A Co-Presidency from the two?
An all out Democratic Civil War?
Ah, REALLY?
This thought from Election Central @ US Presidential News….
In these pages, we have had some discussion of whether we could have a Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren (or vice versa) ticket this coming year. It’s novel, since vice-presidential candidates have usually been chosen to “balance” the ticket, geographically or ideologically, as when JFK picked LBJ, or when Reagan pickedGHW Bush.
Bernie and Warren are both New Englanders, and with very similar messages. That’s why this would be unique.
Joe Biden has consistently led the field, in almost every poll, and usually by a commanding number. However, that number is still a small minority of one-fifth to one-third. If Bernie and Warren joined forces, would they bring all their followers, catapulting ahead of Biden?
As we noted in a post, Bernie and Warren share a similar outlook and have refrained from attacking each other in the debates. What if they ran as a team, not as traditional president-vice president, but as co-presidents. As we also noted, in 1980 Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan discussed such an arrangement, but in the end, Reagan refused to cooperate, and Ford ended up losing to Jimmy Carter that year. However, Reagan didn’t like GHW Bush that well, so he tried to talk President Ford into becoming his vice president which would have been a strange move for Ford. And, of course, Reagan was not likely to share power with anyone.
However, the concept of “co-presidents” is not new. Business Insider explains why it’s sometimes done in business…
Note….
Personally ?
I think this whole idea is for attention…
image…Salon
(1) Reagan is an odd precedent or precursor of anything. Remember that at one point he talked of having Richard Schweiker (liberal R-Pa) as a running-mate in the GOP primaries.
(2) Joe Biden isn’t really so far to the right of Senators Sanders and Warren as their supporters and many of his (e.g. James) might think or say — certainly not, InMyHumbleOpinion, enough to force Warren and Sanders to merge campaigns. Nor is Joe Biden’s agenda that much farther away from either of them than the (subtle) difference between Elizabeth Warren ’s agenda and Bernie Sanders’. Were the choice between, say, Steve Bullock (or John Delaney) and either Sanders or Warren, there might be a slightly stronger argument for fusion.
(3) For some combination of reasons (e.g., vanity, jealousy, personal ambition, loyalty to supporters, ideological fervor) such a fusion almost never happens. Otherwise Donald Trump would not have outperformed 16 other Republicans in 2016 (or, perhaps, Barry Goldwater defeated a series of last-chance alternatives that included Governors Rockefeller, Romney and Scranton in 1964).
I don’t think any thing like this would happen.
Plus DSD ,in his second point ,makes the valid argument that Biden is not that far to the Right of Sanders and Warren, certainly not enough to play this gambit.
I do NOT see either of the two just giving up….
That said?
The idea of a co-presidency is just an attention getter ….
And (4) candidates from neighboring states have run and won together (e.g. Harry Truman (Mo.) with Alben Barkley (Ky) or Bill Clinton (Ark.) with Al Gore (Tenn.) so that’s not an insuperable argument against running Sens Sanders (Vt) & Warren (Mass.) in harness. But I think the other similarities of class, background, age and race would make their joint appeal weaker than either one of them with someone else.
Yeah this whole”teaming up” thing like Super Friends in the primaries never works. In addition to Reagan/Schweiker in “76 as DSD noted see Cruz/Fiorina from 2016