, if Gerald Ford had been elected president after he finished Nixon's term, he would be ineligible to be elected a second time, since he initially served for a little over two years and five months.
That doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only restricts the election of a president. If someone has already served in the office for ten years, they could still be the VP who upon whom the presidency devolves, because there is no constitutional restriction on such eligibility.
So it would be constitutional to give Obama a third term through a Putin-esque sham where Biden runs at the top of the ticket then immediately resigns after taking office?
There are things everyone agrees about, but for everything else, constitutionality isn't really established until it's been enacted and then ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Would the Supreme Court allow such a move to stand? It's possible, especially without clear evidence that the campaign and resignation was planned and executed specifically to circumvent the 22nd Amendment.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 discusses who "shall be eligible to the Office of President". AOC doesn't meet the requirement of being 35 years old, which means she's not eligible in the first place.
But the 22nd Amendment refers to who "shall be elected to the office of the President". That's not the same thing.
Sorry to follow up with a second comment; it's too late to edit my original.
[Edit: Though I don't think that's what Hongwei meant...]
The viability of Sanders' campaign is a serious question and is why he wasn't nominated. If there had been resounding support for him as a candidate, he would have been nominated...
I understand that his campaign and supporters will make some argument about how it's the DNC holding him down, or some conspiracy, or whatever, but the reality is that he isn't/wasn't/won't be viable in a general election against Trump.
Socialism, or whatever Bernie wants to sell himself as does not sell to the broader electorate that is going to have to be captured in November.
On the other hand, there are people who think that Sanders was too extreme to be elected, and those people may well be right.
TL;DR: I don't know. I'm not sure either Biden or Sanders could beat Trump.
For that reason, I think Biden should really pick a VP with populist bona fides, or at least someone who's willing to imagine something beyond a slightly tweaked status quo.
I also think Bernie's approach to healthcare during the times we are in now would hold a lot of favor.
I think Biden is either senile now or turning senile quickly (based on observing him speaking publicly the last 4 months) and won't fair well in debates or campaigning as a result. He's doddering, did not do much as VP, and doesn't have a history of strong stances that he can hold up and swing voters or independents.
I'm not for or against any of the candidates and this is obviously opinion but I think Trump just won re-election.
I don't think you'll see that with Biden. Sanders' campaign would quickly fall apart under the weight of those attacks.
Also, I'm tired of hearing this senile line. It's a form of ageism. He's never been a talented public speaker, specifically when he's not feeding off the energy of a crowd. Just go back and look at his old speeches.
If you are looking for a young, vibrant candidate, neither Sanders or Biden is your ticket, anyway. Sanders is older than Biden.
I think both Biden and Sanders would have had a hard time campaigning for the reasons you listed. I believe Sanders would have stood a better chance again because of the populist vs populist approach. I believe Sanders supporters are as vocal as Trump supporters and you dont have that with Biden supporters at all.
You can't lobby much against Biden because he doesnt stand for much (again obviously opinion, and Im not trying to start a fight or argument) as compared to Sanders. They have vastly different goals in mind for a presidency.
If the populists didn't turn out enough to give Sanders the primaries, they're not going to turn out enough to give him the general election.
> "I also think Bernie's approach to healthcare during the times we are in now would hold a lot of favor."
I think that, outside of his own base, it was pretty clear to voters that Sanders was making promises that he'd never be able to get past Congress. They likely wouldn't have voted for Sanders in the general election. Not that I particularly like him but Biden is making far more realistic promises and has a better shot at unseating Trump IMO.
I think that is an assumption because when you are down to 2 candidates only things change, all the Biden supporters (and others that already dropped) probably wont stay home and not vote. But who knows?
>I think that, outside of his own base, it was pretty clear to voters that Sanders was making promises that he'd never be able to get past Congress. They likely wouldn't have voted for Sanders in the general election
If the Senate goes blue after this election who knows. He was making large promises (they all do, where is our wall that Mexico is paying for as an example), but I think overall people now realize affordable healthcare is a bigger deal than people realize. I am curious what will happen if medical bills for COVID start getting mailed out prior to election day. 40k for treatment will break a lot of individuals and family's.
I'm not on one side of the fence or the other. I think they all have good and bad things about them and think none of the candidates are good for the country in the long run. My original post was merely to say I do not believe Biden beats Trump.
I didn't vote for Trump last time (Johnson got my vote), but I do like some of his populist actions. I'm likely to vote for Trump this time.
Oddly, I also liked some of what Sanders said last time. (I think the populist thing.) But I lost a great amount of respect for Sanders when he knuckled under to Hillary Clinton after she hosed him out of the nomination. (The changed debate schedule, the emailed debate questions, etc.) I really hoped Bernie would stick to his principles, but he caved in and endorsed her. I wasn't as excited about Bernie this time around.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.1281...
Skybet is down to 10/11
https://m.skybet.com/politics/us-presidential-election/event...
Oddscheck on 1/1
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics
Betway is 0.8/1
https://sports.betway.com/en/sports/evt/1279338
Paddy is 13/8!!
https://www.paddypower.com/politics/2020-us-presidential-ele...
My guess is that it's purely politics, and there's a large number of users who just don't want to have purely political discussions.
HN sometimes has decent threads about political policy on non hot-button issues, but threads about political personalities are unlikely to go well and are thus not worth the trouble.
This submission's topic is one step away from this one at over 1800 points a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201
I mean, its unlikely that someone who voted for Trump last time will be voting for Biden this time. I think the Democratic party is missing the boat on this one. They're so busy pushing someone "presidential" that they are forgetting who the actual target audience is, Trump voters.
Don't you mean the Democratic primary voters are missing the boat? Bernie's dropping out because he simply didn't get enough primary votes.
Also, for all of Biden's problems, it's quite possible he'd do better than Bernie in the general election against Trump. Many undecided voters, and pretty much all past Trump supporters, strongly associate Bernie with communism, which is basically one level under "terrorism" in their mind.
I say all of this as a Bernie supporter. Democrats were going to be very likely to lose the election whether it was Bernie or Biden. Yang, Gabbard, and Klobuchar would possibly have a higher chance in the general election, but that's also unclear.
Why do you say that? Voter turnout during primaries was higher than 2016, and Biden was doing well. Even though it may seem like Bernie is more popular on the internet, Biden is more popular among people that actually vote (older people).